Not yet registered?Sign upLogin

My NO vote on the ETS

Posted by Senator Steve Fielding on December 02 2009  |  63 Comments

Today I voted down the Rudd Government’s emissions trading scheme and put them on notice that I wouldn’t be a rubber stamp for rushing through policies without scrutiny.

My decision to vote against the legislation was not just a rejection of the new multi-billion dollar tax which the Government wants to force onto Australian families but it was also a vote for better accountability.

There are still three questions which need to be answered before Australians can make an informed decision on whether or not we need an emissions trading scheme.

1) Is the science right? Are man-made carbon dioxide emissions the leading cause of climate change?

2) What are the costs and the benefits of different emissions trading schemes and can we do better than the Government’s CPRS?

3) What effect will the CPRS have on the Australian economy, especially if we commit to targets before the rest of the world

How can anyone vote for a CPRS when so many Australians have questions?

Yesterday, I called on the Government to set up a Royal Commission to look into the first question and for the Productivity Commission to look into the second and third question.

The Government has refused to set up these inquiries and give the legislation the proper consideration and scrutiny which it deserves.

This can only mean that the Government has something to hide.

I have started a petition which I urge you all to sign, calling on the Rudd Government to set up three separate inquiries to look into these three critical issues.

Hopefully if enough people sign this petition, it will put pressure on the Government to take action and listen to the Australian public one and for all.

Please Click HERE to sign my petition to the Senate

Comments

• Come on Phil(Stormboy) admit it, you are the same Phil who contributed to Chris Colose’s blog, aren’t you. The debate there on the validity of the ice core reconstruction of ancient atmospheric CO2 concentraitons has become more serious now, although no-one has been able to provide me with any links to research on the subject. All the papers that have been referenced simply demonstrate to me how unreliable those reconstructions are.

  If you or anyone else can assist on this then I’d appreciate it.

  Best regards, Pete Ridley, human-made global climate change sceptic.

  Comment by Pete Ridley on 03 February 2010 at 10:25:23 PM

• Phil (AKA Stormboy) are you the same Phil who commented on 1st Jan on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley at AGU 2009: The Biggest Control Knob” blog (http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/#comment-1518)

  Best regards, Pete R

  Comment by Pete Ridley on 04 January 2010 at 04:58:00 AM

• Pete, you said that “you refuse to respond to anything that you yourself have not raised”. As we’ve already discussed, I didn’t raise the issue; I am simply responding to Havequestions question. In fact there’s nothing I’ve discussed in this foray back into the world of tin-foil caps that hasn’t been dictated to me. You can see it all below if you care to take a look. You’ll be less dumbfounded then. Yes, my tone is sarcastic and I use that because you know very well the game you are playing; we’ve had this discussion too many times and I suspect you’ve heard similar from plenty of others too.

  I accept that you have a theory on CO2 in ice and I agree that it’s worth looking into to; I honestly can’t give much meaningful comment on it. Until it has been investigated properly though I don’t really have the time to investigate it for you so please, go ahead and write it up, get it peer-reviewed and send me the link to your paper when you’re done.

  Till then I bid you adeu; I have more constructive things to do than Pete Ridley’s power games.

  Comment by Stormboy on 03 January 2010 at 01:15:07 PM

• Phil (AKA Stormboy), as during our previous exchanges, you refuse to respond to anything that you yourself have not raised. The basic issue that I’m debating is the validity of The (significant human-made global climate chamge) Hypothesis. Fundamental to this debate is how reliable are the re-constructions of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations from air bubbles in ice. How you can justify claiming that I am QUOTE: trying to confuse a clear issue with a completely unrelated topic UNQUOTE leaves me dumfounded.

  Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic

  Comment by Pete Ridley on 02 January 2010 at 09:06:18 PM

• Pete, thanks but no thanks. Call me cynical but I have had way to many personal attacks and attempts to derail a debate from you to think that it’s all going to change with a new year’s resolution. Even in this post you say “So far, like you Stormboy, they have made no response”. If you were genuine you would have just apologised for trying to confuse a clear issue with a completely unrelated topic, but instead you suggest that I have avoided answering your question.

  Just to help you clear up your confusion re natural vs man-made CO2 however; in a natural system respiration is balanced with photosynthesis, which you have not factored into your sums. The reason the problem has been tackled with lots of peer-reviewed papers instead of a sum on the back of an envelope is because it’s difficult to work out just how much photosynthesis is being lost through land clearing and compare that to how much is being added as we dig up the old stored carbon (the hard work of photosynthesis over millennia). It’s difficult, but all of the studies come to the same conclusion so uncertainty is not really an issue.

  The reason crowds swing toward the skeptic view is because crowds can relate to the sum on the back of the envelope even if it’s wrong.

  Comment by Stormboy on 02 January 2010 at 08:43:23 AM

• PART 1

  Phil (AKA Stormboy) and Havequestions, it looks to me, after having experienced numerous exchanges involving you both, that surely the best thing to do is agree to disagree and simply exchange whatever evidence each feels needs to be given open-minded consideration. Although I understand the frustration when the other party appears not to be wish to learn but only expound there own opinion, throwing insults achieves nothing. Let’s have a new-years resolution – fair debate with a willingness on both sides to listen and learn from the other.

  I’m presently exchanging opinions with Chris Colose, a very young (21) science student who is convinced that The (significant human-made global climate change) Hypothesis is proven. I’ve invited him and his supporters to respond on the matter of fractionation of gases within ice sheets and glaciers (Note 4). So far, like you Stormboy, they have made no response, even though this is in my opinion a crucial part of the debate.

  On one of Chris’s blogs (Note 5) he links to works and words of Assistant Professor Galen McKinley at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  in checking up on McKinley’s pedigree I came across an interesting June 2007 article on the madison.com site (Note 1) operated by Capital Newspapers, publishers of the Wisconsin State Journal. This discusses McKinley’s disagreement with U of Wisconson - Madison professor emeritus Reid Bryson.

  QUOTE:

  .. the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison… known as the father of scientific climatology, considers global warming a bunch of hooey. ..  Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. “Consensus doesn’t prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe.” .. There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said .. “However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” ... The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said. Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said. “It’s like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It’s just a total misplacement of emphasis,” he said. “It really isn’t science because there’s no really good scientific evidence.” Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. “Consensus doesn’t prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe.”

  So, if global warming isn’t such a burning issue, why are thousands thousands of scientists so concerned about it? “Why are so many thousands not concerned about it?” Bryson shot back. “There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added. “If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’”

  Not so fast, say scientists: Galen McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at UW-Madison disagrees with Bryson, whom she notes is a respected researcher and professor with a long history at the university. .. Carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing over the industrial period, about 200 years, and can be observed very clearly through about 100 monitoring stations worldwide, McKinley said. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing consistently with the amount that humans are putting into the atmosphere, she said. “We know humans are putting it there, we understand the basic mechanism and we know that the temperatures are warming. Many, many, many studies illustrate that both at the global scale and at the regional scale.” ..

  The huge changes in temperature that scientists are seeing are happening much faster than have ever been observed in the past due to the change from an Ice Age phase to a non-Ice Age phase, she said. “We know that humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an incredibly fast rate, much, much faster than any natural process has done it in the last at least 400,000 years and probably more like millions of years.”

  UNQUOTE

  Comment by Pete Ridley on 02 January 2010 at 03:30:59 AM

• PART 2

  Just a moment, let’s go back to the McKinley page you linked to, which provides a link to the “Carbon Cycle” page (Note 2). Looking at that IPCC AR4 extract about it appears that QUOTE: .. the major fluxes in GtC/yr .. best estimates for the 1990’s ..  UNQUOTE for:human-caused CO2 into the atmosphere (ignoring breathing) is
  .. fossil fuels ……. 6.4
  .. surface ocean …20
  .. land use change .. 1.6

  UNQUOTE. i.e. human-caused CO2 into the atmosphere is 28 GtC/yr, whereas for QUOTE: … pre-industrial ‘natural’ fluxes ..
  .. respiration ….. 119.6
  .. surface ocean ..  70.6

  UNQUOTE, i.e. natural CO2 into the atmosphere is 190.2 GtC/yr.
  Does this not indicate that nature puts CO2 into the atmosphere at a far greater rate than humans (190.2 GtC/yr v 28 GtC/yr)? I make that less than 15% of the CO2 going into the atmosphere is caused by humans, with only about 3% being due to our use of fossil fuels. This does not align with McKinley’s “We know that humans are putting CO2 into the atmosphere at an incredibly fast rate, much, much faster than any natural process has done it in the last at least 400,000 years and probably more like millions of years”. So I’m obviously doing my sums wrong here. That IPCC AR4 diagram says QUOTE: Gross fluxes generally have uncertainties of more than ±20% UNQUOTE. Does not this mean that the contribution that our use of fossil fuels makes is swamped by the uncertainties? Maybe it’s the celebrations last night preventing me thinking clearly. Can someone explain to me where I’ve gone wrong? - otherwise I’m going to have to continue being persuaded by Professor Bryson’s sceptical arguments.

