The State of the World mid 2010.

From AMSU

From NASA’s GISS Surface Temperature Analysis

From the Nation Snow and Ice Data Center

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “The State of the World mid 2010.

    1. I hear you Mike… I’m tired of pussy-footing around it.
      If the deniers aren’t convinced by a changing world by now, nothing can help them. Did you noticed how Roger just faded off – his last comment stating that he’s not sure. Denial is changing too.

      Like

      1. Indeed… what I’m seeing is fear mixed with denial. Over at WUWT there are desperately trying to proof parts of Russia where cold.

        I mean, FFS. 700 a people were dying a day in moscoa, and they’re looking for cooler parts of the country.

        Like

      2. I’ve recently got around to finally reading Dawkins The God delusion, in which he referred to another book, which I found relevant. Lionel Tiger’s Optimism: The Biology of Hope. “There is a tendency for humans consciously to see what they wish to see. They literally have difficulty seeing things with negative connotations while seeing with increasing ease items that are positive. For example, words that evoke anxiety, either because of an individual’s personal history or because of experimental manipulation, require greater illumination before first being perceived.”
        As with Monckton and Watt’s – people accept them because they say, “everything is just fine – you’ve got nothing to worry about, the world is happy, resources are abundant and our actions haven’t been thoughtlessly detrimental… It’s these alarmists who are the evil ones.”
        This is easier to accept, because the reality is troubling and also damaging to ones own self image. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what we’re arguing against and why we more or find ourselves banging our heads against a brick wall. The trouble is, this denial cannot be altered in most cases until the truth is unavoidable. Illumination must be complete – these people are those that want that one single paper that proves the whole picture but can disregard the weight of evidence. I agree with you again (a while ago I commented on your blog that I’m frustrated about this endless cycle), we need to persist in with highlighting the science. It will work eventually.

        Like

  1. Hi Tim, from your latest comments on Mike Kaulbar’s Greenfyre blog you really are convinced that your faith in the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis is justified. You appear far more convinced than the scientists who are trying to unravel the horrendous complexities of those climate processes and drivers. Even they acknowledge the enormous uncertainties that remain unresolved – not you. You say “If we knew nothing of paleo-climate we could still be just as sure about the effects of our modifications to greenhouse gas concentrations and thus the anthropogenic climate change under way”. This implies that you have no doubt about the impact of our use of fossil fuels upon global climates and a certainty about our future – better man than most scientists researching the subject.

    You mention “the various alterations observed in physical and biological responses to the amplifying greenhouse effect .. ”. I took a further look into this and came across an interesting press release from Germany’s Max Planck Institute. “A new balance for the global carbon balance” is summarised in P Gosselin’s “No Tricks Zone (http://pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/06/max-planck-institute-report-its-back-to-the-drawing-board-for-climate-modellers-alarmist-scenarios-unrealistic/ ) which says QUOTE:
    “If anything, the report shows there remains lots of uncertainty in the science that many like to call “settled”. In climate science the only certainty is uncertainty. Well worth reading. Some of the main points, according to the authors:
    1. In most ecosystems, the photosynthesis rate at which plants fix carbon dioxide from the atmosphere changes relatively little as the temperature varies.
    2. The respiration of the ecosystems, when flora and fauna release carbon dioxide again, also increases to a lesser extent than has recently often been assumed when the temperature rises.
    3. Moreover, this temperature dependence is the same all over the world – even in ecosystems as different as the tropical savannah and the Finnish needleleaf forest.
    4. The climate is quite temperamental: countless factors are involved and many feedback mechanisms enhance effects such as the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. This makes it difficult to make predictions, especially as many processes in the Earth system are still not completely understood.
    5. Results suggest that the availability of water, in particular, plays a decisive role for the carbon cycle in ecosystems. It is often more important than temperature.
    6. Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.”
    7. The factor which determines the acceleration of the respiration thus obviously does not depend on the local temperature conditions and the specific characteristics of an ecosystem. “We were very surprised that different ecosystems react relatively uniformly to temperature variations.”
    8. “It is still not possible to predict whether this attenuates the positive feedback between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature,” says Markus Reichstein. “The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global material cycles and their importance for long-term developments.”
    9. “We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we therefore need to critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”
    UNQUOTE.

    I seem to recall you making a comment on your blog about the changing conditions that you anticipate in the tropics. Does this change your opinion in any way?

    I was also looking for information on positive feedback and came across this relevant “Climate, Cycles, and Change” thread “NASA’s GISS: Moscow Is Burning – Human CO2-Induced Unprecedented Global Warming Is To Blame, Not” (http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/08/nasas-giss-moscow-is-burning-human-co2induced-unprecedented-global-warming-is-to-blame-not.html). It concludes “To summarize, the July warming has happened before and it will happen again – oh that’s right, sane people call that weather” – enjoy.

    While you’re at it have a look at some of the other articles on this excellent sceptics blog, including the “about”.
    C3 really does “call it for what it is climate – change is here” (apologies to John Cook at Skeptical Science) and always has been.

    Try opening your eyes to the significant uncertainties about global climate processes and drivers.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. “You appear far more convinced than the scientists” I disagree…
      Anderegga et al. 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. PNAS. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107
      Various contributors. 2010. Letters; Climate Change and the Integrity of Science. Science. 328(5979):689 – 690. doi10.1126/science.328.5979.689
      Oreskes, N. 2004. Beyond the ivory tower: The scientific consensus on climate change. Science. 306(5702):1686 doi: 10.1126/science.1103618
      “This implies that you have no doubt about the impact of our use of fossil fuels upon global climates and a certainty about our future – better man than most scientists researching the subject.” For such a jibe, I suspect I upset you with my recent comments?
      We know the world is more or less warming
      We know that this warming is an amplifying greenhouse effect and that our emissions are going a long way to help this change
      What I find most troubling is the effect that this has on ecology (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
      Oil is only about to get much more expensive (so is everything else that relies on it). Gas is certainly the only good transition option – I question to use of coal for something as pointless as combustion fuel. However anyone who takes any form of risk management seriously would, at this point, be concerned about business as usual – as I am!
      1. What is more concerning that warming is the CHANGING CLIMATE – temperature might not knock plants around until it’s warm enough to start denaturing proteins or reduce enzyme capacity to function, but CLIMATE ALTERS EVERYTHING the plant requires – from nutrient and mineral cycles to timing of events – THIS IS ALREADY OCCURRING!!!
      2. So what? That would be a sign of stress at best, but it means little to GHG emissions or anything relevant.
      3. Same as 2.
      4. Not entirely true. Of course it’s complicated – hence all the result – and certainly it’s difficult to make predictions. However plenty of models have correlated well with reality so I’m pretty sure the people doing their job in making various scenario predictions are doing their job well. And AGAIN – refer to the above links >> WE KNOW CLIMATE IS CHANGING, IS CHANGING LARGELY BECAUSE OF OUR EMISSIONS AND IS EFFECTING MANY BIOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL PROCESSES.
      5. Again, so what? It’s the same for us – we know even with ourselves; we handle stress better if we’re well hydrated. Ecosystems are being altered by the changing climate. Our landscape use changes, restriction of species movement and access to nutrients (and water!) means that on top of the stresses of a changing climate ecosystems are under extra pressure due to our direct and indirect interference as well! It’s well known in ecology that ecosystems are more resilient with a healthy biodiversity or at least the protection of many keystone species – this is what worries me most about our activities!!!
      6. That’s near meaningless and a sideline to the point. I’m not worried about ecosystem respiration. If anything, this is largely best studied through destructive means and eddy covariance measuring.. but again misses the points made above – so yes, we should be alarmed!
      7. Repetitive – see above
      8. Sideline – positive feedback is going to be most obvious with permafrost thawing and ocean warming, so quite frankly, why obsess over ecosystem respiration – it’s pretty well a balanced system, minus of course, the loss of activity due to our landscape use changes.
      9. There’s some confliction over water dependence of tropical ecosystems which will depend largely on the unique ecosystem that you’re looking at. As I’ve previously referred to you, tropical ectotherms are already living near their optimum. They are likely to shift to higher latitudes or become extinct. In doing so, ecosystems will lose their unique functions and thus be under greater stress / have less potential of recruitment – which will feed onto other fauna and flora that also depend on them.
      I’m getting incredibly bored of repeating myself.
      No, as you can see above, you have not changed my opinion – THE TROPICS WILL BE HIT THE HARDEST AS CLIMATE CONTINUES TO CHANGE!!
      It is, of course weather, however the Russian Met group have stated that this hasn’t occurred in at least the last 1000 years – possibly much much longer.
      How about you try opening your eyes to the weight of scientific investigation that has lead to the vast majority of relevant professionals to be convinced? You continuously demonstrate nothing but bias by selectively favouring papers / newspapers that favour your already held beliefs instead of looking into the entire story.
      Unlike you, I am likely to see the majority of this coming century and in that time, I will see the patterns I’ve included in this post and the following on Ocean values only increase and with it continuously altering ecosystem function and assemblage, the end of the oil era and major changes to how human society must interact with the environment.
      Like all unscientific deniers you’re quick to scream about a single damned paper that supports your views (quite frankly however, this that you have included here doesn’t change or question much) but can turn a blind eye to more than 50 papers that I’ve referred you to…. and you ask me to open my eyes.
      Unlike you, I am a working scientist and I have also worked for SA state government as a professional scientific officer. I’m not failing to see the bigger picture – blinded by some trivial faith as you believe – I’m keeping up to date with what others are researching. I’m am convinced by the evidence that, from a risk management point of view, we are obliged to make radical changes to our practices if we are likely to maintain anything remotely like society as we know it. You run blindfolded straight into a wall.
      Cheers,
      Tim
      PS. I might just add -the difference between our approach is that you selectively ignore whatever evidence counters your claims while I can refute a counter argument with the bulk of evidence. You’re saying here, “Ecosystems are respiring to a lesser extent than expected, therefore climate science is rubbish!” which is not unlike your previous attack basically stating, “The hockey stick is flawed, therefore climate science is rubbish!”
      Guess what Pete, I’ve never seen evolution take place, does that mean that the majority of biology is rubbish? Of course not.
      I’ve provided time and time again direct evidence that is compelling enough to take action to reduce our emissions of known greenhouse gases and that the altered climate is already stirring up trouble – DIRECT and not some weakly correlated study (often just one paper). You’re grasping at shadows in wishful thinking. You’re not employing scientific rigour.

      Like

  2. Tim, you say that “What is more concerning that warming is the CHANGING CLIMATE – .. – THIS IS ALREADY OCCURRING!!” but where is the convincing evidence that any changes to global climates that may be taking place are unusual or are due to our use of fossil fuels.

    The world has experienced warming and cooling numerous times before and almost certainly will continue to do so. We have been coming out of an ice age for a few thousand years so it is bound to be warming up. It would have done this even if we had never found a use for oil or coal or gas. Changes to global climates have been going on since the beginning, as a result of natural (not human) processes and drivers. Humans can exert no control on a global or even regional basis. All that we can hope to achieve is what we have always had to do, react to and protect against such changes as best we can.

