Well is obvious then;he’s a very naughty boy! But where do we go from there?

Didn’t he, during his tenure as editor of the Times, and opposed to the growing scientific consensus at the time, back the theory that AIDS was not caused by the HIV virus?

Pattern of behaviour perhaps

I thought this captured things quite well.

But then I am an evil “sceptic”.

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/

Tim Fenton once again knows not what he is talking about. Not that I am hugely surprised.

Firstly, there are serious problems as to how that 97% figure was compiled – not surprisingly by Nuccitelli himself at the Guardian – who being the environmental editoor at the Guardian certianly has an axe to grind.

Then it turns out that whilst he is busy speaking out one side of his mouth about the 97% consensus on AGW, and anyone who disagrees is in the pay of big oil….it turns out the Nuccitelli himself works for TetraTech – a big oil, gas and mining company.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/22/dana-nuccitellis-vested-interest-oil-and-gas/

Not that I suppose Fenton cares, or has a clue about the *actual* science behind global warming.

Not to mention the fact that Tim Fenton seems to think it is wrong for a journalist to challenge assumptions or the status quo.

That is a pretty good article by Neil and it accurately, as far as I can see, sums up the current climate controversies. I read in New Scientist (I think) recently that the plateau in temps would only need to carry on for a few more years before it fell outside the error margins of all predictive climate change models (in other words, before all those models would have to be abandoned). Does anyone know how long that actually is, one, two years … more?

Is that 97% of climate scientist’s at the Uni. Of East Anglia by any chance?

@Tyler #4:

Firstly, there are serious problems as to how that 97% figure was compiled

Name a few, please. Are we talking about the point made in this passage from Neil’s piece:

[Dr Roy Spencer] told Congress the definition of consensus in the survey was so widely drawn as to be “innocuous” and would include him within the consensus even though he is often depicted by people like Mr Nuccitelli as being on the sceptical wing of climate science.

Because if we are:

The “skeptic” papers included those that rejected human-caused global warming and those that minimized the human influence. Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer’s abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as ‘no opinion’ on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence.

Thus, contrary to his testimony, Spencer was not included in the 97 percent consensus. In fact his research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/23/climate-change-andrew-neil-bbc-errors-take2

@ Robin Levitt

See CJCJC’s link for more.

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/

You’ll also notice that Nuticcelli *hasn’t* released all his data. Only a portion of it.

There are serious questions regarding how that 97% figure was reached.

His Guardian articles are also less than scientifically rigourous – and very much written to support a specific viewpoint despite him arguing to the contrary.

His first graph about projected temperatures comes from the IPCC, and has now been revised downward, and heavily discredited.

His “frequent plateaus” graph only starts in 1970, and the scale is set to mislead. Put the error bars in on the chart and you’ll see that there has been little or no statistically significant warming. Nor indeed has it been proven beyond all doubt that the warming is due to AGW – he just takes it as read.

Likewise he takes it as read that “While ocean heating research is ongoing, the evidence points strongly in the direction that the oceans are absorbing more heat, contributing to the slowed surface warming, but that this is only a temporary effect.” Temporary effect? no-one knows this, and it is the topic of much heated debate in the climate science community at the moment. Yet he takes this uncertainty and paints it in a way to suit himself.

The artic ice death spiral as he calls it is fine in the form he presents it. However, he neglects to mention antartic sea ice, or indeed take the chart back further to the turn of the century. Records aren’t as thorough back then, but the information on shipping routes we do have from the turn of the century suggests that there was also a lot less artic ice then compared to the 1950s peak.

He seems to be happy to ignore a paper released last year on Greenland’s ice sheets – again pointing to the fact that AGW has little to do with it.

@Cylux #2:

Yes, although it was the Sunday Times not the Times. There were a whole series of articles promoting Dr Peter Duesberg and his theories, starting on 26 April 1992. It led to a vigorous denunciation by the editor of Nature at the beginning of December 1993. The articles stopped in the autumn of 1994, and by a complete coincidence this was when Andrew Neil left the editorship.

All that evidence to back the denialists. It couldn’t be…made up…could it? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-shulman/got-science-pushing-back-_b_3586540.html?utm_hp_ref=science

…and it is worth pointing out that Spencer, at least, has little reason to claim that he is being traduced as being a denier, when he is a signatory to the Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming, which declares as a matter of religious faith, that, for example:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

The associated “Renewed Call to Truth” makes clear that:

Our examination of theology, worldview, and ethics (Chapter One) finds that global warming alarmism wrongly views the Earth and its ecosystems as the fragile product of chance, not the robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting product of God’s wise design and powerful sustaining. It rests on and promotes a view of human beings as threats to Earth’s flourishing rather than the bearers of God’s image, crowned with glory and honor, and given a mandate to act as stewards over the Earth—filling, subduing, and ruling it for God’s glory and mankind’s benefit.

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/a-renewed-call-to-truth-prudence-and-protection-of-the-poor/

It is true that the RCtT also has chapters on science and economics – but no scientific analysis can be valid that assumes a priori that the Earth’s climate is robust and can stand any amount of human intervention.

This is in the realm of creationism (anybody who has spent any time at talk.origins and reading around the subject will recognise the “fragile product of chance” formulation as applied to evolution), and it is interesting indeed that Spencer is an Intelligant Design Creationist as well. (http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php)

@Tyler #9:

Can I pick up something I’ve alluded to before. My name is in front of you; why are you unable to spell it correctly?

And I read cjcjc’s link (in correct lower-case). Spencer’s 2008 clouds paper was not in the 97%; we know that. If Ben Pile is correct that it should have been counted, than he has demonstrated a biased approach to the analysis that excludes papers from the consensus where it should include; so the 97% is therefore a low figure.

As for that Clouds paper, here is a comment from Ray Pierrehumbert that demonstrates its accuracy:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/?bcsi_scan_6ff3f37d49d6906c=9ke51CbWZE7827tIBBT/1GF9hZwIAAAAu6hQBQ==

and here’s a piece by Spencer himself on Roger Pielke Sr’s blog that demonstrates that his view of the paper (because the blog piece is based on the paper) is that:

…the intent here is only to demonstrate that a simple physical model, driven by two well known modes of internal climate variability, can explain most of the major features of global mean temperature changes since 1900 without resorting to anthropogenic greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/internal-radiative-forcing-and-the-illusion-of-a-sensitive-climate-system-by-roy-spencer/

Where have we heard before that natural variation is sufficient to explain observed climate change? Not from within the consensus.

