One News promoted climate crank

Written By: - Date published: 10:54 am, November 5th, 2014 - 183 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, tv - Tags: , ,

Yesterday One News featured a climate change denialist crank in a broadcast segment and on its news site. It prompted a strong reaction from many, including this from Hot topic:

TVNZ PUSHES LEYLAND’S CLIMATE LIES

In an appalling lapse of editorial judgement, TVNZ has given notorious Climate “Science” Coalition propagandist Bryan Leyland four minutes of airtime this morning [TVNZ page removed: but available here.] to rubbish the work of the IPCC. Yes, that’s right, the nation’s public broadcaster presented a man way out on the crank fringe who has made a late-life career out climate denial, against one of the largest scientific undertakings of all time — the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. The IPCC, lest we forget, warned yesterday that world faces “severe, pervasive and irreversible” damage from climate change unless we cut emissions steeply.

TVNZ did respond to feedback. The post above was updated:

[Update 5pm: It appears TVNZ have pulled the video of Leyland’s interview and the accompanying news story from their site in response to the many formal and informal complaints they have received. However the full interview can be seen (for the time being, at least) on Youtube. And the TVNZ News Facebook post about Leyland’s interview is still there.]

Although it is to their credit that TVNZ took the nonsense down, it was appalling editorial judgement that it ever made it to air in the first place. A good point made by John Hart in response.

https://twitter.com/farmgeek/status/529530125784580096

And just while we’re on good tweets on such topics, just this morning:

https://twitter.com/DavidSlack/status/529702004931571712

Indeed.

183 comments on “One News promoted climate crank ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. higherstandard 1
    5 November 2014 at 11:44 am

    Meh

    TVNZ has also given airtime to anti fluoride campaigners and anti vaccination advocates.

    • wtl 1.1
      5 November 2014 at 12:35 pm

      Great to see you acknowledging that climate change denial is as loony as anti-flouride and anti-vaccination campaigns.

      • higherstandard 1.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 12:39 pm

        It was a not so subtle dig at anthony.

        • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1.1
          5 November 2014 at 12:52 pm

          TVNZ constantly feature John Key a master of the Gish Gallop method of constant stream of falsehoods.

          The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own

          I havent seen it but Leyland mave have used this technique as well.

        • lprent 1.1.1.2
          5 November 2014 at 12:55 pm

          It is all relative. However the real issue with this ignorant crank getting airtime wasn’t so much what he said. It was more that the dumbarse reporter appeared to have absolutely no idea what basic climate science 101 was like. If they couldn’t find someone competent and briefed them to interview him, then why did they bother?

          Leyland was one of the scientific morons who took a fantasy case against NIWA (hidden behind a trust), lost it completely and utterly and then haven’t paid the costs that they inflicted on taxpayers. As far as I am concerned, he should be bankrupted and the money personally extracted from him and the other rorters in that trust.

          Somehow the reporter didn’t bring up that rather monumental failure of this idiot’s ideas.

          • ropata:rorschach 1.1.1.2.1
            5 November 2014 at 1:06 pm

            NDT on the need for basic scientific literacy …

          • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1.2.2
            5 November 2014 at 2:09 pm

            They may have lost the court battle , which was a silly approach anyway but very recent research by Chris de Freitas adjusts down the long term temperature rise for NZ. This of course doesnt disprove global warming as it seems Australia has had a fair amount of warming

            NIWAs claim was of 0.9C per century, but de Freitas says his re analysis gives 0.28C per century, as published in Environmental Review and Assessment.

            http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10666-014-9429-z

            NIWA was supposed to publish a peer reviewed paper on the temperature series soon after 2010. I cant seem to find it.

            This the the statement by Dr Mapp in 2010
            “NIWA’s review of the “seven-station” series will be supervised by Principal Climate Scientist Dr Brett Mullan. It will be peer reviewed internally by NIWA Chief Climate Scientist Dr David Wratt and Principal Climate Scientist Dr James Renwick; and externally by two respected non-NIWA climate scientists, who have yet to be appointed. In addition NIWA’s intent, during the 2010/11 financial year, is to submit the work described above as a paper to a scientific journal, where it would be subject to the normal independent peer review process. “

            • Macro 1.1.1.2.2.1
              5 November 2014 at 7:08 pm

              The “paper” you refer to is full of error – how it managed to pass peer review is worrying. The editor of the journal will be under extreme pressure to review his decision to publish such nonsense.

              A brief summary of the numerous errors has been enumerated here:
              http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-cranks-finally-publish-an-nz-temperature-series-but-their-papers-stuffed-with-errors

              This is not the first time de Freitas has managed to get some rubbish published in a supposed reputable Journal. He does it by the back door and obviously uses his academic position. But it is worrying and serverely tarnishes the name of Auckland University

              • ghostwhowalksnz …
                5 November 2014 at 8:26 pm

                Where is NIWAs peer reviewed paper on the 7SS ? So we can compare oranges with oranges.
                That they are different results, is not too surprising as major temperature datasets use different methods to calculate an ‘average’ over a geographical area.
                Hadcrut and Gistemp use different methods but give a similar worldwide result so there doesnt seem to be a ‘right way’ to do these things.

                That de Freitas is so far out maybe he has something wrong. But until NIWA delivers the goods as promised in 2010 why should we give them any credence ?
                I may have missed something but a look at their website doesnt mention any published paper for 7SS which they have made minor changes.

                • Macro …
                  5 November 2014 at 11:07 pm

                  Did you look at the link I provided? It’s all explained there.

                  To quote:

                  “Further proof that dFDB 2014’s authors should have known that the latest 7SS does not use “old” techniques comes from the “Technical Notes” behind each station report prepared by NIWA’s scientists. These are not secret, but they are very technical and NIWA has judged them not suitable for putting on its website — but they were all supplied to Barry Brill in July 2011.1. The Technical Notes are basically just tables of intermediate calculations with very little contextual explanation, but they show without any doubt that:

                  Shifts to maximum and minimum temperatures were calculated by NIWA for the 2010 Review;
                  The statistical significance of all shifts was calculated too. The significance tests were done relative to each comparison (reference) site, rather than evaluating an overall significance level after combining sites as RS93 did.
                  The Technical Notes were also supplied to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology climate team in 2010 as part of the peer review process and BOM’s scientists would have had no trouble understanding them. The same may not be true for the authors of dFDB 2014.”

                  de Freitas is used as the “lead author” but actually the paper was written by Bob Dedekind (of whom Justice Venning in the recent Court Case in his summing up said:

                  “Mr Dedekind’s general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience or qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science. To that extent, where Mr Dedekind purports to comment or give opinions as to NIWA’s application of statistical techniques in those fields, his evidence is of little assistance to the Court.” and Barry Brill.

