Slashdot Mirror

How did they break the trend of electricity costs increasing with deployed renewables that has struck all other nations?

Yay, another guy trying to disprove decades of work by thousands of climate scientists by liking to a single climate skeptic's blog.

How did they break the trend of electricity costs increasing with deployed renewables that has struck all other nations?

which is over global warming which we know to be anthropogenic

Nothing a Tasmanian shaman wouldn't claim, when trying to explain the rising seas turning the peninsula into an island: "Bring me the offerings so I can pray to the spirits to spare what's left of our land! And kill the deniers!"

Summary of the Forbes story and another report with the same conclusion. Check the graphs in the second link, especially. The data seems quite clear - the more renewables a nation deploys (particularly wind and solar), the more it pays for electricity.

Data seems to suggest that the higher your amount of renewable power, the higher the cost of electricity. Somewhat counter-intuitive, but the trend seems to be pretty clear.

Why, because you want our power costs to skyrocket like other countries who have done a big wind + solar push? More renewables = higher electricity costs...

If the yearly human emissions of CO2 are more than twice the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels how can that not be significant in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Actually, you've answered your own question - if atmospheric levels aren't rising as fast as they should given human emissions of CO2, it's obvious that there are dynamic processes that don't care if humans emit 100gt/year, or 200gt/year, and adapt to any change in that source. It *could* be that there is some residual effect, but at this point, there's no evidence that there is any sort of point where the natural climate system doesn't respond dynamically to perturbations in sources (and sinks for that matter).

In the same way a buffer solution neutralizes acids and bases, it's pretty clear to see that our CO2 levels in the atmosphere are likely balanced the same way.

Here's the reference for the 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature: http://joannenova.com.au/globa... There are multiple points on the graph where temp goes down while CO2 goes up.

What does a "normal global average" mean? What is normal and what is natural variation?

The "years before present" in one of those is years before about 2000.
I thought xkcd put it well. It's not just the temperature but the rate of change of temperature which is unnatural.

What does a "normal global average" mean? What is normal and what is natural variation?

Oh, a cartoon. Strange how this looks nothing like the Vostok or Greenland core data. One could almost imagine it's cherry picked data that's first been massaged by the hairy hands of a fraudster. I'd be careful with that if I were you.

I was rather more hoping for a summary than a direct link to the 2007 report.

If I were a global warming scientist, I would already have read through those hundreds of pages. As a non-scientist, with things I need to do, I somewhat rely on news stories, like this one:

One of the central issues is believed to be why the IPCC failed to account for the âoepauseâ in global warming, which they admit that they did not predict in their computer models. Since 1997, world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase.
The summary also shows that scientist have now discovered that between 950 and 1250 AD, before the Industrial Revolution, parts of the world were as warm for decades at a time as they are now.

Despite a 2012 draft stating that the world is at itâ(TM)s warmest for 1,300 years, the latest document states: âoe'Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.â

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

And then I read through the PDFs at this site:

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/

The tone is rather tendentious (especially the second PDF) but I find the arguments compelling. As I understand it, the CAGW theory is that feedbacks will cause the warming to "run away" precipitously once we reach a cruical tipping point, but the PDFs have graphs showing the Earth once had a significantly higher CO2 concentration than currently without turning into another Venus. The annual news stories about "the previous year was the warmest on record" don't seem to mention error bars, and when I tracked some down I was astonished to see that the margin for the "warmest" claim was a small fraction of the uncertainty interval. And in my original post, now modded down to 0 score, I provided the link to an article with graphs comparing the predicted temperature increases with what actually were recorded.

I have seen proposals for a carbon tax that was intended to take trillions of dollars out of the economy. (The authors of the proposal viewed this as a feature: trillions of tax dollars of additional revenue for the US government! I personally don't think you can get something for nothing, so I worry about the harm that would occur if that level of tax was levied.) I think that this level of tax should require a high level of confidence, and I personally am not at that level yet.

Thank you for responding politely. You haven't convinced me and I likely haven't convinced you, but I hope you at least believe that I'm genuinely skeptical and not just trolling or trying to flame people about this.

Well, CO2 is driven by temperature. Of course it will correlate.

http://joannenova.com.au/globa...