  That article concludes that McKinley said QUOTE: “The scientific process is never 100 percent sure and it could be proven wrong,” McKinley added. “But I would say that the chances of that based on all of the
  best information at this current time are incredibly slim. And even though that possibility is out there, it would be irresponsible of us as a society not to act based on the best scientific information we have at the moment, which is that humans are causing the warming of the planet,” she said. “If you saw smoke in your house, it would be irresponsible not to get your family out, right?” UNQUOTE. Well, if that smoke was coming from a candle that my wife had just lit up then I would feel like a proper twit when the fire brigade turned up!

  That article is well worth reading. You may also be interested in looking at an A/V of an excellent 2007 debate on “Global Warming is not a Crisis” (Note 3) facilitated by Brian Lehrer, WNYC involving Chrichton (it’s a shame that he’s no longer with us), Richard Lindzen and Philip Stott (for the motion)  versus Brenda Ekwurzel, Gavin Schmidt and Richard Somerville (against). It was also interesting to see the swing in audience opinion as a result of the debate – from 30% for v 67% against to 46% for v 42 against, i.e. following open debate of both sides of the issue, many more people come to realise that there is no crisis ahead!

  Other A/Vs on that page are worth looking at.

  NOTES:
  1) see http://www.debunkers.org/Library/files/block_0/GlobalWarmingHooey.pdf
  2) see http://carboncycle.aos.wisc.edu/global-carbon-cycle/
  3) see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz8KiA-YMt8&NR=1
  4) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/#comment-1448
  5) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/interactive-carbon-cycle-model/#comment-1479

  Regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made global climate change agos(cep)tic

  Comment by Pete Ridley on 02 January 2010 at 03:30:41 AM

• Havequestions,
  I’m not sure how you manufactured your information, but I am not studying my BSc. I completed that as an adult many years ago after spending my previous working life in shearing sheds and working with disadvantaged/disabled kids. I gave you the link to my website where you can see that I work as a fire behaviour research scientist. Although I sometimes visit RealClimate I haven’t collected most of my references from there (despite the fact that they refer to genuine science rather than self-proclaimed experts like Jo Nova who is a microbiologist with no work history and has never published a paper in her life). I find most of my references as other scientists do - we read papers and in assessing the claims made by them we look up the papers they refer to. As far as my politics go I am neither left nor right wing. I have voted Liberal/Steve Fielding and other right-wing groups more often than I have the other way, but I make decisions based on the integrity and morality of the policies.

  Now I’ve given you a snapshot into my life as you’ve demanded, can you please tell me why you flatly refuse to look at the mountain of evidence I gave you in answer to your questions? You do understand that your refusal to do so is actually what denial means?

  Comment by Stormboy on 01 January 2010 at 08:30:39 PM

• Are there any Alarmists (other than Stormboy, who claims to be a scientist but has revealed that he is not), who can manswer my question (see below).  If so, could you please provide a link to a succinct summary of the most persuasive evidence that increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are the main cause of the modern warming.

  Here is more on my question:

  Most of the ‘believers in the ‘Dangerous AGW’  hypothesis seem to think that because the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age that this is evidence in support of DAGW. 

  In my opinion it is not.

  What is needed is evidence that this warming is unnatural.  It needs to be shown that current temperatures are higher than in the past and/or the rate of warming is greater than in the past.

  Is there any strong, persuasive evidence of this?

  For some background for those who may not be aware:

  The planet is always either warming or cooling.  We are currently in an ice age.  The third ice age in the past 600 million years.  The current one started about 30 million years ago.  Within ice ages, there are oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods.  We are currently in an interglacial period.

  Normally, there are no ice caps at the poles.  Ice at the poles is rare.  So melting of the ice and glaciers is not evidence of man-made global warming.

  The planet is normally significantly warmer than present.  When warmer, it is wetter.  Vegetation thrives.  Coral reefs thrive.  Marine life thrives.  Winds are less (there is less dust in the air, sand dunes are far less extensive), deserts shrink, there is more carbon tied up in the biosphere (evidence that life thrives when warmer).

  There are multiple, interacting natural cycles of warming and cooling:

  1.  plate tectonics (ice ages only occur when there is a large land mass at one or both of the poles AND there is a continuous land mass from high northern to high southern latitudes (like the Americas are now)

  2.  40,000 and 100,000 year period glacial and interglacial cycles (triggered by certain orbital and axis tilt conditions)

  3.  900 year period (Roman Warm Period , Dark Ages cold period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period

  4.  multi-decadal cycle (11 and 22 year Sun phases, ocean currents, many other)

  5.  Ad hoc (volcanic eruptions, comet and meteorite impacts, etc)

  I understand the GHG THEORY (to the extent I need to).  But we need the observational evidence to test the theory.  Evidence that the planet is warming is not sufficient.  It needs to be demonstrated that the warming is largely man-made. 

  Is there such evidence?  What is it?

  Comment by Havequestions on 01 January 2010 at 03:45:10 PM

• Stormboy,

  There is no point in simply regurgitating what you read in RealClimate and Wikipedia, and reading only the papers they point to.  You need to read with an open and critical mind, as with everything you read.  You should realise what has been going on for the past 30 years with the peer review process for the highly politricised AGW work.  Recognise the politcs and slef interest involved.  Surely you do realise that RealClimate is run by one of the large PR and marketing firms and is very well funded.  The contributions are by the “Hoceky Team” who all have a very strong self interest motive to promote the DAGW scare campaign.  And the climatre related articles in Wikipedia are all controlled and 5000 of them have been rewritten by a Greenpeace Climate Change activist.  If you don’t understand that all this is going on, you are simply naieve.  Which fits with your apparewnt age implied by currently studying for you BSc.

  There is no point in you attempting to answer my questions.  You are not a scientist and you wouldn’t have any more clue than anyone else who has simply read Wikipedia, RealClimate and then gone to the papers they refer you to.

  If you don’t know what has been going on, and want to, here is a summary:

  http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf

  Comment by Havequestions on 01 January 2010 at 03:34:18 PM

• Just for the record, the answer I gave for the lengthy post you pasted is below. I spent a few hours going through the references you gave me, but I’m sure you will dismiss it all.

  You have given me a list of papers, but you may not realise that only the first 2 references have any relevance to the Hockeystick which has become the subject of our debate since you said that it would be “persuasive” evidence. As much as I’d like to discuss the others, let’s stick to the subject ok?

  STEVE MCINTYRE’S link didn’t work, however if he wants to genuinely discredit a scientific paper he should know full well that all he has to do is publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal where people are given enough information and opportunity to do to his work what he tried to do to Mann’s. Failure to do so is just sneakiness.

  LOEHLE’S work starts out by dismissing tree ring data based on theoretical and unproven objections. His central objection is extremely flimsy when applied at a global scale, ie that when temperatures get too warm, tree-ring growth reduces due to water stress. A legitimate finding on a site level but what is too warm across the planet? Every second post on this blog says that rainfall increases as temperatures rise. Still, there’s nothing wrong with examining the other data by itself but you should note that this reduces the data set to 18 points which is pretty small, and that the proxies he uses have other issues that he does not even discuss.

  - After dismissing dendrochronology, Loehle doesn’t give any discussion as to how he can overcome the fact that the proxies he uses have dating errors often of a century or more.

  - He shifts a number of proxies forward by 50 years so that the temperature he reports for 2000 is actually the 1950’s temperature when things were considerably cooler. 

  - The medieval period is only covered by a very small number of his proxies as most do not go back that far. You could be forgiven for understanding his statement “all data were used that had at least 20 dates over the 2000-year period” to mean that all of the proxies covered at least the 2000 year period, but this is not the case (eg http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/paleocean/by_contributor/demenocal2000/658_sst.txt). Although he attempts to compare med to modern temps, only 5 of the 18 proxies cover both periods.