    You say “it’s pretty well a balanced system” despite the fact that the global system is so well balanced that it swings between long periods of bitterly cold and pleasantly warm. We are presently in between these two extremes but have no idea for how long.

    I’m somewhat sceptical of what Joe Romm reports on in his blog. He merges fact with fiction very cleverly in his determination to convince the gullible about the validity of The (significnat human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. The historical record of drought in Russia over the past 120 years tells a different story. According to “Geography of Droughts and Food Problems in Russia (1900-2000)” (Note 1) the “Numbers of years with droughts in the main economic regions of the Russian Federation in 1891-1983” are:
    – North West 21,
    – Central 29,
    – Central Chernozem 32,
    – Northern Caucasus 24,
    – Volga-Vyatka 32,
    – Volga 28,
    – Urals 28,
    – West Siberia 18

    The validity of the claim that “There was nothing similar to this on the territory of Russia during the last one thousand years in regard to the heat” needs substantiation. I’m not aware that there was a mechanism for measuring heat as long ago as that. Can you advise?

    As for those two beautiful graphics comparing 2003 & 2010, I prefer this couple for 1936 and 2010 (http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/08/nasas-giss-moscow-is-burning-human-co2induced-unprecedented-global-warming-is-to-blame-not.html).

    Tim, the real difference between us is that I am prepared to look critically at arguments from both sides of the debate.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. I really don’t believe you.
      The first two paragraphs of this are absurd – I’ve linked to all this. We know we’re changing the values of GHG’s. We know the climate is changing and we know that this is the result of an amplifying greenhouse effect and we know that over over the past 30yrs, the long wave radiation that is absorbed by CO2 and CH4 has been decreasing (thus more of it is being trapped) and we know that solar activity has slumped over this time – all the while temps go up!!
      There are plenty of different forces that are available to change climate, but all else can be ruled out – leaving our change to CO2 concentrations…
      Stop mixing things up! When I was referring to “it’s pretty well a balanced system” I was refusing to CO2 in and out from ecosystems. The swings your going on about here are various other forces – orbital (both on the axis and around the sun) and solar activity. WHAT WE’RE WITNESSING IS NOT THE RESULT OF THE SUN!!! It can only be explained by an amplified greenhouse effect! Positive feedback is as I explained it (ie. with CO2 from permafrost and oceans) NOT ECOSYSTEM RESPIRATION!! You mix things up either because you’re confused on the subject or because you wish to confuse others.
      Again with Russia; they’re stating that this is a freak occurrence and frankly it changes nothing: as I’ve tried endlessly to explain to you through the authorities in data collection and numerous papers, climate is changing – noticed in global anomaly, biological and physical processes, CO2 concentrations, etc etc etc – everything that I’ve previously informed you which you have chosen to ignore.
      I haven’t looked into the processes behind the statement here, but from my experience when you hear 1 in (however long) storm – it’s a statistical assumption on the likelihood in such events occurring – this is a standard and used endlessly by insurance companies (ie.. floods, earth quakes etc). It’s not exact, but it’s works well or big companies wouldn’t invest on it.
      “Tim, the real difference between us is that I am prepared to look critically at arguments from both sides of the debate.” Sorry, I couldn’t help but laugh. You’re not looking at anything that doesn’t agree with your held views. I’ve read a number of papers that people like yourself claim to – critical? Why then, did you pull out some ridiculously irrelevant respiration paper? I know you would like to think that you’re doing an ace job on investigating the science but Pete, come on, you make hopelessly naive mistakes, ignore the bulk of scientific literature, ignore unbiased natural events – which tell us the same story, give way too much weight to grey literature which screams bias and continuously hold on to the increasingly small uncertainties not unlike a God of gaps.
      Don’t waste anymore of my time until you’re willing to look at the subject in a more scientific manner.
      Cheers,
      Tim

      Like

  3. “trying to unravel the horrendous complexities of those climate processes and drivers” ???

    It’s not that complicated, Pete. I have one of those miraculous 20th century inventions, a slow cooker. I can assure you that I can brown some meat and onions in a pan, tip them in, add some room temperature stock, some barley or other grain and a heap of frozen veges and frozen tomato paste or whatever. Then I just set the wonderful device to slow and I go away for 8 hours.

    Nobody cares, least of all me, about the conduction and convection processes within these several litres of stuff of varying consistencies and temperatures. All we know is that heating it steadily for hours on end cooks the whole lot. We could have checked for uneven heating at various places and times throughout the process and guesstimated which bits would cook faster or sooner than others. But it doesn’t matter – mainly due to the wonderful people who designed the marvelous contraption.

    As for the climate. We know two important things. The sun will keep shining. CO2 is a GHG.

    Given that we have no control over the sun, the only option is to look at the things we can control, modify, replace, adjust or otherwise fidget with. CO2 is pretty simple ( in theory, anyway). The earth with its oceans and atmosphere is a bit more complex than a cooking pot with a few litres of liquid and a few kilos of edible solids. But the principle is not a whole heap different.

    We *know* the physics of CO2 and other gases. We *know* the capacity of large bodies of water (and ice and vapour) to absorb, retain and release heat. The only issue – the one you focus on – is dealing with the huge numbers involved and the variety of places and circumstances we need to take measurements.

    For the purposes of insurance, reinsurance, design and placement of port facilities, towns and cities, river management as well as government policies on a whole range of things (building standards, emergency services, flood mitigation, fire protection, you name it), the details of these scientific endeavours are just background.

    Is it risky? Will a new city be viable in 100 years’ time? Will a port or airport be able to operate for the next 50-100 years? Should we instal or extend an irrigation project on a river? Can we afford the insurance premiums on any of these activities?

    Insurance is just calculated risks. A very, very sophisticated form of gambling. People in this industry at least are putting our money where the science and their records of disruptive weather events lead them. More money for us to pay, less risks they’re willing to cover.

    Why? They couldn’t care less whether any scientist or publication made an error in calculating something or other. They just know that they can expect more disruptions in economic activity and that their payouts in some areas will increase.

    We know where the climate is taking us. We don’t know how soon, how nasty, how much misery. We also know that we can reduce the risks even if we can’t avoid them entirely. Worrying that someone, somewhere, sometime made an error that will be corrected as soon as someone else puts their mind to it is just a distraction.

    Like

  4. Adelady, your “We know where the climate is taking us” is meaningless. What climate are you talking about and where is that particular one taking us – in your opinion?

    On the Watch The Deniers blog (Note 1) you made another ludicrous comment with your “OK Sundance. I’ll see your Illinois state and raise you a whole Australia country”. Is it really surprising that Adelaid should be recording record-breaking temperatures? It has only existed since 1836 and guess what has been happening since than – the globe has been recovering from the Little Ice Age. What happens when the globe recovers from an ice age, whether it is little or large? You can’t tell me? Here’s a hint – it gets less cold.

    “Adelaide has a hot Mediterranean climate .. which generally means mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers” (Note 1). So, in March of 2008 it was particularly dry and hot, then again in February 2009 and in Jan 2010 and it may well be in the summer of 2011. It’s surely no surprise and nothing new either. Some would say that the record run of 6 days above 40C in 1908 was far worse? 1939 was also hot.

    Australia in general is a hot country and the list of heat-wave disasters tells its own story:
    1895 Southern Regions; 1907 Southern States; 1909 Widespread; 1911 Widespread; 1913 Widespread; 1920 Widespread; 1926 Southern States; 1938 Southern States; 1939 South-Eastern Australia; 1958 Widespread; 1972 Southern; 1981 South-Eastern; 1993 South-Eastern; 1994 Southern New South Wales; 1997 Southern Australia; 2000 South-Eastern Queensland; 2001 Widespread Victoria and those are only the major ones.

    NOTES:
    1) see http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/lets-call-it-for-what-it-is-climate-change-is-here-welcome-to-the-anthropocene/
    1) see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Adelaide
    2) see http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/c20thc/temp1.htm

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. You really ought to stop talking about things that you don’t know much about. Arguably the decade long drought which we’re just passed is like Russia’s heat wave, the massive floods through Asia and the snow storms of the US and Europe last year – freak and unlikely events… Sure, they are weather and not climate, however if the frequency of these events increases then we’re talking climate. As for Australia – our summers are actually somewhat milder and our winters warmer ion recent years – this suits an amplified greenhouse effect.
      I can see now why you’re so obsessed with the “hockey stick” and paleo-climate science at the sheer ignorance of all else – it forms the basis of the criticism to your argument – long term fluctuations.
      Basically you ignore current observations and all the stuff I’ve offered SOLELY because “the globe has been recovering from the Little Ice Age” and so all of what you think I argue can be explained by this! I’m staggered by you’re ability to self-blinker…
      “Tim, the real difference between us is that I am prepared to look critically at arguments from both sides of the debate.” This becomes more and more hilarious with time.
      Just as with your secrete world government plot and faith in the credibility of Monckton, your unsubstantiated (climate change without any known forcing occurrence because I say that it’s certainly not our GHG emissions) hypothesis is just as baseless.
      Explain now how forces are altering the climate – because we know that it cannot be the sun and being in the middle of any phase doesn’t alone explain the recent climate change. ONLY the increase in GHG concentrations does! Ignore for a moment this obsession with paleo-climate and explain to me how else we can account for the global temperature anomaly pointing to in amplifying greenhouse effect or the 30,000+ biological and physical observation data sets that have changed in the direction that corresponds to climate change.
      Look at the dates you’ve provided here (and if you’d cared to go to more detail and include up-to-date records it’d be even more clearer) The last 5 where within the last decade while the rest where roughly a decade apart… Even on a basic level, isn’t that an interesting picture of increasing frequency of a major event? And coupled with the explanations I’ve previously offered you that give a convincing basis as to why this changing climate is being influenced (arguably no other forcing can explain the past 30yrs of which) by our GHG emissions, we’ve got a strong case for ACC.
      You have absolutely no critical analysis in your approach Pete.
      Cheers,
      Tim

      Like

    2. It don’t know why I’m bothering… however…
      You’ve asked above how weather events are looked at in climate science and how statements like, “once in a century storm” fit… well this piece discusses it nicely. You ask for impossible proof and scoff at people like me for our confidence in probability. I argue that increasing freak events and the wealth of studies you’ve previously ignored provide a strong case to be concerned – more so than you’re phantom climate change force and secrete world government plots that you can only support by relying on a few conspiracy novels and mis-worded statements.
      Also, Barry Brook just posted this excellent piece, which largely addresses risk management from an ecological point of view (ie. my reasoning on this blog). However, I remember your feelings regarding Barry… obviously he, like the IPCC are secret fascists out to take over the world… Monckton and ourself are on a winner there!

      Like

  5. Pete, Adelaide didn’t just break its own record, it smashed the records for heatwaves in all Australian capital cities. But that was just the most spectacular of 50 records broken in that period across south-eastern Australia. Mildura also had a stunning 12 consecutive days above 114F (40C).