This is where you end up if you insist on storing your head up your arse:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/24/arctic-thawing-permafrost-climate-change

Climate destruction deniers are just capitalist ideologues who would rather see the climate capable of supporting human life burn away than the end of their wretched economic anarchy. For them that’s the only existential crisis that counts. Better dead than green.

UEA was part built over an Old Golf course!
This gives the underlaying LINKS to St Andrews and the Masonics laying down their foundations of the new “Religion” (anything to take peoples minds off Bible studies – which ‘reveal’ them/fruit of their works)

UEA research (before CC was announced) was funded by Public Subsidy Grants – Millions given by an un-named Minister to make the bullshit up!

In addition, Billions in public money was funded for new computing power to fund our Weather lot in their new ‘motte & Bailey’ HQ in Exeter.

‘Prior’ to that the M.O.D. gave 10’s Millions £££’s Xtra as part of support finance for a new Weather-Climate Change dept to put out the bullshit we have to suffer today.
Their weather/fake CC computers were deliberately programmed to show hotter than normal ‘outlooks’ which gave rise to increasingly ludicrous ‘BBQ summers'(their best guess on faux-programmed software)

The MOD grants for CC were mysteriously stopped just a few months before (buried in 6ft snow) Danish CCConference (it was already a fixed given what the outcome would be putting in place the carbon(credit) tax scams)

The other thing was, all Worlds Billionaires had piled into investing (buying into green rip-off companies + shares) fledling green companies in the 90’s.

They took out Billions $$$£££ in Taxpayer subsidy cash in USA, Britain etc with their false subsidised companies
– set up with Govt stooges complicity!

They have been piling into farmland around the World – buying so much outsiders were banned in New Zealand.
They have left huge tracts of prime land with weeds growing! Ditto switched to Bio-fuels instead of food.

After making Supermarkets into giant monopolies they are now releasing brainwashing (tell ’em enough times & they believe) propaganda that plebs should expect rising food and commodity prices!
This is all planned and deliberate by the elites!

@8
The 97% is taken from a survey which analysed the conclusions of thousands of peer reviewed papers and then categorised them as pro AGW, anti AGW or no conclusion. The critetia used was highly dodgy as was the maths but neither matters as hundreds of the scientist whose work was analysed have denouced the study as a misrepresentation of their conclusions.

@12
If you can use the word ‘denier’ as part of supposedly scientific debate and keep a straight face then you’ve no place at the table.
Skeptic on the other hand is a very great complinent to an enquiring mind. Calling someone a ‘capitalist ideologue’ for being sceptical of the clearly contradictory evidence being presented is about as proportional as me calling you a ‘crypto-trot mass murderer in waiting’ for supporting it blindly.

Further to UEA/Scottish MASON/GOLF “links”
(the jist of Golf, you aim for FLAG on a “GREEN” (you get a GREEN-JACKET for winning etc – geddit? Elites do!)

Anyway,, skip to ‘J’-Curve hockey stick. If you do a few mins of research a possible answer arises.
a . JC (jesus Christ?) Curve or ‘J’ohn symbology ‘flagging’ for masons?

b. Golf is derived from Winter ‘Ice’ Hockey game played in Flanders (just so you know it’s ‘roots’)
– where rip-off Danish Climate-Change-Conference (held deliberately in ‘icy’ weather) taxes were falsely imposed on World population!

Like these fekkin green-loons(useful idiots) were used to ‘socialise’ cost of river/water/land pollution clear up caused by greedy multi millionaire Industrialists (whose prodgeny contributed NOTHING whilst quaffing champers in their off-shored, tax avoiding, trust-owned Stately ‘Mansions’)

Bible says – It is our duty to look after the Earth

The abuses of the Earth are carried out by the top echelon croney-capitalist Industrialists (making themselves incredibly wealthy) who then spend their time brainwashing the population in THEIR mass-media that it is “all plebs fault” using the well-trained ‘Green activist’ (gorillas) = golf green. Final destination in minimal strokes.

More and more lunatics turning up to this site.

@Tyler #9:

His first graph about projected temperatures comes from the IPCC, and has now been revised downward, and heavily discredited.

Since the historic data and the projections are from two papers, Marcott et al 2013 and Meinshausen et al 2011, that postdate the 4th assessment report, and the 5th assessment report si still in draft, that seemss unlikely, It is even less likely when one notes that it was created by Skeptical Science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=88

His “frequent plateaus” graph only starts in 1970, and the scale is set to mislead. Put the error bars in on the chart and you’ll see that there has been little or no statistically significant warming.

Since 1970? Perhaps youc an refer me to thr literature on that?

As for the point of the graph; are you really denying that with careful selection of endpoints it is possible to produce a series of overlapping periods of apparent stasis in temperature even when the overall period clearly shows a marked increase? Or that denialists have just that?

Nor indeed has it been proven beyond all doubt that the warming is due to AGW

And you claim to have a Masters in science?

– he just takes it as read.

Your better hypothesis being?

Likewise he takes it as read that “While ocean heating research is ongoing, the evidence points strongly in the direction that the oceans are absorbing more heat, contributing to the slowed surface warming, but that this is only a temporary effect.”

Either you have a different definition for “takes it as read” than I do, or you’ve missed his references to peer-reviewed literature.

blockquote>The artic ice death spiral as he calls it is fine in the form he presents it. However, he neglects to mention antartic sea ice, or indeed take the chart back further to the turn of the century. Records aren’t as thorough back then, but the information on shipping routes we do have from the turn of the century suggests that there was also a lot less artic ice then compared to the 1950s peak.

The turn of which century? He’s gone back to 1870. Are you really saying that there was less ice in the Arctic during the LIA?

He seems to be happy to ignore a paper released last year on Greenland’s ice sheets – again pointing to the fact that AGW has little to do with it.

Which paper was? Drinkwater et al (in fact 2011)?

I don’t comment much in forums these days but something got my attention:

@PottyTraining

Either you have a very strange sense of humour or you are communicating in a manner of an old friend of mine just before he ran into some serious trouble. Can I just clarify, are you serious? If so, I might have more to say on the matter.

