Senator Steve Fielding - Leader of Family First

CR - 22 March 2010 10:51 AM

guess who - 22 March 2010 07:50 AM

Colin Davidson - 22 March 2010 07:33 AM

The CSIRO Report
I apologise to all those who believe in DAGW for citing from Jo Nova’s site. She has an interesting piece on the untruth in the latest CSIRO BS that “rainfall has neen relatively stable” (it has actually increased by 6mm/decade over the last 100 years). but what caught my attention was this comment by a blogger:

2MarcH:
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:57 am
We put 7 questions to Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO chief, after ABC failed to ask the tough questions. They are listed below. We have not yet heard from Dr Clark?

1. CSIRO State of the Climate (http://www.csiro.gov.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html) claims to be sourced from peer reviewed articles, however the actual references are not cited. Can CSIRO provide the peer reviewed references it used in the preparation of this document such that it might be subject to independent scrutiny by independent scientists.

2. The charts showing temperature, rainfall and hot and cold day maximums do not show data prior to 1960. BMR claims to have been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years. Indeed Dr Megan Clark states that “we are very blessed in this country to have some very, very robust data and very long-term [data].” Why did CSIRO and BMR not use its complete set of “very, very robust data and very long-term [data]” in depicting changes in these parameters? Does omitting an earlier period of warming between 1910 and 1940 for which BMR has records affect the resulting charts? What would be the effect of including this data on the charts presented in CSIRO’s snapshot? Can CSIRO provide the public with updated charts showing the effect of including the full set of records?

3. Climate models for eastern Australian show conflicting results with both an increase and decrease in projected rainfall. Why has the CSIRO focused on model results that show a decrease for this report? For a summary of model results that show a range of projections see: “Assessment of rainfall simulations from global climate models and implications for climate change impact on runoff studies” by CSIRO scientists F.H.S. Chiew, D.G.C. Kirono, D. Kent and J. Vaze http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/I13/chiew.pdf

4. Assuming current rates of sea level rise (3mm.year) continue providing a net increase of 300 mm for the 21st century can CSIRO comment on why this constitutes a cause for major concern?

5. In regard to Ocean acidification. Given that ph levels will remain above a neutral point of 7. Is it not more correct to say that oceans may become “less alkaline” rather than “more acidic”.

6. CSIRO points out the obvious in indicating that climate change is real. The real issues to Australian society surrounds whether anthropogenic change will be dangerous. As recent peer reviewed publications (eg. Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi, 2009- On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/) indicate that IPCC climate models have overstated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 increases. Can the CSIRO comment on the certainty behind predictions of future impacts of climate on human populations?

7 Dr Clarke describes the Australian dataset as “robust” , however in allegedly leaked documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia a programmer named “Harry” describes the Australian temperature dataset in the following way.”I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data”
Why does CRU programmer “Harry” describe the Australian temperature database as “poor” and compare it to garbage? Doesn’t this contradict your assertion that the data is robust?

http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/abc-casts-more-heat-rather-than-light.html

see http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#more-7745

Let’s hope the now discredited CSIRO can find the time to make a detailed response.

the maps are quite clear and in keeping with CSIRO and BOM statements,

joannanova is a YEC anti science proponent

You seem to becoming obsessive with your pursuit of labelling others as irrelevant to the AGW debate based on your perspective of what someone elses belief system is. It is of course a simply debating technique and a fall back position when substance of agrument is lacking.

YEC is not just a belief system, it is claimed to be a scientific fact, if that is your position also, then it is worthless in any scientific debate on climate change

Red Star - 22 March 2010 10:15 AM

WWF hopes to find $60 billion growing on trees

The carbon credits scheme would make WWF and its partners much richer, but with no lowering of overall CO2 emissions, writes Christopher Booker

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental cconcerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-on-trees.html

Thanks for that link, I also found a very long article on this at http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/amazongate-part-ii-seeing-redd.html

What a Disgrace. Talk about thoroughly immoral and unprincipled.

guess who - 22 March 2010 11:01 AM

CR - 22 March 2010 10:51 AM

guess who - 22 March 2010 07:50 AM

Colin Davidson - 22 March 2010 07:33 AM

The CSIRO Report
I apologise to all those who believe in DAGW for citing from Jo Nova’s site. She has an interesting piece on the untruth in the latest CSIRO BS that “rainfall has neen relatively stable” (it has actually increased by 6mm/decade over the last 100 years). but what caught my attention was this comment by a blogger:

2MarcH:
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:57 am
We put 7 questions to Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO chief, after ABC failed to ask the tough questions. They are listed below. We have not yet heard from Dr Clark?

1. CSIRO State of the Climate (http://www.csiro.gov.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html) claims to be sourced from peer reviewed articles, however the actual references are not cited. Can CSIRO provide the peer reviewed references it used in the preparation of this document such that it might be subject to independent scrutiny by independent scientists.