    Admittedly, Adelaide is more Mediterranean than the Mediterranean, as they say, but 15 consecutive days above 95F (35C) is pretty impressive. Just in case people think that this is like Texas or Sydney or other places of “normal” humidity, bear in mind that when temperatures rise so high here the relative humidity tends towards 15%. The air is so hot and dry that it, quite literally, takes your breath away.

    More importantly, you’ve not indicated your thoughts on managing threats to cities, ports, agriculture and the like. It really doesn’t matter whether the warming is from man-made or natural forcings. If scientists were telling us that we’ve managed to be born in a time when the earth is moving into some kind of unfriendly-to-people state rather than us doing it ourselves, what approaches or strategies would you prefer?

    Do you think that we should avoid exacerbating the problem the earth itself posed to us? Should we be concerned about threats to food supplies and to the ecosystems that support them? What should we do?

    As for costs. I’ve just chipped in some hard-earned for Pakistan, and my insurance premiums keep going up. Does it really matter which way we have to pay?

    Like

    1. Couldn’t help but nod while reading this Adelady. It’s not the first time Pete’s tried to discuss Australia and demonstrated that he doesn’t really know what’s going on – indeed it seems a tour of Australia has, in his mind, made him an expert on local climate and social issues.
      He probably won’t reply, but move on like he usually does when you give him hard questions. I’ve referred him countless studies, and as you say – it doesn’t really matter why it’s happening, climate is changing. On top of that oil is peaking and we’re wasting our time entertaining cowboy citizen scientists like Pete who blatantly ignore whatever doesn’t suit their frame. I mean, he tried to make a point with heat waves in Aust and really, if you look at his data or the complete record at BOM, you see that they’re becoming more frequent per decade and longer in actually duration.
      What is really needed is a shake-up to how we do things if we’re to avoid massive loss in standard of living and biodiversity – hence my frustrations going in circles with people like Pete (and, where that second series sort of fell off…)

      Like

  6. I posted this comment earlier but it failed to appear on the blog so I now post without the list of links in the NOTES, which I’ll post in a follow up comment.

    Tim, as you say “it doesn’t really matter why it’s happening, climate is changing”. What you seem to fail to accept is that this has always been the case – since the world started.

    You also say that “ .. oil is peaking .. ”, by which I take you to mean that oil production is peaking due to it running out in the near future. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. We chatted about this back in June on your “Where will the wild things move? .. Pt. 5” thread and I mentioned the new finds in Dorset and the Falklands. I repeat what I said there on 18th QUOTE:
    You’ve also expressed concern about “peak oil” and Natural gas being on the way out when you are but the industry experts appear not to be concerned about availability but about political effects. As an example in the lead up to the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen BP CEO Tony Hayward stated (Note 5) that “ .. The problem in meeting that goal isn’t geological, it’s political. We have the natural, human and financial resources. We have enough reserves of hydrocarbons to last for decades and reserve estimates are rising as we develop ways of unlocking unconventional resources. .. ” UNQUOTE.

    When it becomes uneconomic to extract oil from the earth the energy companies will be ready to earn their profits from oil sales in other ways, like oil from coal. The South Africans were producing oil from coal of necessity decades ago. Let me also repeat what I said on the Permaculture Research Institute of Australia Bog (Note 1) on 9th April QUOTE:

    According to the experts (BP, Oil and Gas Journal, World Oil, etc. – Note 2) there are global reserves of approximately 1,300 Billion Barrels oil (plus 6,500 Trillion Cubic Feet gas). These figures are hard to place in context but there is a graph at the Oildrum site (Note 3) which helps. This shows oil production peaking in 2010 with steady decline to roughly half of current rates by 2030, however, there is lots of coal available. According to the World Coal Institute (Note 4) at current production rates there is enough for 130 years and QUOTE: proven oil and gas reserves are equivalent to around 42 and 60 years at current production levels UNQUOTE.

    Coal to oil conversion is attracting attention in China (Note 5) and the USA, with South Africa having 50 years experience of the technology (Note 6). When oil runs out I see coal and nuclear as the main sources of energy used to power economic growth. With increased efficiency, greater care by each of us about how we use energy and development of new technologies for fossil fuel recovery I don’t anticipate significant problems for this century. The energy companies are in the business for the long term and fossil fuels are significant in their plans. Of course, they’ll huff and puff about shortages, because that justifies price hikes which boosts profits. That’s the free market for you.

    UNQUOTE.

    We’ll be running our cars on oil for many many decades yet, probably as hybrids.

    As for your “Explain now how forces are altering the climate – .. ”. Even the scientists doing research in this area cannot explain adequately how climates have changed throughout the ages. Uncertainty is the most significant word in their vocabulary. The reason is that they have such a poor understanding of global climate processes and drivers. I remind you of the words of Professor Barry Brook, Director of the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability, University of Adelaide. “.. There are a lot of uncertainties in science, and it is indeed likely that the current consensus on some points of climate science is wrong, or at least sufficiently uncertain that we don’t know anything much useful about processes or drivers” (Note 7 – please read the whole paragraph for the full context). It is that poor scientific understanding of global climate processes and drivers that forces political and environmentalist supporters of The Hypothesis to speculate about future trends and other agenda unrelated to climate change that causes them to speculate about a catastrophic trend.

    You concluded with “ .. heat waves .. if you look at his data or the complete record at BOM, you see that they’re becoming more frequent per decade and longer in actually duration. .. ” but provide no link to sound evidence that this is tue for (let’s say) the past 1000 years. You express an opinion which is shared by others (Note 8) “Widespread changes in extreme temperatures have been observed in many regions of the world over the last 50 years; most notably the higher frequency of high-temperature days and nights and heat”. Of course, that organisation falls under the umbrella of that august body the UN, whose real agenda has nothing to do with trying to control the natural climate variability (that humans have always had to adjust to).

    An opposing opinion has been expressed by someone who is much more expert than yourself in such weather events, Joseph D’Aleo, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. In his article “Debunking the Claims Heat Waves are Becoming More Common” (Note 9) he starts by quoting the above then goes on to say “REALITY, there is no indication that record heat is increasing in frequency, in fact the data shows a precipitous decline in the number of heat records in recent decades. The early 20th century dominates the heat statistics for the United States and the world.
    The presumption that global heat waves and extremes have increased in frequency is not supported by the official government data. NOAA’s NCDC shows that record high temperature by continent have occurred mainly in the 1880s and early 1900s, with only 1 post 1950 (Antarctica in 1974)”.

    D’Aleo then goes on to provide evidence in support of his opinion, which you fail to do.

    The reason that supporters and rejecters of The Hypothesis get equally frustrated through “ .. going in circles .. ” is that The Hypothesis is based upon speculation not fact.

    adelady, in response to your “ .. the earth is moving into some kind of unfriendly-to-people state rather than us doing it ourselves, what approaches or strategies would you prefer?” the answer is simple. Do as we always have done. Adapt to suit the prevailing conditions. If I had any reason to believe that our use of fossil fuels was significantly “ .. exacerbating the problem the earth itself posed to us .. “ then I would have no hesitation in doing my utmost to reduce my personal contribution and encourage others to do the same.

    As for those people suffering all over the world from what nature throws at them, I wish that I had the power to make things better for them, but I haven’t. I can only count myself very lucky to be able to enjoy the comfortable lifestyle that I’ve had for so many years. It wouldn’t surprise me if you too enjoyed a much more comfortable lifestyle yourself, despite the occasional natural weather events that get you all hot and bothered.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. Pete,
      “What you seem to fail to accept is that this has always been the case – since the world started.” What you fail to do is answer a simple question; explain your, (climate change without any known forcing occurrence because I say that it’s certainly not our GHG emissions) hypothesis? The evidence for the current climate change being in relation to our emissions is convincing. You can’t just go, “climate always changes, therefore climate change isn’t our fault!” That is madness, pure fantasy and is dogmatic in nature. Likewise, I could argue that the sun always rises because some bloke in France kills a goat every morning at 4am. The sun always rises, he and his ancestors have always done the activity, therefore that explains it.
      GIVE ME A PLAUSIBLE ALTERNATIVE FORCING! We know it’s not the sun or orbital changes.

      “…that oil production is peaking due to it running out in the near future. Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.” Gee, again – so scientific! Look, we will, for a long time yet, find the odd well – but a combination of population growth and a dwindling availability is only going to worsen from here on in. Most experts agree on this so don’t be so dismissive. Prof Smil puts a compelling case together here regarding the use of coal. Without coal, we would need a yearly supply of forest charcoal at least half the size of the Brazilian Amazon (provided it’s fast growing wood) just to maintain 2008 levels of steel production! I don’t care how much coal we have – it’s more valuable than as just a combustible fuel.

      “We’ll be running our cars on oil for many many decades yet, probably as hybrids.” Unlikely – more likely gas hybrids.

      “Even the scientists doing research in this area cannot explain adequately how climates have changed throughout the ages. Uncertainty is the most significant word in their vocabulary…” Again Pete – here’s your God-of-gaps! Don’t be so foolish! Science is never 100% – even when all else seems to be utterly absurd, a scientist will only argue that, “it’s highly/extremely likely.” (from the previous link, “The science is not as uncertain as the doubters like to make out, and regardless of small differences in predictive models, climate change is really happening. Of that, we can be certain.”) The evidence for the current temperature anomaly to be the result of an amplifying greenhouse effect and that amplifying greenhouse effect to be largely the result of our actions is compelling enough to merit concern – you’re trivial, “it just happens,” doesn’t cut it. I spend as much time on my blog discussing how to adapt to the inevitable change as I do constructing arguments as to how we can release ourselves from the fossil fuel addiction while you shrug your shoulders, demand that it’s a plot for world domination, provide no evidence for other forces in play (while I do try to provide reason for forces that match observations) and flutter around like a peacock on heat.

      If you were, as you claim, “prepared to look critically at arguments from both sides of the debate,” we wouldn’t be having this argument, you wouldn’t have ignored the bulk of my arguments and you could provide justifiable reasoning as to why observations are the result of some other phantom force. You don’t do this. You simply say that climate is always changing and is too complex to study… what a joke..

      As for the heat wave bit. You IGNORED my point – the data you provided was telling enough. I didn’t go to the lengths as searching through BOM reports to back me up because A) your demonstration was good enough and, B) we both know that you’ll ignore it anyway. Instead you’ve found one paper that states otherwise and you’re happy in this little corner – so to hell with everything else… Again Pete, not very scientific. For interest sake, it was while I worked for state government that I came across this heat wave stuff, which included predictions for SA’s future… It was concerning.. but you’ve already tuned out no doubt because this doesn’t fit your frame…

      D’Aleo fits your frame, so he can provide evidence – you’ve demonstrated that for the wealth of evidence I can provide, you cannot read it.

      You truly are terrible on this subject, at least from a scientific perspective.. But I guess you’re not the only one distorting the science and selectively choosing small fragment that fit your frame.