It’s been a while since we did the man-made global warming tango. I see it’s going the same way with lots of people arguing about scientific facts they know nothing about.

As for my contribution, that’s the same as usual: the climate changes; computer models are unsuitable and I know – been using since 1971 in engineering; even if it’s all true, the UK will make no difference; mitigation is King Knut stuff; mitigation is costing us a fortune; follow the money (to owners of solar panels and windmills and similar rent-seekers).

The last point is the most important. Your support for this stupidity is making some people rich and putting the majority of us into fuel poverty. It’s also going to mean many good jobs in industry exported to places like China and India where they don’t subscribe to the 97%. By the time we all wake up and realise it’ll be too late and we’ll be a third world country with blackouts and brownouts. Meanwhile we’ll have made b*gg*r all difference to anything.

You should seek out and name and shame the rent-seekers and stop arguing about science – about which you appear to know nothing other than the urls of pro and anti websites.

In 2005 you couldn’t move for warmists screaming “the science is in”.
Saying the science is settled when science is rarely, if ever (waves vs particles), settled or talking of consensus as if facts were dependent on consensus (for a long time there was at least a 97% consensus that the earth was flat) are tricks he has borrowed from the warmists.
Computer models – all have the same weakness in relying on assumptions, if all facts were known there would be no need for models. A model is just a mathematical “what if”, only people who do not understand this give them almost mystical predictive powers.

23.
If you want 100% certainty about the future you’re in the wrong universe.
You’ll never get 97% of the population agreeing with evolution despite the discovery of DNA and other scientific advances in cellular biology so I think that Royal Dutch Shell are right about their gloomy prediction.

If they are neither Lord Donoughue, nor Lord Barnett, nor Graham Stringer MP, then the BBC is not trying.

Except falsely to redefine the debate as it has so successfully done over the EU during the last 20 years.

It is difficult for a non-scientist like myself to assess scientific evidence, so how to make up one’s mind about this?

Well the climate change deniers are almost all loonies.

Whereas every respected scientist who appears on radio or TV fully agrees with the climate change analysis and its cause.

This is the actual 97% paper:

‘We’ find that 66.4% of abstracts
expressed no position on AGW,
32.6% endorsed AGW,

I think it should be obvious straight away
that we are not talking 97% of 12,000 papers.

And then the actual authors are contacted
as to what they think their work means,
and the numbers go down.

Table 4.
Endorse AGW…746 respondents.

from an initial 29?083 authors.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

The problem here is the method.
Scientists were not just asked for their opinion.
They were asked to mark work.
Which is dependent on who pays for it
and what is in fashion.

#19 `More and more lunatics turning up to this site.’

You started it.

@26 Patrick
It is very difficult for non scientists to access this debate thats why its crucial for the media to be impartial. You hit the nail on the head when you point out that TV is pretty unanimous on AGW. Now take a another look at post 27, still sure that all scientists agree except for some loonies or is it maybe just the people who choose which ones you hear from who agree?

@ Robin LevEtt

Sorry about the typo. I haven’t much time to write now but will try to answer your points.

From memory, the IPCC reports have 0.6C warming and 0.6C error bars. I’m not sure if they are 1SD or more, but they don’t suggest that there is great confidence in the data.

((and nor should there be – as I have posted before, measuring temperature in one place is hard, measuring it all over the globe to give one mean temperature increase is near impossible without the chance of large errors))

AGW *hasn’t* been proven beyond all doubt. All that has been shown is that increased atmospheric C02 should have an effect on global temperatures. NO-one knows how much though.

Nutticelli doesn’t refer to literature regarding his claims about the oceans. No-one really knows yet, and there are several competing theories. To say that the trend will suddenly reverse is pure postulation.

Check out the data regarding the Northern Sea Routes. It opened up again circa 2007, from memory again, but records of the use of theat route show huge variations in the amount of ice, going back longer than proper temperature records.

Other people have commented on the 97% of scientists claim. As they have said, there are significant concerns on how the data was collated, not least of all selection bias and catagorisation bias amongst other things.

@Tyler #30:

From memory, the IPCC reports have 0.6C warming and 0.6C error bars. I’m not sure if they are 1SD or more, but they don’t suggest that there is great confidence in the data.

So your recollection is that the range (since 1970) is from 0C to +1.2C. But it is not just as likely to be at 0 as at 0.6; by far the most likely figure is at or close to +0.6C, and it is just as likely to be +1.2C as 0C. Assuming your recollection is correct. But it isn’t. Figure 3.1 from WG1 of AR4 is here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-3-1-figure-1.html

AR5 is of course still in draft.

The scientists clearly have confidence in the data; but they also recognise that there is a great deal of noise, which is a point that I have repeated to you ad nauseam, and is one of the reasons why claims of a “standstill since 1998” can’t be stood up.

AGW *hasn’t* been proven beyond all doubt.

Nobody claims it has; but it has been demonstrated at a much higher level than the balance of probabilities, and tending towards beyond reasonable doubt. But real physicists will tell you that proof is for mathematicians and alcoholics.

All that has been shown is that increased atmospheric C02 should have an effect on global temperatures. NO-one knows how much though

The energy budget of the Earth has been shown by satellite observation to be 0.6W/m-2 out of whack; and satellite observation has also shown an increasing bite out of the Earth’s radiation spectrum in the bands in which CO2 absorbs IR. So we are increasing the heat of the Earth; which pretty much inevitably (you’ll remember your thermodynamics) has to result at equilibrium in an increase in the temperature at the surface from which radiation takes place.

I agree that no-one knows quite how much the temperature will rise; the only (near-)certainty is that it won’t fall. But not knowing the exact figure doesn’t mean we don’t have a range – and even the lowest figures in that range will have a significant effect on the climate, the more so if we ignore the problem and persist in pumping fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

Nutticelli doesn’t refer to literature regarding his claims about the oceans. No-one really knows yet, and there are several competing theories. To say that the trend will suddenly reverse is pure postulation.

He does, you know. The following passage preceded the one you quote above at #9:

The transfer of heat to the deep oceans has indeed accelerated over the past decade, but research indicates that this is a temporary change. I summarized the recent research on this subject here, and is also the conclusion in ongoing research by the Met Office, as their scientists discussed in a press briefing yesterday.

