Denialists set to make monkeys of themselves

103 comments on “Denialists set to make monkeys of themselves ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Kotahi Tane Huna 1

   17 July 2012 at 9:18 am

   Get ready for the amazing new truthiness: the judge was in on the conspiracy. We know (s)he watched Al Gore’s video. It turns out one of (her)his relatives works as a “researcher” – and we all know what that means!

   You read it here first.
2. Bill 2

   17 July 2012 at 9:35 am

   The frustration of it all!

   This fixation on ‘the debate’ is a nice psychological trick played by those who know damned fine well that our world is warming on themselves. And the result is inaction.

   What does it matter whether 20% or even 99% of people don’t discern the reality of warming? If you are of the (respectively) 80% or 1%, the onus is entirely on you to undertake whatever unequivocal actions you deem as necessary.

   Sure. If you ‘jump’, it’s a long way down and you’ll likely experience financial and material harm. Even quite serious financial and material harm.

   But this alternative; of waiting till everyone agrees on the reality and a course of action isn’t simply morally and intellectually bereft, but ensures that the level of harm will be much, much higher than that which would result from action being taken now (because ‘later’ might well include harms related to health and well being far beyond those related to the loss of current measures of financial and material security).

   Was that a bit of a rant? I think that was a bit of a rant. So now I’m off to soak up the pleasantly unseasonable warmth of this southern winter.
3. Scott 3

   17 July 2012 at 9:52 am

   It reads better if the word “witches” is crossed out at the end of the post, as it is in my original post…
   • Bunji 3.1

     17 July 2012 at 10:10 am

     Fixed. I’m guessing that didn’t copy across.

     Incidentally The US has already had a nice Climate Change Denial case last month, with the judge ruling that the Environmental Protection Agency had the right to use scientific evidence to class CO2 as a pollutant. The court ruled:

     “EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question”.
4. Richard Christie 4

   17 July 2012 at 10:32 am

   Follow the money

   http://hot-topic.co.nz/when-asses-go-to-court/
5. Jackal 5

   17 July 2012 at 11:44 am

   Climate change deniers wasting taxpayer money

   In effect the Climate Science Education “Trust” (CSET) made an OIA request for information that would show NIWA had manipulated temperature data. NIWA couldn’t supply this information because it doesn’t exist. Along with various other unfounded accusations, CSET then made an Ombudsman complaint that NIWA had not provided the non-existent information. CSET then claimed that there was no authority to set up the seven weather stations in 2000 that record temperatures around the country, despite government funding. They claim that NIWA scientists had a conflict of interest (without any evidence), and that changes around the weather stations has effected data. CSET then requested that NIWA undertake an internal investigation. NIWA undertook a review, which was dismissed by CSET because it did not show any manipulation or unreliability of weather temperature readings. They then lodged a legal claim that the documented temperature increase of 0.92ºC effectively reduced to zero after excluding “contaminated” weather stations, contradicting their previous acknowledgement that natural warming did occur. CSET then requested that NIWA appoint a sub-committee, or an independent investigator. This request was dismissed by NIWA because the issue was already before the courts.
6. NZ Groover 6

   17 July 2012 at 12:48 pm

   “the climate change deniers”

   I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous statement . No sceptic that I know is denying climate change, the climate’s always changing and has done for millions of years. Hell the majority of sceptics don’t even deny the world has warmed or that CO2 has had some impact on this.

   What we’re highly sceptical about is CAGW. All the predications for this are based on computer models that constantly fail the empirical evidence test. There is not one single piece of hard empirical evidence that supports these predications. I’ve looked, I can’t find any……shouldn’t be that hard, apparently the evidence is overwhelming.
   • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1

     17 July 2012 at 1:24 pm

     “All the predications for this are based on computer models ”

     No they aren’t.

     Just once, I wish one of you knuckle-draggers could get it right. Oh, and your searching abilities are shit: I found those three links in less than two minutes.
     • NZ Groover 6.1.1

       17 July 2012 at 1:44 pm

       I asked for empirical evidence not theory or opinion. Please try harder.
       • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1.1.1

         17 July 2012 at 1:57 pm

         No, you made the claim that all “predications” are based on computer models. The three links I posted completely destroy that assertion – since they make predictions which are not based on computer models, and have been proven correct.

         QED.

         I don’t think you can tell the difference between a climate model and your elbow.