                  Enough said.

                • Tracey …
                  6 November 2014 at 8:41 am

                  ask dr mapp. he was here yesterday talking about the sis. i directed him to some questions i had over a law commission report that has never been published. dont hold your breath for an answer.

            • Murray Rawshark 1.1.1.2.2.2
              6 November 2014 at 2:36 am

              The journal that de Freitas has published in has an impact factor of 1.074, which basically indicates that nobody takes any notice of it. It’s the sort of journal that you send your student’s stuff to when it’s been rejected elsewhere, and they need a publication for their CV. I’m dubious about whether they actually send the submissions to referees.

              As well as that, de Freitas is an idiot. That’s my professional view.

              • Tracey …
                6 November 2014 at 8:43 am

                in fairness outliers can find it difficult to get published if their peers,may look stupid… not saying that has happened here just observing that it is not a pure system. scientists are also not immune to ego.

              • RedLogixFormes …
                6 November 2014 at 7:17 pm

                @ Murray – most amusing. And I’m aware you’re far better qualified to make that statement than almost anyone else here.

                I dimly recall meeting de Freitas many years ago. It’s not a distinguished memory. I wonder how the hell he’s held onto his position all these years?

  2. Bill 2
    5 November 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Fuck giving them credit for removing the clip from their website or whatever. They (and it must have been knowingly) broadcast absolute shit and poison to – how many viewers?

    Bringing it off the website doesn’t suddenly mean people didn’t see the item and didn’t have their views influenced by it.

    In any reasonable world, a head would roll in a very, very public fashion with extensive and concise explanations as for why that head was rolling.

    • higherstandard 2.1
      5 November 2014 at 12:40 pm

      “They (and it must have been knowingly) broadcast absolute shit and poison to – how many viewers?”

      You say it like that’s an unusual thing for TV ?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 1:07 pm

        I thought the interviewer refuted his arguments.

        The strange part is Leylands real expertise is in small scale hydro developments, of which he has a financial interest in one in Golden Bay. Plus he is the author of a standard text on the subject .”Small Hydroelectric Engineering Practice.”

        He lives and breathes renewable energy but doesnt think climate change is a serious problem ?

  3. srylands 3
    5 November 2014 at 1:01 pm

    BTW – The interview is still available on the TVNZ website.

    See this clip at 23 minutes+

    http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast/s2014-eptuesday-video-6122325

    Sure he is a crank, but he is not alone. Unless it breaches broadcasting standards, what TVNZ puts on its news is none of your business. Don’t like it don’t watch it. They broadcast crap non-stop. Which is why the Government should not own media (or “news”) outlets.

    • ropata:rorschach 3.1
      5 November 2014 at 1:12 pm

      The conclusion does not follow from the premise.

      With decent funding and independence from vested interests, public broadcasting has the power to inform the public, using a quaint concept called ‘investigative journalism’.

    • Paul 3.2
      5 November 2014 at 4:48 pm

      You would support anything.

    • Jan Rivers 3.3
      5 November 2014 at 11:01 pm

      Good quality media is primarily a political and not an economic issue. If a government allows the quality of print, broadcast and web media to fall over many years and does nothing I think we can all draw our own conclusions about whether that government is a friend of an informed democracy or not. Properly funded independent public broadcasting is one of the primary ways this is achieved internationally and it is a good and effective model

      • Paul 3.3.1
        5 November 2014 at 11:04 pm

        You’re wasting your breath on srylands.
        He doesn’t believe in society.

        • McFlock 3.3.1.1
          5 November 2014 at 11:21 pm

          Sspylands is pissed that Somalia is turning back into shit, with government slowly re-constructing to destroy the zero-government utopia it once was.

  4. Aerobubble 4
    5 November 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Its simple there is a finite amount of carbon cycling through the biosphere. So digging up hydrocarbons in a century and adding them was always going to effect the biosphere. Giving that mars has a co2 and methane, is it any wonder that the media can find people who would deny the existing of a Marsian atmosphere, and the proportional rise we are measuring in our own atmosphere. Yes they can. Its nothing less than propaganda, denialists are cretins.

  5. Colin 5
    5 November 2014 at 4:19 pm

    “The IPCC, lest we forget, warned yesterday that world faces “severe, pervasive and irreversible” damage from climate change unless we cut emissions steeply”

    The same IPCC whose very existence (and first class air travel, 5 star hotels and comfortable salaries) depends upon climate change being an impending disaster, finds after ‘summarising” the data that – shocker – climate change is an impending disaster. Who saw that coming?

    NIWA’s own, archived raw data showed NZ’s temperature trend was 0.06C per century. After they’d ‘summarised’ it IPCC-style, it was 0.92C – making NZ one of the “fastest’ warming places on Earth. Even Mikey Mann would be embarrassed at the data torturing required to get that result! And hey, guess what – NIWA’s adjusted figures made it into the IPCC assessment, combined with other ‘summarised’ datasets to PROVE that climate change is so, so real.

    NIWA’s adjustments are a source of mirth for statisticians and climate scientists the world over, and are held up as a shining example of all that is wrong on the AGW side of the argument. If climate change is happening, and overheating the planet, why are these adjustments needed? Wouldn’t the raw data show rapid temperature rise beyond any shadow of a doubt? Why doesn’t it? Oh, better shut down any discussion on this, no dissenting views can be tolerated! Heresy!

    You lot make ISIS look balanced and rational when it comes to consideration and respect for opposing ‘beliefs’!

    • lprent 5.1
      5 November 2014 at 10:59 pm

      Yeah that was the argument that those cranks put in front of the court and completely lost on. Needless to say the cranks failed to pay the costs awarded against them..

      Raw sensor figures are adjusted for really basic things like height, shadow, and everything else worldwide. The only people who ridicule them are cranks with weird beliefs.

      Useless fools are so deranged that they invent and use their own maths because it fitted their idiocies better.

    • Paul 5.2
      5 November 2014 at 11:00 pm

      Not another denier!

    • tricle up 5.3
      6 November 2014 at 12:26 am

      Colin at the end of the day after you have synthesized all your information and put it back together in the same or a different order you might want to ask the the question did i create something or did i discover something today, facts speak louder than the subjective an open and free mind are fun go enjoy yourself..

  6. philj 6
    5 November 2014 at 6:20 pm

    The broadcasting of this far out denialist, is what I expect from a low quality, silly, Nashunal State Bloatcaster. I dont watch it anymore. T:(snks for the warning.