“Here” is hyperlinked to this page:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/24/global-warming-pause-button

That page links to summaries of the research (including links to the original papers) on skepticalscience.com.

Check out the data regarding the Northern Sea Routes. It opened up again circa 2007, from memory again, but records of the use of theat route show huge variations in the amount of ice, going back longer than proper temperature records.

And? My understanding is that it wasn’t until the 21st century that ice-free passage was possible.

Other people have commented on the 97% of scientists claim. As they have said, there are significant concerns on how the data was collated, not least of all selection bias and catagorisation bias amongst other things

Indeed. Dr Spencer’s claim, if accurate, demonstrates a significant bias against inclusion in the consensus.

I hope by the way you don’t endorse #27?

You haven’t dealt with the first and last points in my #20; firstly re your claim that Nuccitelli’s first graph was an IPCC graphic, had been revised downwards and heavily discredited; and secondly asking you to identify the 2012 paper which said Greenland melting can’t be attributed to AGW.

@Tyler #30:

Sorry, in #31 the following passage should have gone left, not right:

“Indeed. Dr Spencer’s claim, if accurate, demonstrates a significant bias against inclusion in the consensus.

I hope by the way you don’t endorse #27?

You haven’t dealt with the first and last points in my #20; firstly re your claim that Nuccitelli’s first graph was an IPCC graphic, had been revised downwards and heavily discredited; and secondly asking you to identify the 2012 paper which said Greenland melting can’t be attributed to AGW.”

@ Robin

I was referr to e Nature paper, but there were a couple of others by Univ. Briston and another Univ. Sheffield. All suggest there is a loss of ice, but none can pin the blame on AGW.

Nuticcelli uses a version of the Michael Mann hockey stick graph used by the IPCC for their earlier reports (IPCC 3/4 I *think*). This has been discredited and even the IPCC has dropped the graph and replaced it with a less alarming one.

What is wrong with the point at 27?

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

They themsleves say that of the 12k or so articles they reviewed 66.4% presented no opinion on AGW. The 97% comes from the remaining 32.6% papers and was matched by *self-reviewed* articles.

Apart from the problems with their methodology, there are questions to be answered about the impartiality of the poeple reviewing these articles AND also of some of the scientists themselves. I’ve written before that Climate Science (like all academic science) tends to be populated by people with a real passion for it. This self-selecting group then write research on which they have a personal stake in finding an answer – vindicating their beliefs as well as securing their funding. Just like at the UEA/CRU.

Two of my friends at Uni both work as climate scientists now. Problem is, neither of them have the training to do so. One studied cellular biology and the other is a medical Doctor. They do however share the ideals of the people they work with, trying to avoid the stereotyping, belonging to one or more environmental groups and being very pro-AGW theory.

Whilst self-selection is the norm for most careers, it is a little bit worrying when it distorts good science – possibly at the cost of huge amounts of money which could be better spent on alleviating proverty or preventing other environmental damage of which there is no uncertainty as to whether man caused it or not.

@Tyler #33:

I was referr to e Nature paper

Could you give me the reference; I’ll look it up.

but there were a couple of others by Univ. Briston and another Univ. Sheffield. All suggest there is a loss of ice, but none can pin the blame on AGW

Again, references, or online cites, or even the authors, would be helpful.

Meanwhile, the polar icecaps continue lose ice and the Tundra is thawing.
Irrespective of the extent manmade emissions of carbon dioxide etc. add to the problem, the problem is there.

@Tyler #33 contd:

Nuticcelli uses a version of the Michael Mann hockey stick graph used by the IPCC for their earlier reports (IPCC 3/4 I *think*).

I’m afraid he doesn’t; he even links to where the graphic came from (see above), and it’s not AR3 or 4. It cannot possibly be, because the data comes from articles in 2011 and 2013. It’s true that it looks like a hockey stick – but that’s because that’s what the data tells us about the temperature record.

What’s wrong with the point at #27? Have you read the paper?

‘We’ find that 66.4% of abstracts
expressed no position on AGW,
32.6% endorsed AGW,

I think it should be obvious straight away
that we are not talking 97% of 12,000 papers

And the paper doesn’t suggest it is talking about 97% of 12,000 papers. Indeed, it expressly says to the contrary; the 97% is of those papers expessing a position on AGW.

And then the actual authors are contacted
as to what they think their work means,
and the numbers go down.

Table 4.
Endorse AGW…746 respondents.

from an initial 29?083 authors

This was the self-ratings of those authors who responded to the invitation to rate their own papers, which papers had already been rated by Nuccitelli’s people.

746 out 774 of those authors who felt their papers expressed an opinion felt the paper endorsed AGW.

So the 746 and 29,083 don’t belong in the same sentence.

Would you care to critique the Oregon Petition’s approach to establishing consensus?

http://www.petitionproject.org/

@35
I’m very stupid, can you explain how 97% of less than 800 scientists, taken from a survey of 28,000 scientists (66.4% of which found no evidence for AGW) constitutes a consensus? And further, why when thats the general standard of evidence presented ( and thanks to Mike’s nature trick and such the burden of proof is very much in your court again), you think we should just swallow it and march of into your neo medieval future?

36.
http://bcove.me/c1li8rcl

@37
Thanks for the link, very informative. So can you clear up another failing in my understanding? The two thirds of studies that made no conclusion about AGW, were they discounted from the follow up study and if not what % were represented in the 1200 that resyponded. Also what criteria was used to select the 8000+ email recipients, was that the 8000 scientist who produced the 4000 odd desired responses?

38.
I cannot help you with that.
The debate on what causes climate change is of lesser importance than preparation for changes in the ecosystem.

@Peter paul Smith #39:

and thanks to Mike’s nature trick and such the burden of proof is very much in your court again

Hardly. You do know what “Mike’s Nature trick” (the capital is important) was, don’t you? Or maybe not, given your reference here.

@41
Yes I know what Mikes nature trick is, just like the methodology used in the 97% study
its a technique used to predetermine a statistical outcome. A very primitive kind of variable algorithm.

@Paul peter Smith #42:

You could just have admitted you didn’t know; I wouldn’t have thought any the worse of you for that.

its a technique used to predetermine a statistical outcome. A very primitive kind of variable algorithm.

No. Not even close.