  - On at least one proxy he uses the actual raw measurements of Mg/Ca rather than the interpreted temperatures

  - A number of the proxies have never actually been validated against real-world temperatures.

  - He uses a kind of bizarre approach statistically - rather than standardising the series to each other he subtracts the mean of each series from the series itself so that in the end he is comparing apples and pears.

  Overall, it’s a pretty shoddy paper, but the beauty of peer-review is that he had to provide enough details for me to question his findings.

  So really, when I gave you 9 peer-reviewed papers and the US Academy of Science (I’ll add here the 650 reviewers for the IPCC AR4), you’ve given me 1 paper based on 5 proxies to represent the entire planet and using statistics that distort the whole picture. No I’m sorry, the Hockeystick has not in any way been discredited. That leaves you either looking hard for some more evidence, being educated by the evidence I’ve given you or in denial. Which is it?

  Comment by Stormboy on 31 December 2009 at 02:57:27 PM

• Havequestions

  you said: “However, with you I cannot be bothered searching through all your litterature if you cannot start off by answering my question.  I’d be wasting my time once again, having gone through the same nonsense with many previous self appointed ‘experts’.” So your argument is basically “give me a straight answer”, I give you the answer supported by references, you refuse to read the references and say “you still haven’t given me an answer”.

  You listed my insults:

  1.  “I’ll teach you about Climate Science 101” or words to that effect.

  What I actually did was gave the title “Climate 101” to a very basic description of how the climate works to indicate that it was a very basic decription. It’s what people do as a light-hearted way of saying “ok, let’s go back to basics”

  2.  “That is how science works” - as if you’d know

  This was my response to your groundless accusation that I was dodging the question and merely repeating a mantra. You made it clear that you have no understanding of how to do science. Like it or not, as a research scientist I actually do know how science works and I object to any bored person surfing the net appointing themselves experts when they clearly don’t understand the most basic principles.

  3.  “Mr Questions” and this from “Mr boy”, or is it just “little boy”.

  I can’t actually imagine anyone else taking offence at the friendly play on your alias. I used it deliberately to introduce some lightheartedness into the debate because it’s difficult to structure a sentence around the name “Havequestions” as it sounds like a question in itself. For that joke I’ve now been called “little boy”, been told to run off and play in the sandpit, I’m a little twit with an inflated ego, gullible twit, big ego and fool. I only wish I knew more gems like you.

  You’re obviously the kind of man that has had a lot of fights - when someone says something you don’t understand you just hit them.

  Comment by Stormboy on 31 December 2009 at 02:48:46 PM

• Strormboy,

  The ‘hockey stick’ is totally discredited.  If you are still hanging onto that, then no waonder you are so arrogant.

  Go to ClimateAudit and read !!.

  The link you posted was to a paper authored by Michael Mann.  What would you expect from him.  Are you totally out of touch with what has been going on for the past 10 years at least?

  Bring yourself up to date;

  http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/climategate/history/2009.12.23_climategate_30_years_in_the_making_banner.pdf

  And:

  Here are references to 9 Peer Reviewed articles listed by BD a regular poster on the weatherzone web site forum “AGW theory is fatally Flawed”

  (QUOTE) “That should end the belief that “the debate is over” about global warming. It should also destroy the illusion that there is a “consensus” amongst scientists about the causes of global warming. Those propagating the myth of man-caused global warming are simply distorting reality and the facts…..and that is putting it politely”

  I am going to list 10 papers, and start with a non peer-reviewed paper as an exception because of his sustained and exemplary efforts, any one of which is worthy of a Doctorate.

  1. Steve McIntyre’s Ohio State University Address;

  How do we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium? (May 16, 2008)

  http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf

  This is a seminal paper which synthesizes all the errors and obfuscations to do with the Hockey Stick. It also demonstrates McIntyre’s methodical, scientific and unadorned approach to the issue.

  2. Craig Loehle’s paper;

  A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies, Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058. 2007

  http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

  This paper was important because it was a counterpoise to Mann’s tree-ring data and provided good support for the Medieval Warming Period, a major obstacle to AGW.

  3.Douglass, Christy et al; this is the first of the GCM critiques;

  A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, 2007

  http://www.scribd.com/doc/904914/A-comparison-of-tropical-temperature...

  http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3058

  This paper really touched a nerve and the level of hostility leveled at it was astounding; it mostly boiled down to nit-picking about Raobcore data and whether a falsification was distinct from a bias. The second link is to an addendum to the paper; comments 69-74 are entertaining.

  4.Koutsoyiannis et al;

  http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/850

  Assessment of the reliability of climate predictions based on comparisons with historical time series. Geophysical Research Abstracts, 2008

  This link is to the first presentation. This was a crucial paper; it covered the 18 year predictive history of the GCM’s on a regional basis; regionalism is the Achilles Heel of AGW.

  5.Stockwell;

  http://landshape.org/stats/wpcontent/uploads/2008/08/article.pdf

  Tests of Regional Climate Model Validity in the Drought Exceptional Circumstances Report. 2008

  This paper did the job on CSIRO and demonstrated the political imput into the AGW science.

  6. Misckolczi;

  Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary Atmospheres. Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service, Vol. 111, No. 1,
  January-March 2007, pp. 1-40.

  http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf

  This is my favourite. It has everything; the dead hand of AGW censorship, and the demolition of the AGW’s semi-infinite opaque layered atmosphere. People have quibbled about the Kirchhoff equations but
  Miskolczian -ve feedbacks have been established.

  7. Essex, McKitrick, Andresen;

  Does a Global Temperature Exist? Journal of
  Non-EquilibriumThermodynamics, 32 (1) 1-27. 2007

  http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/JNETDY.2007.001?cooki...

  The fallacy of a global average temperature was taken to task in this paper, and, again, the reaction was hostile. This paper wittily compared averaging temperature to averaging the phone book; an important addition to the regionalism lexicon.

  8. Spencer and Braswell;

  Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A simple Model Demonstration, Journal of Climate.

  http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%... list would be complete without Mr Cloud and -ve feedback. As well,Spencer has been a bastion of reliable temperature data

  
  If you also do some research, with an open mind, you’ll find what has gone wrong with the peer review process in the Climate Change sciences, and the IPCC.

  Comment by Havequestions on 31 December 2009 at 12:08:21 PM

• Stormboy,

  You said “I had given you a clear precise answer?”

  What was it.  I didn’t see it.  Can you post the link again please, (to a succinct summary of the most persuasive evidence that increasing CO2 concentration is the main CAUSE of the modern warming.

  I doubt it exists.  Every alarmist has linked to stacks of papers but none show this evidence I’ve asked for.  They all want to talk about what they want to talk about rather than answer the question.  Some, like you, are still hanging on to the “Hockey Stick”.  It is long dead and burried.  Go to Climate Audit and read, or if you want a short summary/introduction, read the links I gave you.  If you can’t answer my question, and I am convinced you cannot because all the Alarmists start off with a big ego and pretence of knowledge like you do, then they realise they do not know.  However, with you I cannot be bothered searching through all your litterature if you cannot start off by answering my question.  I’d be wasting my time once again, having gone through the same nonsense with many previous self appointed ‘experts’.

  I could not see on your site who you are, what you research and what peer reviewed papers you’ve published.  Perthaps you’d like to expose yourself.

  I did notice that your site reflects your big ego.  You think you know about everything.  You are clearly a left wing wacko like the nutters protesting at Copenhagen.

  I get no sense that you have any backgroud in ‘Dangerous AGW”.

  You ask “What was my arrogance?”  How about:

  1.  “I’ll teach you about Climate Science 101” or words to that effect.

  2.  “That is how science works” - as if you’d know

  3.  “Mr Questions” and this from “Mr boy”, or is it just “little boy”.

  4.  Many more.  I doubt there would be one of your posts that does not reflect your arrogance - just as your web site does.

  I know you will never answer my question, so run off and play in the sand pit with the other little boys.

  Comment by Havequestions on 31 December 2009 at 12:06:00 PM

• Havequestions
  you obviously see anyone that disagrees with you as arrogant. What was my arrogance? The irony in my tone when you accused me of avoiding the subject when I had given you a clear precise answer? What you now owe me is a clear answer as to why my answer is not good enough for you - don’t just keep re-stating your ideology, start using reason and science.