2. The charts showing temperature, rainfall and hot and cold day maximums do not show data prior to 1960. BMR claims to have been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years. Indeed Dr Megan Clark states that “we are very blessed in this country to have some very, very robust data and very long-term [data].” Why did CSIRO and BMR not use its complete set of “very, very robust data and very long-term [data]” in depicting changes in these parameters? Does omitting an earlier period of warming between 1910 and 1940 for which BMR has records affect the resulting charts? What would be the effect of including this data on the charts presented in CSIRO’s snapshot? Can CSIRO provide the public with updated charts showing the effect of including the full set of records?

3. Climate models for eastern Australian show conflicting results with both an increase and decrease in projected rainfall. Why has the CSIRO focused on model results that show a decrease for this report? For a summary of model results that show a range of projections see: “Assessment of rainfall simulations from global climate models and implications for climate change impact on runoff studies” by CSIRO scientists F.H.S. Chiew, D.G.C. Kirono, D. Kent and J. Vaze http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/I13/chiew.pdf

4. Assuming current rates of sea level rise (3mm.year) continue providing a net increase of 300 mm for the 21st century can CSIRO comment on why this constitutes a cause for major concern?

5. In regard to Ocean acidification. Given that ph levels will remain above a neutral point of 7. Is it not more correct to say that oceans may become “less alkaline” rather than “more acidic”.

6. CSIRO points out the obvious in indicating that climate change is real. The real issues to Australian society surrounds whether anthropogenic change will be dangerous. As recent peer reviewed publications (eg. Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi, 2009- On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/) indicate that IPCC climate models have overstated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 increases. Can the CSIRO comment on the certainty behind predictions of future impacts of climate on human populations?

7 Dr Clarke describes the Australian dataset as “robust” , however in allegedly leaked documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia a programmer named “Harry” describes the Australian temperature dataset in the following way.”I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data”
Why does CRU programmer “Harry” describe the Australian temperature database as “poor” and compare it to garbage? Doesn’t this contradict your assertion that the data is robust?

http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/abc-casts-more-heat-rather-than-light.html

see http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#more-7745

Let’s hope the now discredited CSIRO can find the time to make a detailed response.

the maps are quite clear and in keeping with CSIRO and BOM statements,

joannanova is a YEC anti science proponent

You seem to becoming obsessive with your pursuit of labelling others as irrelevant to the AGW debate based on your perspective of what someone elses belief system is. It is of course a simply debating technique and a fall back position when substance of agrument is lacking.

YEC is not just a belief system, it is claimed to be a scientific fact, if that is your position also, then it is worthless in any scientific debate on climate change

My belief in or not in YEC does not lead me to my current conclusion on the validity or not of AGW, it never has.

CR - 22 March 2010 11:40 AM

guess who - 22 March 2010 11:01 AM

CR - 22 March 2010 10:51 AM

guess who - 22 March 2010 07:50 AM

Colin Davidson - 22 March 2010 07:33 AM

The CSIRO Report
I apologise to all those who believe in DAGW for citing from Jo Nova’s site. She has an interesting piece on the untruth in the latest CSIRO BS that “rainfall has neen relatively stable” (it has actually increased by 6mm/decade over the last 100 years). but what caught my attention was this comment by a blogger:

2MarcH:
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:57 am
We put 7 questions to Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO chief, after ABC failed to ask the tough questions. They are listed below. We have not yet heard from Dr Clark?

1. CSIRO State of the Climate (http://www.csiro.gov.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html) claims to be sourced from peer reviewed articles, however the actual references are not cited. Can CSIRO provide the peer reviewed references it used in the preparation of this document such that it might be subject to independent scrutiny by independent scientists.

2. The charts showing temperature, rainfall and hot and cold day maximums do not show data prior to 1960. BMR claims to have been observing and reporting on weather in Australia for over 100 years. Indeed Dr Megan Clark states that “we are very blessed in this country to have some very, very robust data and very long-term [data].” Why did CSIRO and BMR not use its complete set of “very, very robust data and very long-term [data]” in depicting changes in these parameters? Does omitting an earlier period of warming between 1910 and 1940 for which BMR has records affect the resulting charts? What would be the effect of including this data on the charts presented in CSIRO’s snapshot? Can CSIRO provide the public with updated charts showing the effect of including the full set of records?

3. Climate models for eastern Australian show conflicting results with both an increase and decrease in projected rainfall. Why has the CSIRO focused on model results that show a decrease for this report? For a summary of model results that show a range of projections see: “Assessment of rainfall simulations from global climate models and implications for climate change impact on runoff studies” by CSIRO scientists F.H.S. Chiew, D.G.C. Kirono, D. Kent and J. Vaze http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/I13/chiew.pdf

4. Assuming current rates of sea level rise (3mm.year) continue providing a net increase of 300 mm for the 21st century can CSIRO comment on why this constitutes a cause for major concern?

5. In regard to Ocean acidification. Given that ph levels will remain above a neutral point of 7. Is it not more correct to say that oceans may become “less alkaline” rather than “more acidic”.

6. CSIRO points out the obvious in indicating that climate change is real. The real issues to Australian society surrounds whether anthropogenic change will be dangerous. As recent peer reviewed publications (eg. Lindzen, R. S., and Y.-S. Choi, 2009- On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L16705, doi:10.1029/) indicate that IPCC climate models have overstated the climate’s sensitivity to CO2 increases. Can the CSIRO comment on the certainty behind predictions of future impacts of climate on human populations?