  7. ropata:rorschach 7
    5 November 2014 at 6:28 pm

    [reply to Colin @ 5 above]
    Raw data is useful but requires interpretation. Have you read the book of Genesis? It can be considered raw data, but perhaps not to be taken at face value.

    Raw data from a recent experiment at CERN indicated that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light. This result would overturn all of modern physics!

    The researchers couldn’t pinpoint why. Do we throw out all of Einstein’s work now? Hell no. Independent observations of supernovae show light and neutrino radiation hitting Earth at the exact same time. It follows that measurement error or systematic bias had figured in the CERN result.

    So it is with climate data.

  8. Ray the Realist 8
    5 November 2014 at 7:39 pm

    One News should be commended for having the courage to act in the public interest by interviewing Bryan Leyland, who quite rightly queries the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming that remains scientifically unsubstantiated to date. As Leyland rightly pointed out, the climate change models do not constitute empirical scientific evidence.

    As a visitor from Australia, where the biased ABC totally censors those holding similar views to Leyland, I was pleased to see One News attempt to present some balance on the climate change issue.

    Sadly, however, the One News editors have succumbed since to pressure from the propagandists who push the man-made climate change ideology, and taken down Leyland’s video.

    • MrSmith 8.1
      5 November 2014 at 8:55 pm

      Ray you being a Realist will know that adding balance to an argument doesn’t make it even, in this case we have around 97% on one side and 3% on the other, so unless the 3% have something intelligent and groundbreaking to say they should not or ever be allowed to hold half the argument!

      Balance where this is none is a dangerous thing Ray, it causes us to fiddle while the planet burns.

      • Ray the Realist 8.1.1
        6 November 2014 at 1:47 am

        In response to Mr Smith:
        o “Ray you being a Realist will know that adding balance to an argument doesn’t make it even, in this case we have around 97% on one side and 3% on the other, so unless the 3% have something intelligent and groundbreaking to say they should not or ever be allowed to hold half the argument! ”

        If One News were impartial in reporting the climate science debate , it would present both sides of the argument, irrespective of the percentage who may be on one side. This is particularly the case when the alleged “97% on one side” rely solely on belief, as they are unable to refer to any empirical scientific evidence to substantiate their belief that climate change is man-produced.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.1
          6 November 2014 at 7:12 am

          Nah, when tv1 interview gutless lying douchebags they just make themselves look like crap.

        • Tracey 8.1.1.2
          6 November 2014 at 8:46 am

          if that is what you want from our media, you are lucky to only be a visitor. our election campaign news coverage would have given you apoplexy.

        • Jan Rivers 8.1.1.3
          6 November 2014 at 8:58 am

          Also whether the moon is really made of cheese, why homeopathy works and whether atoms are real. Why not ask them. On recent evidence you might just be pushing at an open door.

          It took me about 15 minutes to discover that the relevant academic qualifications of the inaccurately named Climate Science Coalition added up to little more than fizz and wind and that the group has been funded , at least in the past, by overseas bodies who have a vested interest in climate change denial. It beggars belief that TVNZ researchers did not do the same although I understand their reference and library services are not what they were. In 2012 the group could only get coverage in the summer silly season. That Brian Leyland headlines the news following the IPCC clearest and most challenging report to date is a national embarrassment.

          • Ray the Realist 8.1.1.3.1
            6 November 2014 at 2:35 pm

            Jan Rivers, why do people like you choose to believe in climate change ideology, rather than accept the fact that there is no empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the man-made climate change hypothesis?

            Probable reasons are: that you have a vested interest in pushing the ideology; you lack analytical ability; or you have an inadequate understanding of science.

            • RedLogixFormes 8.1.1.3.1.1
              6 November 2014 at 2:49 pm

              no empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the man-made climate change hypothesis?

              No – none at all. That settles it then.

              Why did it take so long when the Great Realist Ray could have just come out and said this ages ago?

              • lprent …
                6 November 2014 at 6:34 pm

                no empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the man-made climate change hypothesis?

                No – none at all. That settles it then.

                You really do have to be cautious saying things like that around idiots. They often don’t understand irony (or even that such a concept exists). They will publish such a comment completely cut out of context and treat it at face value.

                I can think of that happening several times in the past, and not just in the climate ‘skeptics’ area. There is one ‘fact’ driven ‘political’ site that appears to specialise in it. Now if we could just persuade PG to write a post on climate change maybe these idiots could find a hero to follow…..

                I wonder how I could do that 🙂

            • One Anonymous Bloke 8.1.1.3.1.2
              6 November 2014 at 3:16 pm

              It’s a falsifiable hypothesis!

              If one (just one) piece of empirical evidence turns out to exist after all, we can say with confidence that Ray the Realist has a vested interest, lacks analytical ability, has an inadequate understanding of the science, or all three.

              Now, about that atmospheric carbon isotope ratio…

        • Tracey 8.1.1.4
          6 November 2014 at 8:59 am

          i agree that the majority isnt always correct.

          • RedLogixFormes 8.1.1.4.1
            6 November 2014 at 3:03 pm

            That’s not how the scientific method works. In science the majority is always correct. It’s a hard concept for many people to grasp.

            By definition new data, new information and idea always arise in the first instance ‘de novo’ as a minority opinion. Being right or wrong is not yet defined.

            If a new hypothesis survives skeptical peer review, if others reference it and can replicate, confirm or correlate it then it eventually becomes accepted by the majority. Only then does science accept it as ‘correct’.

            Not before.

            • Tracey 8.1.1.4.1.1
              6 November 2014 at 4:07 pm

              and that can take decades, making the majority wrong wrong for decades

              • RedLogixFormes …
                6 November 2014 at 4:14 pm

                True – but what is the alternative?

                For every one good new idea that comes along – there will be dozens that will fail. And they are all minority viewpoints.

                It’s only with hindsight that we can see which new ideas are good ones and which were wrong. Willy-nilly accepting them all because maybe some ill-defined proportion of them will turn out to be correct is not science.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 November 2014 at 4:24 pm

                  Well, there’s more to it than that – level of funding being one, level of risk being another.

                • Tracey …
                  6 November 2014 at 5:15 pm

                  not arguing that there is a better way. just saying like all bodies of humans it is flawed… and ego is one such flaw

                  • RedLogixFormes …
                    6 November 2014 at 5:39 pm

                    Sure it is flawed. Nothing human is perfect.

                    All sorts of human failings get in the way, delay, derail and divert things. For a while.

                    But ultimately science has to pass the reality test. Does it work or not? Do it’s predictions and models give reliable, repeatable results?
                    Nothing false ever gets past that one. Wrong ideas eventually fail, right ideas thrive and go on to become the foundation stones of more new ideas. Think of it as a bit Darwinian; slow, clumsy, often quite messy – but in the end it always wins.