      Cheers,
      Tim
      Late inclusion, a quick look at the BOM site finds this graph which shows an increasing trend in the number of extremely hot days. No trend hey? Warm night trends are a good example of an amplifying greenhouse effect. I’ll save you time in cherry picking out the one or two chunks that you may be able to build a feeble reply to by pointing out the warm spell duration has slumped the past couple years, which means that in the last couple years, less heat waves, but I’m sure only someone like you can make a case out of this in the sheer blindness of the copious evidence to the contrary.

      Like

  7. Please note that I had to remove http:// from Notes 1, 7 & 9 and http://www. from the remainder in order to get these posted.

    NOTES:
    1) see permaculture.org.au/2010/03/30/the-peer-reviewed-literature-has-spoken/comment-page-1/#comment-45573
    2) see eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html
    3) see theoildrum.com/node/5395
    4) see worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/
    5) see chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-07/21/content_6863486.htm
    6) see sasol.com/sasol_internet/downloads/CTL_Brochure_1125921891488.pdf
    7) see bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/
    8) see unisdr.org/eng/risk-reduction/climate-change/docs/Climate-Change-DRR.pdf
    9) see icecap.us/images/uploads/HeatWaves_Icecap.doc

    Like

  8. Tim, thanks for that link to the Smil paper – I love it.

    On the matter of your request that I “answer a simple question; explain your, (climate change without any known forcing occurrence because I say that it’s certainly not our GHG emissions) hypothesis?”, you demonstrate the impatience of your youth. Given time scientists like Dr. Jasper Kirkby will identify more and more of the true processes and drivers of global climate change. After that a time may come when the computer programmers can be provided with a sound enough for them to properly model global and even regional climates which can produce acceptably close predictions for the future. I doubt if I’ll be around to see it but you may be.

    On gas hybrids as opposed to oil (petrol or diesel) – doubtful. When I worked for British Gas 20 years ago we used a few NG internal combustion engines rather than petrol/diesel but this was only in niche applications, mainly at gas decompression stations which enjoy a steady supply of natural gas. Although Honda has a few compressed natural gas versions on the streets and Toyota is considering introducing some, while demonstration hydrogen vehicles have been provided by several global manufacturers I understand that there are similar limitations as with electric vehicles between recharge. In addition compressed gas hybrids have their own peculiar fuel storage and distribution problems, both in and out of vehicle, a major one being the high pressure (200-250 bar for CNG). This introduces new problems (and extra cost) regarding materials used to ensure safety that are not encountered with petrol/diesel. Citizens of the developing economies like China, India, etc. are just starting to be able to afford the ultra-cheap conventional vehicles like the Tata Nana ($2000). I can’t see those millions of potential custmers choosing to by a much more expensive CNG vehicle.

    BTW, have you any idea what came out of this idea “Natural gas internal combustion engine hybrid passenger vehicle” (Note 1) which suggested “multi-fuel capability (methane, hythane and gasoline)”.

    I do love our exchanges Tim. We both have so much to learn.

    NOTES:
    1) see http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/er.1369/abstract

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. You’ve changed you tone..
      I’m disappointed at your willingness to disregard all known science on a conspiracy theory, your shrugging observations off as part of a natural cycle and openly say that you’ve got nothing to base your arguments against ACC. I’m sure you’re unaware just how dogmatic you come off – you refute the scientific evidence contrary to your belief based on hidden demons, you think it’s all part of some long term plan, you accept an unknowable law.. It’s really tragic.
      I’m not so young nor naive. My studies and years working in environmental science has turned my interest towards damage control in the face of ACC. I’ve no doubt read more scientific literature, been invovled in more environmental management work within state government and been privvy to much more reporting on the condition, change and predictions.
      You can choose to reside in a denial of change faith. I’m simply concerned with what I’ve learnt and am somewhat disappointed that I’ve failed to paint the picture I’ve learnt clearly enough for you understanding. However I’m not too upset. Years ago I used to discuss evolution with Witness’s and a few mormons… I’ve come across such avoidance of evidence before. You can’t reason against it.
      Cheers,
      Tim

      Like

  9. Tim, if you can provide evidence that supports you claim that I “disregard all known science on a conspiracy theory, .. and openly say that (I)’ve got nothing to base (my) arguments against ACC” then I’ll happily withdraw my claim that you misinterpret the words of those who disagree with your own opinions. As I’ve said repeatedly, I have seen no convincing evidence of humans causing significant global climate change through using fossil fuels. What has this to do with any conspiracy theory?

    I suspect that the reason that you have such a closed mind about The (significant human-made global clmate change) Hypothesis is that you have spent far too much time “ .. invovled in .. environmental management work within state government .. ”. It appears to me that you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by political propaganda, much like your ,, Witness’s and a few mormons .. ”. Never mind, there is still hope for you yet.

    Please don’t think that you are the only one who has read scientific literature about global climate change. After reading the Sunday Times Magazine summary of staunch environmentalist Mark Lynas’s propaganda booklet “Six Degrees .. ” in Feb. 2007 I have myself read a fair bit but I have read it critically, not accepted it without question. Try it. As I told you more than two months ago on your “Where will the wild things move? .. Pt. 5” thread, I started off being “very concerned about what the future held for my beautiful grand children. I started reading both sides of the argument and debating it with supporters and rejectors of The Hypothesis. I’m learning from both sides and (as for all involved in this debate) there is much much more yet to learnt. From first being very concerned I became agnostic and the more I debate the more sceptical I become”. You conveniently choose to overlook that.

    I repeat what I posted on Professor Barry Brook’s bravenewclimate blog “SA sets a 33% renewables by 2020 target” thread on 4th June 2009 (Note 1) “I have reviewed a lot of the debate on both sides of the argument over the past two years since reading Mark Lynas’s scare-mongering propaganda booklet “Six Degrees ..” and have been most impressed by papers by Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Tsonis and by Dr. John Nicol’s paper “Climate Change (a fundamental analysis of the greenhouse effect)” see http://www.ruralsoft.com.au/ClimateChange.doc). These analyses strengthen my agnosticism, but in an effort to remain open-minded I searched for any scientific paper that showed in as much detail how Dr. Nicol’s analysis might be flawed. I have been unable to find such a paper. Dr. Nicol tells me that he has invited peer review but has received nothing but supporting comments. It seems to me that it is important for those scientists like Professor Brook who support the argument of human-made climate change through our use of fossil fuels carry out a thorough review of Dr. Nicol’s analysis and show precisely where he has erred (if he has done so).

    I doubt very much if you are you able or willing to do this? If not, why not? Until this is done I don’t believe that we lay agnostics, who I guess constitute by far the largest proportion of the population, will change our opinions”.

    Brook never did provide anything that refuted Dr. Nicol’s paper, doing nothing more than use the worn out argument that the paper should be subjected to peer review and be published in a “recognised” journal. Well, as Climategate showed quite clearly, faith in the peer review process has been badly undermined by “the hockey team”. Nicol’s findings have subsequently been supported by a quite independent paper “Mistakes in IPCC Global Warming Calculations” (Note 2) by Roger Taguchi.

    I doubt very much if you are willing or even able to refute what Nicol and Taguchi have presented. If you were able to you’d have done it by now instead of simply repeating your dogma. Since Roger wrote his paper he has recognised some minor errors in it and provided the necessary changes. I have been privi to exchanges between him and Nicol and both maintain their positions, that the science and the evidence support the view that doubling CO2 concentrations will cause no more that about 1,5C increase in mean global temperatures.

    If you are interested I can provide you with copies of Roger’s latest version of his paper, a more recent response to an attempt to refute it and another paper “Net feedbacks” in which Roger says “According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity “Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2 ) would result in 1oC global warming, which is easy to calculate and is undisputed. The remaining uncertainty is due entirely to feedbacks in the system, namely, the water vapor feedback, the ice-albedo feedback, the cloud feedback, and the lapse rate feedback.” Here we show that the IPCC estimate of net feedback, namely 2oC (giving a total climate change of 3oC on doubling CO2 from 300 ppm to 600 ppm), is at least a factor of 4 too large when its prediction for climate change when CO2 increases from 300 ppm to 400 ppm is compared with real world temperature increases from 1750 to today.

    The generally accepted explanation for the greenhouse effect, which involves radiative exchange between CO2 molecules until infrared (IR) radiation can escape from a “220 K black body” layer in the upper troposphere, is seriously flawed. An alternative explanation is proposed for the outgoing IR radiation at the 667 cm-1 CO2 frequency measured by the NIMBUS satellites. It involves absorption by CO2 of incoming solar radiation at 2μ and 1.6μ, which excites molecules to higher vibrational levels of the bond-bending mode, followed by a downward cascade to the ground vibrational state.

    The most probable quantum jumps involve a change of 1 in the vibrational quantum number, resulting in emission of IR centred around 667 cm-1 and slightly lower frequencies (for v=3 to v=2 and for v=4 to v=3 transitions). In particular, this mechanism can explain the emission measured over Antarctica, which cannot possibly be explained by the standard textbook treatment and its variants. Once this is recognized it becomes clear that the absorption by CO2 (measured by the truncated spectrum) is underestimated by about 33%. Temperature change from CO2 alone (without feedbacks) is even higher, reducing the net feedback compatible with the historic record to nearly zero. Therefore the IPCC predictions for future global warming are too large by a factor of 3.”

    Roger has far greater understanding of the sciences involved than I have (and I suspect than you have) and as a result of the exchanges that I have had with him I have come to trust his sincerity and respect his opinion. On the other hand you have offered nothing to show that humans are responsible for causing significant global climate change through using fossil fuels. If you were in my position who would you take more notice of?