Yea - wrong. But thanks for playing our game. Here is your participation ribbon!

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/...

Jane, you're still just regurgitating accusations from the script kiddie who can't tell the difference between blackmail and courtesy. Are you regurgitating his accusations because you saw them at Jo Nova's website? Remember that Jo Nova snipped Lonny's comments and finally called him "Loony". Is it possible that Jo Nova made a mistake, or is Lonny Loony?

I have it on good authority that those comments on Jo Nova's site were made by an imposter. I wonder who it could have been? Any ideas? [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Ask Lonny Eachus. He suspects he knows who it was:

It's old news, but someone just pointed out this page to me: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/... ... Comments on that page were not made by me. Someone used my name (and I even suspect I know who it was), but it definitely wasn't me. As you can probably guess, there aren't many people running around with that name. Someone was trying to smear me. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-08-22]

Who does Lonny suspect it was? This should be hilarious.

... I wasn't "regurgitating" anything. Nor was I repeating "accusations". ... whose words do you imagine I am "regurgitating"? I haven't done so. ... Again, all the evidence in my possession says Motl's accusation was correct. If you wish me to think otherwise, show me some contrary evidence. [Jane Q. Public, 2015-08-22]

Jane, you regurgitated Motl's accusation of identity theft which doubled as a blackmail threat. Then you repeatedly aided and abetted his nonsensical attempt at character assassination.

And here you are, continuing to insist that Motl's baseless accusation of identity theft was somehow correct. Why aren't you and Motl accusing political cartoonists like WUWT's Josh of "identity theft" and threatening them with blackmail?

So, just so you are aware:

John Cook did "appear" in social media dressed as a Nazi. Whether the picture is real or photoshopped, I don't know. For all I know, he was dressed up (in poor taste) for Halloween.

there is now a general consensus that 2014 was the hottest single year since temperature record keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization.

You say hottest; I say "tied for hottest."

It's hottest by 0.02 degrees with error bars of +/- 0.1 degrees!

Would you say it is science for NOAA, NASA, et. al. to issue a press release without the numbers? In particular the error bars?

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/gavin-schmidt-now-says-they-are-only-38-sure-2014-was-the-hottest-year/

Crappy and totally uninformative graph. Try some high resolution ones.

Then understand that follows temps

Even the Skeptical Science people agree but they try to dismiss it with a bunch of speculative "Ya...but...".

Even the IPCC admits this.

Facts are facts no matter where you find them. Don't be a Face Painting Homer cheering "my team rules, no matter what the score!"

Because it's bollocks.

No, actually, it's quite true. Just a few examples:

Dana Nuccitelli (of Skeptical Science - an AGW support blog) is actually employed at Tetra Tech (the big oil company).

Pew Charitable Trust's Center for Climate and Energy Solutions are principally funded by Royal Dutch Shell, HP, and Entergy Corp.

The World Wildlife Foundation also received a lot of funding from Royal Dutch Shell, and John Loudon (former Shell president) actually served as the WWF president for four years.

Standard Oil's charitable arm has given millions of dollars to Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and others.

Four companies sponsor Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project: Exxon General Electric Sluberger (Oil Field Services company) Toyota

In this sucking mud swamp of a debate, it is entirely possible to get completely opposite claims with lots of supporting data depending on which Google search terms you use to fortify your position.

Quote:

Numbers released today by NOAAâ(TM)s National Climatic Data Center show that not only has July been abnormally cool in the USA, but so has 2014 in general. For the last 30 days, there have been 574 record highest temperatures in the USA, and 1,726 record lowest. A ratio of 3 to 1, indicating that July was very cool. But, the year so far has also been cool.

So far for the USA year to date, the numbers of record lows outpace the highs two to one.

This year, here have been been 12,644 daily record lowest temperatures versus 6,615 record highest temperatures in the USA, a ratio of 1.91 to 1.0.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...

Remember the "Polar Vortex"? It was a cold damned Spring and Summer through 2014...