                    No-one ever claimed that the scientific method was a magic wand that reveals all knowledge perfectly formed and complete. But it is by far the best tool we have come up with for describing physical reality.

            • Ray the Realist 8.1.1.4.1.2
              9 November 2014 at 2:38 pm

              In response to RedLogixFormesv
              The application of scientific method calls for the proponents of an hypothesis to test whether it is correct or incorrect. However, no one has succeeded in tabling the empirical scientific evidence necessary to prove the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.
              Rather than spoil a good story by acknowledging the inconvenient truth, proponents (including the corruptly-influenced IPCC, ideologically-biased national broadcasters (ABC, BBC, CBC, TVNZ), politicised science organisations (CSIRO and science academies), vested-interest and unprofessional scientists and entrepreneurs) resorted to unscientific means, viz. asserting, alarm-generating unvalidated climate models, politicising, propagandising, and shouting down anyone with an opposing view.
              In this context, the recent interview with Dr Patrick Moore, committed environmentalist and Greenpeace co-founder, may be of interest — see
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLXNiEd7axY#t=10

              Moore discusses various climate change issues, including his reinstatement of science as the basis of environmental policy and his conclusion that claims human action caused global warming (climate change) are not scientific.

              • Macro …
                9 November 2014 at 5:09 pm

                Ray never have I read such a load of claptrap. You obviously have no understanding of subject, and have been off filling your head with a load of nonsense.

                You accuse thousands of scientists world wide of acting in a conspiracy, aided and abetted by corrupt governments and broadcasters. (do you also believe in chemtrials and there is a man in the moon?)

                The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Essentially you are alleging that the UN is a corrupt body!

                As for your assertion that Climate models are “unvalidated”, do you really understand what you are saying? I bet you have no idea. Just how would you validate a model? If you were to say that the model produces results consistent with observed data and within the bounds of error, then that is just what Climate models do! And they are getting better at it. But that doesn’t fit with your world view does it? So better to tell lies and accuse anyone but your self that they are wrong.

                As for your statement regarding the hypothesis -I’m not sure if you will understand this – hypothesis testing and setting the correct hypothesis is not self evident, especially for the uninitiated, but here goes:
                If your hypothesis is “global warming stopped in 1998″, then the null hypothesis is that “warming continued at the same rate as prior to 1998″, not that “there is no warming trend”. Take this to a statistician if you don’t believe me, but I think you will find that what I say is true.

                ps – I guess i’m pushing it upstream, but if you really were to approach this with an open mind you might look here:
                http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/global-temperature-the-post-1998-surprise/

                • Ray the Realist …
                  16 November 2014 at 2:10 am

                  In response to Macro:
                  “As for your assertion that Climate models are ‘unvalidated”, do you really understand what you are saying? … If you were to say that the model produces results consistent with observed data and within the bounds of error, then that is just what Climate models do! And they are getting better at it. ”

                  Your remarks are unfounded. The inconvenient truth is that climate model predictions have not been consistent with observational data. There has been no statistically significant increase in global temperature since about 1998, despite the continuing increase in atmospheric CO2 content. This challenges the fundamental assumptions of the models, and suggests that the models fail to adequately capture relevant natural variability. It is surprising that activists still deny the existence of the temperature pause.

                  The hypothesis promoted by the IPCC for at least the last 20 years is that human greenhouse emissions ( especially of CO2) will cause dangerous global warming. The inconvenient truth is that no one has produced scientific evidence to substantiate the hypothesis. Instead, the IPCC and its hangers-on brazenly rely on assertion to keep promoting it and to allege dangerous consequences of climate change.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    16 November 2014 at 7:31 am

                    You see: this is the illiteracy Macro is talking about:

                    BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

                    Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

                    BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

                    Phil Jones: I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

                    Interview 2010.

                    The IPCC hasn’t generated any “hypothesis”. You’re ignorant of that too.

                    Edit, and by the way it’s more like forty years since Margaret Thatcher brought the problem to international prominence. The ignorance pile is growing…

                    • Ray the Realist …
                      19 November 2014 at 5:07 pm

                      In response to One Anonymous Bloke:

                      Agreement in 2010 that there had been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, was an honorable response from Professor Phil Jones, a CRU director embroiled in the Climategate scandal.

                      However, the integrity of Jones’ other comments is questionable — to say the least — in light of conclusions about Climategate reached by respected NZ investigative journalist, Poneke, in 2010 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/nz.general/bF0e3QINu8M ):

                      “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.

                      They falsely claim there is a scientific ‘consensus’ that the
                      ‘science is settled’, by getting lists of scientists to sign petitions
                      claiming there is such a consensus. They have fought for years to
                      conceal the actual shonky data they have used to wrongly claim there has
                      been unprecedented global warming this past 50 years. Their emailed
                      discussions among each other show they have concocted their data by
                      matching analyses of tree rings from around 1000 AD to 1960, then actual
                      temperatures from 1960 to make it look temperatures have shot up
                      alarmingly since then, after the tree rings from 1960 on inconveniently
                      failed to match observed temperatures.”

                      Cont. in following posting

                    • Ray the Realist …
                      19 November 2014 at 5:12 pm

                      In reponse to One Anonymous Bloke continued:

                      Regarding the global temperature pause, Professor Michael Asten of Monash University made the following relevant observations in The Australian,13 Nov. 2014
                      ( http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/g20-can-coldfront-climate-lobby/story-e6frg6zo-1227121009652) :

                      “The hiatus in temperature can also be studied using smoothed averages. Both the (IPCC) Synthesis Report and the (Australian) Climate Council report use old plots that show a steady rise in smoothed temperature to 2010 (the decade of the start of the hiatus) .

                      Yet NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies’ global temperature graphs are updated monthly, show five-year averages, are publicly available on the internet and show average temperatures peaked in 2004 and show a decline for the following eight years. Since similar declines in global temperature occurred in 1880-1910 and 1950-75, it is reasonable to ask whether the present apparent decline is historically unusual, and why our government science advisers ¬persist in the view that steady increases in atmospheric CO2 are the major driver of such changes.”

                      With regard to hypotheses, it is too much to expect formal ‘generation’ of an hypothesis by an unprofessional, political IPCC that takes dangerous man-made global warming for granted and represses any opposing viewpoints.

                      However, from a scientific point of view, in essence the IPCC promotes the hypothesis that human greenhouse emissions ( especially of CO2) will cause dangerous global warming.

    • Macro 8.2
      5 November 2014 at 11:17 pm

      Should a Flat Earthier be given time to give their opinion on Plate Tectonics and the occurrence of earthquakes? You know – just for “balance”.

      • les 8.2.1
        6 November 2014 at 7:03 am

        would it be fair to say that at one time at least 97% of the population thought the world was….flat!

        • Paul 8.2.1.1
          6 November 2014 at 7:05 am

          Zzzzzz
          Can’t believe how many deniers there are on this site.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2.1.2
          6 November 2014 at 7:18 am

          Only if you had some sort of data to make your case.

        • lprent 8.2.1.3
          6 November 2014 at 7:35 am

          Amazing the effect of education. It was never a popular superstition amongst educated people and navigators who think. Just as climate change deniers tend to be less educated and have little science now.

          • les 8.2.1.3.1
            6 November 2014 at 7:42 am

            I’m sure you dont have data for that!Science cannot explain everything,scientists are always disagreeing ,defining ‘education’ is difficult.Labelling skeptics with an open mind as ‘deniers’ smacks of condescencion.

            • Colonial Rawshark 8.2.1.3.1.1
              6 November 2014 at 7:57 am

              “An open mind”

              Open to Koch Brothers climate change denial propaganda is not really a virtue to be trumpeted, you know.

              • les …
                6 November 2014 at 8:06 am

                you are hardly being objective…you are obviously passionate about your prejudice but that is hardly a substitute for ironclad fact!

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  6 November 2014 at 8:27 am

                  You are hardly arguing in good faith, demanding settled science in one thread while acknowledging ubiquitous uncertainty in another.

                  So, you’re short of honesty as well as facts.

                  • les …
                    6 November 2014 at 8:29 am

                    have a look at your post 8.1.1.1 and then talk about ‘good faith’.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      6 November 2014 at 8:37 am

                      A simple statement of fact about a lying (presenting known falsehoods) gutless (hiding from self-incurred debt behind legal veils) douchebag.

                      I’m open about my views: yours twist and turn and contort themselves in a grotesque parody, as your engagement here amply demonstrates.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  6 November 2014 at 9:37 am

                  you are hardly being objective…you are obviously passionate about your prejudice but that is hardly a substitute for ironclad fact!

                  Oh fuck off, you smearing disingenuous prick.

                  I don’t understand how a nominally intelligent person like yourself thinks they can get away with your obvious BS rhetorical diversion, and not think that everyone will see it. Geeezus. We’re NZers not gormless Fox News fed Americans.

                  • les …
                    6 November 2014 at 9:42 am

                    I am but responding to various people on topic.I must say your kneejerk reactions hardly endear anyone to your own point of view.

            • lprent 8.2.1.3.1.2
              6 November 2014 at 9:57 pm

              Labelling skeptics with an open mind as ‘deniers’ smacks of condescencion.

              It is more like absolute scorn at pathetic dingbats like yourself.

              Scientists disagree with each other because that is their job. In fact managing to attack and disprove each others ideas is how they earn kudos. That is why the people of science are able to explain processes and to predict events while muttering and dibbling imbeciles like yourself have to rely on the strained analogies and dubious word pictures that you call “arguments”.

              They face a much more serious process in discovering how things really operate competing in a civilised manner with people of similar or better intellects. That is the primary basis of science.

              It is only the truly mindless dorks like yourself who herd together and bleat in unison that you don’t “unnnnnderstand” and that you’re really just “victimsSs” and then proceed to whine like a Cameron Slater.

              I really wish that more than a handful of you gutless and lazy fools would actually learn enough science to give a halfway decent argument. The few exceptions mostly wind up arguing mostly that it isn’t going as bad as predicted, rather than it isn’t going to happen are worth having around. They have put in the effort to study the field in depth and have the same problem that the scientists have had over the century trying to poke on the thesis.

              But the great bulk of you deniers are simply a waste of space. You don’t bother learning enough about the science to be able to effectively argue, you are just used as parrots of the oil and coal industry squawking gross stupidity suitable only for talkback and dumb purchasable media fuckwits like Mike “bend me over my Ferrari” Hosking.

              And even worse, you are completely incapable of arguing even your case. Please go back to school. Even the year 11 kids are better at arguing science than you are.

              Many of the people you’re “arguing” with here have at least one degree in science or engineering. My science degree was in earth sciences and I have been following the debates in the science community about this since 1979, starting as a skeptic and winding up getting steadily more worried from the late 1980s onwards.

              So of course I am condescending to a lazy blowhard too lazy to read.

              I was convinced by working through the evidence as an educated layperson over decades. I have little time for people who don’t work at it and then whine they aren’t taken seriously. Who in the hell could take you seriously asking basic material that would take you only a look through wikipedia to find out? Schoolchildren do it – why can’t you?

              • les …
                18 November 2014 at 7:20 am

                Thanks for that .I can always respect a different point of view especially when it is peppered with labels like,dingbat,dork,gutless,lazy,fool,parrot,fuckwit,and blowhard.Quite clearly a scientific approach by someone with an open mind ,confident in their own divine decree of what is fact and what is not.I now know all I need to do is consult Wikipedia and all will be right with the world.

                • Cave Johnson …
                  18 November 2014 at 7:35 am

                  Yes it’s a shame that a robust passion for one’s subject has to descend into abuse so often on this otherwise excellent blog site.

                  • lprent …
                    18 November 2014 at 8:14 am

                    Read the policy. Then think what is involved in “robust debate”. If you can’t handle it, then don’t whine about our rules. Start you own site with your own rules and do some work to get your own audience.

                • lprent …
                  18 November 2014 at 8:06 am

                  It is how I think of you. Sensitive wee soul aren’t you?

                  Incidentally that gutless tactic you just used is called ‘diversion’. Avoid dealing with the points raised and go for some personal attacks.

                  I just do it in a less snide and sneaky way and I explain exactly why. In your comment you avoided explaining it. A predictable response from another ignorant and proudly ill-educated denier too lazy to learn.

                  • les …
                    18 November 2014 at 8:18 am

                    You are full of yourself.There is nothing’ less snide or sneaky’ you can be proud of.Sneering self righteous contempt and a severe case of high self esteem verging on narcissicm is what I think of you.

        • Tracey 8.2.1.4
          6 November 2014 at 8:47 am

          and creationism should be taught in science classes, for balance!

          • les 8.2.1.4.1
            6 November 2014 at 8:52 am

            thats like saying science should be taught in Church… for ‘balance’!

            • Tracey 8.2.1.4.1.1
              6 November 2014 at 9:21 am

              its not like saying that.

              • les …
                6 November 2014 at 9:31 am

                why is it not?Two different subjects.