    NOTES:
    1) see http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/06/03/sa-sets-a-33-renewables-by-2020-target/#comment-16054
    2) see http://mistakesinipcccalculations.blogspot.com/2009/08/mistakes-in-ipcc-global-warming.html

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Note: Indeed, doubling CO2 would raise the the temperature by only one degree if no other factor were involved. It is known that water vapour has a greater greenhouse effect – almost triple that of CO2. However, water vapour is a function of air temperature (ie. air can only hold so much at a given temperature). As CO2 increases, the global temperature anomaly increases and thus the atmosphere can hold more water, which in turn increases the temperature, allowing more water vapour to be held – this is why water is considered to be a positive feedback and not a driver. It is believed that this will balance out to add another 1 degree of warming if CO2 is doubled. Ice increases albedo, while water decreases albedo. This is likely to add to the greenhouse effect as ice melts with the noted 2 degrees of warming, leading to even more warming. The increased atmospheric H2O potentially increases polar stratospheric cloud, which can degrade ozone, allowing more energy to reach the surface, which can also increase warming. As permafrost melts (due to the 2 degrees of warming noted above), it releases trapped methane which is an even more potent greenhouse gas, amplifying the greenhouse effect even more so.
    The two largest negative feedbacks are aerosols and clouds. We should see more clouds with an atmosphere holding more water, but do we want that? As clouds move, they either collect more water or dump it – we’re likely to see more storm activity.
    All of this is why the IPCC suggest that warming due to a doubling CO2 will most likely lead to a global temperature anomaly that is somewhere between 2.5 and 4 degrees C above the base. How all these other factors play out is difficult to work out – hence the models, hence the temperature range. However unlike the amount of warming, that we will experience is quite certain within the scientific community. – Moth

    Like

    1. LOL Pete,
      Do you work hard to be contradictory or does it come naturally?
      Tim, if you can provide evidence that supports you claim that I “disregard all known science on a conspiracy theory, .. and openly say that (I)’ve got nothing to base (my) arguments against ACC”
      “you have spent far too much time “ .. invovled in .. environmental management work within state government .. ”. It appears to me that you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by political propaganda”
      Eureka! Thank you Pete! I can see the light now! My whole schooling and university teaching was nothing but a brainwashing institution – aimed to warp minds into blind submission… The work carried out within the SA EPA and BOM that I was privvy to was nothing more than distortion aimed to fool the public. This was all orchestrated by John Tyndall, who, realizing that photovoltaic would be one day prime to takeout the world, invested big so that when that glorious day happened, they could take an iron grip over world government! Oh and yeah – dinosaurs also dug big wholes to look for food – thereby explaining apparent age! Thank you Pete! You’ve saved me from the green agenda!
      Did you sit there in the 70’s re-reading 1984 while smoking pot and listening to Pink Floyd’s The Wall?
      Incidentally, we’ve already have roughly that amount of warming and with the reduction in solar activity since about the time of The Wall being released and warming continuing… I’m sorry; you’re faith in a programmer one day working out the mystical other force doesn’t cut it.
      Yes, I have provided a whole range for parts to the climate change puzzle which together develop a convincing reasoning plus numerous detrimental biological and physical changes underway. I cannot accept that the bulk of scientific understanding is wrong, the current climate change is nature (caused by some unknown magical force) and that we should just suck it up and get on with life. I’ve done so time and time again and that you say I haven’t only illustrates that you’ve openly ignored the evidence behind my statements because, as I’ve said before, it doesn’t fit your frame.
      Look, I’m very aware (and thankful of) both Ignaz Semmelweis and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. I know the professional establishment is not always right – indeed scientific investigation would become redundant if that were the case. However, you choose to trust a couple blokes who say the atmospheric is less sensitive to CO2 than currently modeled, yet openly admit that you’ve got no idea why the climate is changing. You also base a lot of this on a conspiracy that can’t hold up to a reasonable investigation (honestly Pete, you’re of a fading group still barking about the non-event “Climategate”).
      I, on the hand, rely on more than 150yrs of study, over 250yrs of observed data in the changes to ecosystems and in physical processes, the vast majority of scientific literature and climate change that experts have been warning us about for as long as you’ve been around (although you my not have heard about it until far more recently depending on what circles you were in). More recent data (ie. late 30yrs) provides new and interesting data that is provocative, yet obviously not long enough in trends to be conclusive.
      Why you’re “expert” friends aren’t being taken seriously, I’m not sure – the denial circuit is pretty big – I’m sure that they can find allies there. Not all scientists that are qualified to make expert critics of their work are as dismissive as you suggest Brook to be. I find their lack of attention is probably a bigger mark on them than the vast majority of unrelated experts out there. And no, I’m experienced in ecology and environmental monitoring, not physical chemistry. Maybe try Prof John Abraham?
      I’m more concerned with the results of climate change and have only provided the reasoning behind it because of people like yourself. As I’ve said; we know that our actions are changing the concentrations of ghg’s in the atmosphere, we know the temp anomaly is positively increasing, with a pattern that matches an amplifying greenhouse effect, we know that there has been an increase in the absorption of long wave radiation related to CO2 and CH4 spectra and we know that a staggering number of biological and physical responses are changing in a direction that matches a changing climate. You tell me that I’m brainwashed, that climate is naturally changing by some mystical unknowable force and that you’re the critically minded one while admitting that the work by 2 blocks that you trust are beyond you – leaving the whole mess unexplainable.. You ask for an unjustifiable leap of faith.
      I’m sorry Pete, but I must disagree with you.
      You’re principles are too fanciful, impractical and require one to ignore too much and accept that nothing is in anyway ever knowable. Basically it’s an Orwellian world, set up in the 19th century, under a guise that requires millions of people to have been working together against the rest.
      I know the science is never 100% certain, but at least it tries to explain the physical world and provide convincing practical investigation and study. It’s not a leap of faith because the ideas get bounced around, picked to pieces and eventually it starts to make sense.
      You walk in like a Witness at my door who tries to tell me that all I’ve learnt in biology is a lie, developed by Satan to take the masses away from the word of God. You ask me to ignore the training, the evidence that I’ve seen with my own eyes and the weight of scientific literature and accept that the real answer is unable and that we must accept our fate. I disagree – if we’re reducing ecosystem viability, we’re ultimately reducing our ability to survive as a species. I take this very seriously and look at the compelling evidence critically.
      You might be willing to take a big gamble on your grandchild’s life, I simply cannot do that to my son – sustainability it number one in my book.
      Cheers,
      Tim

      Like

  10. Please note that the in para 8 of my previous comment the figures of 10C, 20C and 30C were distorted in the translation from my submission to the presented text. the “0” should be superscript, i.e. 1 degree C, etc.

    Like

  11. Tim, that was quite a rant from you which in the main I will ignore, however I repeat that you should try to stop distorting what people say. You have made up a fairy tale about me saying things such as “climate is naturally changing by some mystical unknowable force”, “nothing is in anyway ever knowable”, “all (you)’ve learnt in biology is a lie, developed by Satan to take the masses away from the word of God”, “ignore the training, the evidence that (you)’ve seen with (you) own eyes and the weight of scientific literature”, “must accept our fate”. That is utter nonsense and you know it.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. That’s fine Pete. I’m well aware you’ll ignore whatever at your our discretion and quite frankly that illustrates my point.
      You’ve basically stated that I’m brainwashed by political propaganda and thus all my scientific understanding is based on fabrication. Therefore nothing is really understood with any certainty. You’ve said that you don’t know what forcing is behind current climate change and stated that maybe one day someone will work it out. You provide nothing that makes you’re assertion a wise or credible choice. You urge business-as-usual in the face of reasonable concern to change our practices, nothing more.

      Like

  12. Tim, in our exchanges on 18th August you appeared to include as part of your armoury of evidence protecting your faith in The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis the drought in Western Russia. You may not be aware of “The Russian Heat Wave of 2010 Draft Report by NOAA CSI – 13 August 2010” from The Physical Science Division of the Earth System Research Laboratory (Note 1). Let me quote what are to me the most iportant points in that report QUOTE:

    .. During the period 1880-2009, the region’s monthly July surface temperatures have experienced several very warm years of about +3°C departures (1931 , 1955, 1981, 1988, and 2002), and comparably cold Julys having about -3°C departure (1950, 1957, 1968, 1976, and 1994). Warm Julys alternating with cold Julys describes the typical sequence of events over western Russia during the last 130 years, with little or no discernible trend in July temperatures since 1880. ..

    The July heat .. stands out as a discrete event that is reminiscent of the often sharp year-to-year swings in this region’s July surface temperatures during the last 130 years. In many ways,the heat wave is a “black swan” event in that it is well beyond the normal expectations in the instrumental record—it is an outlier that is having an extreme societal impact.

    .. There is strong evidence that the immediate cause .. an extreme pattern of atmospheric winds .. not an uncommon occurrence over Eurasia in summer, .. This region is vulnerable .. owing to physical factors related to the region’s location downstream of the Atlantic westerly jet.

    .. greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. .. It is not known whether, or to what exent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer. It is important to note that observations reveal no trend in a daily frequency of July blocking over the period since 1948, .. The indications are that the current blocking event is intrinsic to the natural variability of summer climate in this region, a region which has a climatological vulnerability to blocking and associated heat waves (e.g., 1960, 1972, 1988). ..

    .. Our assessment indicates that, owing to the mainly natural cause for this heat wave, it is very unlikely that a similar event will recur next summer or in the immediate future (next decade). Whereas this phenomena has been principally related to a natural extreme event, its impacts may very well forebode the impact that a projected warming of surface temperatures could have by the end of the 21st Century due to greenhouse gas increases.

    .. As we learn from our 2010 experience what a sustained heat wave of +5°C to+10°C implies for human health, water resources, and agricultural productivity, a more meaningful appreciation for the potential consequences of the projected climate changes will emerge. It is clear that the random occurrence of a summertime block in the presence of the projected changes in future surface temperature would produce heat waves materially more severe than the 2010 event.

    UNQUOTE

    So, as I recall saying in previous comments, this is nothing new for that area. Although you correctly say “if the frequency of these events increases then we’re talking climate” there is no convincing evidence that our use of fossil fuels is causing an increase in the cause of this event (blocking). As far as The Hypothesis is concerned this report, with its “may” and “could” reflects my repeated empasis upon that word “uncertainty”.

    BTW, I find that graph of “Time series of July near surface temperature anomalies averaged over the area 50-60N and 35-55E” interesting. Have you any thoughts on those extended hot periods in 1885-1893, 1930-42 and 1995-2004 ans those cold periods 1942-51 and 1988-95 – any ideas?

    NOTES:
    1) see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/moscow2010/

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. There will never be, in your life time, evidence that is convincing enough for you – indeed there can’t be if all the major sources of data are, in your mind, distorted by the propaganda and all the experts are agents of the conspiracy.
      I’m tired of dancing around in your circle of unreasonably low concern. I hope to help leave this place better than people like you handed it over and provide increasing sustainability for the next generation. I really don’t wish you will in your endeavours to promote business-as-usual rubbish.

      Like

  13. Tim, you won’t listen to what I say but maybe you’ll tke heed of someone who has far greater expertise in the relevant sciences than you or I.

    Roger Taguchi says “Yes, this older, perhaps wiser writer cautions the young not to get too enthused about mathematical models, which ought not to be confused with reality. Perhaps only the top physicists and chemists really understand limitations to physical theories which they made up. Others who follow often just memorize the formulae as if it were Holy Grail. And the models in economics and the social sciences just cannot be compared to, say, QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) which is accurate to 12 or so significant digits [like measuring the distance from New York to Los Angeles to a hundredth of a millimetre].”

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. LOL Pete,
      again, as always, I’ve gone over why I’m concerned and with my main focus on ecology, with so many noted biological and physical changes already observed, I’m not too bothered getting in models. You should feel good that one of your few buddies suggests your wiser though! So celebrate if you wish.
      In fact, I’m obviously beyond hope – a mere puppet on the strings of PNAS, Science, Royal Society etc. Blinded into unmerited concern by political propaganda spread by the UN to take over world.
      I can’t help by laugh Pete. Look, have fun with this ridiculous do-nothing campaign Pete – you’re having fun upsetting S2 so focus on that. You don’t take the literature seriously, nor can you see that it is wise to reduce of addiction to fossil fuels sooner rather than later, when it’s by choice, not desperate need. You ignore the vast majority of my arguments because of your “friendly scientists” disagree with sensitivity maths and an obsession over paleo-climate science.
      I’ll be living throughout most of this next century and as I previously said (which was disregarded by you as a mindless rant), I want to leave it in a better position than you’re generation handed it over.
      “this older, perhaps wiser writer cautions the young not to get too enthused about mathematical models” – whatever. I’m not and never have been, too enthused about mathematical models, but rather observed data.
      I’m not entertaining someone so selective and unconcerned about sustainability as yourself. I will no longer answer your nonsense.