         That you can’t find the empirical evidence is not my problem, since it abounds. Have you tried NASA? They’ve got plenty to sooth your gums on.
         • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1.1.1.1

           17 July 2012 at 2:25 pm

           PS: Just in case anyone really has a genuine interest in the data sources that confirm that the Greenhouse Effect is real, here’s a list.
         • NZ Groover 6.1.1.1.2

           17 July 2012 at 5:57 pm

           So no empirical evidence then?
           • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1.1.1.2.1

             17 July 2012 at 6:07 pm

             See the word “list” in blue on my previous comment? That’s called a “link”. If you “click” on it (with your “mouse”) it will take you to a list of many (not all) the sources of “empirical evidence” you like. That’s why I put it there.

             Learning some basic “html” can be a fun and fascinating hobby for anyone, even you. We could try some if you like.

             Or perhaps you would like to talk about the 全米桜祭り.
             • Bob …

               17 July 2012 at 9:36 pm

               Whoops, here is NASA telling us there is no meaningful comparison of models to observed global temperature change:
               “The analysis by Hansen et al. (2005), as well as other
               recent studies (see, e.g., the reviews by Ramaswamy
               et al. 2001; Kopp et al. 2005b; Lean et al. 2005; Loeb
               and Manalo-Smith 2005; Lohmann and Feichter
               2005; Pilewskie et al. 2005; Bates et al. 2006; Penner
               et al. 2006), indicates that the current uncertainties
               in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they
               preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by
               comparison with observed global temperature change.
               These uncertainties must be reduced significantly for
               uncertainty in climate sensitivity to be adequately con-
               strained (Schwartz 2004). Helping to address this chal-
               lenging objective is the main purpose of the National
               Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Glory
               mission, a remote sensing Earth-orbiting observatory”

               http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/88/5/pdf/i1520-0477-88-5-677.pdf
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 18 July 2012 at 10:26 am

                 Whoops, here is NASA telling us there is no meaningful comparison of models to observed global temperature change:

                 No, that’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying, as of 2k5, that they didn’t have enough information on the effects aerosols on the temperature to include them in the models at the time.
       • McFlock 6.1.1.2

         17 July 2012 at 2:02 pm

         Now why would I be suspecting that if the NIWA record (being empirical data, after all) actually did not support AGW, then there would be no court case challenging it? Hence no post here? Hence no comment for you to reply to? 
                  
         Wow, existential conflict: you would not be asking for “empirical evidence” if there had been no empirical evidence gathered (by e.g. NIWA). 
                      
         Not really arguing AGW with you, as if you wish to argue with pretty much every credible of scientists who have even a nodding acquaintance with the field, I’m not sure a blog will change your mind. Just pointing out an apparent paradox in your position.
         • NZ Groover 6.1.1.2.1

           17 July 2012 at 5:59 pm

           How is NIWA’s data emperical evidence of CAGW?
           • Kotahi Tane Huna 6.1.1.2.1.1

             17 July 2012 at 6:12 pm

             It isn’t. You could look at the insurance industry’s data on the ratio between natural disasters caused by geological events like earthquakes etc, to weather-related events like floods and forest fires and droughts etc. though.

             You could look at it over time, say, and see if the ratio has changed at all over the years. Then you would not only have information about the trend, but also hard data on the costs involved.

             Luckily, the insurance companies are already collating such information. This is all in the public domain you realise? Do I need to hold your hand or can you use Google?
             • muzza …

               18 July 2012 at 7:26 am

               “Luckily, the insurance companies are already collating such information”

               –What you mean the same companies who are owned by the banks and who own the oil companies will save us…

               And you refer to others as deniers!
               • RedLogix …

                 18 July 2012 at 7:36 am

                 Well disaster is their core business…
               • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                 18 July 2012 at 7:47 am

                 Who said anything about the insurances companies “saving” anyone? A tiresome cretin with a strawman.
               • rosy …

                 18 July 2012 at 8:04 am

                 The one thing you can be absolutely sure of is that insurance companies will price in risk, so yeah they’re collating such information.
                 • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                   18 July 2012 at 8:25 am

                   Yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing – this, and more, from Munich Re.
                   • muzza …

                     18 July 2012 at 9:00 am

                     Whats entertaining is listening to you continue with the insults, and re-post the same links over again. The results you imagine coming from the collated data, via insurance companies , may turn out to be something very different.
                     Of course your ego prevents you from being able to fathom deviations!
                   • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                     18 July 2012 at 9:01 am

                     Put up or shut up – your opinion means nothing to me.
                   • muzza …

                     18 July 2012 at 9:15 am

                     Quite the outburst, even by your standards…

                     My opinions obviously do mean something to you, or you would not feel the need to respond the way you did, have have done previously.

                     If the thought of having to challenge your own “understandings” illicits such a response, the only conclusion, is what I alluded to some time back, that you have mental weakness, and or a frail ego.