From Wikipedia:

The 2013-14 North American cold wave was an extreme weather event extending from December 2013 to April 2014, and was also part of an unusually cold winter affecting parts of Canada and the Eastern United States.[6] The event consisted of 2 episodes, the first one in December 2013 and the second in early 2014, both caused by southward shifts of the North Polar Vortex. Record cold temperatures also extended well into March.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2...â"14_North_American_cold_wave

Though, of course, this is blamed on AGW once again. "The planet is warming up, which is why you're freezing your tail off. Obviously."

Back in the debate swamp, "True Believers" claim that the "Deniers" are funded by the petro-chem industry to fudge data. That may be true. Truthfully, I've not checked. I *have* however checked to see that the AGW side can be accused of similar things; their funding comes from those who would benefit from carbon tax scams. Driven by fear of unemployment and professional crucifixion, they engage in all sorts of funny business...

BOM finally explains! Cooling changed to warming trends because stations "might" have moved!
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/...

But the thing I find interesting is that, as per usual, *nobody* in the MSM or really anywhere in the debate is looking at or discussing the other parallel trends. We've seen massive increases in comet/fireball activity and volcanic activity

"If you plot data from the last 200 years, there's a clear increase in the number of eruptions over time," Siebert said, "but that's not a function of the actual number of eruptions but rather due to reporting effects."
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/are-volcanic-eruptions-increasing.htm

-You'll notice that while the up-trend is beyond denial every official volcano news site in the first few Google page returns races to assure us that incidence of mountains blowing up are not *actually* on the increase. -It's simply that we have only recently become better at noticing when MOUNTAINS BLOW UP.

You'll excuse me if I find this to be a rather tenuous bit of self-calming very likely (my opinion) linked to the official media directives telling us that any of the bad CO2 must be due to human activities and certainly not any natural events. -Which, please note, is NOT why I bring up volcanoes.

CO2 doesn't interest me because nobody has yet put forth a viable explanation for why it would cause any significant net heat capture. CO2 works in both directions. CO2 is opaque to IR; like the clouds of Nuclear

If the greenies and those making billions off of CO2 hysteria, like Gore,

1) Citation needed.

Well, let's see. You could start by comparing the expenditures of a single "green" lobbying group, the "Environmental Defense Fund" of $120 million with the TOTAL lobbying dollars for all of the oil industry, which came in at about $71 million. Of course, we've left out all the big ones like the Sierra Club, SELC, Greenpeace, etc. To see what it's really like here is a handy chart for you.

Well
my first impression was that I didn't see any obvious error in logic, other than where he said this showed no greenhouse effect for earth or Venus; what he demonstrates is no EXTRA greenhouse effect on Venus. A couple of commenters call him on this but he misses it. Just a side issue though.
So, I did a search to see if anybody else had anything to say, and I find this
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/...
The gist of which is that this is coincidental, in that the albedo difference, which was left out, turns out to be the factor which accounts for the missing heat, which he can show by identifying it with the altitude of the venusian cloud layer.
There is additional information, in the form of a graph of temp vs pressure for both planets. It's a bit confusing. The green is labeled earth temp, so the blue must be Venus temp, and the two red lines ?? They're symmetrical around the blue so maybe confidence interval?
Anyway, you can see that the temps are parallel from pressures equal to earth surface (50 km up in Venus) to 60 km up, Venus ( up is to the left of the graph).
According to this guy, that's the altitude of the cloud level on Venus, so below that venus' atmosphere will be (1/1.1) the temp due to the reduced albedo.
Up from there, you can see that the Venus temp falls off more quickly than the earth temp, as expected by the additional CO2 absorbing the IR more; greenhouse effect warms the surface and lower atmosphere while cooling the upper atmosphere.
And on the right side of the graph you can see that as the pressure rises above earth 's surface level, towards Venus ' surface, the temp continues to rise as expected until you get to the proverbial hellhole.
I checked the guy's primary source for that temp graph and it checks out, and I looked for altitude of Venus' cloud and that checked out with this site http://www.esa.int/Our_Activit...
So I have to decide which model/argument to follow. I chose the second guy, because 1) he can explain the observations in terms of well established mechanisms, whereas the no - greenhouse model has the mystery of why there is no greenhouse. (This is something not well understood in the big debate; when you have something as well understood as CO2 absorbing IR, and you can even see it operate in that graph of earth's emission spectrum, if you say it doesn't exist you are ADDING an effect, not subtracting one, and Occam's razor works against you unless you have proof of why it doesn't operate. Maybe this is what trips the guy up regarding his not understanding that his calculations leave the greenhouse effect operating on earth, but having the same effect on Venus, rather than his jump to it not opetating in either place)
2) and the second guy provides more data, demonstrating that the equivalence only occurs below the venusian cloud layer, which would require even more complication for the no - greenhouse theory to explain.
But, bottom line, for me as a somewhat informed reader, I couldn't see the holes In the first guy's theory without copying off the expert's test paper.