  Now I don’t actually think it does the job but you finished by saying that “The ‘Hockey Stick’ was persuasive in 1998 to about 2003.  But it is discredited.”

  The Hockey Stick was not disproved, it was debated; there is a difference. McIntyre & McKitrick (2003) said that it must be wrong because they were unable to replicate it, but Wahl & Amman (2007) showed that replication was easy if you just followed the instructions. Determined to prove objectively that their hunch was right whether the evidence said so or not, McIntyre & McKitrick had some more tries in 2005 by introducing some new data which they said showed the reconstruction had been calibrated wrongly; although they wouldn’t say how wrong. Wahl & Amman (2006) applied their theory and found that it only revealed a maximum error of 0.05 degrees C. The US National Academy of Science examined all of the evidence and concluded in 2006: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”. Since then, Mann et al have repeated the analysis with a wider dataset and the statistical techniques recommended by their critics, and arrived at the same conclusion again (http://www.pnas.org/content/105/36/13252).

  As the US Academy of Science said, other analyses have come to the same conclusion; eg Esper et al 2002, Crowley et al 2003, Mann & Jones 2003, Cook et al 2004, Moberg et al 2005, Rutherford et al 2005, D’Arrigo et al 2006.

  You posted some links on the other thread, most of which had nothing to do with the Hockey stick. I have answered the relevant ones and thoroughly dismantled them.

  Visit my site by all means (http://www.bloodwoodtree.org), but I am waiting for 2 things from you:

  1) A reason as to why you have dismissed my simple answer

  2) Clear evidence as to why you have dismissed the hockey stick against all evidence - keeping in mind that I have already answered your last post on it and I don’t believe that a dodgy analysis of 5 temperature proxies either adequately represents the planet or answers the 9 papers I gave you, the findings of the US Academy of Science or the 650 reviewers of the IPCC.

  Personally I expect only more dismissals, irrelevant links and insults.

  Comment by Stormboy on 31 December 2009 at 11:11:49 AM

• Stormboy,

  Copenhagen was a talkfest for extremists and wackos.  Let’s get over it and get rational.  Neither you nor anyone else who believes in the “dangerous AGW” hypothesis has been able to answer the key question.  You and the rest of the Alarmists all avoid answering it.  The question is:

  Show us the persuasive evidence that increasing CO2 concentrations are the CAUSE of the modern warming.

  This question is not about the theory.  It asks for the evidence to test the theory.  Where is it?

  Most of the ‘believers in the ‘Dangerous AGW’  hypothesis seem to think that because the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age that this is evidence in support of DAGW. 
  In my opinion it is not.

  What is needed is evidence that this warming is unnatural.  It needs to be shown that current temperatures are higher than in the past and/or the rate of warming is greater than in the past.

  Is there any strong, persuasive evidence of this?

  For some background for those who may not be aware:

  The planet is always either warming or cooling.  We are currently in an ice age.  The third ice age in the past 600 million years.  The current one started about 30 million years ago.  Within ice ages, there are oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods.  We are currently in an interglacial period.

  Normally, there are no ice caps at the poles.  Ice at the poles is rare.  So melting of the ice and glaciers is not evidence of man-made global warming.

  The planet is normally significantly warmer than present.  When warmer, it is wetter.  Vegetation thrives.  Coral reefs thrive.  Marine life thrives.  Winds are less (there is less dust in the air, sand dunes are far less extensive), deserts shrink, there is more carbon tied up in the biosphere (evidence that life thrives when warmer).

  There are multiple, interacting natural cycles of warming and cooling:

  1.  plate tectonics (ice ages only occur when there is a large land mass at one or both of the poles AND there is a continuous land mass from high northern to high southern latitudes (like the Americas are now)

  2.  40,000 and 100,000 year period glacial and interglacial cycles (triggered by certain orbital and axis tilt conditions)

  3.  900 year period (Roman Warm Period , Dark Ages cold period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period

  4.  multi-decadal cycle (11 and 22 year Sun phases, ocean currents, many other)

  5.  Ad hoc (volcanic eruptions, comet and meteorite impacts, etc)

  I understand the GHG THEORY (to the extent I need to).  But we need the empirical evidence to test the theory.  Evidence that the planet is warming is not sufficient.  It needs to be demonstrated that the warming is largely man-made. 

  Is there such evidence?  What is it?

  The ‘Hockey Stick’ was persuasive in 1998 to about 2003.  But it is discredited.  What is the evidence now?

  Stormboy,

  I’ve added this post here so that others can see the question I’ve been asking and can also see that you have failed to answer it.  This was posted on another thread.  Perhaps you would be so kind as to repost your link to a site that provides a succinct summary of the persuasive ecvidence that answers this question.  Pleas also post the link to your wenb site.

  Comment by Havequestions on 31 December 2009 at 09:18:55 AM

• Stormboy

  “please list one insult I have given you.”

  Read back through your posts.  They are all totally arrogant and rude.  I expect yuou are a young twit with an over inflated ego.

  Like many Alarmists, you read with out criticvally examoining what you are reading then simply beileve in authority.

  You say: “So far I have presented you with unarguable evidence which directly refutes your claims, but in the absence of an answer you are now even openly refusing to read my posts. Fair enough; I never hoped to convince you, just expose you.”

  That’s a great avoidance game.  Where is the evidence.  I haven’t seen it.  Please post the link again.  A link to the most persuasive evidence that increasing CO2 is the cause of GW.  Read it carefully.  And answer just this question, not all the other stuff you like to write about to avoid the question.  And not theory or model outputrsa, just the observational evidence to test the theory.  If you don’t understand the difference, you need to spend a lot more time studying science.

  Could you please post a link to your web site.  I haven’t seen it.  I suspect you are just another young, gullible twit with a big ego.

  Here is a summary of what I’ve asked for:

  1.  The answer to my question

  2.  link to your web site

  Comment by Havequestions on 31 December 2009 at 09:09:35 AM

• Havequestions
  please list one insult I have given you. There aren’t any.

  So far I have presented you with unarguable evidence which directly refutes your claims, but in the absence of an answer you are now even openly refusing to read my posts. Fair enough; I never hoped to convince you, just expose you.

  Pete,
  the question we’re discussing here as presented by Mr Questions is “What is the persuasive evidence that increasing CO2 concentration is the CAUSE of the modern warming?”  So to save you some reading, I’ll boil it down to the basic evidence that Havequestions has so pointedly avoided even looking at:

  The factors governing the climate for the past at least 11,000 years (predominantly solar activity) should now be cooling it precisely when it has been warming faster than ever (Frolich 1998, Lean 1999, Solanki 2003, Stott 2003, Haigh 2003, Solanki 2004, Usoskin et al 2005, Scarfetta 2006, Foukal 2006, Lockwood 2007, Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2008 a&b, Benestad 2009, Erlykyn 2009). As a result we’re left with a measurable increase in CO2 and as Steve Fielding’s adviser David Evans admits, the warming effect of this is “not in dispute”.

  Now just as a hint - to answer this you don’t need to discuss CO2 in ice, gossip about whether climate scientists are nice people or not or whether I get a lot of comments on my website. If I see you give me a genuine answer I’ll respond, otherwise as you know I have no interest in wasting time with the sort of games you play.

  Comment by Stormboy on 31 December 2009 at 06:34:29 AM

• Phil (AKA Stormboy) I see that you are still pushing your evangelical Bloodwoodtree blog. Are you managing to attract any worthwhile audience yet? You were doing pretty miserably last time I looked.

  Best regards, Pete R

  Comment by Pete Ridley on 30 December 2009 at 10:01:41 PM

• Phil (AKA Stormboy), well, well, you’re back from the dead, but I see that you are still repeating the same old opinions that failed in July/August to convince us about the validity of The (significant human-made global climate change) Hyothesis!

  Try moving on. Can you provide any evidence showing that CO2 in ice is unable to preferentially fractionate because of its small size, hence distorting the re-constructions of pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 concentrations from ice cores – something that the IPCC relies upon to justify its position on The Hypothesis. If you have any worthwhile contribution to make on this (although if past experience is anything to go by you won’t have) then please join us on Senator Fielding’s “Climate Change” thread (Note 1) or on Chris Colose’s thread (he’s a staunch supporter of The Hypothesis, just like you, so you ‘ll feel more comfortable there Note 2).

  BTW, what do you think of the “Climategate” scandal? DO you still have so much faith in that peer review process that you used to have?