                     Why would you put any faith into the insurance industry, and you do, because you have linked the same articles multiple times, as some sort of indicator that insurance will lead the way to climate salvation, or some other such fantasy….except they wont, because the owners of the insurance companies are the banks, the very same backs who are responsible for the LIBOR fraud, which is only the most recent example of banking conspiracy, conspiracy which simpletons want to deny, exists!

                     If you and any others feel that an industry run by such crooks (banking), is in anyway concerned about the environment, in a meaningful way which will benefit humanity, you need to challenge yourself much harder than that!

                     If you are not up to the challenge, that is not my problem!
                   • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                     18 July 2012 at 9:24 am

                     I have never laid eyes on the Munich Re archive until today. Do you get paid to be wrong?

                     The notion that insurance companies will “save” us is all yours: yet another tiresome strawman. I did not say they care for the environment – are you such a fuckwit that you can’t even dispute the point without making shit up?

                     That’s a rhetorical question.
                   • rosy …

                     18 July 2012 at 9:25 am

                     You’re way off beam, Muzza if you think this is about insurance companies being charitable. I, for one, have absolute faith they’ll use the environment and the data they collect to make money. On that basis the data is likely to be as correct as possible. I doubt anyone thinks anything else.
   • Socialist Paddy 6.2

     17 July 2012 at 1:37 pm

     It is amazing how little you can find when you have your head firmly positioned up your arse.
     • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1

       17 July 2012 at 3:36 pm

       +1

       😈
   • Deano 6.3

     17 July 2012 at 3:38 pm

     “No sceptic that I know is denying climate change”

     you’re denying human-induced climate change. Because a) you have a financial interest in pretending that’s the case or b) you’re an illiterate monkey
     • NZ Groover 6.3.1

       17 July 2012 at 6:04 pm

       No I’m not denying human induced climate change but I’m highly sceptical of CAGW based on modelling when the predicated outcomes just aren’t happening in the real world.
       • Richard Christie 6.3.1.1

         17 July 2012 at 6:16 pm

         PRATT number 6:
         “models are unreliable”

         http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
7. joe90 7

   17 July 2012 at 12:52 pm

   Coincidentally, the waddler in chief has swallowed the blue pill and embarked on his own wee anti Green Party campaign with a post on the Australian Green v Labor row followed up by a fan boi wibble about a book.

   Said book, Little Green Lies: Twelve Environmental Myths, is authored by a big water shill with connections to, amongst others a tobacco / big water funded RWNJ cistern Institute of Public Affairs and published by RWNJ Connor Court.

   Related link:

   http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/environment/how-the-ipa-feeds-kids-lies-about-climate-change/
8. LetshaveStink 8

   17 July 2012 at 1:55 pm

   Imperator Fish

   Seeing there is no pollution according to the rednecks, why couldn’t we take your tyres right this minute and burn them in the properties of the Deniers? – the “Pollution Does Not Exist” people.? You would be their friend for life.

   There are enough tyres around to keep the fires raging in their businesses and homes for years. They would beg for more Imperator. We could easily import billions of tyres for them and keep them truly happy.

   We could pump CO and CO2 endlessly into their vents too – because it is all so harmless.

   Methane would go well in their water pipes. They have a genuine lust for it Imperator. We could even include a courtesy citation from Fonterra. Nothing like making them feel important. In fact, importance is the thing they most crave.
9. Pascal's bookie 9

   17 July 2012 at 2:35 pm

   “What we’re highly sceptical about is CAGW. ”

   I’m sorry but this is an hilarious comment.

   First they were sceptical of GW, then they were sceptical of AGW, now it’s CAGW that they are sceptical of.

   It’s the sceptic of the gaps!
   • Deano 9.1

     17 July 2012 at 3:42 pm

     gee, they’re adding ‘catastrophic’ now? So, basically, they’ve conceded there is anthropogenic global warming but they still don’t want to do anything about it because they don’t want to believe it’s catastrophic?

     aren’t we just nit-picking now? How many extra storms, how much desertification and loss of farmland is catastrophic? And how much is just bad?
     • felix 9.1.1

       17 July 2012 at 6:41 pm

       Their argument can now proceed along the same line as the RWNJ argument on poverty.

       e.g. that’s not a real catastrophe, you lot wouldn’t know a real catastrophe if it poked you in the eye, why on some planets they’d be grateful to have such trivial catastrophes as this.

       Is the entire planet reduced to an uninhabitable toxic dust bowl yet? Well it’s not really catastrophic then innit.

       etc.
10. Steve Wrathall 10

    17 July 2012 at 3:07 pm

    What observation would falsify the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
    • Kotahi Tane Huna 10.1

      17 July 2012 at 3:24 pm

      What “theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”? There is no such theory.