That one link got messed up. Here's the correct one.

Meanwhile, after you read past the end-of-the-world predictions that were likely lifted directly from one of those churches that makes a living predicting the End Times, here's a more realistic assessment from a real economist who told the IPCC to remove his name from their "summary": http://joannenova.com.au/2014/...

People here tend to forget that the UN is filled to the brim with corruption. That their human rights body is chaired by countries with the worst human rights records -- and worse, that this is allowed to continue -- demonstrates why everything that comes out of the UN should be looked at with the greatest scepticism.

Meanwhile, after you read past the end-of-the-world predictions that were likely lifted directly from one of those churches that makes a living predicting the End Times, here's a more realistic assessment from a real economist who told the IPCC to remove his name from their "summary":
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/...

"... and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted. That seems to be the opposite of "totally wrong" to me."

No, it's not "the opposite of wrong"... it's just wrong. We HAVEN'T observed the warming that was predicted.

A paper in Nature last September (pdf) was a study of 117 of the most-cited CO2 climate warming models. 114 of them not only overestimated warming, the average (mean) amount they exaggerated warming (versus actual observed temperatures) was MORE THAN 100%.

And if you think that is somehow an anomaly, I assure you it isn't. The climate hasn't "warmed" in at least 16 years. AGW-proponent climate scientists publicly admit that they have no idea why.The reason is simple: their theory is fundamentally flawed.

The fact is, the theory of Catastrophic Greenhouse Gas Warming is just plain weak "science", and always has been. There is an awful lot of counter-evidence that you just haven't heard about because you have to actually look for it. It isn't spoon-fed to you by the government or the news.

Not to mention the truckloads of evidence that have continued to build concerning the compromised integrity of data, and its irresponsible handling by said climate scientists.

Add to that the publicly reported "statistics" that are so distorted one might even be justified in calling them fraudulent, like the bogus "97% consensus" claim.

And if you think "there has been no serious dispute" of these CO2-based warming claims, as many climate scientists and their supporters have tried to claim, you would be mistaken. That is a list of just some of the peer-reviewed papers that disagree.

There are mountains of such information out there, if you just but look. Do yourself and everyone else a favor, and be more skeptical.

"I never know if you are lying or just confused. But what you say is not correct. Neither that there is any dispute, nor that you've ever pointed me to any page that says otherwise.

Confused or lying? Lying or confused? All in a single post."

Okay. On the outrageously infinitesimal probability that you have argued with me so frequently but missed the hundreds of links I have posted, here are just a few of them. First, about the physics. (If you are unfamiliar with how this relates to AGW, I suggest you look up some of the discussions of the physics of CO2-based AGW according to climate scientists, including the Stefan-Boltzmann law.)

No, Virginia, Cooler Objects Cannot Make Warmer Objects Warmer Still.

Then, let's see... there are so many to choose from. I have 120 bookmarks of these from just the last couple of years... most of which I've linked to here. And more written down from years prior. Hey, here's one. About that "97% consensus". (Note here: this information did not come from Christopher Monckton, but he did write about it. The same points are available in more painstaking detail elsewhere. I linked to this same information from a different source a few days ago. The point being: don't try shooting the messenger. I'll just laugh at you. If you can refute the message, go ahead.)

"That's a 0.3% consensus, not 97%"

Because, you see, according to an actual survey of AMS members, it turns out that their opinion of AGW is actually based more on their "perception of consensus" (rather than science) and their "political ideology" (rather than science). Wow. I would never would have guessed that latter. Just kidding. I most certainly would have. But isn't that what you accused ME of? What a coincidence!

If you don't like reading about it on WUWT, here is a link so you can download the paper directly from the American Meteorological Society's own website.