@41
Yes I know what Mikes nature trick is, just like the methodology used in the 97% study ( which if you look closely will see is designed to agree with the previous study )
its a technique used to predetermine a statistical outcome. A very primitive kind of variable algorithm in effect, which is kind of my point.
@40
You’ve got that exactly the wrong way round, why doom us to fuel poverty, economic stagnation and effective slavery ( check out Agenda 21 ), when you dont even know why its happening.
People keep pointing out that the permafrost is melting, pack ice is retreating we dont have a clue why but lets run with this CO2 thing! No lets actually find out whats going on before we decide its all our fault
And take the most authoritarian path the human race has ever been down.

And my comment @17 should have been adressed to @14 Baton Rouge not @12 Robin Levett (in case the trot/mass murderer thing seemed misplaced, it was sorry).

Double post sorry

@43
Nit picking aside how is adjusting divergance to fit a pre conceived notion not ‘cooking the books’. Do you understand why people have been made wary, not by big oil etc, but by the conduct of some of the proponents of AGW.

@Peter paul Smith #46:

Nit picking aside how is adjusting divergance to fit a pre conceived notion not ‘cooking the books’

That’s not what “Mike’s Nature trick” was; and where has divergence been “adjusted” to “fit a pre conceived notion”?

@47
I apologise if I was a tad glib in describing it as a kind of variable algorithm, it was early and I was trying to convey my contempt for the way statistical/computer modelling has replaced science. It was a way of marrying up instrumental data with infered historic data, the divergence is the rub, and the highly partial approach of the researchers is typical of the tone of debate within climate science. The two data sets dont match so Mike’s nature trick is/was just a kind of shabby statistical trick to pick the outcome desired.

Mike Hulme (UEA climate Prof!) has a relevant comment on the article to which I linked at #3.

“The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it. It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse. Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?”

http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/

His comment posted July 25, 2013 at 6:39 am

Anyone that is still honestly claiming that the “Nature trick” is proof of people fudging data isn’t intending to have a serious debate on the issues of where to go with the ongoing global warming we’re facing.

Also, scientists do know why the ice is melting on a balance of probabilities, and it’s the effect of increased CO2 from man’s actions on this planet that’s doing it, i.e. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051094/full

@50
But the point is its not just the nature trick or spurious studies claiming 97% consensus or the re-appearing glaciers in the Himalaya’s or the near total lack of understanding regarding cycles of ice creation/depletion or the incredibly dodgy new global sea temp. record (declared because three (3) out of 2000+ ARGO probes detected a rise of 0.02 degrees C, displacing the previous high recorded on over 450 probes) or any of the other fudged data sets. Its all the dodginess taken as a whole leads me to believe that your all desperatly clinging to a kind of human hating religion, perhaps because it seemed to offer the totalitarian ‘get into jail free’ card that the Eco Bolshevik’s have so long desired.

@Peter paul Smith #48:

I apologise if I was a tad glib in describing it as a kind of variable algorithm, it was early and I was trying to convey my contempt for the way statistical/computer modelling has replaced science. It was a way of marrying up instrumental data with infered historic data, the divergence is the rub, and the highly partial approach of the researchers is typical of the tone of debate within climate science.

Which is not just a different way of putting it, but an entirely different allegation.

The divergence problem was so thoroughly and cleverly hidden that there are papers on the issue stretching back to 1995; it’s a very active field of research. Unfortunately, there are denialists out there fudging the public perception on it to the extent that most don’t realise (i) that it applies only to a small subset of high latitude (and one high-altitude) tree-ring proxy series; (ii) that it began in around 1960; (iii) that before 1960 all tree-ring proxies are consistent one with another and, so far as it exists, the instrumental record; and that (iv) scientists know all about it and are actively researching exactly why it is happening. When a small subset of proxies, all affected by similar conditions, start to diverge from the much larger number of otherwise similar proxies it is perfectly legitimate to continue to work with the proxies which remain consistent and investigate why the divergent ones are diverging; which is what has been done.

And I still don’t know why the technique that is sufficiently effective as to ensure that airliners stay in the air is suddenly the subject of such contemptuous scorn when applied to the climate. Seriously, what is your beef with programming a computer with the mathemattical expression of the physcis of climate and asking it to solve the equations simultaneously? Do you have an inherent objection to knowing the result now rather than in hundreds of year’s time when teams of computers have finished working it out with pencil and paper?

Rather than talking glibly about “statistical/computer modelling replacing science” (it hasn’t of course – ’twas ever thus; don’t you know the stereotypical scientist with a blackboard full of equations), why don’t you actually articulate a problem.

@Peter paul Smith #51:

I’m not going to touch the attempted Gish Gallop, but this interested me:

Its all the dodginess taken as a whole leads me to believe that your all desperatly clinging to a kind of human hating religion, perhaps because it seemed to offer the totalitarian ‘get into jail free’ card that the Eco Bolshevik’s have so long desired

Has it occurred to you that the fact that you see this issue as primarily a political one doesn’t mean that it is?

Any response to Prof. Hulme’s comment on the “97%”?

@53
There’s an awful lot of politics surrounding this science though isnt there, in fact this is the most political scientific debate since Eugenics. The proposed solutions are highly political, the organisations promoting them are highly politicized and the consequences to us all represent the most draconian political ideology since the Aztec god kings thought that the Sun needed lots of hearts every day or it would stay dark(concensus based science addressing climate uncertaintity). Why do you think its not a political issue?
@53
My original sleight still stands (bullshit around divergance, which you scoffed at originally before deigning to acknowledge that was the point after all), as with only a little imagination its obviously the same accusation. That being a device to pre detemine outcomes.
Statistics and modelling are legitimate scientific tools providing you abide by the golden rule – garbage in = garbage out. And in that vein I give you the IPCC climate model.

@ 55

Answer for 10

“Wise bragged that the Bolshevik Revolution established the Talmudic-Zionist base in Russia and was financed by the large Jewish banks headed by Jacob Schiff who personally donated $20-million to the Bolshevik cause.

It was well known. throughout the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt that Schiff had financed this revolution and openly bragged about it. (See New York Times report, 3/24/17, subtitled: “Rabbi Wise Ready for War!”) This article relates how Jacob Schift financed the propaganda campaign within the Czarist Army which led to the Bolshevik success in Russia. They haven’t changed their course in 3,000 years.

