Oh boy, that report is well above my ability to comprehend it but I'll give you my understanding on the ability of CO2 to add to the greenhouse effect. From the extensive reading that I've done, the Earth is about at maximum levels of CO2 for it to have any effect. Adding more CO2 won't do diddly squat (gosh I can be polite when I have to be...) to the temperature and we're not going to burn up in a fire ball! CO2's effect on the atmosphere goes up in a logarithmic fashion rather than a linear one.

If you put a piece of black cotton fabric over a window it will block out (let's say) 90% of the light. If you put another piece of fabric over the same window it will block out another 1% of the light. Another piece of the same fabric will block out another 0.35% etc etc etc. Adding more CO2 is like adding another another piece of black fabric. It won't do much at all. There is a huge rise in the effect of CO2 from about 200ppm (don't quote me on this) to about 320ppm(?) but after that there is very little effect.

If CO2 had a linear effect on temperatures and the greenhouse effect, for every ppm we put into the atmosphere there would be a corresponding rise in greenhouse effect. There isn't. As far as I know that is universally accepted even by the alarmist side of the argument but it's not that well known in the general community or at least the people I talk with.

What I don't understand is why the graphs displaying CO2 and temperatures over the ages aren't explained to all and sundry. Since time immemorial CO2 has risen in the ice cores AFTER the temperature. On average this occurs about 800 years after the temperature rise. CO2 then falls about 800 years AFTER the temperature falls. Part of the CO2 rise we're experiencing now is the release of CO2 from the oceans 800 years (roughly) after the Medieval Warming Period. Somehow that is never explained properly, the graphs are separated and it appears that the CO2 rise comes before the temp. rise.. but it doesn't. 90% or more (depending which source you read) of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from totally natural sources in and on the Earth. Let's not forget that the greatest greenhouse gas of all is water vapour which contributes (depending on the material you read) anywhere from 85-93% of the greenhouse effect. I don't see anyone screaming that we need to remove water from the planet

Here's a nice blog in which a geology professor emeritus has graphs of the temps the Earth has lived through over the last 10,000 years. We have a long way to go before we reach the heights of the various warming periods. I think we'll be ok..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%E2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/

Lovely job there, it filled in quite a lot of the gaps and although the missionary site (created to convert skeptics believe it or not) says it's rubbish then again I think quite a few older studies made before the climate became a political issue say the same thing, meaning it was probably established science that had to be set aside for the bigger picture (see my quote for evidence).

I also read for the second time this week that glaciers are so hard to melt it needs centuries above zero before they do, and then a few degrees above it as the threshold to do so is higher than simple melting point due to the latent heat. That would mean (also pretty established old science) that expecting glaciers to melt from a rise which frankly hasn't happened yet within the century is taking us all for fools. It is more likely glaciers are melting since we left the little ice age and if they are doing so now it is because of a warming which took place hundreds of years ago.

As for the CO2 the paper (ie linear) equation has a doubling from 260ppm to 560ppm (currently 390 or so) to 1C. The rest would be due to positive feedback from cloud and water vapour. Except as CO2 hasn't risen rapidly for most of measurable history (although when it did it reached the thousands, but that's another story entirely) the mechanisms are simply unknown as totally outside our experience to consider. The best computer models can't factor in future effects yet to happen if they can't tell how CO2 molecules will displace water and clouds and at what levels. Many scenarios would have CO2 replacing water vapour right now, as measured by NASA's own AQUA satellite, where it counts, replacing a powerful greenhouse gas with a much weaker one.

And although I am not quite up to measuring the actual rise since 1860 or so when they started measuring 260ppm, the rough 0.7C from 260-390 would point to around 1.4C if linear, slightly above but well within the paper formula. Except that doesn't take into account natural changes such as the powerful Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the much less known effects of solar changes. When I saw the argument in the latest BBC anti-skeptic programme tonight that regardless of the skeptics there isn't a single piece of evidence the simple formula of adding CO2 causing probably dangerous global warming means they don't come here at least. The people I am beginning to work with online include two geologists and just this week a climate scientist who makes a living through his own forecasts rather than being paid whatever the outcome as universities are. They won't be sacked if in 10 or 20 years their projections prove as phoney as pools tipsters, as besides everyone forgetting about them long beforehand (most predictions are forgotten within days if set further ahead) the margins for error are so wide they are not meant to be predictions but simply the best they can do at the moment, which quite frankly has little if any value.

It is interesting to me that a lot of the people who doubt the scientists on climate change are fully supportive of the science to do with GM foods.