  NOTES:
  1) see http://www.stevefielding.com.au/forums/newreply/125/
  2) see http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/richard-alley-at-agu-2009-the-biggest-control-knob/

  Best regards, Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Climate Change Agnos(sep)tic

  PS: You’ll notice that I have moved on – I’m now closer to sceptic than agnostic

  Comment by Pete Ridley on 30 December 2009 at 09:56:59 PM

• StormBoy,

  You started the insults.  I am just responding to you arrogance.  Leave out the insults and answer my questions, then we can have a reasonable discussion.

  I read the first line of your post and didn’t bother continuing.

  Comment by Havequestions on 30 December 2009 at 07:29:52 PM

• And like most in denial Havequestions, all you have are insults.

  True, theories are not evidence; that’s why I quote you peer-reviewed papers rather than websites and opinions. The fact that the natural climatic cycles which have been controlling the climate throughout history should have been cooling the planet for the past 30 years is supported by an enormous amount of evidence; much of which I’ve given you and you have ignored. Are you aware that the conference paper by Usoskin et al (2005, http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf) used by denialists such as the creators of ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ to say that “it’s all just a natural cycle” actually concludes with the statement: “historic temperatures correlate well with sunspot number until the 1970’s, after which temps rise while solar activity falls”. Why do denialists consider it evidence, but only if they cut out the critical findings? The Swindle had to actually cut off the last 30 years of their graph so that people wouldn’t see they were being swindled.

  You say that models are not evidence. Do you actually know what a model is? If you propose some natural cycle to explain the climate and demonstrate mathematically how it could be the case, you’ve used a model. You listed plate tectonics, glacial/interglacial cycles etc. Listing them makes them theories. As soon as you get some measurements and try to work out whether they can actually do the job, you’ve relied on a model. A model is the quantified application of the accumulated knowledge to the matter at hand. Without models all we have are theory; models translate theory into measureable information.

  The likelihood (evidenced in some ice cores but not all) that CO2 rose after temperatures did is irrelevant. The scientists have not claimed that CO2 has driven all historic warming periods, they are just pointing out physics that is as well established as gravity that CO2 is one of the gases that affects the earth’s temperature. We are digging up carbon and converting it into CO2 at a measurable rate that happens to coincide with the rate it is increasing in the atmosphere. So unlike every other warming event, this time, a proven heating agent is being released into the atmosphere and when we do the sums, it just so happens that the amount we calculate it to be heating the earth (after considering all feedbacks) is actually just what’s happening! Have a look at how well the evidence all stacks up: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Rahmstorf_etal.pdf.

  Now this is how things work in science. You gave me some theories such as ‘CO2 always follows warming’ and I responded with evidence that disproved your theories. Unfortunately we can’t photograph any magical little climate elves being forced by humans to warm the planet so we have to rely on evidence. So now you can go back to telling me I’m an arrogant twit, a fool or that I’m fat but the fact remains that all of the evidence so far says the world’s natural cycles should be cooling it but it’s warming exactly as we would expect it to with the greenhouse gases we’re releasing. You may consider them all extremists and wackos but my conscience won’t let me turn my back on the leaders of the third world nations who are all begging us to take the overwhelming evidence seriously. I think you’ll find that you can be a better person than the one you’ve become.

  Comment by Stormboy on 30 December 2009 at 04:35:25 PM

• Stormboy,

  You seem very arrogant.  Like most Alarmists.  But, also like many alarmists who blog here, you don’t have a clue.  You talk about getting on and solving the problem.  What problem?  And what solution – the Copenhagen gab fest of alarmists, extremists and wackos?

  You say you have the answer to my question, well why don’t you put it here in plain English?  I suspect the reason is you simply don’t have a clue what you are talking about and conitnually want to avoid answering the question.

  You asked how to answer me.  Well just answer the question.  Don’t deviate away to what you want to talk about.  Just answer my question.  My qurestion is:

  “What is the persuasive evidence that increasing CO2 concentration is the CAUSE of the modern warming? “

  Theory is not evidence.  Models are not evidence.  Measurements that temperatures are rising is not evidence (unless the rate of rise is unusual).  Measurements of rising CO2 concentrations are not evidence of CAUSE, because they rose during previous, natural warmings, but as a follower of rising temperatures not a leader. and because CO2 concentrations have been much higer in the past, and for a variety of other reasons.

  Is that clear enough for you, you arogant twit.

  You talk about how science works.  You wouldn’t have a clue.  Your are talking about religion.  You’ve read some reports and probably watched U-tube videos and uyou accept what the high preists tell you.  You wouldn’t have a clue about science.  You’d need to start by being appropriately sceptical.

  The last think I’d want is to let fools like you fix any problem.

  Comment by Havequestions on 30 December 2009 at 03:15:53 PM

• Havequestions,

  just so that I don’t so cleverly sidestep your question again, could you make it clear please exactly what observational evidence you would like? I have provided empirical evidence (exactly as you asked) to show that the natural warming and cooling cycles that have been in operation for a very long time now should be cooling the planet when it is actually warming, and that according to basic physics the only answer left is the clear smoking gun of greenhouse emissions (answer 20th December for any genuine people).

  Exactly what observational evidence would you like? We can observe how much IR radiation is absorbed by CO2 using spectroscopy, but no doubt that would be sidestepping the point as well because it doesn’t lead to the conclusion you want.

  This is how science works Mr Questions (or may I call you ‘Have’?) - we identify the laws and processes in play, measure them and see what the results are. The fact that you’ve heard the answer many times before doesn’t make it a mantra, it just makes you a bad listener.

  Now please; either tell me clearly what it is you’re looking for, provide answers for the real science I gave you or else give it a rest and let the rest of us get on with trying to fix the problem.

  Comment by Stormboy on 29 December 2009 at 10:01:04 PM

• Stormboy,

  I see you attempted to answer my question of 19 December.  However, you have repeated the mantra about the theory.  The question clearly asked for the observbational evidence to test the theory.  You ahve dodged the question.  I am not surprised by this because all other ‘Dangerous AGW’ believers have dodged the question also.

  Do you want make another atempt to actually answer the question I asked, or do you want to admit, as far as you know the evidence does not exist.

  Comment by Havequestions on 28 December 2009 at 11:24:27 PM

• Maybe the wrong place to put this, but thank heaven’s this mad ETS hit the dirt and the joke of Denmark is behind us - for now.  Please keep up the pressure, don’t blindly vote for anything this Govt puts up, I was never really a ‘conspiracy theorist” but unfortunately I am now.  Thanku Krudd for enlightening me!  Will vote for anyone that tries to bring this invasive tax on me.

  Comment by lustjuvachat on 21 December 2009 at 01:49:09 PM

• John,
  it’s pretty clear you’re not genuine so I don’t think I’ll play your games. I answered the incorrect assertion you made earlier, you changed the subject then projected what you had done onto me. Go and read the answers from Penny Wong, put some work into reading the IPCC reports and get yourself educated on the subject before you continue misleading people with your lack of understanding.

  You demand a simple explanation or else you won’t accept it and will thereby hold the world’s poor to ransom with the luxury of your ignorance. What do you do if the science just isn’t simple? Climate science is a dynamical system with complex feedbacks that by definition can’t be understood without highly detailed calculations. It would be difficult to explain to you in a few lines how a computer works or how the human brain functions, will you therefore stop believing that they exist? Do you dismiss everything that you don’t understand? It’s human nature - the “Dunning Kruger effect” means that “ignorance more often begets confidence than does knowledge”. When faced complexity that you don’t understand it’s easy to dismiss it all as stupid and laugh about it with your mates. But in the meantime, computers still exist, your brain continues to work and our greenhouse emissions continue to warm the planet and make life harder for the world’s poor.

  I put together some thoughts on Fielding’s questions some months ago at http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/07/06/assessment-of-steve-fieldings-stance-on-climate-change/ if that’s any help. Feel free to comment on the post and I’ll do my best to answer you. In the meantime I have no interest in arguing if you’re not genuine.

  Comment by Stormboy on 21 December 2009 at 11:55:08 AM

• Could the Northern Ireland peace accords between Sinn Fein and the Unionists provide a model for a truce between anthropogenic climate change believers and skeptics that could be focused on joint resistance to the series of rackets that are being constructed around the “climate change” debate, exploiting the political paralysis that it has generated and is continuing to generate?  Namely carbon emissions trading, geoengineering , nuclear energy, etc. etc. etc.  Or will the Prods and the Tykes keep on banging their respective drums as the society around them goes to hell?