      Perhaps you have some specific prediction in mind?
      • Steve Wrathall 10.1.1

        17 July 2012 at 3:30 pm

        Of course there is: That anthropogenic GHG emissions are leading to global catastrophe.
        Again, what observation would falsify this theory? If you cannot name one, then it is not science.
        • Draco T Bastard 10.1.1.1

          17 July 2012 at 3:48 pm

          See, this is the bit you don’t understand: A scientific theory is an idea that tries to explain what’s observed. The process goes like this:

          1.) Make observations
          2.) Think of theory or adjust existing theory to explain observations
          3.) Test theory against further observations
          4.) goto 2.)

          This has been done with AGW and, so far, the theory matches the observations.

          What you don’t do is think of what you want to prove and then go and think of a way to prove it.
          • TheContrarian 10.1.1.1.1

            17 July 2012 at 3:53 pm

            here is a good visual aid:
            http://www.a1.sciencebuddies.org/Files/339/5/overview_scientific_method2.gif  
          • NZ Groover 10.1.1.1.2

            17 July 2012 at 6:08 pm

            So you have some empirical evidence of this global catastrophe?
            • Kotahi Tane Huna 10.1.1.1.2.1

              17 July 2012 at 6:26 pm

              Which one? What kind of evidence?
            • mike e 10.1.1.1.2.2

              17 July 2012 at 7:14 pm

              NZ Goober looks like more guile from the centre for independent studies .right wing propaganda.
              98% of all climate scientists NASA etc etc.
              Maybe if you lived in the real world you would have read the mountains of literature
              and not the propaganda fed to you.
              Sir Richard Attenborough who has travelled the world for 60 years making documentaries on wildlife has seen these catastrophic changes.
              Stay in your sheltered lounge room and carry on being an naive idiot.
              • Steve Wrathall …

                17 July 2012 at 8:58 pm

                Sir Richard Attenborough doesn’t make wildlife docos. Your thinking of his brother, the polar bear faker. With fact checking like that, ever considered a job as an IPCC report writer?
          • Steve Wrathall 10.1.1.1.3

            17 July 2012 at 6:41 pm

            You haven’t answered the question: What observation wouldn’t match the theory? A theory that any observation agrees with (e,g, god dunnit) explains nothing.
            • Kotahi Tane Huna 10.1.1.1.3.1

              17 July 2012 at 6:55 pm

              I have answered the question. Once more for the hard of comprehension: “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming” isn’t a “theory”. The theory that underpins the greenhouse effect is Quantum Mechanics. Disproving that is beyond the scope of this forum, but if say, the delayed choice quantum eraser didn’t work that might present a serious challenge.

              Where is this “theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”? Which journal published it? Put up or shut up.
              • Steve Wrathall …

                17 July 2012 at 7:13 pm

                Nice attempt to try to misrepresent. No I am not disputing the green house effect. Yes GHGs do warm the atmosphere. Yes human activities have increased GHGs.

                However that does not get you to CAGW.

                What could we observe NOW that would be inconsistent with the theory that these AGHGs are catastrophically warming the planet?
                • Richard Christie …

                  17 July 2012 at 7:20 pm

                  Steve Wrathall wrote

                  What observation would falsify the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

                  later, asked to provide evidence of such a theory, he runs away stating

                  Nice attempt to try to misrepresent.

                  Steve Wrathall won’t own his own words.

                  All should read his further comments in that light.
                • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                  17 July 2012 at 7:30 pm

                  “However, that does not get you to…”

                  Get me to?????

                  You are the one who says such a theory exists. It doesn’t, you’re inventing it. Link to it. You can’t. That’s because it doesn’t exist. There is no such theory. You are mistaken. You can easily rebut this by linking to the journal that published it. I’m still waiting. You haven’t got shit and it’s obvious.
                  • Richard Christie …

                    17 July 2012 at 7:38 pm

                    You haven’t got shit and it’s obvious.

                    Words like theory and falsification made him sound oh-so-sciency though, even if he doesn’t understand their implications.
                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                      17 July 2012 at 7:41 pm

                      He’s got proofiness 🙂
                    • Steve Wrathall …

                      17 July 2012 at 8:36 pm

                      There are numerous research articles that offer a precis of the theory of CAGW, e.g.:

                      “Since the dawn of the industrial era, the atmospheric
                      concentrations of several radiatively active gases have
                      been increasing as a result of human activities. The
                      radiative heating from this inadvertent experiment has
                      driven the climate system out of equilibrium with the
                      incoming solar energy. According to the greenhouse
                      theory of climate change, the climate system will be
                      restored to equilibrium by a warming of the surface troposphere
                      system and a cooling of the stratosphere. The
                      predicted changes, during the next few decades, could far
                      exceed natural climate variations in historical times.
                      Hence, the greenhouse theory of climate change has
                      reached the crucial stage of verification. Surface warming
                      as large as that predicted by models would be unprecedented
                      during an interglacial period such as the present.
                      The theory, its scope for verification, and the emerging
                      complexities of the climate feedback mechanisms are
                      discussed.”
                      http://www.sciencemag.org/content/240/4850/293.full.pdf