At a Carnegie Hall celebration in March, 1917, it was said:

. . . then the rabbi (Wise) praised the Russian Revolution . . . “I cannot forget,” he said, “that lam a member and a teacher of the race of which half has lived under the domination of the Czar, and as a Jew, I believe that of all our achievements none has been nobler than the part the sons and daughters of Zion have taken in the great movement which culminated in a free Russia.”

(Interpreted correctly, that means “free to kill and enslave Christians.”)

In 1950, Wise was praised by the American Jewish Congress who said of him:

“. . . more than any other American he was an outstanding symbol and advocate of Zionism, not only in the eyes of American Jews, but also the entire American people and to its leaders, including President Wilson and F. D. R.”

It was Wise who funded the first English translation of The Talmud which was accomplished by Rabbi Rodkinson.

Elizabeth Dilling sued Wise for defamation of character and received an out-of-court settlement. He had made the following statement at a mass meeting:

(Yiddish for ‘bastard’) Dilling whose lies about The Talmud have set Judaism back a decade. She dragged our sacred Talmud in the sewer.”

Dilling replied:

“If I had done so, it might have helped clean it up; for a sewer is a helpful and normal channel for cleaning; The Talmud is an abnormal, diabolical channel for funneling sub-sewage into the minds of those who follow it.”

The whole Talmudic religion would have to be revamped to bring it up to the level of a sewer . . . Its doctrines are illegal in all civilized countries. It stands for mass-murder of non-Jews, mass-enslavement of mankind and the reversal of all laws based on Old and New Testament morality.

Read the stuff and learn who are the FAT string pullers!

“Even Henry Ford was not immune!
The Jews have always used threats to gain their will. In 1917-18, Louis Marshall, then President of the American Jewish Committee, served notice on Henry Ford, Sr., to cease telling the truth about the Talmudists. When Ford refused, Jewish threats were followed by Jewish actions.

Several attempts were made against the great Christian industrialist and his family. His car was forced off the highway on several occasions, and these incidents became so frequent that Mrs. Ford pleaded with Henry to come to terms with the Zionists.

Henry did make an apology of sorts, and all the scraping and bowing of the Ford family to Jewish interests from that time on can be traced to the fear which was engendered by Jewish threats.”

Bet you never read tht before about him.
He was the Great Christian Wealth Leveller – he raised his workers wages so they could all afford to buy his cars.

The damned Zionists in control now preach and propagandise “Winner Takes All” (Jimmy Tarbuck – was? Jewish)

Read and WEEP

http://www.israelect.com/reference/JackMohr/jm027j.htm

Still in disbelief?

Ford has been forced to dump production in UK and move to Turkey.

Exact region where Ashkenazi Jews/Alan tribe call ancestral ‘HOME’
“The Khazars (Turkish: Hazarlar) were a semi-nomadic Turkic people who created”

Modern faux-Masons G.A. Great Architect
Ga_zaria (Khazaria)
Lady GaGa(symbolism)

“The Khazars, a Turkish polity that came to dominate the Caucuses in the 7th … and Armenians and Georgians were considered “proto-Khazars”

Khazarian Prince George 7th
initials G.A.

First duty of Talmudists is to themselves!
Look up BEK and KHA_GA_N
A ‘dual’ faux-jew leadership of olde Khazaria
Today >>> “COALITIONS”

@ Baton Rouge – Bullshit

St. James Lodge #47, Baton Rouge, LA … All through the Civil War the spirit of Masonic brotherhood was very evident in St. James Lodge. … Excerpts from the speech made by George A. Pike,(G.A.) Grand Master – MAGNOLIA LODGE,(why you been brainwashed by TV Gurus + Media to paint rooms that colour!) the Worshipful Master, on January 3, 1863

Uber 33 degree (winner takes all) Mason & Confederate General Albert Pike (underground- “Mind The G.A.P.”)
(in biblical ‘running waters’ – a Pike would be a top ‘predator’)
(useless faux-commander as shown by his fruits)

He was a Zionist-Satanist, Scryer, Founding leader of K.K.Klan,(=33 K=11) developed his Eugenics Manifesto Talmudist-stylee “Morals and Dogma” which the elite, Satanist Masons have followed ever since!

“The first printings (1871-1881) of Pike’s Morals and Dogma carried the proviso: “Esoteric Book, for Scottish Rite use only; to be returned upon withdrawal or death of recipient.”

(You might be interested to know that books and old newspaper clippings on KKK, all over, have been stolen from libraries etc in a massive cover-up)

Know yer enemy?
Signs of the Times!

Lord Jesus Christ is my Lord and Saviour.

@52. Robin Levett: “And I still don’t know why the technique that is sufficiently effective as to ensure that airliners stay in the air is suddenly the subject of such contemptuous scorn when applied to the climate.”

A few philosophical quibbles. Aircraft engineers are sceptics so airliners contain more than one system to perform every important measurement and calculation. In the worst case scenario, the pilots will have three different assessments (ie the pilots are screwed); in normal operations, the primary instrument may go on the blink but the other two agree.

This understanding is important to how we treat climate science. The aircraft engineers have a common understanding of how the plane should work (inputs and outputs) and different teams come up with their own behavioural models. If the common understanding is 100% valid, different models will suggest the same thing. And all of the experts will be convinced that the plane will stay in the air.

Some climate scientists have not fully shared their data, modelling techniques and source code with other experts; others have been honest. Science requires that the model/projection can be independently repeated (excepting experiments which predict randomness!).

Sadly, science funding and the academic reward system based on citations work against repetition of experiments. Why try to find a £50,000 grant for two PostDocs to validate an internationally accepted climate model if the study has no interest? “Doh, we knew that already so we won’t publish or cite you.”

—
Being an expert in climate science does not qualify an individual to speak politically. Isaac Newton and Christopher Wren were dismal MPs. JS Mill was a cracking good failed reformer. Benjamin Disraeli was a popular writer who became an even greater politician; I suspect that all of his work is out of print today. To work as a politician, it is best that head below the clouds is normal operating position, but not too low. Not as low as the lot we currently suffer.

At a political level, climate science debate is dreadful because scientists lazily assume that the argument is over. Where is the climate science book with the appeal (but greater readability) of Hawking’s _A Brief History of Time_?

@ 26 That’s like saying that every christian that appears on TV believes in god, therefore god is a fact. The reality is that scientists who express doubts are committing career suicide and won’t therefore appear on TV to express them.
There is also a huge conformance/white coat effect in play here. Most of the people who quote “respected scientists” know little or nothing about science nor do they have any idea which scientists are respected or on what basis. Scientists have hypothesised a positive correlation between C02 and global temperature, it is a hypothesis. Even if the hypothesis cannot yet be falsified, the rest (what rising temperatures might mean in human/planetary terms and what, if anything we should do about it) is not science, it is political opportunism, ideologues babbling for attention, and of course the smell of vested financial interest.

In simple terms, just because a scientist (or even many scientists) says something is “a fact” does not mean that it is a fact. History is full of examples of bad science.

60.
Oh dear.

There is evidence co2 is linked to rises in temperature, in fact as the primary reason for it. this notion that we don’t know it is the cause of our warming is absurd.

@62
Yes CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, as are methane and water vapour (considerably more so). But CO2 is a bit player in whatever is happening, its significance is entirely political. Methane produced from industrial agriculture has at least the same effect as man made CO2 but there’s no methane tax on big Ag, just a carbon tax on us work units. This debate cannot be separated from politics as all the ‘solutions’ are actually manifesto’s for radical social.change, or revolutionary politics as it was called when I was a lad.

Paul Smith @ 63

But CO2 is a bit player in whatever is happening, its significance is entirely political

This proves the total sum knowledge of climate science that you and the rest of the deniers bring to this debate, i.e. fucking zero. You and the other anti science fuckwits are simply not capable of introducing anything of substance to the debate because for you cunts this is not a science debate at all, this is all about your idiotic political ideology. The scientists have been taking you backward people, previously the church, on for the last thousand years and so far we have been proved right EVERY time, be it the Earth’s position in the solar system or evolution. Now in the past, it hasn’t really mattered very much because it didn’t matter a jot whether we went round the Sun or the Sun went round us, but this stuff actually matters.

This debate cannot be separated from politics as all the ‘solutions’ are actually manifesto’s for radical social.change, or revolutionary politics as it was called when I was a lad.

Then it is up to you to come up with viable proposals that actually work, but because your ideology is fundamentally flawed it cannot cope with the laws of physics and therefore you cunts are reduced to dispute the laws of physics have to change to accommodate Tory ideology.

Meanwhile irreparable damage is being done to our common environment and you people are trying to argue your way out of your responsibilities.

You Tory bastards are little better than lice.

64.
If only you had half a brain rather than a whole brain.
Comment 22: https://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/07/25/how-michael-goves-education-choice-agenda-denies-debate-and-transparency-on-schools/

@64 Jim
Do you think the swears strengthened your argument or detracted from it, such as it was? The only side not interested in open debate is yours.
And please dont call me a Tory, I’m not defined by your childish dialectic, go and play red team/blue team with everyone else who prefers not to think for themselves.

This Paul Peter Smith character is a laugh

He doesn’t appear to understand anything remotely scientific, while batting around sciencey words to give the appearance of knowing something of the matters at hand.

Mike’s nature trick? Jeez pal, get with it.

Jim has covered it, in terms I agree with. Don’t engage with people who have NO understanding of even the basic concepts of climate science. PPS is ignorant of the most simple concepts and facts regarding climate science (see the utter utter stupidity of his CO2 comments) and will never bother to educate himself.

@Charlieman #59:

Sadly, science funding and the academic reward system based on citations work against repetition of experiments. Why try to find a £50,000 grant for two PostDocs to validate an internationally accepted climate model if the study has no interest?

That’s not, as I understand it, the way it works. Repeating the experiment as such doesn’t constitute “validation”; testing the model, by trying to break it, is what constitutes validation. The GCMs in use (note to PpS – there are more than one, and none of them are “the IPCC” model) are continually tested. Read chapter 8 of WG1 of 4AR:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

and google “general circulation models skill”.

You get far more kudos for demonstrating that a widely used model requires improvement – and identifying the improvement – than producing a “me-too” study; so scientists are motivated to try to break the models.

This understanding is important to how we treat climate science. The aircraft engineers have a common understanding of how the plane should work (inputs and outputs) and different teams come up with their own behavioural models. If the common understanding is 100% valid, different models will suggest the same thing. And all of the experts will be convinced that the plane will stay in the air.

Precisely; but while in aircraft engineering that agreement is taken as a good thing, in climate science the denialists point to it as evidence of conspiracy. Or, of course, they just deny that that common understanding among the experts exists. Hence the “31,000 scientists disagree” argument; based on the Oregon Petition.

Again, just look at the arguments here over studies of the scientific consensus. The criticisms made of Nuccitelli’s study by Mike Hulme look valid; but they are very different criticisms from those made say by #27 on this thread.

@Peter paul Smith #55:

There’s an awful lot of politics surrounding this science though isnt there, in fact this is the most political scientific debate since Eugenics.

If course there’s a lot of politics surrouding the science; it’s unsurprising given that if the world does actually take steps to keep the resultant rise down to 2C, trillions of dollars will be wiped off the fossil-fuel industry’s balance sheets.

The conspiracy theory that eco-green-bolshevik-stalinist-world government types have cooked the whole thing up to push their agenda is just that – a conspiracy theory. Unfortunately that thory has gainrd a huge amount of traction with politicians of a certain persuasion, as a result of which any attempt to take sensible steps to stop experimenting with the only ecosystem we knw we can survive in are shouted down as “the totalitarian ‘get into jail free’ card that the Eco Bolshevik’s have so long desired.”

My original sleight still stands (bullshit around divergance, which you scoffed at originally before deigning to acknowledge that was the point after all)

I was aware what “Mike’s Nature trick” was; the passage below shows that you still either don;t, or are prepared to push the boundaries of the truth in the interests of your argument.

, as with only a little imagination its obviously the same accusation. That being a device to pre detemine outcomes.

“Mike’s Nature trick” was very simple; in one of the figures in his Nature article, he plotted the instrumental record alongside the proxy record. I really don’t understand this claim about it being “a device to pre determine outcomes”; it just wasn’t.

@Peter paul Smith #63:

Methane produced from industrial agriculture has at least the same effect as man made CO2,

Gotta cite? Not even close. CH4 content of the atmosphere is of the order of 1.8ppm (up from pre-industrial of c0.7ppm); as against CO2 content of c400ppm (up from 280ppm); so while CH4 has a greater effect molecule for molecule, there are many fewer molecules.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

The table at the end of the page cited above shows the position: CO2 accounts for 1.817 Wm-2 (anthopogenic therefore .545 Wm-2) – CH4 total .506Wm-2. So the total CH4 forcing is less than the anthropogenic CO2 forcing. Note though that CH4 forcing is pretty much at steady state (although it’s been increasing somewhat recently); which is because CH4’s residence time in the atmosphere is at least an order of magnitude less than CO2, and we’ve not increased CH4 emissions from agriculture much recently. CH4 breaks down in the atmosphere in the presence of OH, BTW, into CO2 and water – but not much of either.

@Paul peter Smith:

My apologies – I have consistently called you Peter paul Smith in this thread.

@Derek Hatton’s Tailor #60:

Scientists have hypothesised a positive correlation between C02 and global temperature, it is a hypothesis

Hoo, boy…No.

There is an observed positive correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

There is a demonstrated mechanism, founded in well-established (100-150year old physics) linking increased CO2 concentrations to temperature increases. For 100-150 years, the (confusingly-named) greenhouse effect has been the accepted explanation for the fact that the Earth’s surface temperature is some 33K more than its blackbody temperature, given the incidence of solar radiation. It is only the denialists who claim that the Earth’s temperature is in some way ideal, such that even though the presence of a given amount of greenhouse gases adds 33K to the earth’s surface temeprature, adding to that total will have no/an insignificant effect on global temperatures. The burden of proof is on the denialists; and they’ve not even started trying to discharge it.

@71
Dont worry about it I get it all the time (real name). We’ve been programmed by the nursery rhyme ‘ 2 little dicky birds’ to think the name Peter naturally comes before Paul. British gas seem to have a real blindspot with it.

All you need to know is this – the whole climate change false Worldwide waffle Religion is exactly that – waffle
(with vested interests making millions out of both sides of argument.)

If you go to any farm or small holding with stacks of greenhouses on the fields you will see giant pressurised tanks.
Guess what’s in them – yes CO2

They pump the greenhouses with CO2 up to 5-9 times atmospheric content – Why?

The plants grow faster, taller, healthier and crops are increased by at least 5 times(heavier) of miles better quality!

This blows all arguments about not being able to feed Earth population – God is allowing the Planet to increase CO2 in order to produce healthier and better crops. Grass for animal fodder huge increase, trees(fruit) will burst from them with higher CO2 levels.

The ONLY reason the Satanist Elite scum keep propagandising false info about shortages(Middle Men profit from price increases) is cos they bought up Millions of farms around the World (in a ‘shark’ feeding frenzy) and leave the fields unploughed and uncropped
(I know this cos I read Sarf American etc websites and the elite scum have been laying off the local farm labourers after farm purchases)
– or turn them over to subsidised (scamming) more profitable biofuels.

Spot the horse hooves (Bible thang)

CC Climate change
IPCC (IP is from ruling party in Orwell 1984 book)
CC > carbon credits
CCC > Copenhagen Climate Conference
CCC The Committee on Climate Change
and all the others.

Flip 90 degrees and U get Tory U-Turns.
Ever noticed that EU and people like Boris JOHN_SON, Parliamentary enquiries etc, sit at U shaped rooms of desks?

At the outflow of Orwell river is Felixstowe.
Biggest container port in UK last time I heard.
St Felix converted East Anglia to Christianity – his name means “Fruitful”
Bet you scoff some for breakfast too.

George Orwell, who spent some of his formative years in Southwold came up with book ideas/did writing there.

BLAir Castle Blair/AYR(contains CO2)

First of all, I’m not with close shave/potty training!
@ Robin Levett
Thanks for the link, took my simple mind a while to digest but it raised a genuine question. Some sites disagree on the comparative effectiveness of CO2 to methane (as a greenhouse gas) claiming up to 20x more effect for CH4. If that is true (is it?) then an atmospheric conc. Of 1.8ppm is equivalent to approx 360 ppm of CO2. Not so different from the 400ppm CO2, I take on board what you say about methanes much shorter lifespan in the atmosphere but even though it breaks down to form small amounts of CO2 and water vapour these are also greenhouse gasses and would up CH4’s effect slightly more, even closer to the 400ppm figure.
Is the 20x thing correct and/or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

@ Robi Levett
I see what I did wrong now and take your point, silly me!

@Paul peter Smith #76-7:

Decimal points can be slipprery things, can’t they;-)

Pity Brillo didn’t look closer at the business links of his not so partisan witnesses. Roy Spencer is Chairman the George C Marshall Institute funded by Exxon, and Richard Tol is in close league with at least one free market think tank

According to Judith Curry, the scientific community Worldwide is reacting against IPCC junk science with 6 different approaches.

The fact is the ‘Consensus’ is only a consensus for scientists who have been taught [Meteorologists, ‘Climate Science’] incorrect physics or are unprofessional.

@ 80

Great Post.

The elites trashed Tesla’s experiments and inventions on purpose (to prevent us having free energy)
They tore him to pieces with made-up peer lies, ruining his reputation/career & leaving him pennyless when he died.

How big Business/New World Order/Elites keep control of energy supply, everything has to pass thru corrupted “peer review” to be released into public domain!

They then set about sabotaging our knowledge of how electricity works (teaching complete rubbish Physics etc) by reworking his experimental outcomes.

To this day parts of energy/magnetism are left as “unexplained” to hide the truth!

Any scientist embarking on further research is instantly ruined(unless they are thick twats brainwashed with wrong physics laws) which is why so many ‘laymen’ carry out Garden shed/garage experiments, knowing intuitively there is something wrong/missing!

Ever wundered why Ashkenazi Jew, Einstein’s most famous photo is of sticking his tongue out (at the Goyim-Animals)
(From israeli-jewish times)
“why is the tongue sticking out? Is the face part dog?”

The satanist convinced the Yanks to start building the Atom Bomb – under direction of zionist Jew Oppenheimer!
Roosevelt approved building the Bomb – he was a zionist-Jew ‘stooge’ leader mis-leading/killing millions of Christian Soldiers.