It's interesting to me that global warming alarmists sometimes use ad hom attacks to play the man, not the science. Calling someone who disagrees with you a Holocaust denier or GM food advocate isn't a valid viewpoint in my opinion. I don't deny the holocaust and I dislike GM foods for more than one reason. When it comes to the CAGW debate I look for the truth. I don't like being lied to. So many of the things that are espoused as proof of CAGW are misnomers or in some cases, lies. I find that distressing. Science should be about the truth not fudging the truth in order to manipulate opinions for one reason or other.

As the enthusiasts on the site I regularly visit ask me the whole time, has that been peer reviewed?
Seriously, each person has views on individual issues. Outside actual political views which are purely someone's opinion and not really right or wrong, scientific issues can be controversial as unlike something like law which is man made and hard to get wrong as a result (my own original field) science is a constant learning process, and over the centuries many pet theories were proved very wrong when better ways of measurement came along. Logic is king though, and when the case for man made warming is presented to anyone with a basic grasp of science, logic and evidence it doesn't add up for me at least. As for GM, smoking, peak oil etc they have absolutely no place in discussing a single issue which is totally unconnected.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that people pick the science they believe and that decision is often coloured by their beliefs and politics etc. I am a bit wary of GM because it is promoted by a corporation trying to make billions of dollars and most of the research has been done by those companies. IMHO the evidence for climate change being caused by human actions is overwhelming. I have seen the many thousands of scientists in the relevant field who agree and among the hundreds of peer reviewed studies done, not one is in disagreement. With tens of thousands of pages written by scientists, of course there are going to be some mistakes and over enthusiastic people who do the wrong thing. But it is a big stretch to use this to deny the massive amount of evidence. I have seen interviews and speeches by these scientist and they very easily answer the complaints from the deniers. To claim that these scientists didn't take into account solar flares is just insulting. There is also the conspiracy that they are all just using it to get funding. It would have to be the most successful conspiracy in history without a single whistleblower. If you want to follow the money look who is to lose trillions if coal and oil are wound back. These companies also own the media companies and continually talk down climate change whereas scientists believe the science was accepted 20 years ago.

The big problem is everyone besides the climatologists is an outsider. The small cabal who you claim is the majority of scientists is simply the trust they have in their colleagues who can supply the figures on paper and then imply certain events are a result of them does not make them insiders, they are just more informed outsiders than everyone else.

Conspiracies have a standard format and in the end nearly all are blown, normally after those who benefit are long gone along with our money. Size is not important as human nature is such that however many people realise they either can make a positive profit through leading, or far worse and accounting for the vast majority avoid a loss by following will make many apparently ethical and balanced professionals simply keep a low profile as their own profession including them would end up looking very bad if they decided to speak out. Except many do speak out when no longer or never employed by universities or governments. Whatever the latest studies that claim yet more weather is my fault and yours once you delve deeply into them they are not what they seem, but mere supposition, mainly as our temperatures are little or no higher now than they should have been (although I'm really not sure it's possible to know in advance the way a world temperature graph would go naturally as the cycles are far too general to be predicted that closely) following the recovery from the last small ice age.

Add to that the finance and politics involved, separately, the finance being covered in great detail already and something which had already made Enron (ie a very large conspiracy quite officially blown apart over time) go down for fraud and reinvented as carbon trading. The politics is more the followers than leaders, accounting for the lion's share of supporters. These are the vocal left, the anti globalists/capitalists active since the middle of the 20th century in one form or another, always on the fringes of western democracy who now find the most plausible scenario to create a true collectivist society by withdrawing individual rights and freedoms to the world problem. Car driving has long been a symbol of the radical left's beef with freedom and individuality, and now they can loudly shout to the world to get out of their cars and onto public transport and bikes to save the planet. What a passport to power that is for them, after half a century marching through the streets being beaten up by police to finally be on the side of the conventional political side at last. I still haven't a clue why anyone would want to be against individual freedom, maybe if they lost theirs then they wouldn't any longer, but it is a popular view now and one which has finally got a world issue to begin to put their idea of paradise into action, and my own and most others of the other place downstairs. I may not understand why they want such a ghastly fate to uncivilise the western world but I don't understand vandals or bombers much but there is no shortage of them either.

Bottom line global warming appeals to those unscrupulous enough at the top (compare the tip of the iceberg UK politicians done for fiddling their expenses this year) to milk any opportunity for what it's worth, the silent majority squeezed in the middle who don't agree but are too scared to speak out, and the rebels who want to dismantle capitalism who for the first time see the seeds being planted by governments around the world. If that's not a formula for maintaining it then nothing is.