                      This article is actually quite useful, as it is from 1988 and therefore actually has some predictions at the catastrophist end of the scale (Fig 4). By now global temperatures should be shooting up at 0.5 deg C per decade. They aren’t.
                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                      17 July 2012 at 8:59 pm

                      “According to the greenhouse theory of climate change, the climate system will be restored to equilibrium by a warming of the surface troposphere system and a cooling of the stratosphere. ”

                      Verified by observations.

                      Fig. 4 is behind a pay-wall – convenient – but I note you chose an extreme outlier model run (0.5°C per decade) as your bench-mark. Why?

                      Is your argument so weak that it needs a cherry picker for support?

                      PS: you still haven’t linked to the theory you claim exists. The abstract you quote says nothing about “catastrophic” at all.
                      You are confusing predicted consequences with theory.
                  • Richard Christie …

                    17 July 2012 at 9:11 pm

                    It would be more convincing if your quote made any reference whatsoever to the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

                    Blow harder Wrathall.
              • jaymam …

                18 July 2012 at 12:27 am

                So, do you deny that there is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
                Excellent, then there is nothing to worry about. We can get rid of the carbon tax and sack most of the “climate scientists”.
                • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                  18 July 2012 at 7:00 am

                  No. You need some remedial English comprehension lessons.
                • RedLogix …

                  18 July 2012 at 7:19 am

                  Again a fail. In the real world there is no quantum distinction between AGW and CAGW. They are merely different places on the same continuum of possible outcomes. We know and agree that AGW is real; which is progress. Now we want to know what might happen as a consequence.

                  If we have several thousand earth’s to run the AGW experiment on we would be able to gather enough evidence to give you a statistically confident answer. But we don’t, we have only one planet and we cannot live with possibility of the experiment yielding a ‘catastrophic’ outcome. This is not the same as a collider experiment where we can smash trillions of particles and examine billions of events… this is a one time only experiment.

                  Therefore the criteria we apply to the situation have to be different. We cannot demand statistical “5-sigma” certainty because it cannot be provided… any attempt to do so is fraught with insane difficulties.

                  What we can however is look to the past behaviour of this planet’s climate and try to see what has happened. This is still a hard problem, but entirely doable. What it tells us in broad terms is that whenever the atmosphere has a CO2 concentration over 350 ppm for any geologic length of time, all the ice-caps melt and sea-level is about 80-120m higher than it is at present. And this in response to relatively slow natural processes, like orbital change.

                  Of course we are not doing something slow and gradual. When we look at the record we can see that the climate changes all the time, often in response to quite modest drivers. This can only increase the probability that if we add a sudden driver like increasing CO2 concentration about 25% in 120 years or so … that the climate will respond in an equally dramatic manner.

                  If you want to argue otherwise it is up to YOU to suggest a hypothesis and produce a body of coherent evidence that climate change should not and cannot change in response to increasing CO2 over 350 ppm
                  • Steve Wrathall …

                    18 July 2012 at 10:00 am

                    In other words, you admit that CAGW is unproven, but when you’re sure it’ll be too late. This is just Pascal’s wager in a cheap tuxedo.

                    Funny how in a thread whose title likens CAGW sceptics with creationists, it turns out that the alarmists rely on theistic arguments.
                    • RedLogix …

                      18 July 2012 at 10:42 am

                      Of course it is ‘unproven’. You are using the word ‘proof’ in this context in a completely illegitimate fashion. As I tried to explain earlier, here, the word ‘proof’ in the sense of ‘absolutely true’ is only strictly applicable when we are talking about logic and mathematics.

                      In the physical sciences there is no such thing as ‘absolute truth’.

                      We know that AGW is real. What you are now arguing is that the consequences will be minor and can be ignored. Alternately there is the possibility that they could be major and impossible to ignore… the difference simply being a matter of degree. (Literally). There is no way to “prove” in the absolute sense either of these propositions. All we can do is look at the evidence and decide which is more probable; and what the plausible consequences will be.

                      Pascal has nothing much to do with it. Even if we ignore all the experts and assign an arbitrary 50:50 evens chance that each of us is right; then it simply becomes a matter of “Expected Outcome”.

                      The cost of acting on AGW is price we pay to transition off fossil carbon fuels now. It is a price we have to pay sooner or later anyhow.. because they finite and will reach extraction limits within 100 years. So we know what this cost will be and that we will eventually have to pay it within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren. In fact it makes sense to pay this cost sooner rather than later, because it will be cheaper to do now while we still have the resources to undertake it.