      Like

  14. OK, Tim, I was wondering how long you’d be able to keep it up. A good effort. And not wasted – it’s always good to hone debating skills even if debating’s not the issue.

    As for my and Pete’s generation. I’d like to think I’ve got something bigger and better to leave my great-grandchildren than a few bits of silver or china or handworked lace. Those things are precious reminders of bygone days, but nowhere nearly as important as the quality of the days those descendants have to live through.

    Like

    1. Cheers, but I suppose it wasn’t really a question of keeping up with Pete, more sinking down into the murky grey depths of ideological selectivity – but of course, he can’t see this. However, you’re right though. Our previous lengthy discussion was one where I focused more on providing the material behind my reasoning. Instead, here I focused more on what Pete was saying – which was at times hypocritical, at other times baseless and overall dismissive of the vast majority of current understanding and investigation. In changing my perspective, I was able to conclude that I wasn’t entertaining a scientific debate at all – but something that had conclusions drawn long before evidence and thus tried to make a lot of rubbish fit this mould. It was an interesting experience nonetheless. 🙂

      Like

  15. Tim, what are you on about with your “You should feel good that one of your few buddies suggests your wiser though!”? None of my buddies has suggested that I’m wiser than anybody but I suggested that Roger Taguchi is wiser than either you or I.

    As for you claim that I am unconcerned about sustainability, you have simply dreamed thatone up out of your imagination. My motto is “Re-use, repair, recycle and only as a last resort refuse” (refuse as in “for landfill”).

    Adelady, couldn’t agree more about “.. nowhere nearly as important as the quality of the days those descendants have to live through” but it is not only we in the developed economies who wish a decent quality of life for their descendents. We overindulge while others suffer deprivation.

    But none of this has anything to do with the UN-inspired propaganda about our continuing use of fossil fuels causing catastrophic change to global climates.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. My mistake – I figured you were relaying his comments about you.
      Come on Pete – this is as silly as the stuff that 1personofdifference would say or likewise, “I only buy organic and recyclable materials (all the while driving an SUV – most often alone)”
      You’re environmental concern is meaningless and only backed-up with futile gestures.
      Look, as an example; I offered you a wide range of literature regarding climate change and effects (both observed and tested) on many species, you offered one paper, slightly off topic regarding ecosystem respiration, expecting it to be enough for me to disregard all other (not as contrary as you assume) studies, some of which I offered you.
      I’ve given my basis for why I am concerned about the current climate change and how it related to our ghg emissions, you offer sensitivity stuff by two people that the larger scientific community have ignored (and deniers do get attention, which makes their situation even more bizarre) and an “I don’t know,” or “climate always changes,” as to otherwise explain climate change which has a remarkable likeness to an amplifying greenhouse effect signature and observed to be absorbing more long wave radiation in wavelengths known to be absorbed by CO2 and CH4. And then you follow this with a warning about relying too greatly on mathematical models. You have a wonderful way of not only ignoring what is contrary to your view, but also to shift needlessly between subjects, confuse the whole subject and allow conspiracies to temp the conversation towards a perpetual loop.
      A while ago, Dr. Glikson wrote an excellent post, The art of denial, in which he discusses a report by Diethelm and McKee. What struck me about this piece, and is something I often return to, is that “If either party chooses not operate under those rules [accepted academic debate], then they will tend to win (unfairly)”. I feel that you no doubt feel that you largely win your arguments because you demonstrate time and time again that you do not even try to adhere to typical rules of scientific debate. That you can write-off all contrary studies because, it’s obviously part of the UN-inspired propaganda, and have no other real suggestions to offer instead means that someone who tried to discuss the situation with you in a meaningful and scientific manner are left stumped, therefore you feel that you out debated them. However, this is not the case. You’ve successfully turned a scientific debate into a political one and being hence shoulder-deep in the grey, it is one where no-one can win.
      Looking back over Glikson’s post now, I’m amazed at how well you fit into all 5 of the points he makes;
      1. Belief that a major conspiracy is blocking the truth from being told -> you’re UN-inspired propaganda for world domination.
      2. The use of fake experts which is accompanied by the denigration of established experts and researchers -> Monckton being your most obvious, but these two other guys you have found might also fit (disregarding everyone else who disagrees, because, of course, they must be in on it)
      3. Selectivity – drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus or highlight flaws in the weakest papers so as to discredit an entire field -> the stockpile of literature I have offered you, which you disregard (because they’re in on the brainwashing) and instead find a handful of papers that agree with your assumption
      4. Creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver -> the reason you pick on the hockey stick and models so much (again, disregarding observed data that is provided in the papers I’ve relied upon)
      5. Use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies -> your tropical respiration paper is an excellent example, although Adelady and myself have caught you out many other times mixing results and conclusions up (you probably don’t remember this however, because you tend to ignore or disregard it when I’ve done this).
      This is why this is my final conversation with you; I’m happy to debate over the science with the scientifically literate. I’m not too keen on a political debate, which is your chosen stomping ground. If I was to have a political debate, it would regard climate science as a given (because not everyone can be a climate scientist, but can see a compelling case for why anthropogenic climate change is real and occurring if they are not blinkered by unrealistic conspiracy theories) and would be debating over how to next shape our activities to maintain standard of living while meeting a changing world and power supply. This is an interesting debate – but you’re still stuck on the first hurdle.
      “But none of this has anything to do with the UN-inspired propaganda about our continuing use of fossil fuels causing catastrophic change to global climates.”
      You’re right… because this is a figment of the collective imagination of a mere few who can make such leaps of faith.
      You wrote Barry Brook off as in on it (most likely because you were offended that he didn’t take you seriously) and will no doubt assume that I am brainwashed by the institution and copious studies subsequently provided to me through the various scientific journals and as part of my employment in a changing state of Australia. Feel free to walk away believing with all your might that I am a zombie for some crazy UN-inspired propaganda to take over the world. I don’t care what you think of me. What I do care about is spending my time more productively, discussion the science, arguing over sustainability and working out how best to provide a future that is rich with life and opportunity for my son.
      Re-use, recycle, continue your political propaganda nonsense elsewhere and feel warm on the inside, believing that you’re doing the right thing. You have nothing to offer here nor am I willing to waste any more energy on such a warped and closed mind. But, of course Pete, this is all just a rant, isn’t it?
      Cheers,
      Tim

      Like

  16. Tim, what a coincidence that you should mention organics. I’ve just been reading an article in today’s (24th) Daily Mail about those and if I replace “organic” with “AGW” it could have been an article about how ridiculous is faith in “The (significant human-made global cliate change) Hypothesis.

    You only have your opinion about my concern for the enviroment “is meaningless and only backed-up with futile gestures”. You don’t know me or in what way I play a part in trying not to damage it and have no facts to back up your instinctive statement. It’s the same with The Hypothesis. BTW, my previous comment was about sustainability rather than concern for the environment although the two do overlap in parts.

    As I have said ad nauseum, I do not deny that climates change or that changes have an impact upon humans and other fauna and flora. What I do not accept because I have seen no convincing evidence is that humans are responsible for significant change to global climates through using fossil fuels and that as a consequence of our inevitable continuing use of them a global climate catastrophe is looming. Niether have I seen convinving evidence that we can predict with our computer models what the global climates will be like in 90 years time. You have not provided links to any convinving evidence of this.

    I understand you concern about possible climate changes but you have no more idea than I have what global climates will be like in even 10 years time.

    I am not trying to win an argument. What is the point of that. It doesn’t improve our understanding of those horrendously complex and poorly understood processes and drivers of global climates. In my exchanges with Stewart (S2) on the Greenfyre blogs I was directed to the UK’s Open University Climate Change course which Stewart is studying. One of the course Learning Outcomes is “to understand that although a growing scientific consensus has become established through the IPCC the complexities and uncertainties of the science provide opportunity for climate sceptics to challenge the Panels findings”. That’s a highly respected university saying that, not Pete Ridley.

    Again, your “That you can write-off all contrary studies because, it’s obviously part of the UN-inspired propaganda” totally (and I believe deliberately) misunderstands what I keep trying to get you to acknowledge, which is that the human-made global climate change debate is highly politicised, much more so than any other area of scientific investigation than I can think of. The IPCC is a body established by two organisations which are a part of the largest political organisation on earth, the UN. It is not scientists who dominate the UN or its subsidiary organisations.

    The IPCC does not undertake any scientific research. The IPCC did not nominate scientists for AR4 but asked global governments to nominate candidates. These were hand-picked by politicians, not independent scientists. How can anyne reasonably deny that politics not science is dominant within the IPCC process? It appears that the same has happened for AR5, despite the furore after Climategate and the subsequent IPCC-gates.

    On the matter of papers that you have offered me, my recollection is that the vast majority were relating to impacts of climate change not causes of it. If I am mistaken then I apologise.

    Thanks for the enjoyable exchanges. Enjoy life.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

  17. lol – he just needed the last say.. and to make yet another cross reference: re. organics.
    I could do as much by saying, “funny that you should mention Steward – because I subscribed to comment stream and thus caught the whole conversation, not just what was left undeleted and must say that to first demand to know someone’s complete name and then use a search engine to find out about them only to make irrelevant personal attacks is nothing short of a disgusting habit.”
    Sorry Pete, this space is reserved for people who are interested in science – to debate it and to learn about it, but not to selectively ignore what doesn’t fit some paranoid (UN-controlled brainwashing activity to lead to world domination) hypothesis. Such nonsense can be encouraged at Jo Nova’s space or Rogerthesurf’s little war on reason.
    I have provided not only impact studies (provided because you largely don’t agree that lower latitudes are at the greatest risk because of climate change) but also the reasoning behind why our emissions relate to the amplifying greenhouse effect. From a risk management point of view, it is far more likely that we are a major factor in the past century of warming – the uncertainty being much less than 10% as I discussed in a post yesterday.
    You, on the other hand, say that climate is changing for unknown reason. This is as laughable as your UN conspiracy theory. That you say this demonstrates as I’ve said above – you’re not interested in a scientific debate, but a political one and one that has all the hallmarks of denial.
    You have said at “ad nauseum” (just pick that up did we?).. come on Pete – I’m nearly in a perpetual loop offering ignored scientific investigation. You can’t write it off saying that neither of us know a great deal – leave that to yourself. I have a fairly good scientific basis, plus cause and impact being my training and work (of course, this is just brainwashing, no?).
    As suggested, please check out the loonies at Jo’s blog or Roger – you’ll have much more fun there with people who are interested in such conspiracy nonsense. This is really not the right place for you.
    Cheers,
    Tim

    Like

  18. Tim, last one from me then you can have as much say as you like without me – on this blog.

    1) As I have requested before, please try to get your facts straight when responding to my comments.. The first person to mention “organics” here was you, August 24, 2010 10:54

    2) My reference to Stewart was totally relevant to the debate over The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis. It was he who led me to the Open University’s Climate Change course, something that many lay bloggers on both sides of the debate would benefit from following, including myself, providing that it covers both sides of the scientific debate/analyses without bias, which I am checking up on.