Thanks satguru for a very well reasoned and articulate argument. I am on the opposite side to most of what you say - as I am a radical left greenie. However it is good to understand the thinking behind those who think differently and it helps me to think a bit more about my own beliefs. I do believe in more public transport and I think high speed trains are the future even to the extent of bridging the Bering Strait (this is being seriously looked at)and having the world connected by it as air travel is going to become very expensive and difficult with oil running short. I also believe in individual freedom and hope electric cars remain an option for those who want more of it. I don' believe our future is a choice between capitalism and communism but a capitalism with a heart. I would rather have government voted in by us making decisions for me than a market controlled by CEO 's who's only goal is profit and do not take into account any of their effects on society.

As for climate change, the main thing that convinces me is the short time scale of the change and the radical weather events already happened and predicted by the scientists. I do not think people are capable of making sacrifices needed to have any effect. I think we are going to either spend money to fix these disasters and help those who are starving or dying of thirst...OR we spend it on armies to steal the resources including water and food that are left. Looking beyond the next election cycle let alone to 50 years is beyond us, especially in this "gotta have it now" generation.

I can also understand your suspicion of closed shop thinking where anyone who challenges the status quo is an outsider. I guess the world as the centre of the universe type thing in the old days and more recently 2 Australian scientists proved Ulcers were caused by a bacteria in the gut and could be fixed with anti biotics. They were ridiculed for years. I would say though, that with scientific studies being more rigid in the last hundred years and peer reviewed studies etc. this kind of thing is becoming rarer. With all of the discoveries in those years it is hard to find many that have been later blown apart. I do understand your suspicion but in this case I disagree and with the more information I gleen the more convinced I am that human caused climate change is happening.

All the best mate

Glenn

Thanks Glenn, and just shows people can disagree on something fundamental but be nice about it and accept the other's point of view whether or not they agree as well. As far as the evidence is concerned, looking for trouble is guaranteed to find it. My equation for the climate is that had there been no rise in CO2 firstly there would have been no additional recording and searching for extreme weather events, and secondly if there had been a reason they would gradually have got closer to finding it slowly and carefully instead of rashly jumping to conclusions (I've heard it said on the radio by one who admitted it from the inside as 'They couldn't think of any other reason...') as they were worried there may be a danger to the earth, but simply said we don't know what's causing it and can settle down and look at every single possible cause (solar and lunar effects, delayed ocean release etc) until clues arise and we start to put a picture together. But once it was CO2> man all other avenues were closed, locked and bolted and anyone with equal qualifications to themselves who suggested them were rejected out of hand.

It has sadly also showed up some dirty dealings at a very high level. Mistakes are normal, covering them up is dishonesty and the ones I referred to by the IPCC and NASA had been brought to their attention years earlier and they simply carried on hoping no one would mention it publicly, but in fact both did become known and it was only then they did anything about it. If it was trial and error we could all accept it but this was the same as finding someone else's property by chance and not giving it back till someone found you had it. That is as much theft (UK Theft Act) as having taken it yourself. And like a partner who cheats, once your lords and masters let you down it's very hard to have trust in them in any area, and would suggest a divorce by kicking them all out worldwide and starting again with new ones where appropriate. I no longer trust our lot anyhow.

Someone is locked in a room for a few weeks. During this time it is noticed the temperature rises and falls a bit, especially falling at night time. One night this person lights a candle, and leaves it burning overnight. On waking up the temperature is noticeably hotter than usual.

Government (official) conclusion: The candle has warmed the room.
Room warming sceptics conclusion : A warm weather front has arrived outside.


In my view global warming is the same on a more complicated scale.

Here's a bit of the data at the core of some basic suppositions which I have never seen the proof of: Ice core data that indicates a level of atmospheric acidity through the ages. None have proven that ice sitting under a ton of pressure, at -5C for 25,000 years doesn't change its ph level under those conditions (wouldn't a lightning strike in the vicinity alter the noted ph levels of the ice? In 10,000 years there must have been strikes). There is no book in the world that has proven that ph levels can be relied on for any period of time longer than 100 yrs.
My sense is that ph (acidity) is a function of electrical and ion potential in a material. We do know that electron availability is effected by outside pressures and temperatures, So why has no one linked that to long term effects on ice samples?

Not to mention that most of these cores are taken at the ice caps of the planet which have the Earth's magnetosphere dumping wave after wave of aurora particles into those very samples. No, I do not think any measure of electrical record in ice samples is reliable in the long term by the very nature and environment of the beast.