                      The cost of NOT acting on AGW is a 50% chance of mass die-off. Even the Russian’s played roulette with only one bullet in the chamber.
                  • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                    18 July 2012 at 10:06 am

                    Such a valiant attempt to look like a tool cannot go unrewarded.

                    Munich Re have a pretty clear definition of what constitutes “catastrophic.”

                    That noise is your big bag of air deflating.
        • McFlock 10.1.1.2

          17 July 2012 at 4:12 pm

          The most obvious observation that would negate the CAGW hypothesis is, of course, if atmospheric CO2 went to 500ppm and average global temperatures stayed at the point they are now, ocean acidification stopped dead with many fishes still in the sea, and we all lived happily ever after.
                     
          Or if we burned all the fossil fuels in the planet with no corresponding increase on atmospheric carbon, let alone temperatures or acidification.
                   
          These are logically possible observations to make. I very much doubt that they will be made, however – what with real scientists consistently observing the opposite. Bet your kids’ lives on it? 
          • Steve Wrathall 10.1.1.2.1

            17 July 2012 at 6:53 pm

            Both of these will take many decades, if not centuries to come to pass. What could you observe NOW that would falsify CAGW?
            • Kotahi Tane Huna 10.1.1.2.1.1

              17 July 2012 at 6:56 pm

              If the ratio of weather-related disaster events to geological related disaster events were static or moving in the opposite direction, that would present some hard questions.
            • McFlock 10.1.1.2.1.2

              17 July 2012 at 8:14 pm

              You could observe various geological and paleolithic indicators of both atmospheric CO2 and earth temperature and see if there’s any correlation.
                     
              Oh wait, that’s the shit that makes us worry about AGW in the first place.
                   
              If the weight of the data were against any relationship between carbon cycles and earth temperature, it would disprove AGW. Unfortunately for you, the real world seems to support the hypothesis of AGW. 
                 
              Just like if everything suddenly fell of f the face of the earth, those of us hanging on by our fingertips would have to seriously rethink the concept of gravity. 
              • Steve Wrathall …

                17 July 2012 at 8:46 pm

                I’m not disputing that the extra AGHGs must have some marginal warming effect. What is disputed is whether this effect is catastrophic.
                • McFlock …

                  17 July 2012 at 11:14 pm

                  Erratum
                  re: my comment 17 july 8:14pm.
                  For AGW read “CAGW”.
                  End.
                • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                  18 July 2012 at 6:58 am

                  No, it isn’t “disputed” – groundless assertions ≠ “disputation”.

                  Basically what I am saying here is that Steve Wrathall’s “opinion” is utterly worthless.
11. Kotahi Tane Huna 11

    17 July 2012 at 3:52 pm

    No, Steven, you are repeating a popular summation of the predictions made by Climatology. The theory that underpins Climatology is essentially Quantum Mechanics – molecular dipoles bending and stretching in an electro-magnetic field, that sort of thing.

    You can easily refute me, of course, by linking to the peer-reviewed “theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”, as published in a scientific journal.

    You’ve got a strawman, I’m afraid.

    The prediction that summer would warm less than winter though, or that the stratosphere would cool while the surface warms, or that the Arctic would warm more than the Antarctic – it’s pretty obvious what would refute those predictions.

    Just like the prediction that the Hadley cells would expand. Or that Countdown would stay open late on a Thursday. Actually I just made that last one up.
12. Tom 12

    18 July 2012 at 7:13 am

    Your image is an insult to the genus pan troglodytes, not to mention pan paniscus from the other side of the Congo !

    Please expect a writ from a tribe of lawyers known to inhabit the darker recesses of Thorndon and the Wellington Club
13. ghostwhowalksnz 13

    18 July 2012 at 9:05 am

    Google has put out a scientific paper detailing how they built their database

    http://research.google.com/archive/bigtable.html

    Why cant NIWA do the same with its temperature data- showing what they started with, why they made the changes and what they have ended up with.

    It doesnt appear that they have done anything outside accepted scientific processes but like any scientific paper you have to show others how you got there.
    • Kotahi Tane Huna 13.1

      18 July 2012 at 9:10 am

      You mean like this?
      • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.1

        18 July 2012 at 9:26 am

        This is just an archive ,( which gives a 404 !). Where is the scientific paper to support it.