  Comment by Wayne Hall on 21 December 2009 at 03:49:04 AM

• Stormboy,

  Let’s keep this on the subject…Steve Fielding’s questions.That’s the only reason this blog exists.

  The bulk of the scientific community , the media and the environmentalists have seized on a simple solution to climate change ...CO2. However no plausible step by step explanation of this phenomenon is available to the general public.  Is curbing CO2 the solution? Politicians and green groups can’t provide explanations. Yet the politicians with apparent support of the scientific and environment groups seek to impose extra taxes/regulations on the community.

  Most other policy changes are backed by facts that the public can access and understand.

  Surely after all the modelling and data analysis someone has a sufficient grasp of the basics to give a plain English explanation of the need for an ETS/CPRS…and answer Steve Fielding’s questions? 

  
  Regards

  
  John Watt

  Comment by John Watt on 20 December 2009 at 11:28:15 PM

• John Watt,
  I notice you’ve attempted to change the subject away from “evidence that this warming is unnatural” to Steve Fielding’s questions. You made an unsupported claim earlier and I shot it down with 15 peer-reviewed papers; do you have anything to say that is on the subject?

  Penny Wong’s answer was actually quite good, people just say they weren’t because they either don’t understand the science or because they are con men who count on their readers not reading her answers for themselves.

  And, sorry to disappoint you but while your accusuation that I had said “trust me I’m an expert” kind of ignores the 15 papers I quoted; unfortunately you do need to know a bit of science to talk about science.

  So, where we stand is that the science says sun drove the climate up until the 1970’s. Since then if we were following the pattern the climate would be cooling but it’s warming faster than ever. I look forward to the peer-reviewed references you provide to refute that; please don’t try to change the subject again though or play any of the other games skeptics/deniers seem to play. I’ve wasted a lot of time on this site in the past with people more interested in winning arguments than they were in reality.

  Comment by Stormboy on 20 December 2009 at 09:32:59 PM

• Stormboy,

  Your comment suggests you can provide a ready answer to Steve Fielding’s initial question and bring this blog to an end! Clearly that is not the case.

  Otherwise you would have let Penny Wong , Al Gore, ACF, WWF et al into the secret because so far they have been unsuccessful in providing an answer.

  Unfortunately the “Trust me I’m an expert ” line of argument doesn’t work in this context…otherwise Wong’s experts would have helped her to answer Fielding some months ago or at least advised her to avoid his challenge until they did have an answer. 

  Regards

  
  John Watt

  Comment by John Watt on 20 December 2009 at 04:55:49 PM

• Evidence that the current global warming is anthropogenic in origin:

  Climate 101: the climate temperature is determined by 3 things:
  1) the amount of energy reaching the planet (driven by solar warming/cooling & distance of earth from sun)
  2) the amount of energy getting to the ground (driven by aerosols and cloud reflectance which appears to be determined to some extent by sunspot cycle)
  3) the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere (driven by reflectance from the surface and storage by the atmosphere)

  If we consider 1 & 2 as the influence of the sun on temperature, the evidence shows that this has driven temperature over the past 11,400 years or more. However since the 1970s when warming really began in earnest this solar activity should have introduced a cooling cycle. The temperature is going the opposite way to what it has for 11,400 years (Frolich 1998, Lean 1999, Solanki 2003, Stott 2003, Haigh 2003, Solanki 2004, Usoskin et al 2005, Scarfetta 2006, Foukal 2006, Lockwood 2007, Ammann 2007, Lockwood 2008 a&b, Benestad 2009, Erlykyn 2009).

  What has been going up however is the concentration of greenhouse gases. There is no dispute as to whether GHGs trap heat - without them the earth would be the same temp as the moon.

  Put the facts together: a) solar activity should be cooling the earth so we can rule out 1&2 which leaves the atmosphere, b) Atmospheric greenhouse gases trap the heat and have been increasing.

  Sure, the world may have been warmer 30M years ago and might be if we get massive continental drift in the next few years. You can explain that to the estimated 20M Bangladeshi refugees we expect from the conservative estimates of sea level rise. Better start cleaning up the spare room eh?

  Comment by Stormboy on 20 December 2009 at 06:58:40 AM

• Most of the believers in the ‘Dangerous AGW’ hypothesis seem to think that because the planet has been warming since the Little Ice Age that this is evidence in support of DAGW. 

  In my opinion it is not.

  What is needed is evidence that this warming is unnatural.  It needs to be shown that current temperatures are higher than in the past and/or the rate of warming is greater than in the past.

  Is there any strong, persuasive evidence of this?

  For some background for those who may not be aware:

  The planet is always either warming or cooling.  We are currently in an ice age.  The third ice age in the past 600 million years.  The current one started about 30 million years ago.  Within ice ages, there are oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods.  We are currently in an interglacial period.

  Normally, there are no ice caps at the poles.  Ice at the poles is unusual.  So melting of the ice and glaciers is not evidence of man-made global warming.

  The planet is normally significantly warmer than present.  When warmer, it is wetter.  Vegetation thrives.  Coral reefs thrive.  Marine life thrives.  Winds are less (there is less dust in the air, sand dunes are far less extensive), deserts shrink, there is more carbon tied up in the biosphere (evidence that life thrives when warmer).

  There are multiple, interacting natural cycles of warming and cooling:

  1.  plate tectonics (ice ages only occur when there is a large land mass at one or both of the poles AND there is a continuous land mass from high northern to high southern latitudes (like the Americas are now)

  2.  40,000 and 100,000 year period glacial and interglacial cycles (triggered by certain orbital and axis tilt conditions)

  3.  900 year period (Roman Warming, Dark Ages cold period, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warm Period

  4.  multi-decadal cycle (11 and 22 year Sun phases, ocean currents, many other)

  5.  Ad hoc (volcanic eruptions, comet and meteorite impacts, etc)

  I understand the GHG THEORY (to the extent I need to).  But we need the empirical evidence to test the theory.  Evidence that the planet is warming is not sufficient.  It needs to be demonstrated that the warming is largely man-made. 

  Is there such evidence?  What is it?

  Comment by Havequestions on 19 December 2009 at 09:22:10 PM

• John Watt,
  these are easy things to say, but as a scientist who has to work within the scientific method I recommend you put your confidence with the published, peer-reviewed science rather than with the unsupported opinions of people on the net. We do know what the drivers are and there are only a very small handful of papers to say differently, all of which have been shot down mathematically. If you know of someone with a theory that disproves the science, get them to publish it properly so that it can be considered by the modellers and actually make a difference. People that choose to avoid these proper channels and skip to just convincing the public through distractions such as leaked snippets of emails don’t strike me as particularly trustworthy. Give me science over politics any day.

  Comment by Stormboy on 19 December 2009 at 08:15:45 PM

• Robin,

  I believe we all want to combat/live with climate change. The point that Senator Fielding makes is that we do not know the drivers of climate change and therefore do not know what if anything we can do about it…maybe adapting to live with it is the best we can do.

  While this is an uncomfortable position to have in the current climate of Copenhagenmania the fact is that neither Wong or Gore could answer Fielding’s simple question ...how does more human-generated atmospheric CO2 drive climate change? Subsequently we have the Climategate debacle which raises doubts about the real objectives of the climate scientists involved and about the quality of IPCC reportage contributed by those scientists.

  So we all want to make the planet as habitable and as sustainable as possible but does curbing CO2 emissions help or hinder this objective? If CO2 is not a climate change driver Copenhagen is meaningless.

  Maybe we need that electric energy which it is now so fashionable to deride, and lots of it, to help construct the sea walls and the like to save some low lying countries from sea rises and to help resettle our Pacific neighbours.

  John Watt

  Comment by John Watt on 19 December 2009 at 04:59:00 PM

• Steve,
  Hold fast to the truth of the real science.
  Those that now continue to tout a belief in man made global warming are either fools, fanatics or fraudsters.

  Comment by Speed on 19 December 2009 at 04:46:29 PM

• In the global warming debate, we frequently see the “hole in the ozone” and “Y2K bug” cited as examples of alarmist predictions that came to nothing. 

  The world came together to address ozone depletion by banning CFCs and Halon in spray cans, refrigerators and computer room fire systems.  As a result, the ozone layer is getting a chance to repair itself, and may be back to normal by 2050.