Good stuff mehaul, it's way out of my field so can't judge it at all but does tell me how hard these sort of measurements are to make both past and present, and dare I say impossible and dangerous for the future. Dangerous as policies are made (eg diverting cash from flood defences in Australia and salt for snow in the UK just before floods and two record winters) based purely on some maven who's able to map current weather conditions reasonably well by setting up programs so is trusted to project them into the future. Bear in mind no equipment was ever made for more than a 60 day forecast until this became an issue, and the IPCC say even models a decade ago were woefully inadequate. This after Kyoto had been set up based on what was freely admitted years later to be primitive compared to the present day, yet at the time it was 'cutting edge' and committed countries across the planet to divert funds as a result.

Mugaboo, your candle in the room simplifies the reality as well as the governments try to. Of course in a lab double CO2 and the temperature rises by a degree. Light a candle in a room (ie a closed system just like a greenhouse), and the calculations can be measured after the event by microdegrees. Except the candle generates heat directly while CO2 retains it, and not evenly but at 8% of all wavelengths at a reducing rate until saturated. Therefore the insulating falls with concentration while heating effects are constant with energy released by any constant source.

Do the equivalent on a planetary level and you're literally playing with fire (in the form of the sun) and every other major and minor influence such as the ocean currents and oscillations, jet streams, atmospheric saturation levels, solar and lunar effects, volcanoes, not to mention the natural forces which produce a sharp rise before an ice age every so many thousand years, eight are recorded on an almost identical pattern of a few small waves followed by a big one around about a million year period (or more? I haven't got it with me but the pattern is what counts).

Trying to compare a simple lab experiment with the atmosphere is what got the world embroiled in this possible delusion in the first place. It is not reasonable to try and simplify such a complex system, one of the most complex we know of, which gave rise to chaos theory, as if it can be compared. That's what's got coal power stations banned in the EU and will hold us to ransom to sharks worldwide trying to flog us far worse alternatives just as one example. That includes solar and wind which cost around 8 times more per kilowatt and forced upon us by legal fiat. Meanwhile CO2 has gone up over 40% since 1850 and the temperature is up 0.7', which tells us there has been no feedback as if there had the rise would have been well over that and that is all we really know.

After finding and adding isolated examples here one by one I have just discovered someone has done all the work for me. What is now clear is that as climate figures were obscure and irrelevant prior to now then no one actually knew or cared (as they quite rightly didn't need to) so whatever has been presented to them since has been assumed to be genuine. Lord Monckton has both proved beyond any doubt that the current release of records has deliberately wiped out the medieval warm period, akin to pretending there was no Battle of Hastings or Great Fire of London, and provided so many accredited studies showing basically every single plank of Al Gore's argument is pure bunkum, that if the media gave this equal attention to the official view the whole issue would be gone in a few months.

Monckton report

Lord Monckton has been criticised for not being a scientist, but he has a postgraduate qualification in journalism, and quite capable of gathering data from scientists and allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions. That's called investigative journalism and requires no more science qualifications than being a detective. Even if you're convinced the other side is right then the main point here is there is another side and it won't ever go away and must be taken into account.

To save a lengthy download which still makes my computer jam when complete I'll copy some of the best stuff here now.

“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.” Sir John Houghton

“We have to offer up scary scenarios” Dr Stephen Schneider

“A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said, ‘We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.’” David Deming, 2005

“Global climate change” papers: 539
Evidence for “catastrophe”: 0
Schulte (2008)

“No supercomputer,however powerful, is able to prove definitively a simplistic hypothesis that says the greenhouse effect is responsible for warming... The models are tuned to assume a high climate sensitivity, so a high climate sensitivity is what they find.”

Syun-Ichi Akasofu 2008

“In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC (2001)

"Solar changes cause most climate change. The Sun caused today’s global warming. Today’s warming is normal, not unusual. Today’s global warming will end soon."
IAU (2004)

“Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed changes may be natural.”

IPCC

The graphs I can't copy are even better.

Wow, up till now UN and similar predictions have all been placed beyond our lifespans so impossible to confirm or deny, ie worthless. But this one is a clanger of such proportions, based on the same underlying figures, they have truly outdone themselves. They predicted 50 million climate refugees by 2010, mainly from the Caribbean, and as of 2011 there is not a single report of one person moving for reasons of the climate. The sea level remains rising around 9 inches a century as it has for as long as I remember records showing on average, and if they insist on extrapolating computer models into greater and greater tangents then sooner or later their junk science will finally catch up with them Article and analysis