How about some information regarding the actual CO2-based-warming climate models?

Hmm. How about: how IPCC has deliberately mislead the public.

And more of that: "IPCC Scientists Knew Data and Science Inadequacies Contradicted..."

Yet another reason bogus claims about expensive storms have been bogus...

How 114 out of 117 climate models studied exaggerated warming by a mean of over 100% (pdf). That one is from Nature.

No dispute? Hahahaha.

Wait... this wouldn't be complete (it isn't anyway, not by a long shot) without just a hint of the boatload of evidence that Steve Goddard has been compiling about dishonest temperature information being fed to us by our erstwhile "authorities" on the matter.

Well, hell. I could do this all day. So here's a list of more references you can read for yourself, all peer-reviewed. I'm not going to count them.

That is ridiculous. IPCC predictions v reality. The journal Nature also published Michael Mann's idiotic hockey stick and Steig's ridiculous Antarctic warming paper. And as we know from this story, it wouldn't publish anything that goes against the paradigm in any case, although recently it has tried to be at least a little more circumspect in its editorials. That's the whole point, which you seem to have missed from the OP. Here's a blog about it.

If you were trying to make money from climate research and looked around to see which side would bring the most bucks, you would come to the conclusion that the global warmist side has the most to offer.

The grants from government and government-like bodies are in the billions. Oil companies don't spend billions trying to disprove global warming despite what you may think. They can't, it would raise too many alarm bells and draw shareholder ire besides. Last figure I saw was $23 million... a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the money spent trying to prove global warming.

In the first article, Postma was trying to describe, in layman's terms, the mechanism

I have read the article, sir. That is not what it claims at all. It contains the following clear claims:

1. There are two things called "The Greenhouse Effect" (false)
2. The observed heat increase in a greenhouse can be entirely explained by trapped convection(true)
3. Therefore the actual greenhouse effect doesn't exist.(false)

At the very end of the article, in the line before the results section, Postma attempts to jam in a different premise about "maximum solar heating". However, as I explained in my previous comment, no evidence is offered to support it. Additionally, as I have also explained twice, the extra PDF you linked to has nothing to do with the article.

Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to move the goalposts. That article does not mention any of the following at all:

• back radiation
• The second law of thermodynamics
• thermodynamics
• Stefan-Boltzmann law
• any mention of colder bodies heating warmer ones
• Roy Spencer
• Anybody called "Latour "

Even if this is a "layman's explanation", it is not a layman's explanation of the argument you are now making. I believe this brings the discussion to an end.

As a service to you: You probably still have some questions or confusions about "the greenhouse effect violating the second law of thermodynamics." This isn't correct, for two main reasons:

1. Thermodynamics applies to complete systems. You could "disprove" any law of thermodynamics you'd like by simply examining incomplete systems and models.
2. CO2 does not heat the ground, it effectively slows the rate at which the (hot) ground loses heat to (cold) space.

There are many things you can read that explain this more fully. Start with the link below and move on to Google for more evidence, but I suggest that if you have issues with them, you discuss them on the appropriate forums rather than attempting to shoehorn them in to this discussion.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/why-greenhouse-gas-warming-doesnt-break-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics/

As I understand it, the word "deniers" in this context means "anyone who questions the official 'consensus' position on CAGW".

There are some people who are just insane and believe insane things, like CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas and the whole thing is a Government Plot. There are other people who question the final conclusion and some of the steps that lead to it; for example, disagreements over the amount of feedback caused by increased atmospheric water vapor. As far as I can tell, CAGW believers lump all their opponents into one bucket, "deniers". And I doubt it is a coincidence that "deniers" is part of the famous phrase "Holocaust Deniers"... it's a great way to tar the opposition subtly and, pardon the pun, deniably.

Since you yourself referred to "the deniers" as if they are a uniform bloc, and dismissively said "The deniers will believe whatever their masters tell them", it would appear that you are one of these people who lump the opposition together and dismiss them.

Did I say "dismiss them"? Oh, you actually said: "They need to be minimized, ignored, shoved aside."

Well, with my ground prepared, I am now ready to explain my counter-position to you. It is: Fuck you, you fucking douchebag. Science is a debate of ideas, and you just outright said that you want to crush part of the debate and not let it be heard.