        How the ‘seven-station’ series is constructed

        For each location, temperature records from a number of local sites have been merged together to form a long time series. When merging different temperature records like this, it is necessary to adjust for climatic differences from place-to-place, or even changes in exposure or instrumentation at the same site. If no adjustments are made, significant biases could be introduced.
        Great they made adjustments, wheres the paper
        • Kotahi Tane Huna 13.1.1.1

          18 July 2012 at 9:32 am

          I don’t know. Have you searched for one? Or asked NIWA? Or clicked on a single one of the links to supporting material on this page? Or the equivalent page that discusses the eleven station series?
          • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.1.1.1

            18 July 2012 at 9:43 am

            Im only vaguely aware of this temperature record issue.

            But its like free speech, which is not for mainstream political parties , its for the nutters. If you have free speech only for mainstream opinion but say it doesnt extend to fringe opinion then its not free speech.

            Now that I have looked , there is an ‘overview’ .
            http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/OverView-7Stn-Series-web.pdf

            Is this what counts as a scientific paper ?
        • Colonial Viper 13.1.1.2

          18 July 2012 at 9:37 am

          Why cant NIWA do the same with its temperature data- showing what they started with, why they made the changes and what they have ended up with.

          I dunno, maybe because NIWA is underfunded to the tune of 30% and don’t have the spare staff to do this nice to have navel gazing stuff?
          • Kotahi Tane Huna 13.1.1.2.1

            18 July 2012 at 9:45 am

            It’s funny, the old saw used to be “where’s your raw data?” NIWA publish the raw data – “where’s the peer-reviewed paper”!

            Are they too lazy to discover anything on New Zealand temperature series published in the International Journal of Climatology in 2001 for themselves?
            • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.1.2.1.1

              18 July 2012 at 9:59 am

              Doesn’t a scientific paper include both the raw data ( usually a requirement of the publisher) , the technical analysis and the conclusions.

              Are you saying it hasnt been done. Or it has been done and the claimants are too lazy to put the jigsaw together.
              • Colonial Viper …

                18 July 2012 at 10:25 am

                Somebody want to fund them to do it I am sure they will. Pointing at ‘laziness’ as the no. 1 issue is bullshit.
                • ghostwhowalksnz …

                  18 July 2012 at 10:51 am

                  Apparently it has been done , and adjustments are an ongoing process. But finding the answers has become a game of pin the tail on the donkey.
          • RedLogix 13.1.1.2.2

            18 July 2012 at 9:47 am

            My inside source tells me that NIWA regard the whole climate change thing as a settled and done deal and they have other priorities to pursue.

            It’s actually GNS (Geological and Nuclear Sciences) across the harbour at Seaview who are running most of the AGW action these days.
          • ghostwhowalksnz 13.1.1.2.3

            18 July 2012 at 9:48 am

            Are you saying writing up a scientific paper to show the technical analysis all ready done is ‘navel gazing’?

            I would have thought publishing research for peer journals is a basic part of their work. And in fact what the working scientists all want . Even in their spare time !
            • Kotahi Tane Huna 13.1.1.2.3.1

              18 July 2012 at 9:53 am

              I’m saying you are too lazy to discover for yourself that which it took me less than one minute to find on Google Scholar.

              Why are you taking your internet-related inadequacy as evidence of something NIWA may or may not have done?
              • ghostwhowalksnz …

                18 July 2012 at 10:16 am

                So because Im not obsessed over this and know very little , but curious about a hearing before a judge, its all proof of my inadequacy. Not everybody is a NIWA website denizen. My first hit came up as a 404.
                Certainly for my purposes the ins and outs of temperature readings at Mangere /Albert Park etc make interesting reading.

                The countrywide warming picture I dont have an issue with as I understood it involves standard scientific processes to come up with a number
                • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                  18 July 2012 at 10:22 am

                  Nope. I did a scholar search for NZ temperature series – before that I was none the wiser. You are the one making assertions about NIWA – how they hadn’t done this and that.

                  Surely before making allegations you check?
              • ghostwhowalksnz …

                18 July 2012 at 10:26 am

                What have you found on google scholar ?

                I have found that there is a 9m variation in the estimated elevation of temperature stations made in Albert Park vicinity. A quick check of Council LIDAR elevations could improve their ‘guesses’. Too lazy I suppose to use the internet.

                In addition there is this:
                We do not, however, have high confidence in the adjustments estimated for very early temperature data, and so have “not used” (column 7) these early adjusted temperatures in the revised NIWA temperature series for Auckland.
                http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/Auckland_CompositeTemperatureSeries_13Dec2010_FINAL.pdf

                Interesting to know that there is not “high confidence” is some adjustments. In fact the whole adjustment saga is a moveable feast with reference stations being changed at will .
                • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                  18 July 2012 at 10:36 am

                  Nine whole metres? Wow! Considering the temperature lapse rate with altitude is about -6.4°C/km, that must be about the least significant observation on this thread since we last heard from Steve Wrathall.