    3) Regarding my dislike of the practice of cowering behind false names, again you distort the truth. I have never issued a “demand” that Stewart reveal his name to me. I have commented on several Greenery thread and elsewhere about the merits of using ones real name. For example on the “A Glorious Defeat” thread I said “I’m much more prepared to accept Professor Johnson’s expert opinion than those of unknown bloggers like yourself, Truesceptic, Marco, S2, Martha, etc. etc. etc. who hide behind false names”. I also said “.. the debate .. unfortunately was destroyed by a staunch DAGWer who hid behind several false names and pretended to be several sceptics”. “ .. Ian (Forrester) .. at least has the courage not to hide behind a false name”. If you can find any occasion when I have made a “demand” that Stewart reveal his real name then present it here and I’ll apologise to you and to Stewart, otherwise a retraction would be appreciated.

    In contrast with yourself, as modersator of the Greenfyre blog started by Mike Kaulbars (who like you was prepared to debate with sceptics), Stewart has demonstrated clear double standards in his dealings with me as a sceptic. He has removed as “provocative” many of my comments which challenged other subscribers who support The Hypothesis yet leaves intact their responses about me. A perfect example is exchanges between Martha and me on the “Poptart’s 450” thread on 6th June. I think that any fair-minded individual would consider Martha’s comment at 6:54 am could be considered rather provocative yet my much less provocative response was deleted.

    Stewart illustrated his double standards on the “Lillu the Pink” thread on 21st August at 3:48 am with this comment “ Pete Ridley Deleted: Enough. This blog isn’t here so that people can insult and inflame each other. Please try to stay civil and do not be deliberately provocative”. Now he is moderating out all of my (and who knows which other sceptics’) comments and will reduce what used to be a good blog for open debate (as intended by Mike Kaulbars) into an evangellical forum for desciples of the CAGWer religion.

    5) Regarding commenting on blogs which pesent the sceptical side of the debate, like Jo Nova’s (I’m do not know of any Roger who runs a blog) I have much more fun debating with supporters of The Hypothesis.

    My final comment is to thank you for at least having the decency to leave all of my comments intact and spending time to respond to them at length (albeit in a blinkered manner). I genuinelly have enjoyed the exchanges and am sure that we’ll meet up on other blogs that are supportive of The Hypothesis, but please try to open your mind to the other side of the continuing debate over The Hypothesis. Al Gore was lying when saying in 2007 “If you look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature the debate is over” (http://www.entertonement.com/clips/tksttlcnwg–The-debate-is-overAl-Gore-). It has been raging increasingly since then and will continue until mean global temperatures stabilise before the next downturn.

    Now please go ahead and get in the last word, after all, it is your blog.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Like

    1. You make me laugh.
      You completely ignore that you made some terrible comments about Stewart’s appearance, drinking habit and other hobbies – that was pretty low and not relevent!
      Demand may have been a little strong, but I too use an alias just because I want to and have no problem giving it out – in both cases your were quite persistent and then to follow that up with a search… that’s a little odd! I think it’s fair to say that you pretty much got what you deserved with S2.
      Indeed I am very willing to debate with sceptics, but it’s pretty rich you flipping my previous reference of blinkered vision. You’re not here to debate over the science at all – in fact you’re quite happy to disregard the whole scientific establishment as a tool of the propaganda. This is the only reason why I’m over talking to you – we’re not on the same page and to the scientific material I provide, you really have nothing to argue with. Yours is a political and somewhat hysterical argument.
      You comments on Mike Kaulbars blog (note, this is from memory, so I might have it a little wrong) that the situation here is that we’re not really trying to change the other person’s view, but instead provide a basis for the followers to read and learn more. I left you’re comments because, as I can see it, they demonstrate a classic example of anti-scientific denial and how fruitless it is trying to rely on reason and scientific investigation to argue against paranoia.
      There’s simply no point going around in circles. The only debate that continues in this nature and I’m confident that the majority are waking up from the ridiculous conspiracy theories and starting to again discuss how to achieve a sustainable future.
      As for Jo – you disregard the offer, however, I think it could be a rewarding venture for you. There are plenty of individuals there that could help you identify others who have made speeches which you can conclude are nazi in nature (honestly, your blog demonstrates that your capable of surpassing Monckton with Godwin’s Law).. I’m sure you’ll write me off as such. Such is life.
      As for the final remark – clever! It’s a challenge for me to take the high road and leave it alone.. Unfortunately I’m used to this bizarre muddy place you’ve taken us to and don’t really care.
      Enjoy your revolution against insight.
      Tim

      Like

  19. Sorry Tim, I really did intend to stay away but had this E-mailed to me today and thought you would be interested.

    QUOTE:

    With the outcome of our election so delicately balanced, those calling the shots would do well to consider what is written below and the astonishing parallels to our own country at this very moment.

    ‘Sustainable’ Poverty: The Real Face of the Leftist Environmental Agenda
    By John Griffing

    Since the seventies, the American left has warned of coming famine, overpopulation, total deforestation, urban sprawl, and overcrowding. The only problem is that none of this has ever happened. The left lied, and freedom died.

    As a consequence of population hysteria, Western countries have overcorrected, aborting pregnancies and exchanging the cradle for a career. The result? The population of thedeveloped world is now shrinking. The European Union (EU) relies on a steady influx of Muslim immigrants to keep pensions afloat. Forest coverage has actually increased in the United States despite sensationalist warnings.

    Suburban sprawl never became a substantial problem. In fact, the 2000 Census records show that 94 percent of the United States is still rural, and only 5 percent of U.S. land mass is urban. A study by the Center for Immigration Studies demonstrates that what sprawl does occur is isolated and directly linked to uncontrolled immigration, a problem easily corrected — without central planning — if immigration laws are simply enforced.

    And food? It just so happens that due to scientific innovation, farmers are growing more food per hectare on less land. But despite the factual evidence, leftists are now implementing environmental policies based on incorrect and historically inaccurate assumptions.

    Paying homage to a long legacy of radical environmentalism, President Obama’s faithful followers have advanced the Livable Communities Act to attack nonexistent problems like sprawl and overpopulation, as well as sub-issues like pollution. Humans will be punished for seeking to improve their quality of life, with new limits on mobility and Orwellian guidelines dictating where citizens will be allowed to live and work, with the justification of ushering in “sustainable growth.” The facts do not matter to Obama and the left. The fact that urban sprawl is a nonexistent problem, that “smart growth” fails where tried, and that the Constitution does not permit government to dictate where and how citizens will live is irrelevant.

    The current practices of federal agencies provide a few clues. Although the only body authorized under the Constitution to buy or sell land for government purposes is Congress, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and other federal agencies like the Forest Service have for several decades deprived private property owners of their land (and cattle) at below market prices. The land is then leased back to its owners for a yearly fee. Land that predates the BLM is simply confiscated by way of litigation [i].

    In one such case, a rancher named Wally Klump contested the BLM’s rights to his land owing to the fact that his ranch predated the BLM by one hundred years. When Klump refused to move, he was held in contempt and sent to federal prison. The result should come as no shock, since internal BLM documents reveal that humans are viewed as a “biological resource” for the purposes of “ecosystem management activities.”

    Most Americans are unaware that an organized assault on private property rights is tied to a series of dangerous foreign agreements that would transform America into Soviet-style “common” space by way of numerous “biosphere reserves.” Never ratified by Congress, these agreements have been incorporated into U.S. regulatory law by way of a Memorandum of Understanding. Interestingly, the “biosphere reserves” program aligns closely with the current Livable Communities Act, conjointly proposing more concentrated human habitats and “buffer zones” to limit human environmental impact. Family trips to Yosemite? Not for long.

    Similarly, the EPA has sought to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity by regulation, a treaty that was defeated in Congress on the grounds that it would have opened the door for a possible confiscation of up to fifty percent of the U.S. landmass under the guise of “conservation,” including private property. The Convention used the controversial Wildlands Project, which seeks to “rewild” the United States, as its model [ii].

    Reed Noss, a Wildlands Project proponent, once remarked that, “… the native ecosystem and the collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans. …”[iii]. At issue is the constitutionality of regulation or foreign agreements using the Wildlands Project as the philosophical foundation for declared goals.

    Is the Constitution’s explicit protection of private property rights consistent with the huge assumptions of human expendability inherent in the Wildlands Project and the companion Convention on Biological Diversity?

    Even proponents of the Convention do not think so. The Global Biodiversity Assessment (GBA), commissioned by the Convention, had this to say of property rights:

    It should be noted that in some countries, constitutional restrictions can make regulatory approaches to biodiversity conservation difficult. One frequently occurring constitutional provision that may cause difficulty is a guarantee against deprivation, or acquisition, or taking of property without compensation[iv].

    The U.N. and its team of environmental activists view U.S. property rights as a “difficulty.” The right to live and work in a place of one’s own choosing is the definition of freedom. Karl Marx realized the connection between property and freedom. It was Marx who once said, “In a word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend.” Conversely, the revered Justice Joseph Story once remarked, “That government can scarcely be deemed to be free when the rights of property are left solely dependent upon the will of a legislative body[.]”

    We know how well the Soviet Union protected the environment. Is this really the model we want to pursue under the guise of “livable communities”?

    If we follow the suggestions of the radical environmentalists, human beings will be sacrificed on the altar of “sustainability.” And sometimes, quite literally. This is not stewardship, but perversion.

    Clearly, the environmental agenda is not about protecting the environment, but about controllinghuman beings. The only thing “sustainable” about the radical environmental agenda is the predictable misery and poverty it will yield.