  The world’s IT industry spent about eighteen months testing programs and rewriting the ones that were affected by the year 2000 issue.  Other projects were put on hold.  On New Years Eve programmers were optimistic, having tested and re-tested their systems, but there were still nerves and crossed fingers.  A few problems persisted, but catastrophe was prevented.

  Let’s hope it’s not too late to make global warming a non-event in the same way – by working together with the rest of the world, and reducing our impact on the environment.

  Comment by Robin on 19 December 2009 at 12:58:59 PM

• Congratulations for your stance on the Carbon Emissions Tax.

  It is not necessary to be a “climate change sceptic” to be against carbon emissions trading, or against other monstrous projects justified by climate change. 

  You can see that from this press conference of the ETC group at the Copenhagen Summit.
  http://tiny.cc/5BnqI

  Hopefully both sides of the rubbish climate change debate will soon realise that they should be arguing about other matters: emissions trading, geoengineering, nuclear energy.

  The climate debate is a red herring.

  Wayne Hall
  http://www.enouranois.gr
  Aigina, Greece

  Comment by Wayne Hall on 17 December 2009 at 10:44:50 PM

• In response to Paul Clarke, have a read of http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/11/23/putting-climate-alarmists-in-their-place/ for some perspectives on Lord Monckton.

  Unfortunately you have been misled on most of your points. The urban heat island effect was recognised long ago and all instrumental datasets have been corrected for it. The values of warming reported by the IPCC are warming after removal of the heat island effect.

  The Medieval warm period and Maunder minimum have been linked quite well to changing sunspot activity, you’re right there. The issue you’ve been misled on is the fact that the sunspot cycle should have been cooling the planet since 1970, but that’s when warming has been fastest.

  Natural forcings have not been ignored, you’ve been lied to on that too I’m sorry. The issue is that there are natural forcings which have been studied and understood, and unsupported theories which some people have. The IPCC is bound by the rule that they have to use peer-reviewed science supported by sound evidence, and with each new report done there is new evidence on natural forcings and feedbacks. Unfortunately, each new piece of evidence shows us that the picture is more bleak than we had thought. You will find websites that say there are other forcings and feedbacks which have been ignored, but these all have in common the fact that they are someone’s theory and cannot be supported by the basic standard of peer-reviewed science held to in any other field.

  Anyone that claims they can disprove AGW has only to publish their evidence in a genuine scientific journal and they can stop the whole thing in its tracks. The reason they don’t is because while their evidence may sound convincing to people surfing the net, it doesn’t stand up to genuine scientific scrutiny.

  There’s no conspiracy, just a lot of evidence that western excess is disastrous for the world’s poor and a lot of western people that really don’t care. http://bloodwoodtree.org/2009/12/16/not-so-wonderful-copenhagen/

  Comment by Stormboy on 17 December 2009 at 05:13:20 PM

• I came across a brilliant idea for a global climate tax the other day that would satisfy both warmists and sceptics.

  First, agree what the annual average global temperature should be. Then, at the end of each year work out what it actually was. For each degree above or below every nation must contribute 1% of their GDP to climate rectification.

  In this manner everyone has a vested interest in keeping variation from the mean as low as possible, and if the alarmists are right and temperatures do start sky-rocketing up then more money flows into rectification. If the sceptics are right and nothing changes then no-one pays anything. See, we can all have our cake and eat it too!

  Comment by Ashley on 16 December 2009 at 10:31:09 PM

• Steve keep up your good work as with out you speaking out we will loose all our freehold rights and freedoms to the New World government which this Copenhagen Treaty
  IS ALL ABOUT NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.
  The carbon thing is just a SMOKE SCREEN so as they can CON people into believing that is what it is.
  Just shows they have not seen the PRESIDENT OF THE EU European Union SAYING IT IS all about the NEW WORLD GOVERNMENT and the Carbon Tax of over 120 BILLION for a start money will be sent over to this NEW Government.
  NOT TO WHAT they say its for.
  Some countrys are starting to realise it at long last.
  WE WILL LOOSE OUR SOVEREIGNTY AND TO HAVE OUR OWN GOVERNMENTS.
  WILL be a thing of the PAST boy do the British people know that one with the ILLEGAL EUSSR.
  OH IF Ruddy RUDD signes this treasonous document then I ask you to bring it up in the senate as to the consitution sections 2,56,57,58 and also the section that covers persons who are under a forigne soverent .
  had cort cases on this and the constitution won.
  Just the same as what Rudd wants to do.
  SO ILLEGAL UNDER THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION EVEN IF HE GETS THE SENATE TO VOTE FOR IT.
  Albert Hopkins Shirley

  Comment by Magna Carta on 16 December 2009 at 09:27:42 PM

• Steve, I genuinely hope that you are just ignorant about this. I find it difficult to believe - you have a responsibility to get your facts straight and the answers are all there for you so I don’t see how you can genuinely not know this stuff. Fair enough that your readers all think it’s a conspiracy etc; they’re just following your lead. But you have the responsibility not to be a false teacher. The world’s developing nations are begging us to act, I find this rejection and pretense that there is any reason not to act the utmost in western greed. The fact that it comes from a ‘Christian’ leader makes me want to cry.

  Comment by Stormboy on 16 December 2009 at 02:56:19 PM

• Thank you Steve for your help with the ETS scam. World Democracy is on the line.

  Comment by Lin on 15 December 2009 at 02:10:54 PM

• Over the past 3 years leading scientific organisations underpinning the IPCC (The US National Science Foundation, The National Ocean & Atmosphere Administration and NASA) have publicised the results of satellite and field studies and modelling which indicate that:-
  Much of the Arctic and Antarctic warming since 1976 is due to changes in airborne particulates;
  Atmospheric Brown Cloud events are significantly affecting the climate of broad regions of the planet;
  Particles from industrial processes and fuel combustion absorb solar radiation and have a strong atmospheric warming effect; and
  Regions with the strongest responses to aerosols from modelling are those that have had the greatest real temperature rises.
  According to one study leader, Drew Shindell of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies:-
  “In the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and in the Arctic, the impact of aerosols is just as strong as that of the greenhouse gases…”
  “We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide ... If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”
  These conclusions by major players in climatic research, organisations that clearly have not been perjoratively labelled “skeptics and deniers”, go directly to the first of Steve Fieldings three questions.
  That question: Is the science right and are man-made carbon dioxide emissions the leading cause of climate change?
  The indications are that even if the science is correct, it is also very incomplete.
  Moreover, the false dichotomy in the political debate, may be preventing the most urgent actions to address anthropogenic climate change.

  Comment by Maximus on 14 December 2009 at 08:02:41 PM

• Thanks so much for that no vote Steve.

  I used to vote Green and Labor until this current socialist world government scam.  I intend to vote for Family First and other parties opposed to an ETS at the next election and switch my preferences to Liberal/Nats thanks to the global warming scam.

  After I looked into it I discovered that humans only emit 3.7% of the total CO2 and that natural forcings from the oceans and sun were being ignored.  And there’s a disconnect between rising CO2 and temps as you have pointed out. (I’ve got a list of references on my blog here.)

  My biggest concern is what Lord Monckton has said about the Copenhagen Treaty being a new world govt.  If Rudd signs away our sovereignty to an unelected socialist UN govt it means war as far as I’m concerned.  Australia must be environmentally responsible but we are best placed to solve our own problems without China and India and places like Tuvalu telling us what to do.
  (Monckton vid, Monckton PowerPoint slides.)

  I know what the sacrifice of fighting wars was for.  It was so that we would not be ruled over by foreigners.  Now, thanks to a faked global warming scare, the new brown shirts of the Green movement are clamouring for Rudd and Penny Wong to sign away with the stroke of a pen the freedom our forefathers fought and died for.  The fact that it’s mostly young people who are calling for “action on climate change” suggests the young are more vulnerable to propaganda.  The older I get the more scared of young people I become because they’re, I won’t say gullible, but impressionable. 

  Having the govt indoctrinate our children at school to believe in state controlled actions on climate change is also not helping. Steve, is it possible for the ABC makers of this website teaching our children to die at a certain age to save the environment be arrested and charged for the psychological torture of our children?  (That page isn’t loading ATM.)  Isn’t it illegal to for the government to politically indoctrinate our children with propaganda?

  I don’t even like it when the new Abbott-led Liberal team give any mention to an ETS, even a watered-down one.  It’s time to call this for the hoax it is and get on with finding environmentally friendly technology with shooting ourselves in the foot economically.