If a "denier" claims that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, we can put some CO2 into a greenhouse and measure what happens. And we don't even need to do it because it has already been done, we can just cite an already-written study. (Like, say, a junior high-school textbook.) So we can shut up those crazies without needing to do it pre-emptively.

If a "denier" points out that the "hockey stick" computer model can take random input data and produce a hockey-stick graph, that's an important entry into the scientific debate. Would you squash that pre-emptively?

If a "denier" double-checks the CAGW predictions and points out multiple places where the predictions were WRONG, would you squash that pre-emptively?

If a crazy person orders you to verify that gravity still works, you can drop a few weights and measure what happens. If these CAGW true believer scientists are so certain of CAGW then they should have done the research and presented the data. If they are right, this additional research would bolster their position. If they are wrong, and the data points it out, then as scientists they should want the correction.

Refusing to study part of a problem because you don't like the person who requested it? That's not science.

A paper published today in The Cryosphere finds Antarctica has been gaining surface ice and snow accumulation over the past 150+ years, and finds acceleration in some areas noting, “a clear increase in accumulation of more than 10% has occurred in high Surface Mass Balance coastal regions and over the highest part of the East Antarctic ice divide since the 1960s.

And I mean that literally. The CAGW folks are saying we must take drastic steps to prevent disaster: shut down coal plants even if it means blackouts on the Eastern Seaboard, capture all the emissions from smokestacks and pump the CO2 underground, spend and/or lose trillions of dollars on the projects. The problem with this is that people don't think the alleged threat of CAGW is worth that level of pain.

People will buy a Prius, and feel good about it. But that is a rational decision, since a Prius costs less to feed than other cars. People will not, in general, sell their cars and start bicycling to work to Save The Planet, because that's a pain and they don't take the threat seriously.

I personally am a Climate Change Denier (oh no!). I don't think the CAGW guys have proven their case to the level required for me to take it seriously.

The "hockey stick" turns out to be much less robust than originally claimed. And the "hockey stick" model can make an alarming hockey stick graph out of random input data.

There are serious questions that the CAGW folks have not adequately answered, such as "CO2 levels are higher than ever so why is the warming flat?" "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but we have had enough for decades and additional CO2 does little, so why should additional CO2 matter?" "Where is the hot spot?"

And the ClimateGate emails showed collusion to tamper with or suppress evidence the CAGW guys didn't like, collusion to keep skeptical papers out of the peer-reviewed journals and then point at those papers and say "Hah, those were never published in the peer-reviewed journals", "Mike's Nature trick" to "hide the decline".

Worst of all, some of the top CAGW guys massaged and massaged the data, and destroyed the original data making it impossible to fact-check.

Extraordinary propositions require extraordinary proof. I don't think the CAGW idea has been proven to the level that I am comfortable with the extreme measures that have been proposed to fight it.

Freedom of speech implies that the speech is true. If big donors are bribing scientists to falsify information then that's fraud.

• The US government has provided over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, foreign aid, and tax breaks.
• Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors.
• Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
• Meanwhile in a distracting sideshow, Exxon-Mobil Corp is repeatedly attacked for paying a grand total of $23 million to skeptics—less than a thousandth of what the US government has put in, and less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
• The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into one theory, have we inadvertently created a self-fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Massive climate funding exposed

While I agree, I have to be careful, Dr. Mann has a tendency to sue people for saying fraud.

Oceans can't drive warming overall because they have no internal source of heat energy.

Well, assume the internal heat of the earth is negligible. The external source of ocean warming is solar - moderated by cloud albedo (which, we've been unable to model very well at this point).

Despite the fact that oceans are warming they are still absorbing CO2 because we've increased the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past ~200 years.

You're assuming that *we've* increased it - it could just as easily be that ocean outgassing has been pushing a 40% increase in partial pressure, and that if our CO2 emissions were to disappear tomorrow, the buffer of the ocean CO2 would simply fill that void to make up for the missing pressure (that is to say, CO2 is buffered in the atmosphere by the ocean, much like a buffer solution which will maintain its pH whether you add acid or base to it).

Ocean acidification is direct evidence of that.