                  What did my search for NZ temperature series find? That the International Journal of Climatology published a paper in 2001, but I already said that nearly an hour ago.
                  • ghostwhowalksnz …

                    18 July 2012 at 10:57 am

                    The latest major effort on the adjustments was done in 2010, some previous adjustments were discarded, there seems have been an internal dispute over Mangere treatment AWS being a base station as it was first used and then discarded some years later

                    This is the sort of stuff I love
                  • ghostwhowalksnz …

                    18 July 2012 at 4:14 pm

                    DALR is 9.8C/km
                    Considering they are making adjustments to the second decimal place ( so much for having better things to do with their funding) 10 m does seem to matter
                    • Kotahi Tane Huna …

                      18 July 2012 at 4:47 pm

                      The average is about -6.4°C/km.

                      “Trends in NZ daily temperature and rainfall extremes”, Sallinger & Griffiths, published 2001 in the International Journal of Climatology, has a section on data and methods which might answer your questions.

                      “There were no significant trends in maximum temperature extremes (‘hot days’) but a significant increase in minimum temperatures was associated with decreases in the frequency of extreme ‘cold nights’ over the 48-year period. ”

                      Arrhenius knew his stuff.
                • RedLogix …

                  18 July 2012 at 11:07 am

                  Yes.. because when these sites were originally set up it was for the purpose of reporting on the weather. Weather is a short-term phenomenon and for this reason their long-term multi-decadal absolute accuracy was simply not treated as the most important parameter in their thinking at the time.

                  No-one imagined that many decades into the future we would be trying to mine this data for long-term climate trends and that the long-term stability would become important.

                  In other words as with virtually all real science, the raw data is not perfect, complete or absolute. It almost never is. Invariably it needs filtering, adjusting, compensating, windowing… or any of a whole bunch of statistical tools applying to it.

                  This adds a whole step into the process that demands real understanding of the data you have, it’s limitations and the methods required to extract useful meaning from it. Most outside non-experts are completely unaware of this perfectly normal and vital process … which is why it’s so easy to get this part wrong.
14. Colonial Viper 14

    18 July 2012 at 10:23 am

    Energy depletion and peak debt driven economic decline is going to do more to reduce climate change in the next 20 years that any new legislation or Kyoto Protocol.

    Forget about climate change, we need to survive the near term (one generation) transition off oil as a civilisation.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 14.1

      18 July 2012 at 11:02 am

      Some would say this the role for nuclear power. But Im not amoung them.
      Oils problem is that too much is used for ground transport but we have solved that technical problem . From now on its a ‘cultural issue’ for existing users
      • Colonial Viper 14.1.1

        18 July 2012 at 4:48 pm

        You can’t do nuclear power under oil depletion conditions because you will have no way to decommission nuclear plants without heavy machinery, transport and logistics on a large scale.

        Or you could go ahead anyway, but you’d be stuffed with dangerous radioactive hulks at the end of their useful life in 50-100 years time and no way whatsoever to decommission them.
      • jaymam 14.1.2

        19 July 2012 at 12:07 am

        Hopefully suitable and cheap batteries will be developed for vehicles. One possibility is zinc-air batteries that can be quickly swapped at service stations. With hydro, geothermal and wind power, NZ could have many electric vehicles.
        • Kotahi Tane Huna 14.1.2.1

          19 July 2012 at 6:26 am

          “Hopefully”

          Yes, that pie-in-the-sky would be delicious if only we had a long enough ladder.
          • jaymam 14.1.2.1.1

            19 July 2012 at 9:01 am

            Well what is your suggestion for powering ground transport without using oil? I do maintain such vehicles but both types are impractical for roads.
            • Kotahi Tane Huna 14.1.2.1.1.1

              19 July 2012 at 9:22 am

              I think it’s unlikely that the era of individual motorised transport will survive at anything like the current scale. Electric vehicles still need roads to run on. Roads require bitumen, etc. Never mind the massive investment in infrastructure required, and the relentlessly destructive weather.
    • Kotahi Tane Huna 14.2

      18 July 2012 at 4:22 pm

      CV this is my feeling too. We have missed the window of opportunity (if there ever truly was one) to avoid major upheaval and must now adapt by necessity.
      • Colonial Viper 14.2.1

        18 July 2012 at 4:56 pm

        The answers to that adaptation are going to be heavily localised as well by the nature of it. By the time central govt wakes up enough to carry out any co-ordinated action, it will be very late in the piece.
        • Kotahi Tane Huna 14.2.1.1

          18 July 2012 at 5:15 pm

          It looks like they’re doing something, but delve a little deeper into the “central government” section and all you find are broken links.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS