This graph demonstrates quite effectively why the warming of the last 50 years or so is not due to solar activity. As I explained in another thread, we can measure solar activity. An independent solar laboratory in Switzerland called PMOD carry out routine measurements of total solar irradiance in Watts per square metre. Past solar irradiance has been reconstructed by the Max Planck Institute in Belgium (Director Sami Solanki).

As you can see from the graph, there was increasing solar activity from the mid 19th Century up to 1960, and from that point on, it started to decrease. At the same time, global temperatures continued to rise, due to the well established greenhouse gas properties of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The actual increase in temperature is more than what would be expected from the CO2 alone. That's where other feedbacks come in. The AURA satellite has demonstrated a progressive decrease in longwave infrared radiation escaping to space and characteristic changes in the absorption spectra for carbon dioxide and water.

You can download the solar irradiance data from the Max Planck Website, here:

http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/

The Global mean temperature is from the NASA GISS Land/Ocean data, which can be downloaded here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

These are the facts. Now I'll guess  that we'll get some disinformation and the usual heckling.

---

muso wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 2:36pm:

This graph demonstrates quite effectively why the warming of the last 50 years or so is not due to solar activity. As I explained in another thread, we can measure solar activity. An independent solar laboratory in Switzerland called PMOD carry out routine measurements of total solar irradiance in Watts per square metre. Past solar irradiance has been reconstructed by the Max Planck Institute in Belgium (Director Sami Solanki). As you can see from the graph, there was increasing solar activity from the mid 19th Century up to 1960, and from that point on, it started to decrease. At the same time, global temperatures continued to rise, due to the well established greenhouse gas properties of the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The actual increase in temperature is more than what would be expected from the CO2 alone. That's where other feedbacks come in. The AURA satellite has demonstrated a progressive decrease in longwave infrared radiation escaping to space and characteristic changes in the absorption spectra for carbon dioxide and water. You can download the solar irradiance data from the Max Planck Website, here: http://www.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/ The Global mean temperature is from the NASA GISS Land/Ocean data, which can be downloaded here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt These are the facts. Now I'll guess  that we'll get some disinformation and the usual heckling.

this graph of solar irradiance variation and global temperature rise has often been cited in AGW denialist church groups and cult temples, BUT mysteriously, the data is chopped off at about the year 1980. Funny that.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 5:04pm:

... the data is chopped off at about the year 1980. ...

That's because 1980 is when the conspiracy began. Those gravy-train riding scientists started interfering with the sun.  ;)

Also - if the sun were causing the observed warming of recent decades - we would expect the whole of the atmosphere to warm.

the stratosphere however is cooling, due to the decrease in outgoing longwave radiation resulting from more energy being absorbed and re-emitted back to earth by anthropogenic greenhouse gasses

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/ocp2006/thumbnails/ocp06-fig8.jpg
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2006/ocp2006-hi-clivar.htm

And you look at that graph and dont even realise that the 1930's heat has been wiped off the graph. That must be a Hansen graph. Bogus to the hilt.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 9:25am:

And you look at that graph and dont even realise that the 1930's heat has been wiped off the graph. That must be a Hansen graph. Bogus to the hilt.

....yes one can only consult the data disseminated by EXXON and the Peabody Coal Company

---

# wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2013 at 9:01pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Aug 22nd, 2013 at 5:04pm: ... the data is chopped off at about the year 1980. ... That's because 1980 is when the conspiracy began. Those gravy-train riding scientists started interfering with the sun.  ;)

Yes the only people who are deceptive are the climatologists and scientists that are protecting their wages and continuing their grants.

Couldn't possibly be the multinational corprations who are swimming in trillions of dollars of fossil fuel profits. EXXON is the most profitable single corporation or company in human history. Nothing to lose there. They will sit back and shrink and disinvest into solar energy or shoe manufacture

So where did you get that graph from......???

Let me guess sceptical science I bet......!!!!!!!

Solar irradiance chart
http://i41.tinypic.com/241pksk.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

The sun is responsible for climate change here on Earth always has been always will be otherwise we would still be a molten rock of lava.

The sun controls temperature here on Earth not man's tiny CO2 emissions until that fateful day when our sun turns into a red giant and swallows up the Earth it will always control the temperature here on Earth.

Most Australians know that mans miniscule CO2 emissions don't control climate change here on Earth.

Not even the natural CO2 from the ecosystems controls temperature here on Earth.

How do we know well look into our history.

Most Australians know that CO2 follows temperature by a lag of about 800 years.

http://i43.tinypic.com/fk03et.jpg
http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

Now according to you lot we should have a steady rise in temperature because as the graph below shows nearly one third of ALL MANMADE CO2 emissions have been AFTER 1998, yet temperatures are dropping.

Therefore you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that CO2 is not the cause of the current temperature rise, it may contribute very slightly in accordance with its miniscule presence in the atmosphere.

But there is noway the warming of the last 50 years can be attributed to CO2 especially man's little contribution.

ipcc chart
http://i41.tinypic.com/2cz9dsp.png
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

Ajax wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 2:56pm:

... The sun is responsible for climate change here on Earth always has been always will be otherwise we would still be a molten rock of lava. ...

So the sun cooled the planet?

Meanwhile, in the universe outside your head, the vast majority of real scientist warn of risk. What are your qualifications again?

# wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 3:09pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 2:56pm: ... The sun is responsible for climate change here on Earth always has been always will be otherwise we would still be a molten rock of lava. ... So the sun cooled the planet? Meanwhile, in the universe outside your head, the vast majority of real scientist warn of risk. What are your qualifications again?

I tellya what if we do happen to go into a very cold spell for a few decades these global warming scientists better head for the hills.

Ajax wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 2:56pm:

So where did you get that graph from......??? Let me guess sceptical science I bet......!!!!!!!

Didn't you read the post? I provided the source data.


Quote:

Solar irradiance chart http://i41.tinypic.com/241pksk.jpg http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

Now take that data and calculate 11 year running averages and you'll probably end up with the same result.


Quote:

The sun is responsible for climate change here on Earth always has been always will be otherwise we would still be a molten rock of lava. The sun controls temperature here on Earth not man's tiny CO2 emissions until that fateful day when our sun turns into a red giant and swallows up the Earth it will always control the temperature here on Earth.

Sorry to upset your simplistic model, but many other factors such as the Earth's orbit, ocean currents, air circulation, aerosol pollution, volcanic emissions etc all affect the climate over geological time.



Quote:

Most Australians know that mans miniscule CO2 emissions don't control climate change here on Earth. Not even the natural CO2 from the ecosystems controls temperature here on Earth.

Direct measurements contradict what you are saying. Direct measurements of transmitted longwave infrared emissions to space.


Quote:

How do we know well look into our history. Most Australians know that CO2 follows temperature by a lag of about 800 years. http://i43.tinypic.com/fk03et.jpg http://s155.n46.n171.n68.static.myhostcenter.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Geocarb_III-Berner.pdf

Wrong graph. So what you're saying is that during the ice ages, when there were no massive emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, CO2 emissions did not drive global temperatures. 

Yes... that er makes sense  ::)  Of course in another post, you reiterated the account that most climatologists give. Maybe you made a mistake?


Quote:

Now according to you lot we should have a steady rise in temperature because as the graph below shows nearly one third of ALL MANMADE CO2 emissions have been AFTER 1998, yet temperatures are dropping.

According to who? Nobody is making this claim except you. Of course I already told you that, but you're obviously running out of strawmen to use.


Quote:

Therefore you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out that CO2 is not the cause of the current temperature rise, it may contribute very slightly in accordance with its miniscule presence in the atmosphere.

2mg per kilogram of body weight (2ppm) is another miniscule amount. Now according to you, that should contribute very slightly to you health. Would you like some cyanide to prove your point about it being miniscule?


Quote:

But there is noway the warming of the last 50 years can be attributed to CO2 especially man's little contribution.

way.


Quote:

ipcc chart

No it's not. Would you like to apologise again for that recycled lie like you did the last time?  You really have a short memory.

It's not really an IPCC Chart is it? Isn't it an Anthony Watts Chart?

No warming in the last 17 years.

Yet more than one third of ALL MANMADE CO2 emissions have gone up into our atmosphere since 1998.

How then can CO2 be the prime mover for climate change and temperature here on Earth.

Stop listening to politicized bodies (IPCC) giving you junk science.

AGW is a lie and a scam.

Lets hope we put an end to it before the United nations and the bankers that run it tax us for EVER on the air we breath.

http://i43.tinypic.com/nejm91.png

Ajax wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 3:17pm:

# wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 3:09pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 2:56pm: ... The sun is responsible for climate change here on Earth always has been always will be otherwise we would still be a molten rock of lava. ... So the sun cooled the planet? Meanwhile, in the universe outside your head, the vast majority of real scientist warn of risk. What are your qualifications again? I tellya what if we do happen to go into a very cold spell for a few decades these global warming scientists better head for the hills.

wait and see: of course- the old wait and move along there's nothing to see here approach from the fascists are what fascists do approach!!

status quo say the globalists: business certainty say the tryhard daddy lovers- some people just love daddy so so much it hurts when he tells them mining is selling rock for next to nothing to make rich people richer and has nothing to do with building infrastucture for the host country- in fact: you should build negative infrastructure to make you uncompetitive and more reliant on being a quarry!!

  :D :D :D :D :D

...they'll even put a copper noose around their friends kids kids necks to please good ol' daddykins: he must be oh so such a super good daddykins!

Ajax wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 6:46pm:

No warming in the last 17 years. Yet more than one third of ALL MANMADE CO2 emissions have gone up into our atmosphere since 1998. How then can CO2 be the prime mover for climate change and temperature here on Earth. Stop listening to politicized bodies (IPCC) giving you junk science. AGW is a lie and a scam. Lets hope we put an end to it before the United nations and the bankers that run it tax us for EVER on the air we breath. http://i43.tinypic.com/nejm91.png

Are you saying exxon et al aren't politicized?

Um, what science are they giving you again??

Ajax- don't run away: answer the question you try-hard pretender. I told you already that your nuclear weapons have been rendered impotent and you can no longer hide your greedy little know it all attitude behind them...(or was that someone else... nah, I must have told all you greedy bastards by now!!)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:10pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 23rd, 2013 at 6:46pm: No warming in the last 17 years. Yet more than one third of ALL MANMADE CO2 emissions have gone up into our atmosphere since 1998. How then can CO2 be the prime mover for climate change and temperature here on Earth. Stop listening to politicized bodies (IPCC) giving you junk science. AGW is a lie and a scam. Lets hope we put an end to it before the United nations and the bankers that run it tax us for EVER on the air we breath. http://i43.tinypic.com/nejm91.png Are you saying exxon et al aren't politicized? Um, what science are they giving you again?? Ajax- don't run away: answer the question you try-hard pretender. I told you already that your nuclear weapons have been rendered impotent and you can no longer hide your greedy little know it all attitude behind them...(or was that someone else... nah, I must have told all you greedy bastards by now!!)

Hey dude you will find that those that are pushing for a tax on CO2 worldwide actually own the oil & Gas, Mining industry.

Those industries are at the forefront of pushing the AGW agenda.

I cant believe you AGW religious zealots have had the wool pulled that far over your eyes.

Wake up.......FFS.

Oil & Gas, Mining Corporations all over the world are all in favour of trading carbon credits.

And they are preparing themselves to trade carbon credits so they can make a profit.

What you think they wouldn't want a part of the $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market...???????

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

... Hey dude you will find that those that are pushing for a tax on CO2 worldwide actually own the oil & Gas, Mining industry. ...

And how will we find that? Can you substantiate our assertion, or is it delusion?

# wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 24th, 2013 at 11:50am: ... Hey dude you will find that those that are pushing for a tax on CO2 worldwide actually own the oil & Gas, Mining industry. ... And how will we find that? Can you substantiate our assertion, or is it delusion?

Well why don't you have a look at why banks all over the world a financing the AGW religion to the tune of billions.

That's a good starting point.


Quote:

Bank of America to donate $50 billion for climate change research ...after bailout. http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/7940-bank-of-america-to-donate-50-billion-for-climate-change-research-after-bailout/

The UN & the IPCC see Australia as a cash cow
http://youtu.be/xv3OLKsQ83k

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:52pm:

... banks all over the world a financing the AGW religion to the tune of billions. ...

It's a conspiracy - of course it is. The paranoids are out to get us.  ::)

# wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:52pm: ... banks all over the world a financing the AGW religion to the tune of billions. ... It's a conspiracy - of course it is. The paranoids are out to get us.  ::)

Give me one good reason why banks would throw billions at the AGW religion........????????????????

Just one.............????????????????????

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:57pm:

# wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 8:55pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:52pm: ... banks all over the world a financing the AGW religion to the tune of billions. ... It's a conspiracy - of course it is. The paranoids are out to get us.  ::) Give me one good reason why banks would throw billions at the AGW religion........???????????????? Just one.............????????????????????

I told you, it's a conspiracy. They're all out to get us.  ::)

# wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 8:57pm: # wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 8:55pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:52pm: ... banks all over the world a financing the AGW religion to the tune of billions. ... It's a conspiracy - of course it is. The paranoids are out to get us.  ::) Give me one good reason why banks would throw billions at the AGW religion........???????????????? Just one.............???????????????????? I told you, it's a conspiracy. They're all out to get us.  ::)

So you can't find one of the top of your head.

Do you know that Blythe Masters head of JP Morgan Chase is the person responsible for Credit Default Swaps (CDS) these derivatives are responsible for the recession of 2008.

She wrote the laws on CDS's.....!!!!!

And guess what dude................?????

She is now writing the laws of how carbon credits will be traded on the stock exchange...??!!

Still think its a conspiracy.......???

Well when we have booms and busts on the carbon credit market I'll just keep reminding...???

Still think its a conspiracy...........???

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 9:06pm:

... Still think its a conspiracy...........???

Isn't that what you've been saying?  ::)

# wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 9:06pm: ... Still think its a conspiracy...........??? Isn't that what you've been saying?  ::)

Either your very rich or plain stupid dumb.

But it will hit home sooner or later.....?????

Maybe it's because inaction on replacing fossil fuel use with renewables has the potential to plunge the world into the mother of all financial crises.

Obviously the banks and the insurance market do not relish the prospect of financial oblivion. 

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 9:26pm:

# wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 9:11pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 9:06pm: ... Still think its a conspiracy...........??? Isn't that what you've been saying?  ::) Either your very rich or plain stupid dumb. ...

Or one of us is deluded.  ::)

You guys should educate yourselves on who exactly rules this world.

Here's a couple to get you started.

Inside Job Matt Damon
http://archive.org/details/cpb20120505a

Four Horseman
http://youtu.be/AWKx0PS3wDw

# wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 12:28pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 9:26pm: ... Either your very rich or plain stupid dumb. ... Or one of us is deluded.  ::)

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 4:39pm:

You guys should educate yourselves on who exactly rules this world. ...

I reckon you've just proven which one of us is deluded.  ::)

# wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:58pm:

# wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:28pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 9:26pm: ... Either your very rich or plain stupid dumb. ... Or one of us is deluded.  ::) Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 4:39pm: You guys should educate yourselves on who exactly rules this world. ... I reckon you've just proven which one of us is deluded.  ::)

ignorance is bliss my friend.

I don't blame you, who wants to think about such things anyway....??!!

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:36pm:

# wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:58pm: # wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:28pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 9:26pm: ... Either your very rich or plain stupid dumb. ... Or one of us is deluded.  ::) Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 4:39pm: You guys should educate yourselves on who exactly rules this world. ... I reckon you've just proven which one of us is deluded.  ::) ignorance is bliss my friend. ...

Which might explain why you keep ignoring the most knowledgeable.

There are good reasons why climate science deniers are a tiny minority - and none involve a conspiracy.

# wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 10:36pm: # wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:58pm: # wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:28pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 9:26pm: ... Either your very rich or plain stupid dumb. ... Or one of us is deluded.  ::) Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 4:39pm: You guys should educate yourselves on who exactly rules this world. ... I reckon you've just proven which one of us is deluded.  ::) ignorance is bliss my friend. ... Which might explain why you keep ignoring the most knowledgeable. There are good reasons why climate science deniers are a tiny minority - and none involve a conspiracy.

You're wrong dude.

The majority of people know that AGW is a scam based on a lie.

Ajax wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 4:12pm:

# wrote on Aug 28th, 2013 at 3:58pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 10:36pm: # wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 8:58pm: # wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 12:28pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 9:26pm: ... Either your very rich or plain stupid dumb. ... Or one of us is deluded.  ::) Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 4:39pm: You guys should educate yourselves on who exactly rules this world. ... I reckon you've just proven which one of us is deluded.  ::) ignorance is bliss my friend. ... Which might explain why you keep ignoring the most knowledgeable. There are good reasons why climate science deniers are a tiny minority - and none involve a conspiracy. You're wrong dude. The majority of people know that AGW is a scam based on a lie.

Can you substantiate that?

From about 25 people at work 2 believe in AGW.

From my friends NONE.

From my family NONE.

If so many people believe in AGW, why not put it to the vote at these elections.

Well we kinda are in a way because Abbott said he would get rid of it, but that could also be because people have had a gut full of the labor green government.

That's why the labor/green government never put it to a vote.

Because the majority of Australian would've rejected it.

Even though they keep telling us the majority want it...??

How do they know...????

Quote:

From about 25 people at work 2 believe in AGW.

http://brainsyndicate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/ronald1.jpg


Quote:

If so many people believe in AGW, why not put it to the vote at these elections.

For that matter, let's repeal the Universal Law of Gravitation. We should vote on it. Can we also vote on Dentistry? I find them to be such a pain. 

Anyway, all you've got is argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It shows that you've lost the argument and are resorting to spamming every thread with recycled nonsense that is either slogan based or already disproven.

..

The truth always hurts and takes some time to digest. :P :-/ :'(

Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:29am:

The truth always hurts and takes some time to digest. :P :-/ :'(

It does. I started this thread with the truth and factual evidence that could easily be verified.

You didn't dispute this in any point, but you ended the thread not with truth, but with opinion and the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

The facts always win against opinion.

muso wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 9:29am: The truth always hurts and takes some time to digest. :P :-/ :'( It does. I started this thread with the truth and factual evidence that could easily be verified. You didn't dispute this in any point, but you ended the thread not with truth, but with opinion and the argumentum ad populum fallacy. The facts always win against opinion.

There is so many papers written on why the sun is responsible for all warming here on Earth its not funny,

Here are but a few,

(Baliunas & Jastrow 1990)
(Foukal & Lean 1990)
(Friis-Christensen & Lassen 1991)
(Lockwood et al 1992)
(Scuderi 1993)
(Charvatova & Strestik 1995)
(Balinius & Soon 1996-1998)
(Soon et al 1996)
(Hoyt & Schatten 1997)
(Nicola Scaffeta & Bruce J West 2008)

The sun warms the Earth which in turn charges the oceans and the land to release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

By the time the oceans heat up the CO2 lags the temperature by about 800 years.

And if the sun ever catches a cold and starts to cough on the Earth the amount of natural CO2 that could be released from the ecosystems would over shadow mans poultry little percentage.

I recognise the names. They all work for the Heartland institute (or most of them do).

muso wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 2:22pm:

I recognise the names. They all work for the Heartland institute (or most of them do).

So what are you insinuating that these scientists are spouting nonsense because you disagree with their views....?????

Can you prove them wrong.....??????

Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

muso wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 2:22pm: I recognise the names. They all work for the Heartland institute (or most of them do). So what are you insinuating that these scientists are spouting nonsense because you disagree with their views....?????

Don't their affiliations call their credibility into question? If their opinions are so significant, why are they such a tiny minority?


Ajax wrote on Aug 29^th, 2013 at 6:12pm:

Can you prove them wrong.....??????

Is that a reasonable demand to make? Can you "prove" them right?

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:12pm: muso wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 2:22pm: I recognise the names. They all work for the Heartland institute (or most of them do). So what are you insinuating that these scientists are spouting nonsense because you disagree with their views....????? Don't their affiliations call their credibility into question? If their opinions are so significant, why are they such a tiny minority? Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:12pm: Can you prove them wrong.....?????? Is that a reasonable demand to make? Can you "prove" them right?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377835124

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:21pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:12pm: muso wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 2:22pm: I recognise the names. They all work for the Heartland institute (or most of them do). So what are you insinuating that these scientists are spouting nonsense because you disagree with their views....????? Don't their affiliations call their credibility into question? If their opinions are so significant, why are they such a tiny minority? Ajax wrote on Aug 29th, 2013 at 6:12pm: Can you prove them wrong.....?????? Is that a reasonable demand to make? Can you "prove" them right? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1377835124

I'll take that as acknowledgement of defeat.

# wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:43pm:

I'll take that as acknowledgement of defeat.

Sometimes I wonder who the deniers really are.....???

What would you do if the AGW religion fell apart....??

You don't have to answer that. :D

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 2:45pm:

# wrote on Aug 30th, 2013 at 2:43pm: I'll take that as acknowledgement of defeat. Sometimes I wonder who the deniers really are.....??? ...

When it's convincingly established that the majority of the best qualified say there's no risk, I'll stop worrying.

Quote:

Evidence, not consensus, is what counts My latest (and last) Mind and Matter column in the Wall Street Journal: Last week a friend chided me for not agreeing with the scientific consensus that climate change is likely to be dangerous. I responded that, according to polls, the "consensus" about climate change only extends to the propositions that it has been happening and is partly man-made, both of which I readily agree with. Forecasts show huge uncertainty. Besides, science does not respect consensus. There was once widespread agreement about phlogiston (a nonexistent element said to be a crucial part of combustion), eugenics, the impossibility of continental drift, the idea that genes were made of protein (not DNA) and stomach ulcers were caused by stress, and so forth—all of which proved false. Science, Richard Feyman once said, is "the belief in the ignorance of experts. My friend objected that I seemed to follow the herd on matters like the reality of evolution and the safety of genetically modified crops, so why not on climate change? Ah, said I, but I don't. I agree with the majority view on evolution, not because it is a majority view but because I have looked at evidence. It's the data that convince me, not the existence of a consensus. My friend said that I could not possibly have had time to check all the evidence for and against evolution, so I must be taking others' words for it. No, I said, I take on trust others' word that their facts are correct, but I judge their interpretations myself, with no thought as to how popular they are. (Much as I admire Charles Darwin, I get fidgety when his fans start implying he is infallible. If I want infallibility, I will join the Catholic Church.) And that is where the problem lies with climate change. A decade ago, I was persuaded by two pieces of data to drop my skepticism and accept that dangerous climate change was likely. The first, based on the Vostok ice core, was a graph showing carbon dioxide and temperature varying in lock step over the last half million years. The second, the famous "hockey stick" graph, showed recent temperatures shooting up faster and higher than at any time in the past millennium. Within a few years, however, I discovered that the first of these graphs told the opposite story from what I had inferred. In the ice cores, it is now clear that temperature drives changes in the level of carbon dioxide, not vice versa. As for the "hockey stick" graph, it was effectively critiqued by Steven McIntyre, a Canadian businessman with a mathematical interest in climatology. He showed that the graph depended heavily on unreliable data, especially samples of tree rings from bristlecone pine trees, the growth patterns of which were often not responding to temperature at all. It also depended on a type of statistical filter that overweighted any samples showing sharp rises in the 20th century. the rest here http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/i-may-follow-the-crowd,-but-not-because-it's-a-crowd.aspx

Quote:

it is now clear that temperature drives changes in the level of carbon dioxide, not vice versa.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

YES. THAT IS THE ESTABLISHED VIEW. OBVIOUSLY THE EARTH"S ORBITAL VARIATIONS DRIVES THE GLACIATIONS, NOT CO2.

Now please don't say that again as if anybody is actually claiming anything different.

Is somebody saying "Oh there was an emission of CO2 (it appeared by magic!), and this magic CO2 initiated the onset of the interglacial"

No they are NOT.

Orbital variations increase solar forcing, which drives off CO2 into the atmosphere, but it's not the whole story, as we previously discussed.  The increased solar irradiance only accounts for about 60% of the warming effect.

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

Quote: Evidence, not consensus, is what counts ... the rest here http://rationaloptimist.com/blog/i-may-follow-the-crowd,-but-not-because-it's-a-crowd.aspx

That link is to the blog of Matt Ridley. Of Matt Ridley, Sourcewatch says
Quote:

Climate expertise unclear It is unclear what expertise Mr. Ridley has developed that leaves him more qualified to assess climate science than 97% of actively publishing climate scientists. 2011 "skeptic bingo" denier speech A speech Ridley gave in 2011 was "a textbook Gish Gallop, full of false claims, logical fallacies, and trivially true but irrelevant “facts”. It was...“skeptic” bingo", reported the host of the blog The Way Things Break; he characterized Ridley as "a techno-optimist of the Lomborgian mold", and debunked a few of Ridley's claims[3], noting inconsistencies and errors like:     "Ridley wants us to know that the climate changed rapidly in the past- but yet we’re also supposed to believe that climate sensitivity is very small. He also flubs basic concepts- equilibrium sensitivity is not the same thing as transient sensitivity..." Associations Ridley sits on the advisory councils of the British lobby groups Sense About Science and Reform. He is also on the Academic Advisory Council of the denialist Global Warming Policy Foundation[4] Northern Rock bank failure The failure of Northern Rock was the first run on a British Bank since 1878. Under his chairmanship, the bank pursued what the Treasury select committee later described as a "high-risk, reckless business strategy".[5] MPs identified the directors of Northern Rock as "the principal authors of the difficulties that the company has faced". They singled Ridley out for having failed "to provide against the risks that [Northern Rock] was taking and to act as an effective restraining force on the strategy of the executive members".

I should add that, to one who doesn't pretend to know how to find all of the necessary data, let alone analyse and interpret it, where the majority opinion lies is just about all there is.

Hey your not bowerbird by any chance are...ya...??

Cause you certainly sound like her......!!!!

Ajax wrote on Aug 30^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

Hey your not bowerbird by any chance are...ya...?? Cause you certainly sound like her......!!!!

Ajax, you'll need to be a bit more precise. To whom are you referring?