Not quite sure about that. First, getting terms right, oceans are becoming less alkaline -> they're nowhere near becoming acidic. A tiny point, but important to be clear about what we mean.

Second, the variation of ocean pH is well above any proposed impact atmospheric CO2 (of any source) - there's no evidence that we can see any signal there in the noise - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/

may very well

There you go; pure speculation on your part.

Muller says only that hurricane numbers in the US are decreasing. The studies I linked show a trend of increasing observed numbers over the last 150 years, one of which correlates this with AGW, but later studies show that improved observation techniques are more likely the cause of the trend. No definite conclusion can be drawn yet. Thus, "scaremongering" about increased hurricane numbers is premature, and quite possibly misguided.

Muller does not say anything about hurricane intensity, as much as you'd like to think so. Emanuel 2005 shows that hurricane intensity is "highly correlated" with sea surface temperature, which Muller's own work shows is increasing, so he'd need strong evidence to the contrary to believe as you do.

Given that Elsner 2008 also observes that strong hurricanes are getting stronger, there's very good evidence to believe that the frequency of hurricane-related disasters will increase, and nothing Muller has actually said (you know, in words) indicates that he doubts this.

It's amusing, actually, watching people desperately reinterpreting the data or loudly rubbishing the messenger, all the while demonstrating even more strongly the same flaws in method that they're attempting to accuse the scientific community of.

That is true only if you believe that it's going to shoot off the chart. However, I think a more reasonable extrapolation might look something like this.

...thourougly debunked talking points

Dubunked? Talking points - as if that somehow means something? Do tell. What thouroughly debunked "talking points"? The scientific method? The fact that the UN is on their 5th model? The fact that CO2 is clearly behind the heat curve?
Ok, Scientific method - Go ahead and try to debunk that one.

UN's 5th model - yup, it is. More depending on how you count. How can you debunk fact? Each time it was revised down. Here's a rundown from the first one - http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/the-ipcc-1990-far-predictions-were-wrong/ .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?&grcc=99999&mod=WSJ_hps_sections_opinion . How the crazy MMGW crowd has been wrong time and time again - http://www.c3headlines.com/bad-predictions-failed.html (not for faint of heart. If you want the truth, it's there.)

CO2 is clearly behind the curve? Just look at the graph. How can you debunk what you can see with the naked eye? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg . That's the plot they don't like to show you. Ok, say you don't understand that, it's related. Then look at this real life plot with temperatures and CO2 - http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0168e65ad371970c-pi . Tough to be a true believer in mmgw if you know the facts.

Lastly, I have yet to read or hear anyone that was able to explain how from 1992 to 1993 Global warming went from something that is happening to Man is doing it? No scientific note, not even a foot note. It was just inserted in by Mr. Strong. If you want to even pretend that you have a point, explain how we get a conclusion like that without any scientific fact? Try as you might, you won't find why in that report.

Clearly not what I expected as a response from you. As I said and still say - if I'm wrong explain why. You don't have to do it directly. Just show me where they show that CO2 actually "traps" as they call it - Heat. Keep in mind "It's obvious" isn't scientific. Neither is anecdotal evidence. Science demands reproduceable, definitive results from an experiment. All doubt would go away at that point. Good luck with that, you'll need it.

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

OK, you believe that we can predict the behaviour of the climate. That's fine, but please give more information to prove your point. At the moment, all I see is that you're claiming belief as fact.

As for my argument, that we cannot consistently predict climate behaviour, this is supported by this information:
http://drtimball.com/2011/ipcc-predictions-scenarios-always-wrong-therefore-science-wrong/
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/further-evidence-of-the-failure-of-multi-decadal-regional-climate-predictions-to-by-of-value-to-the-impacts-communities/
http://www.rosettatranslation.com/media/catastrophic-climate-change-or-maybe-not/
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/dr-david-evans-the-skeptics-case/

And, for the argument, I'm not denying that climate change is happening. I believe it is. I'm just not convinced we can accurately predict it.

this Chinese study shows that in Central Eastern Tibet the MWP was at least as warm as today.

Of course there is. It's readily available for those who look. Start here and then spend some time over at wattsupwiththat.com. More scientific evidence than you can shake a hockey stick at.