Now this whopper was based on the same hockey stick forward projection and associated computer generated results (drought, floods, fire, brimstone, you know) and can safely say not a single other prediction made from about 1980 since has even come close to beginning let alone completing. The positive feedback, meant to increase the official 1C increase in temperature by doubling CO2 never manifested either as the state at around a 50% increase is consistent with the 1C total. Unless feedback kicks in later on (there isn't much time to go now) one can logically assume using the principle of intertia (things continuing as they are) and extrapolation it was only in the same computer generated imagination as the refugees, rising sea levels and basically every single other thing they scared the children with. But governments worldwide still carry on as if CO2 is the devil and they do everything they can to charge people more for producing the same amount (as we have no choice the increase is constant despite massive taxation) and using machinery to try and generate electricity you'd expect to see Robinson Crusoe trying to build on a desert island as he wanted to charge his mobile phone. I'd think rubbing two sticks together would have to be better than a windmill or solar panel, the cost to power ratio is many times greater than conventional and much of the time they don't work at all and need the generators to kick in. Big fail all round I think.

Anyone in doubt that the climate is not actually doing anything unusual needs to look at the latest figures here, not supplied by an independent scientist open to accusations of inaccuracy for whatever reasons that are given, but an official US supplier of data, the University of Colorado. sea level figures

Sea level is the simplest and easiest criterion to measure. It has risen for the last 22,000 years and the original fast pace following a small ice age has naturally reduced to almost zero, something the IPCC prefer not to draw attention to as once people see in fact the rise is grinding to a steady halt they'll naturally wonder how this is possible if the far harder to measure average world temperature has indeed increased. In fact the best stories spun by Al Gore and friends talk about the same imaginary 'climate refugees', the 10 million a year fleeing from inundated low lying land and new deserts to safer ground, which actually never happened in the allotted time to 2010. The inches a century which it has risen at since time immemorial is not just continuing but consistent with the lower diagram, is on a logarithmic curve tending to zero. The actual sea level rise has now been falling since 2007, so rather than measure the consistently rising CO2 which appears to grow independent of both all the vast taxes to charge people more to create it, and the worthless alternatives which spend most of the time gathering dust at costs of billions (I have some of the accounts in an article, a normal business would have collapsed after the first year but these are subsidised by tax revenue) the actual scary stuff they want us all to think is happening to make us vote in their taxes (as we all have across the western world) just ain't real. If the sea is slowing down the rise then both the melting land ice and thermal expansion, the equal causes of it, can't be increasing and must actually be reducing in speed.

Global temperature is not a reliable figure at all as it varies from place to place and time to time, so as much of the world is not measured they can select particular 'representative samples', but many are on airstrips and city centres which do not reflect the true temperature as heated by buildings and vehicles. Also when calculating temperature they start mixing and matching the quite different land, sea and air temperatures, and if they get the selection just right can make it show pretty much any direction they choose. Not so for sea levels. You can measure them with floats or satellites, and although they vary across the planet the time and location changes are a small fraction of temperature, and can only be measured in one place, ie the surface. As they are so much harder to select and play around with (although still possible) the actual data they produce is the most valuable of all as it is far less open to 'interpretation' (which should not be possible at all when making vitally accurate measurements) but pretty much speaks for itself.

As the website only presents data, and not any underlying explanations, unless the IPCC or similar choose to answer the question no one will ask them, why is the sea level rise still falling when you say it should be growing, we can only apply the rules of physics as we know them and try and work it out ourselves. I'd be interested to know if there are any besides the obvious 'the temperature can't be rising' one, but remain prepared to be surprised.

The commonest question I hear on this subject is 'Why would there be a conspiracy?'. In fact most people know the answer already (it's hardly exactly hidden) but don't think it's possible. I just came across this direct quote which I'd say speaks for itself:

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

- Club of Rome

More details

For the first known time this conspiracy has now gone on the national media, as I rang Talk Sport radio last night and blew the gaff on the whole thing. Good news on top is it's been podcast, I'm from 1.24.55 to 1.38 which is split onto the second half hour section.

satguru on the radio

Enjoy chatting with yourself much? Climate Change is being experienced every day in so many parts of the World, Extreme Flooding, worst in 350 years where I come from.

There's a small (literally) problem with that one, world average temperatures have only gone up 0.8C since 1850. The sort of consequences you're referring to would need well over 2C and even then could not be automatically assigned to mankind. And as the sea level isn't rising as much as it was before (centuries before) that also implies strongly temperatures are rising more slowly as well.

And although you seem to think I'm talking to myself this thread has already received over 10,000 views. It's more like a blog, few comment but many read.

Also, why is it you haven't explained the quotes from the Club of Rome, Gorbachev and Ottmar Edenhofer? They have openly admitted this is the case, but you are the first person here to overlook it so am interested to know why.

"Extreme Flooding, worst in 350 years where I come from."

Trigger so why was the flooding so bad 350 years ago? The global cooling/warming alarmists take every weather event and claim that is proof of man made climate change.