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  6 November 2014 at 9:35 am

                  “Church” is not a subject FFS

                  Also, your claim that 97% of people thought the earth was flat only applies to western europeans. The Egyptians, Chinese, Mesopotamians (Persians/Arabs) figured it out a long time ago.

                  • les …
                    6 November 2014 at 9:39 am

                    never said Church was a ‘subject’!What do the Egyptians,Chinese ,Mesopotamians think about climate change btw?Or U.S hegemony for that matter?

                  • lprent …
                    6 November 2014 at 10:14 pm

                    The fascinating thing was that if you go and look at the evidence of navigational charts and instruments from the depths of the middle ages in europe you will find that navigators implicitly accepted a globe.

                    However the official church doctrine of the time did not because the popular theology of the continental tribesmen who wandered over the remnants of the western roman empire did not.

                    Some of the best navigators of the period were in fact clergy

  9. Lloyd 9
    5 November 2014 at 8:58 pm

    Bryan told me years ago that wind power would never be a significant part of New Zealand’s electricity generation capacity because wind was not a constant source. The fact that New Zealand has never had a wind “drought” of several months without significant wind when compared to rainfall’s droughts was not considered by Bryan.

    • les 9.1
      6 November 2014 at 7:54 am

      so climate change doesn’t affect the wind at all then?Btw how significant is wind power in NZ as an overall %?

      [lprent: Try wikipedia. You can’t be a lazy illiterate all of your life. ]

  10. dale 10
    5 November 2014 at 10:17 pm

    Mr Smith where is your evidence that 97% of scientists believe in man made global warming? I think the reaction to the interview is way over the top. At least Leland presented facts with the graph. Computer, trash in trash out.

  11. dale 11
    5 November 2014 at 10:38 pm

    Molly, yes I read a lot. Climate Depot would be a great start for anyone wanting to understand climate change. Paul I am not a denier, but I question how much man can influence the climate. I often question the UN’S motives. Agenda 21 should have all free thinking people concerned.

    • Paul 11.1
      5 November 2014 at 10:41 pm

      So a denier then.
      I prefer to listen to informed scientists than opinionated ignoramuses.

    • Paul 11.2
      5 November 2014 at 10:46 pm

      Your source…..

      The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a conservative Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization, founded in 1985. Its stated mission is “to promote a positive voice on environment and development issues”. CFACT co-founders David Rothbard and Craig Rucker believed that “the power of the free market, combined with the applications of safe technologies, can offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s pressing concerns.”[1]

      Craig Rucker stated that mankind faces a threat “not from man-made global warming, but from man-made hysteria.”[2] In 1993, CFACT began a daily radio program, “Just the Facts,” which in 2012 reached 5,000 daily broadcasts.[3]

      That’s an unbiased source, isn’t it?

    • Molly 11.3
      5 November 2014 at 10:48 pm

      Didn’t actually read my link though… sigh..

    • Paul 11.4
      5 November 2014 at 10:50 pm

      Opposition to Agenda 21 has links to the Tea Party..
      Your sources and bedfellows get even more impressive.

      “During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels.[18] The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that “We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty.”[19][20] Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21.[4][13][21][22][23][24] Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21.[5] Many other states, including Arizona, are drafting, and close to passing legislation to ban Agenda 21.[25]

      Activists, some of whom have been associated with the Tea Party movement by The New York Times and The Huffington Post, have said that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights.[4][13] Columnists in The Atlantic have linked opposition to Agenda 21 to the property rights movement in the United States.[13][26] Glenn Beck co-wrote a dystopian novel entitled Agenda 21.”

      Source Wikipedia

    • tricle up 11.5
      6 November 2014 at 12:40 am

      Dale Add free will to your list…

    • miravox 11.6
      6 November 2014 at 1:11 am

      “Climate Depot would be a great start for anyone wanting to understand climate change. Paul I am not a denier,”

      Not a denier at all, which is why you prefer the thoughts (?) of this guy to ‘understand’ climate change rather than the findings of people who have worked for years measuring and collecting climate data and working out what this data really means?

      Marc Morano runs the climate denial website ClimateDepot.com. He previously worked for Rush Limbaugh and Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) — both vocal climate change deniers.

      Although he has no scientific background, Morano has declared that the science of manmade climate change is “collapsing.” He has called global warming a “con job” and said that climate scientists “deserve to be publicly flogged.” Morano often appears on Fox News to spread misinformation on climate change, and Rush Limbaugh has repeatedly used his material to attack climate scientists.

      Climate Depot is sponsored by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a conservative think tank that has received funding from ExxonMobil and Chevron…

      CFACT’s 2011 financial disclosure form … lists Morano as the highest paid member of its staff at a salary of over $150,000 a year.

      http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545#morano

    • Tracey 11.7
      6 November 2014 at 8:50 am

      you dont mind humans acting to reduce their negative impact on the planet for whatever reason though?

  12. Cave Johnson 12
    5 November 2014 at 10:38 pm

    I hope anyone who labels all anthropogenic-climate-change skeptics as cranks has done their own comprehensive review of the data from a range of sources and come to their own reasoned conclusion about that. I’d hate for it to be just be a pointless name-calling battle between two competing belief systems.

    • Paul 12.1
      5 November 2014 at 10:42 pm

      Science science is not a belief system.
      I’m assuming you also deny anthropogenic climate change.

      • Colonial Rawshark 12.1.1
        6 November 2014 at 9:44 am

        Science has plenty of its own belief systems but it is usually also an excellent way of gaining understandings about the natural world.

    • McFlock 12.2
      5 November 2014 at 11:39 pm

      Your comment contains two competely unrelated sentences.

      Why?

      Because in my experience AGW-deniers tend to fall over at the first encounter, rather than requiring me to indepentently gather all the data from paleobiology, through ice core samples and into the raw data from global weather stations over the last 200 years or so, then independently build models from which I come to my own conclusions about who is right and who is a duplicitous scoundrel.

      By “first encounter” I mean that the first AGW-denier comment I hear from them either follows the form of a liar, fails a basic logic/math/competency/sanity test, or a basic google search reveals a liar’s reputation or multiple serious and basic issues with proclaimed scientific “research”. Qualified climate scientists tend to not have those qualities. So the qualified professional climate scientists win.

      For example, by apparently suggesting that only independent primary-data researchers can come to a firm conclusion re:AGW, you fail a basic logic test. As illustrated above.

      Thank you for playing. Go back to your cave.

      • RedLogixFormes 12.2.1
        6 November 2014 at 12:21 am

        That’s a very concise explanation McF.