Most of it shows that most of the globe was warmer about 700 years ago, and it was pretty damn awesome. More arable land everywhere (warmer AND wetter climate) generally milder weather patterns, and an extended growing season allowed civilization to flourish. Good times.

Unfortunately, it's looking like we are actually heading into an extended cooling period until roughly 2068 or thereabouts. In a way, I almost wish that AGW was true. I'd have more hope for our future. If things progress the way that the evidence shows, pack a parka. You'll need it.

Not to worry Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068

That's an informative graph covering the 126 year period from 1880-2006, The Chinese has constructed a 2,485-year temperature series

A blockbuster Chinese study of Tibetan tree rings by Liu et al 2011 shows, with detail, that the modern era is a dog-standard normal climate when compared to the last 2,500 years. The temperature, the rate of change — it’s all been seen before. Nothing about the current period is “abnormal”, indeed the current warming period in Tibet can be produced through calculation of cycles. Liu et al do a Fourier analysis on the underlying cycles and do brave predictions as well. Chinese 2,485 year tree ring study shows natural cycles control climate, temps may cool til 2068.

which puts a different perspective on things, even makes falsifiable predictions about the future, with their informative graphs. The entire article is available at Chinese Science Bulletin. I'm personally skeptical of Dendrochronology being able to accurately and reliable separate temperature influences from others like rain fall, analysis of other sources will prove interesting.

Did you bother trying to find out the full story here, you you just mindlessly accept what is fed to you?

Firstly, death threats are not M.O. of sceptics as you insist on presenting and demonizing those who disagree with you, in fact overwhelming majority sceptics condemn this sort of conduct.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/death-threats-are-never-ok-but-for-those-without-morals-they-can-be-a-useful-pr-tool/

I could point out to you that ugly hate inciting rhetoric flows both ways, including appalling examples within the recently liberated emails, but what would that achieve. Just a childish pointless he-said, she-said argument. Lets work on the assumption that most of us are decent respectful people. But reading some of the highly aggressive comments here one wonders about the mental fragility of some obviously emotionally disturbed fellow /.ers.

Finally, the death threats were not even death threats. The language is appalling and threatening and not acceptable, but it is not a death threat.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/to-a-climate-scientist-swearing-equals-a-death-threat-no-wonder-these-guys-cant-predict-the-weather/

But playing fast and loose with evidence is what climate science is all about hey?

Did you bother trying to find out the full story here, you you just mindlessly accept what is fed to you?

Firstly, death threats are not M.O. of sceptics as you insist on presenting and demonizing those who disagree with you, in fact overwhelming majority sceptics condemn this sort of conduct.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/death-threats-are-never-ok-but-for-those-without-morals-they-can-be-a-useful-pr-tool/

I could point out to you that ugly hate inciting rhetoric flows both ways, including appalling examples within the recently liberated emails, but what would that achieve. Just a childish pointless he-said, she-said argument. Lets work on the assumption that most of us are decent respectful people. But reading some of the highly aggressive comments here one wonders about the mental fragility of some obviously emotionally disturbed fellow /.ers.

Finally, the death threats were not even death threats. The language is appalling and threatening and not acceptable, but it is not a death threat.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/to-a-climate-scientist-swearing-equals-a-death-threat-no-wonder-these-guys-cant-predict-the-weather/

But playing fast and loose with evidence is what climate science is all about hey?

Heat lags CO2.

Er, no it doesn't. CO2 lags temperature by 800 years; http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/ice-core-graph/

FWIW, here's a falsification of some basic GCM predictions:

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/this-is-90-certainty-really-yet-another-paper-shows-the-hot-spot-is-missing/

Indeed, carbon credits are a fiat currency which will inevitably collapse sooner or later.

If the current theory does a "reasonably good job" explain this: http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/the-missing-hotspot/

First off, the fact that you use the term deniers should mean that you are dismissed.

Secondly, I suggest you get off your high horse and actually follow the money you allude to with your ad hominem attack.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-climate-industry-wall-of-money/

Climate science has abandoned evidence and data and gone straight to propaganda. Check out the data and evidence for yourself, don't listen to the anti-technological propaganda from the politicized climate scientists. http://joannenova.com.au/ http://wattsupwiththat.com/