Here are some facts.

Al Gore claims that we are putting 70,000,000 tons of pollution per day into the atmosphere. While I am sure that figure is grossly exaggerated, let's assume that it is true.

The mass of the atmosphere is 5,512,500,000,000,000 tons.

That is a ratio of 78,750,000 to 1 per day or 0.000001269841270%.

That is the equivalent of adding one drop of water to a 1281.74 gallon pool. And like a pool the atmosphere filters out pollution; through precipitation.

Thanks Satguru for this thread I, like many others, enjoy reading your comments.

Thanks mhenson. I have to say that I wouldn't have dared to start a thread on any subject, especially such a controversial one, until I'd thoroughly done my homework. As you pointed out, whichever way you arrange the figures they don't add up. But because 'those in authority' (especially the untouchable and perfect PhD's) have told us something, god forbid one or more of us dare to question it.

In fact it isn't quite as simple as that. There are many, many PhD's who do not agree with this at all, but as the media barely mention them of course as they only persist in reporting the ones who do (and what do politicians actually know more than we do- they are advised by the same PhD's as everyone else) the overall impression is global warming is real and man made.

But they left out one major element. In 1990 when Al Gore and Mikhail Gorbachev made their speeches about combatting dangerous global warming, as well as the IPCC claiming a 1.5C rise by 2010 (it was 0.1C), nobody had access to the main data via the internet then but they now do.

So now we have all the shorter term predictions made in the 90s in, (not one happened) and overt admission over a 20 year period it was set up to control and collect funds, the prevailing impression has not been changed to fit. And the obsession with weather watching we never had before means although the IPCC have both warned against using examples of short term and local weather for both sides, and stated they cannot yet assign a single event to global warming, 'bad weather equals global warming' if you are looking for it, despite the official warnings, and if you try and challenge it you get cut down. The facts speak for themselves, I just wish people who don't like what I say would go out and follow up the leads themselves. It's all out there.

I am currently in shock, a major plank of global warming has just been instantly dismantled, an expert has just testified in a court of law, presumably under oath,

..."That means that while the bear has healthy populations now ..."

Yes, after Al Gore, Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth, George Monbiot etc etc have all used the decline in polar bears as a trademark of the warming case, this has all been wiped out in seconds in an obscure US court.
Full report

To my knowledge this is the first time an official spokesperson has openly admitted a previous gospel to be wrong, and rather than come from either an independent expert or a skeptic where it would have simply been swatted away like an annoying mosquito, this was part of a case advocating man made warming, and the point was made as part of a statement trying to claim the population was heading for a decline. Now whatever the claims besides the stars and planets mankind and science within it cannot see the future. It can guess tomorrow's weather to a varying degree, next week's sometimes and the latest tests showed anything beyond that was no better than using a chimpanzee (it was on the BBC radio news and couldn't note the details). But as the foundation of AGW is computerised projections (although history explains the results of both warmer climates in Roman times and plenty of time with no sea ice at all, yet polar bears survived it) although I'm amazed they were allowed in a court as do not have the status of evidence, by attempting to present it as such they clearly and unequivocably stated that polar bear populations are indeed healthy, as skeptics and many naturalists have been trying to say for years. Had someone not drawn my attention to this in the chat boards it may well have slipped under the radar altogether and not been noticed by anyone, but I am hoping it will now spread like wildfire as it's pretty well an official confession and needs to be known about as widely as possible.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/wildli...CFRHGKgodqzzPZg
Here is a report on the disappearing arctic ice and how it is and will affect our Polar Bear population.
The Polar Bear does not only live at the North Pole , Satguru, you must be thinking of Santa Claus. Churchill, Manitoba, Canada, is the Polar Bear Capital of the World, and it lies 2,156 kilometres or 1,347 Miles from the North Pole.
I am not a fan of David Suzuki, or any other Scientist on either "Side" of the Global Warming debate.
I am of the opinion that the havoc that mankind has imposed on Mother Nature , especially over the past 120 years, cannot help but change our oceans, our land, and our atmosphere. I do my little part to recycle, reduce, re use and hopefully extend the life of our Earth .