  @Cris on 07 December 2009…
  Well Cris, the sun appears to be a bigger factor than carbon gasses.  For instance, what created the Medieval Warm Period - cars and factories?  What created the little ice age?  A lowered sun activity called the Maunder Minimum was related to that little ice age. 

  If you take the urban heat island effect out of land-based measurements the scary scary global warming effect suddenly vanishes.  See John Daly.

  Comment by Paul Clark on 14 December 2009 at 05:32:01 PM

• First we had Y2K, then the War on Terror, then Global Warming, then the GFC and now Climate Change. When will the politics of fear end ... and when will the mass media wake up.

  It looks like the whole fraud (google climategate) is unravelling as our beloved leaders attend the Copenhagen rally.

  Some more links of interest to those with a questioning mind:

  - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
  - http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html

  I’ve tried to get these posted on mainstream news sites but with no luck. I wonder if this is the true motivation for the internet censorship bill (to make it even harder for citizens to get access to ‘alternate’ views)?

  Comment by Ashley on 11 December 2009 at 09:18:36 PM

• “Climate & Carbon”

  http://d4072.mysite.westnethosting.com.au/climate/Climate&Carbon;.pdf

  “A document prepared by a family member for his family to try and make sense of what is happening”

  I’ve printed it out for my family to read.

  Keep up the great work Senator Fielding

  Comment by CR on 09 December 2009 at 07:54:21 PM

• PLease give following to your piers are forthright account christopher mockton.A clear precise account on climate change.http://rt.com/Best_Videos/2009-12-07/climate-change-warming-moncktonthe.html

  Comment by robert 1 on 08 December 2009 at 03:27:28 PM

• Well done steve. Our Prime Minister is making a huge mistake. He is merely signing us up to a world goverment, that we pay taxes to every year. The ets is a scam and wont make a bit difference to the climate.Why ,bc the science IS flawed as some of the leading scientist have been caught out manipulating data, The IPCC report which Rudd basis his reasoning on is thefore flawed also. There are thousnds of SCIENTIST which question the validity of The IPCC report, computer modellingetc.Why is there is no debate , know that the manipulating data has been found. How can we possibly trust the UN/IPCC which many of these scientist have contributed greatly too. BC these very scientist have vested interest in the grants they receive, by corporations who have vested interest in a global tax? Bullshit no way hose”.We Australians must and will not fall this scam. Dont take a backward step to this mindless, pathetic game that puppet RUDD is playing.Those questions you have are valis and deserve credible answers.Dont stop the fight,We are with you 100.

  Comment by robert 1 on 08 December 2009 at 02:45:18 PM

• Well done Steve, In my mind I am far from convinced that climate change due to carbon levels is anything more then a whole new industry. An industry which will generate huge wealth for the corporations and individuals involved in it`s inception. We are experiencing climate change most certainly but why?  I agree localy and globaly we need to deal with pollution sooner rather then later and have clean sources of energy.
    Our PM has not bothered to take the time to ensure the public is fully informed on this issue and plenty of debate has taken place, the logical question then is WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
    Keep up the good work Steve.

  Comment by Hutch55 on 08 December 2009 at 11:05:05 AM

• Thanks Steve, it is always right to stay with real world facts rather than computer-generated predictions.

  As time goes by you will be found to be vindicated by the evidence, and those who followed the flawed computer models will be seen to be at the least, mislead.

  Comment by Kerry of Brisbane on 08 December 2009 at 07:31:33 AM

• Keep up the good work Steve, hopefully now the opposition has come to its senses (largely) we won’t be foolishly rushing ahead on uniformly bad science & policy.

  Comment by chrisb on 07 December 2009 at 09:30:46 PM

• Anything to keep the “B"s honest - and to avoid having an unelected defacto world government established by the UN warmistas. I was a skeptic well before Climategate. Keep plugging away Steve, the truth will be out and mainstream eventually.

  Comment by Doug Jones on 07 December 2009 at 06:52:08 PM

• Congrats Steve,
  On your courageous stand in opposing this AGW fraud.
  I have not forgotten you were one of the first to stand up and make the public aware that the science on the flawed AGW hypothesis was indeed shonky.
  Keep up the good work, the public should be very grateful to you.
  Merry xmas to you and your family.
  Best regards
  Tonyk

  Comment by Hard of Hats on 07 December 2009 at 11:39:11 AM

• It’s a shame that you are getting in the way of those who wish to respond to climate change.
  Your view that because there is no straight forward correlation between CO2 and global temperatures over the last 11 years, therefore CO2 cannot be a climate driver is simplistic.
  CO2 acts in concert with other factors. Once you allow for the el nino and la nina effects, most of the remaining variation in temperatures is explained by carbon gases. Why you and other deniers consistently ignore the Southern Oscillation effects when claiming temperatures are cooling is a mystery. It’s as if you don’t want to know.

  Comment by Cris on 07 December 2009 at 10:49:28 AM

• over the past couple of weeks of this ETS thin I can not believe how little the people of Australia under stand what it is all about.
  ETS should stand for European Trading Scheme as a tax for to finance a New World Government signed at Copenhagen.
  i ask WHY Copenhagen NOT the UN in New York as is that not where all the world governments and leaders agree that is the main forum where they can thrash things out.
  Copenhagen is in Europe is it NOT which now every one says is the ILLEGAL “EU” European Union.

  THIS treaty is just like the 1973 Eu treaty which was one of the leading edge of the indeoendent countrys full powers being taken over and from the peoples of these free countrys.
  Many have only got their Independence and individual freedoms from the CLAWS of the Soviet UNION. 
  THE operative name Word is UNION.
  That to me tells all as to the ILLEGAL EU and now this European Trading Scheme-A TAX Scam which will suck the wealth out of Australia as it has done to Britain and any other country that has a freeholder freedoms like America,Britain, Australia, Canada
  India and others just so to set up another BLOATED BUREAUCRACY.
  ?HAVE WE NOT GOT ENOUGH of THEM.
  WE just have to look at the Banks and their BLOATED BONUSES PAYED by Them To them SELVES.
  I say Wake up The world to what these blood suckers want in the LIKES of RUDD TURNBULL and many others. After all their LIES and DECEITS.
  Albert Hopkins Shirley.

  Comment by magnacarta on 06 December 2009 at 09:21:43 PM

• “At least we can be the world leader in climate change denial.”

  I don’t want to be a world leader in bringing in a massive new tax which will affect our industries, based on what could possibly be very very dodgy science!

  Yes of course we must develop cleaner methods of energy production. (I’m not keen on nuclear either.) These need to be developed regardless of any ETS. We don’t need the ETS for this do we???

  Comment by acs on 06 December 2009 at 08:40:39 AM

• At least we can be the world leader in climate change denial. Lets not drive investment (with an ETS) into one of the worlds fastest growing industries, lets not support our world leading scientists, engineers and companies in developing their products for world wide use, creating jobs and a cleaner environment, who would want that?

  Here is just one example of what Australian ingenuity is actually capable of:
  http://www.carnegiecorp.com.au/index.php?url=/ceto/ceto-overview

  Comment by damien on 06 December 2009 at 12:13:07 AM

• Steve,

  You have been fantastic on this issue.  Thank you.

  Comment by Havequestions on 05 December 2009 at 08:04:53 PM

• I would like to add my sincere thanks too Senator Fielding. I am deeply proud to be a member of Family First and to see you standing there in parliament with a placade stating “An Inconvenient Fact” was sensational.

  Given the furore over “Climategate” I can only thank you for wanting better scrutiny of the science.

  Keep fighting on this.

  Comment by acs on 05 December 2009 at 08:18:18 AM

• Thanks Steve, we are in real need for more politions like yourself, although I am afraid of others starting to push the nuclear debate. We need to start looking at GEOTHERMO POWER. Peter Beatie is about the only polition I’ve heard that has mentioned it.

  Thank you Steve for questioning these things. Your great mate and doing Australia proud.

  Keep up the good work

  Rosco

  Comment by Rosco on 04 December 2009 at 11:00:31 PM

• No reasonable or responsible government would have continued to push the ETS after the East Anglia leak. The media blackout on the issue is disgraceful.

  Comment by ignoto on 03 December 2009 at 08:44:35 PM

• Way to go Steve, at least someone has some good sense to engage the citizens that will be affected by this immoral and unethical tax.

  Janice

  Comment by Janice on 03 December 2009 at 08:16:39 PM