      • Cave Johnson 12.2.2
        6 November 2014 at 7:37 am

        You are arguing against a strawman that you yourself created. Climate science and climate politics are not the same thing. One is about testing theories and the other is about putting a stake in the ground and building a policy around it – that’s a practical response but if it’s unchallengable at that point then it’s no longer science.
        .
        There is good correlation between carbon and recent changes, but man’s behaviour is not necessarily the whole picture, and it is rather typical of man’s egocentricity to assume that things that are partly happening on a geologic and solar scale are down to him alone.

        • Colonial Rawshark 12.2.2.1
          6 November 2014 at 9:47 am

          That’s not an excuse for man not taking the steps that he is able to, like reducing the exploitation, consumption and waste of natural resources, while emphasising renewable energy.

        • McFlock 12.2.2.2
          6 November 2014 at 2:12 pm

          In case you hadn’t noticed, my point was that AGW-deniers’ “challenges” tend to fall down at a strategic level, before even needing to examine their data or manipulations thereof.

          For example, your comment “it is rather typical of man’s egocentricity to assume that things that are partly happening on a geologic and solar scale are down to him alone.” Please cite where any, any climate scientist has made that claim.

          Failure to do so will merely reinforce my impression of you that your credibility is toilet water, and that your comments are merely intended to distract and muddy the clear waters of the global problem we face.

  13. dale 13
    5 November 2014 at 10:53 pm

    Fully agree Cave. Paul some scientists are wrong. So before you call me anymore names please have a browse at other work on the subject. Climate Depot would be a great start.

    • Paul 13.1
      5 November 2014 at 10:57 pm

      97% of scientists wrong?
      I’ll leave you to your delusions,
      The world can’t wait for deniers to hold up dealing with climate change.

    • jaymam 13.2
      7 November 2014 at 3:58 am

      Well this is a sea change – The Standard is promoting Leyland’s video and allowing comments from “deniers” to stay here, and Whaleoil has so far ignored Leyland’s video.

  14. Cave Johnson 14
    5 November 2014 at 10:55 pm

    Science is a method. Interim conclusions are drawn based on interpretation of the data and can change as the data or interpretation changes. Once you lock in an interim conclusion as an immutable fact you have departed from science and entered into a belief system.

    • RedLogixFormes 14.1
      5 November 2014 at 10:58 pm

      And news just in – scientist announces gravity is just a belief system. Then plummets ten stories to his death from apartment balcony.

      • Cave Johnson 14.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 11:05 pm

        Interesting you should mention gravity. Scientists will tell you it’s one of the least understood forces in the scientific realm. it’s a fascinating world out there and we have a long way to go in our understanding of so many things. We are like ants crawling in the dirt thinking we rule the world.

        • RedLogixFormes 14.1.1.1
          5 November 2014 at 11:07 pm

          Find a balcony – let us know how you get on.

          (Yeah there are lots of things we don’t know – which does not invalidate the usefulness of what we do know. Just in case that was not obvious.)

        • Colonial Rawshark 14.1.1.2
          6 November 2014 at 9:48 am

          Cave Johnson – gravity kills. Surely you are old enough to understand that.

          • les 14.1.1.2.1
            6 November 2014 at 10:04 am

            DNFTT…translation=any rebuttal of my position =trolling.Good day to you.

            • McFlock 14.1.1.2.1.1
              6 November 2014 at 3:33 pm

              Nah.
              Any actual rebuttal would be nice, and might actually turn the field of climate science on its head. Hell, you’d probably win yourself a Nobel Prize.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                6 November 2014 at 3:35 pm

                You could make a fortune stepping into the gap in the insurance market caused by Munich Re’s stubborn reliance on Climatology.

    • Paul 14.2
      5 November 2014 at 10:59 pm

      Yes a climate denier.
      No need to discuss further. I don’t tend to debate whether the world is flat either.
      Talk to dale. He’ll listen to your ideas.

  15. dale 15
    5 November 2014 at 11:25 pm

    Molly, I tried the link, but no response. Paul, you called me ignorant, have a good look in the mirror. I feel sorry for people who have been brainwashed into a closed mind.

    • miravox 15.1
      5 November 2014 at 11:52 pm

      The link works for me
      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

      relevant bit to your question re consensus percentage:

      Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors’ self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.

      So I guess we will now tortuously move on to the next stage of the umpteen discussions on this topic – the bias of publishers…

    • RedLogixFormes 15.2
      5 November 2014 at 11:56 pm

      @Dale

      I’ve read a wide range of the climate sites for years – and before the internet was thought of I was working for people in this field. I can count four people I know very well who are still active in field research. And I’ve been a science and engineering professional over 35 years. I make a living by getting the science basics right. That’s the difference between someone who can cut and paste what other people tell him to believe – and someone who knows from years of direct, hard-won experience making things work.

      Here’s the thing Dale. I’d never for a moment lay claim to any real skill in the climate field, but why is it that I keep encountering simple howling errors over and again at the denier sites? Nine times out of ten I can spot the broad outline of the error in a minute or two, and usually a spot of googling will fill in the details.

      The arguments they keep putting up get refuted over and over and over again. It’s just one feckless blunder after another, and those of you who blindly follow them never notice, never make the connection that these site like Climate Depot constantly regurgitate variations on the same basic errors over and again. It’s why we call them PRATT’s. (Point Refuted a Thousand Times)

      If you showed the slightest sign of wanting to learn I’d be more than happy to work with that – but a complete unwillingness to learn has to be the absolute sine qua non of the denier.

      Now go away and get a decent Statistics book (I have Grant Foster’s excellent Understand Statistics right next to me) and actually work your way through one of the many online courses in the topic. Or failing that try your hand at Steve Carson’s Scienceof Doom for a very pure science-oriented tour-de-force.

      Because until you have made the effort to learn the essential, uncontroversial basics you will keep falling flat on your face. And we will keep mocking you.

    • McFlock 15.3
      6 November 2014 at 12:02 am

      linked worked for me, too.
      Maybe it’s the same reason you can’t work the reply button. I.e. mobile device or idiot or both.

  16. dale 16
    5 November 2014 at 11:37 pm

    Paul, where is your evidence of 97% of scientists that agree with the IPCC? I’ve supplied reference to hard facts.

    • McFlock 16.1
      6 November 2014 at 12:17 am

      I’ve supplied reference to hard facts.

      No you haven’t. There’s not a single link, citation, or even article title in any of your comments.

      • ropata:rorschach 16.1.1
        6 November 2014 at 12:24 am

        He mentioned Climate Depot, whatever that is.

        Is it endorsed by any reputable university or research institute? Nope, its proprietor has zero credibility.

        • McFlock 16.1.1.1
          6 November 2014 at 12:40 am

          yeah, so at best he referred to a website (I assume – these fuckers tend to be a website and a lobbyist’s office with a big chequebook) that might or might not contain fact shrouded in what might or might not be bullshit.