You see there is always common ground, and looking after the environment is one, and commonsense to do so. My only issue there is that not only is CO2 not my idea of a problem, less of all the climate, it has hijacked the whole movement, and even though all you describe is what everyone should do (but doesn't, mainly in the corporate field as clean costs money) nowadays every single statement adds the climate to it. This is not just irrelevant to what used to be a wish to look after our surroundings, but plain wrong. You do not recycle, save energy or avoid pollution for the climate, but because you should do so for its own sake. If people continue to merge an unproven theory with the good stuff we are all heading down the toilet. Money for other projects is already being wasted on windfarms which barely generate a thing and need a 90% (from the latests UK figures) backup, and vast amounts spent on climate research which is shifting it from worthier projects which may have helped people right now with known problems. The money spent could already have drained all the swamps harbouring malaria mosquitos, and every single penny spent on the climate is a penny not spent on other research or projects. That is a massive cost to prevent something we'll never know about as even the worst Jonahs out there don't expect much to be noticed within our own lifetimes. That's not a business budget but an open vein.

As for your study it has skated over the hidden point in your last article, that despite Al Gore's film and every claim made generally since, it was stated, under oath I presume, in a court of law, that the polar bear population is currently healthy. That is all we know, period. No one, not even (especially) David Suzuki, Rajendra Pachauri, Al Gore or any of their friends, has a crystal ball. And polar ice can only exist at the poles so what else were you referring to? If Manitoba is ice free and therefore not polar then doesn't it show my point they can live with or without ice? And if it does (I have no idea) then anywhere covered in polar ice at any time of the year is polar. The Arctic Circle is the official line and that comes a long way south of the pole.

And finally the sort of random general (unless you are a scientist) comment that if we have imposed havoc it must change the climate is how we got in this state in the first place- Al Gore was not qualified to judge and my own diagram shows him pretty well at the source of this theory, not any official ones. He got his inspiration from his lecturer (science was a minor of his arts degree and a subject he did not excel in) Roger Revelle, who later discounted it as incorrect. If you look into the area deeply you begin to see many elements that should not be there, and if rotten in parts is not a good sign about the whole. These are either dismissed, overlooked or more generally not even known by most who believe the conventional idea, especially the poor children in the UK who had An Inconvenient Truth on the national school syllabus and we're now stuck with a whole generation of Al Gores. They aren't expected to check what their teachers tell them and none of the material I've exposed on this thread (in a legal trial would at least raise reasonable doubts) is included as balance. That is pure political indoctrination and whatever the pundits and mavens tell you and me, those are no more than guesses and are not even worth considering by anyone as proved no more accurate than random. You didn't accept the list I posted in the chat boards but as it contains hundreds you would need a lot of work to show most of them were actually correct as you tried with the first few.

So basically please try and separate the environment and the climate. Blurring the two has caused what I see as the downfall of world government (only Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic openly disagree with the theory so no means an exaggeration) as so many people can't see the difference between the two any more and everything in their lives is focussed on how much damn CO2 it emits. That is an illness and an obsession and will gain nothing in the long or short run. China however accept global warming as real, but have the sense to carry on their CO2 emissions as they have acknowledged the costs of cutting it (which the UK bear more than anywhere else as we are committed to the highest reductions I know of) are far greater than the benefits from high production and cheap power. And if only I could live another 100 years and see it did absolutely no harm to the climate at all.

Very, very interesting. The few in the media who challenge man-made warming have claimed for years that the world surface temperature stopped rising in 1998. Anyone daring to quote this has been called every possible known insult and a few new ones, and now after 13 years a study from no less than the universities of Harvard, Boston and Turkuu in Finland have admitted it. By looking for a reason there has been no warming since 1998 (no more than a silly random guess torn apart by all their well-qualified peers such as Judith Curry within minutes of publication) their irrelevant conclusion Chinese power stations have emitted enough SO2 to cancel the CO2 effect (yes, for the entire planet), they simply said "The reason... there has been no warming from 1998 to 2008..."

Sulphur article

Well after being called a baby killer myself (it's amazing the levels people fall to when challenged with an intellectual argument that disputes their beliefs) having waited since this all began within a single week we've both had an official admission polar bears are still thriving, and now, amazingly, we were actually correct all along that temperatures stopped rising since 1998.

That of course also means all those 'adjusted' graphs I've shown examples of were not the good ones as they claimed, but the clear raw data which agreed whoever measured it anywhere. And the main reason I spread these stories online is you won't see them anywhere else besides a few newspapers who are already preaching to the converted. But it's ironic that these two will be interpreted as 'although nothing's happened yet' it's going to very very soon!. Yes, and the cheque's in the post... But it's on record now and official, from their side, and no one can ever call me a liar again for claiming it.

PS- all I can say is wow- 1000 scientists now question man made warming, complete with full quotes- even James Lovelock (one of the original band of leaders) turns out to have turned, and if Jesus had done the same thing then surely people would have listened, but no.