    Best regards, Pete ridley

    Like

    1. What a load of rubbish! Of course, it fits your mould so you’re quick to assume it’s correct.
      I like that John target’s Muslim immigration – great to target the xenophobia of endless terrorists. Needless to say, they’re moving because the west have been helping destroy their little desert oasis constantly for the past decade and then numerous other wars over the past 40 odd years.
      Forest cover has increased in the US… really? I’d like to see the evidence of this. It’s certainly NOT the case in Aust. and in the UK, well you guys haven’t had much since you started using it for fuel in the beginning of the industrial revolution, so if simply one tree was planted by yourself, that could be seen as an improvement. Ultimately, I’m highly sceptical of increasing forests – maybe an increase in timber growth forests, but NOT in ecologically rich natural forest growth.
      “Suburban sprawl never became a substantial problem.” AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I live in probably the WORST city of low density sprawl – it’s a significant problem here and what a way of putting it – 94% is still rural and 5% urban. That is a warning sign on it’s own! Look at the size of the US! Of course the vast majority is going to be rural – it would be even more dramatic in Aust because most of Aust isn’t really suitable to urbanisation and it’s a fairly big landmass. Two things to remember when looking at sprawl – how much of the productive land it covers (now THAT would be interesting and terrifying) and how much they contribute to the country’s carbon emissions (that would be a massive part of the emissions). You’ll find also that a major component of the urban CO2 emissions is solely due to inefficient transport – largely resulting from sprawl.. I discuss this in the Innovation series and so won’t elaborate here.
      John’s a clever chap – again blaming immigration! Let’s see if, like yourself and Monckton, he’s able to work Hitler into the story as well…
      Food… Please. Just because John, yourself or I could eat like a pig, this doesn’t mean the world is abundant with food and John’s clever again with pointing out half the story that sounds good; “farmers are growing more food per hectare on less land”. We could, if we so choose, put on a banquet that could fill the bellies of our mates to the point of throwing up – yet more than half of our species lives in a perpetual state of malnutrition. Farming practices are increasingly becoming less sustainable – so much so that bees (one of the most important pollinators!!) in rural environments are even less healthy!! Ever increasingly large machines and mono-culture practices are a short-term boon. They are not sustainable and as the land becomes overworked, it becomes unusable – this has been happening all over Aust for more than 60yrs, with farmers trying to use European methods rather than working with the land.
      Wow, this next paragraph is a wonderful example of fear propaganda! As I’ve explained, sprawl is an issue, uncontrolled population growth is a problem – another example of this is with your generation – the baby boomers – it’s created an aging and thus more expensive population. Endless unregulated growth causes massive problems – China is in a strong position only because they took measures to regulate their population, however, they too will hit the aging population problem and simply relying on outdated unregulated growth, outdated energy sources, outdated simplified farming is simply setting us up for a fall. Corey from Conservationbytes has this excellent post regarding the situation. Hank at Ekos^2 has done many excellent posts, discussing the need to better balance economy with ecology – as have I dabbled into it from time to time (the easiest to mention would be the Innovation series again). Fear tactics and ignorance of real problems are by far the real control of the minds of the masses and what will send us up the creek without as paddle.
      The next paragraph is again a targeted attack at a highly specialised situation to make the government seem oppressive and evil in the face of the battler – typical nonsense of current affair news programs. Would anyone want a government to work a nasty loophole to make a quick buck? This is not a “left” or “right” issue and irrelevant to John’s piece. IF it’s occurring… IF… well we’ve got a piggery of a government which John paints as somewhat of a communist feel – only to increase the fear. Not so cleverly thrown in with this case, but if he had you already hooked, you wouldn’t have noticed – just falling deeper into the 2mins of hate.
      Poor hard working Wally! Such a typical bloke, huh? Up against a nasty government; using ecology as a guise to do nasty things… John should work for one of those mock news “current affair” programs – he’s good. Of course this is nonsense and no ethically mind person on either side of this “debate” (as you call it) would want an oppressive government. Near the beginning of my blogging, I wrote about an idiot who was indulging in a hunger strike because the government wouldn’t let him farm the land as he wanted to (you’ll note, that I also published it with my name on top – an old habit, but this also shows that I have never had a problem with sharing my name). Now this is the reality which I’m sure our friend John here could paint the picture of a hard-up farmer against an oppressive government. In short, his practises were deemed outdated and unsustainable – that’s why they were banned. On the other hand, I’ve covered other case studies of numerous farmers who have adopted new approaches which has seen an increase in local biodiversity, a reduction in sprays and fertilizers, and less manual labour for great yields.
      Here we go!!! John didn’t turn to Hitler – he turned to the Soviets!!!! Damn communists! Geez Pete – you buy into such nonsense (again, thank you for demonstrating to my readers just how absurd your basis is). I suppose my posts on transit and pedestrian orientated developments sound like the same thing… hmmm… it’s like with you’re “I wanna debate about climate science..” while “but all the scientific papers are in on the propaganda, thus can be ignored!” It’s the perfect loop in which no-one can argue with you because the conspiracy is too deep for reason… and you say I’m faith based! lol… John obviously expects his reader to be convinced by this point so quite openly draws at an American’s (and no doubt an older Englishman’s) deepest fear, drawn from the cold war!
      The EPA are in on it too… why am I not surprised? Why do they want this land under the *cought* “guise of conservation”, if not for conservation? You develop workhouses for the rest of humanity to slave under the UN-world government? You and John have lost it… truly!
      Foreign… if all else fails, the American xenophobe and Pete will shudder in fear when you write, “foreign agreement”. I’ve covered, endlessly, just how important ecology is to human life. We are provide an immense range of services that, without, life would become difficult, if not impossible, for our species. Much of that life is supported by other life. Resilience to change (including climate change, which you agree is occurring, regardless of the forcing) is improved by healthy biodiversity. Without maintaining other life, we risk our own species (and before you jump to point out that I’ve provided no references, again, pretty much everything I’m saying here has been covered in greater detail, with a wealth of scientific literature, in the Innovation series).
      Now that the fear is set in, he turned back to the typical note one hears from many American’s – it’s against the constitution, it’s against my rights! Well, “the right to bare arms” works wonders for the US, doesn’t it? This is just fear-mongering propaganda, with very little (and highly selective) foundation.
      Now we’re in the deep of it, are we not? Hmm… as hairshirt green lefties scratch their heads as to how to restrict people… John’s an idiot. As I’ve explained in numerous posts, transit and pedestrian orientated developments pose a different and arguably improved way of living, promoting greater health, access to services, access to open spaces, local farming; arguably a much more diverse and enriching existence. Of course, this is not compatible with current sprawl. It poses interesting questions that I’ve discussed in the Innovation series. If you didn’t listen to fear-mongering nonsense like this and instead took real interest in the debate over future planning and development, you would see that there’s a wealth of fresh ideas and excellent proposals out there that deserve discussion. Of course, you and John are obviously scared of change and cover this in UN/communist delusions.
      lol – John goes as far as quoting Marx – he is brilliant in hitting the xenophobic/communist fear nerve huh? All the while, writing a piece that’s little more than baseless fluff.
      His conclusion is wonderful; “human beings will be sacrificed on the altar of “sustainability.” And sometimes, quite literally.” What the hell is this suppose to mean? Greenies out in the world by moonlight stealing your first borne? That you take such statements seriously is very much a detrimental mark on your credibility. Much of what John is scared of (minus the political rubbish that the two of you revel in) is what I discuss continuously. Never once have I suggested force or murder or new world order – this is the concoction of a sick mind, NOT reality Pete.
      “Clearly, the environmental agenda is not about protecting the environment, but about controlling human beings.” hmmm… not really. As explained above, he’s pretty much delusional and without evidence throughout his piece and out of nowhere chucks communists into the mix… Honestly Pete, did you provide this as a joke or do you buy into such unsubstantiated fear-mongering nonsense??
      No Pete (and the same to John here), predictable misery and poverty will follow when the crops fail, when species die off, unable to move or adapt to climate change (exacerbated by other human pressures), when water movement alters, when the oceans are depleted and when oil (and oil derived from coal – I add this silly fact for your sake) is in very short supply.
      The “environmental agenda” (as this bozo puts it) is not about protecting the environment (he’s right with that): IT’S ABOUT PROTECTING A WORLD THAT IS HABITABLE FOR OUR SPECIES.
      Really Pete… were you being serious?
      Cheers
      Tim

      Like

  20. Tim, of course I was serious. What I basically said in my 25 words was ” .. thought you would be interested” with the rest being someone else’s opinions. You were interested enough to respond with 1765 words. Doesn’t that tell you something?

    I just can’t keep away from here – I enjoy our exchanges so much.

    Best regards, Pete.

    Like

    1. It tells me that I’m not the kind of person to let utter nonsense pollute open minds. That piece was nothing bad hate propaganda in the absence of actual evidence.
      I can’t believe you went to the effort of word counting. Honestly, i do try to answer to the fullest, but to count the words…

      Like

      1. indeed I have heard of it Pete. It’s more a point that you went to the effort.. I couldn’t imagine bothering personally. You simply handed me some rubbish so I made sure I disposed of it appropriately.

        Like

    2. FYI “Its [IPCC] opponents like to create the impression that it’s an all-powerful body on the verge of creating a communist/fascist world government. In reality it’s a tiny, underfunded organisation which can’t even pay its own chairman.” – from Monbiot. But of course, Monbiot and the rest are in on it?

      Like

  21. I made a bet with myself — that the nonsensical Griffing op-ed was from WorldNewsDaily, because it has that characteristic wingnut reality-denying bonkersness — and lost my bet. It’s in fact from The American Thinker, which is another wingnut site with an Orwellian name: just as WorldNewsDaily is not a news but a propaganda site, so The American Thinker is not designed for people who do any thinking: its readers are expected to believe what they’re told. Both sites are as loopy as the other.

    Like

    1. Cheers for the heads up – I might go and look around their stuff for a laugh. Such hate, as well anti-science debate (as opposed to the enriching debate that can be carried out withing the appropriate scientific protocol) needs to be addressed and exposed for what it is. 🙂

      Like

  22. Loopy isn’t the word for my single horrible experience at American Thinker.

    American Stinker is more like it. The conspiracy theory loopy could be entertaining if it weren’t constantly overpowered by the unrelenting nastiness, mainly racist but just generally nasty.

    Like

    1. True… A lot of this style of discussion would be interesting/amusing if it wasn’t for the underlying hate they carry. Traditionally, the conservative angle was the dominant force, I feel. Radical thinkers arguing against inequality have fought a tough battle to get where we are today – in that way, I think this deep “right” is the senile old man of an outdated ideology. It’s somewhat supported by other conservative groups, I guess, for numbers and money – but at arm’s length.
      My boss brought my attention to an article a while ago, about economy and ecology being unbalanced siblings. I can find it for you, if you’d like. It’s focused my thinking on traditional/modern and conservative/liberal debates and how it relates to an environmental scientist (although, the paper didn’t go into all this – you no doubt have realised that if I get and idea, I soon drift off, sometimes on a complete tangent, to somewhere else! lol)

      Like

    2. American Stinker is more like it.

      Ha!

      Unsurprisingly, WorldNewsDaily is almost ubiquitously referred to as some or other variant of WorldNutsDaily.

      Like

  23. Sorry I missed the dance with Pete. An amusing read.

    I salute you for your energy in dealing with vampyre trolls like Pete, but we both know that nothing based on science will ever change the minds of the “draw-the-curves-and-then-plot-only-the-data-that-agrees-with-it-and-ignore-everything-else” types.

    Great posts on Skeptical Science, BTW. Love ’em. Keep up the good work!

    2nd star to the right, straight on till morning, then…

    The Yooper

    Like

    1. Cheers mate! You may also like the Innovation is Key series (more or less an extended version of the piece I wrote for Skeptical Science).
      Unfortunately, I’ve focused on denial for sometime and am finding it hard to return to my main focus; not what the problem is (which many people seem unable to move beyond), but how to address it in a meaningful way.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s