          But claiming, via that, to have “supplied reference to hard facts” is either a fortuitously naive choice of words, or a cynical attempt to pretend that both he and whatever he happened to mention by name have orthodox research-level credibility.

          I know which one my bet would go towards.

    • ropata:rorschach 16.2
      6 November 2014 at 12:18 am

      The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. […] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists.

      Surveys
      A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

      (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

      A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching “global warming” or “global climate change”. They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these 97.1% endorsed the consensus position.

  17. Murray Rawshark 17
    6 November 2014 at 3:04 am

    That Leyland guy has the same sort of manic look that I saw with Colon Craig. Colon has an open mind. Maybe he could pay their legal bill.

    I don’t even bother arguing with deniers any more. They are inevitably lacking in scientific knowledge, haven’t got a clue how science works, and are vulnerable to flashy propaganda. They’re also usually stupid enough to think that they’re being smart by criticising science on spurious grounds. We see this with the juxtaposition of computer models and “facts”. While it might surprise some, we don’t have facts about the future. This is why we use models, and one of the first things a modeller does is check that they can retrodict. It’s the first step.

    Deniers are crazy, dishonest, or stupid. There are no alternatives. TANA, heehee. 🙂

  18. les 18
    6 November 2014 at 7:08 am

    everything comes from the earth…..whats the effect of covering the earth with concrete?I am a skeptic,scientists get alot wrong.Some have to spend their entire life trying to justify their research and conclusions.

  19. Colonial Rawshark 19
    6 November 2014 at 9:52 am

    The behaviour of the climate deniers in this thread appears designed to distract and divert from valuable discussion on the poor background research done by TVNZ, etc.

    • NickS 19.2
      6 November 2014 at 11:41 am

      Yeap, not a single decent nugget of actual thought from them either, reminds me of of the run of the mill young earth creationist’s I’ve run into, all spam, no brains.

      We can haz smarter deniers naow?

    • Jan Rivers 19.3
      7 November 2014 at 8:58 am

      Completely agree. How important is it for us to hone skills refuting dishonest claims compared with developing thinking? This is a question for Lynn.

      Is it time to amend the terms of use so that a useful venue for addressing issues is not overridden by poor quality input from people who have far too much time on their hands and who keep the quality of debate very low? In this case people who are casting doubt on the scientific thinking behind the IPCC report.

      It’s all very well sharpening our collective ability to address diversions and magical thinking but it’s of limited use compared with the the size of the challenges faced. It’s not as if there aren’t plenty of well funded spaces for rehearsing the various denier positions who, let’s face it ,do not give a fair hearing to the 97% of scientists who support the emerging consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming nor the increasing probability of rapid and irreversible change.

      What would be needed? Volunteers to moderate? I can see that it would be hard to develop a rule that did not verge on censoring but I do recall posts that have been explicit about framing the responder discussion and have been moderated accordingly.

  20. Ray the Realist 20
    9 November 2014 at 7:08 pm

    In response to Macro

    There is nothing new in your emotive response.

    No paper has yet been published that unambiguously invalidates the null hypothesis of a natural origin for observed, modern climate change, despite estimated expenditure since 1990 of hundreds of billions of dollars and the intense efforts of many scientists to find evidence that favours dangerous human-caused warming.

    On the other hand, if you think you have that evidence, then table it.

    • joe90 20.1
      9 November 2014 at 7:21 pm

      No paper has yet been published that unambiguously invalidates the null hypothesis of a natural origin for observed, modern climate change, despite estimated expenditure since 1990 of hundreds of billions of dollars and the intense efforts of many scientists to find evidence that favours dangerous human-caused warming.

      Stupid, dishonest …….?

      Science facts and interpretations are entirely independent of the good character or otherwise of those who describe or fund them; post-modernists and political cynics please take note.

      In contrast, no paper has yet been published which unambiguously invalidates the hypothesis of a natural origin for observed, modern climate change, and that despite an estimated expenditure since 1990 of around $100 billion ($79 billion in the USA alone; Nova, 1979) and the intense efforts of many scientists towards finding evidence in favour of dangerous human-caused warming.

      As recently explained by Martin Cohen in his article in the Times Higher Education Supplement, the world’s very best advertising agencies have been employed to help the IPCC fashion the most effective climate alarmist messages possible.

      http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2009/12/why-barry-jones-is-wrong/

    • Macro 20.2
      9 November 2014 at 10:07 pm

      Are you Bob Carter? You use his words?

      There is nothing to answer here. It is a false hypothesis.

      Firstly we know how much humans have contributed to the raised level of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere:
      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

      “Another, quite independent way that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopes are simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior (isotope means “same type”) but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.

      CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has quite a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere.”

      – See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/#sthash.p8XfedmZ.dpuf

      Increasing the concentration of CO2 and other greenhouses gasses in the atmosphere will result in increased heat being trapped within the Earth’s atmosphere. At the present time the Earth is retaining around 3 Watts /sqm because of the increase in GHG. It may not sound much but over the whole surface of the Earth it adds up. This is the inconvenient truth you can only deny if you can redefine established physics.

      Given that very Inconvenient truth – adding CO2 to the atmosphere (increasing the concentration of GHG) will result in global warming (which only someone who does not understand the physics can deny) one must then look for the evidence. The sad fact is that the Earth is displaying many signs of warming.

      Ice across the planet is disappearing at the rate of 120 cubic miles per year
      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-loss-cryosat-antarctica-greenland
      The oceans are warming at an incredible rate:
      “Since 1970, the top 700 meters (roughly 2,296 feet) of the ocean have been heating up 24 to 55 percent faster than scientists have been estimating,” around 2.2–7.1 × 10^22 J per year
      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n11/full/nclimate2389.html
      And Global Surface Temperatures continue to rise – despite your friends protestations to the contrary.
      “The results are in for NOAA, and they show that the combined average temperature for global land and ocean surfaces for August 2014 was a record high, beating out the old record set back in 1998. The June through August global land and ocean surface temperatures were 0.71°C (1.28°F) higher than the 20th century average, making it the warmest such period since record keeping began in 1880.”
      http://earthsky.org/earth/hottest-june-through-august-ever-recorded-globally-in-2014
      “2013 marked the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. ”
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

  21. Ray the Realist 21
    10 November 2014 at 7:53 pm

    In response to Macro:

    “There is nothing to answer here. It is a false hypothesis.”

    A predictable, unconvincing response from one who goes out of his way to dismiss scientific observation that inconveniently contradicts warmist ideology that he promotes.