1000 scientists dissent in public

Even I wasn't expecting this one- climate change is now officially a business! The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, managed by Peter Dunscombe, who not coincidentally also manages the closely connected BBC's pension fund (are you beginning to see a picture forming here?), has now raised climate change to an international management fund. So in a simple sentence, if climate change laws continue, they win, if they stop they lose the lot. Who said it isn't all about the money?

The BBC invest in climate change

The BBC have a charter for impartiality, which they broke years ago when they took on the work for Globe International to spread the word on climate change, thus blocking all the many studies which cast doubt on it. I have no idea who can report breach of charter let alone who to, but no one has despite being reported recently in the Daily Telegraph. If I could and didn't cost anything I would do it personally simply as I have enough legal experience to present a reasonable case and the time to do so. Now they are openly associating with the very business they are promoting then it is pretty much like insurance companies setting fire to their own premises to make a profit on the insurance. If you promote a cause while posing (figuratively and legally) as an independent which you also invest in there are many legal terms for that, and I'll let others suggest them for me for a change.

It now seems the NASA satellites have at last confirmed what was obvious from 100 years of temperatures, there is no measurable positive cloud feedback from rising CO2, meaning the very small rise since 1850 does indeed indicate it can't add more heat than it traps through evaporating more sea to become clouds, which do the lion's share (95%) of keeping the planet 33C higher than space. We'd all be dead without it. CO2 is responsible for 1C, doubling would have added 1C more with no feedback, and being 50% higher than 1850 already has not produced any more than 0.5C as the temperature was already rising. The IPCC predictions factored in up to 6C by 2100, putting a safe level at 2C which will itself now be hard to manage at the current rate.

I am a realist, I abhor predictions in open systems as they can't be made and never should be, whether climate, economics or crystal balls (ours excepted). Sometimes you just have to wait and see. And as claimed by many scientists including Philip Stott who is so talented the BBC use him as a resident science expert, you can't have a greenhouse effect in an open system, as only glass can trap heat and not gas. This affirms the very basic theory and means unlike the stories in the media CO2 simply lets most of the heat through. The spectral absorption spectrum is so small anyway (meaning it only responds to infra red radiation in a few frequencies, a small fraction of the total) that it could rise in far greater amounts and still reach its saturation limit soon afterwards becoming unable to affect temperatures at all beyond a certain point they don't yet know but is clearly being approached already.

NASA report

This is the first and doubtless only time the green climate movement have given me a laugh. We may be destroyed by aliens as we're emitting too much CO2. The added cream on the cake is that it's actually been reported by what's considered by themselves (not me mind you) as a serious newspaper. If people thought they were before a good many won't from now! I reckon a few fence-sitters may actually be pushed off it after this classic too, which can only help world sanity.

"Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists
Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report"

Aliens will destroy the naughty human emitters!

Logic is as good a tutor for any subject as long as you know enough to follow the basics. So recently it occurred to me what if the temperature had risen exactly the same amount as in the highest estimated hockey stick graph (there were two, the lower one was discarded for 'watering down the message' as I just discovered) but CO2 had not?

The other side of the same coin had just surfaced, what if CO2 increased and the temperature did not? Well that turned out to be a lot closer to reality than my ideal scenario. Mann's diagram relied heavily on tree ring data, which is probably the most marginal possible method possible and argued by some too vague to be used at all. It turns out the logic won as guess what, increased CO2 alone causes some trees to grow more (who'd have thought it?) so when you measure wider rings you are both measuring temperature plus growth solely from increased CO2 (I haven't tracked down the likely proportions, but appears to be pretty similar), so actually doubling the apparent temperature by attributing 100% of the growth to increased temperature when in fact a good deal was later shown to be due to increased CO2 alone.

This also has been borne out in standard practice of increasing CO2 in market gardening to 2000ppm to raise growth and tested in two separate university experiments in the last couple of years somewhere in rural England by memory. All they now need is a study to tease out the genuine amount of growth distributed between CO2 and temperature increases and adjust all the existing graphs accordingly. And if so, would they replace them at the IPCC?


"Experimental work has strongly demonstrated the positive response of photosynthesis and plant water use efficiency to increasing CO2 concentration [ e.g. Strain and Cure 1985; Bazzaz 1990; Mooney et al 1991; Idso 1992; Korner and Arnone 1992; Norby et al 1992; Polley et a 1993; Wullscheger et al 1995)] and the negative response of stomatal conductance of plant leaves [Woodward 1987; Beerling and Woodward 1993; van de water et al 1994]. For example, by studying a number of C3 and C4 species, Polley et al 1993 showed that both plant water use efficiency and biomass increased with increasing ambient CO2 concentration. This led to the idea that CO2 fertilization may be evaluated by measuring plant water use efficiency."

Report summary