7 Dr Clarke describes the Australian dataset as “robust” , however in allegedly leaked documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia a programmer named “Harry” describes the Australian temperature dataset in the following way.”I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
“getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data”
Why does CRU programmer “Harry” describe the Australian temperature database as “poor” and compare it to garbage? Doesn’t this contradict your assertion that the data is robust?

http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/03/abc-casts-more-heat-rather-than-light.html

see http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the-bom-csiro-report-its-what-they-dont-say-that-matters/#more-7745

Let’s hope the now discredited CSIRO can find the time to make a detailed response.

the maps are quite clear and in keeping with CSIRO and BOM statements,

joannanova is a YEC anti science proponent

You seem to becoming obsessive with your pursuit of labelling others as irrelevant to the AGW debate based on your perspective of what someone elses belief system is. It is of course a simply debating technique and a fall back position when substance of agrument is lacking.

YEC is not just a belief system, it is claimed to be a scientific fact, if that is your position also, then it is worthless in any scientific debate on climate change

My belief in or not in YEC does not lead me to my current conclusion on the validity or not of AGW, it never has.

i think steve claims the same

Colin Davidson - 22 March 2010 11:32 AM

Red Star - 22 March 2010 10:15 AM

WWF hopes to find $60 billion growing on trees

The carbon credits scheme would make WWF and its partners much richer, but with no lowering of overall CO2 emissions, writes Christopher Booker

If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. Amazonia has long been near the top of the list of the world’s environmental cconcerns, not just because it includes easily the largest and most bio-diverse area of rainforest on the planet, but because its billions of trees contain the world’s largest land-based store of CO2 – so any serious threat to the forest can be portrayed as a major contributor to global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7488629/WWF-hopes-to-find-60-billion-growing-on-trees.html

Thanks for that link, I also found a very long article on this at http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/amazongate-part-ii-seeing-redd.html

What a Disgrace. Talk about thoroughly immoral and unprincipled.

Does anyone have an actual link to the announcement from the WWF? find plenty of discussion about it but would like to read the actual statement to make an informed opinion ,

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2602.htm

Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26)

Excerpts:

I was peer reviewer for IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)… Since 1998 I have been the editor of the journal, Energy & Environment (E&E) published by Multi-science, where I published my first papers on the IPCC. I interpreted the IPCC “consensus” as politically created in order to support energy technology and scientific agendas that in essence pre-existed the “warming-as -man-made catastrophe alarm.”…

Postglacial climatic history is by no means well understood and the human contributions cannot yet be assessed.

http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/2010/03/dodgy-post-offices.html

Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Dodgy Post Offices
Next to airports, an historical location for weather stations has been post office buildings, and this is the next category of “high quality, long-term climate monitoring” stations under examination. When looking at the examples provided below, it is worth keeping in mind that stations such as these have been at the forefront of developing the narrative that global warming is real, is happening faster than we previously thought, and that man’s contribution to this impending disaster is unequivocal.

The RCS stations surveyed in this installment include:

008039 - Dalwallinu (WA)
009510 - Bridgetown Post Office (WA)
010035 - Cunderin (WA)
026026 - Robe (WA)
037051 - Winton Post Office (Qld)
073054 - Wyalong Post Office (NSW)

CR - 22 March 2010 11:50 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2602.htm

Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26)

Excerpts:

I was peer reviewer for IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)… Since 1998 I have been the editor of the journal, Energy & Environment (E&E) published by Multi-science, where I published my first papers on the IPCC. I interpreted the IPCC “consensus” as politically created in order to support energy technology and scientific agendas that in essence pre-existed the “warming-as -man-made catastrophe alarm.”…

3.2 Scientific research as advocacy for an agenda (a coalition of interests, not a conspiracy,) was presented to the public and governments as protection of the planet… CRU, working for the UK government and hence the IPCC, was expected to support the hypothesis of man-made, dangerous warming caused by carbon dioxide, a hypothesis it had helped to formulate in the late 1980s…

3.3 ... In persuading policy makers and the public of this danger, the “hockey stick” became a major tool of persuasion, giving CRU a major role in the policy process at the national, EU and international level. This led to the growing politicisation of science in the interest, allegedly, of protecting the “the environment” and the planet. I observed and documented this phenomenon as the UK Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return climate science was generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy objectives… Opponents were gradually starved of research opportunities or persuaded into silence. The apparent “scientific consensus” thus generated became a major tool of public persuasion…

4.1 ...  As editor of a journal which remained open to scientists who challenged the orthodoxy, I became the target of a number of CRU manoeuvres. The hacked emails revealed attempts to manipulate peer review to E&E’s disadvantage, and showed that libel threats were considered against its editorial team…

4.4 Most recently CRU alleged that I had interfered “maliciously” with their busy grant-related schedules, by sending an email to the UKCIP (Climate Impact Programme) advising caution in the use of CRU data for regional planning purposes. This was clearly reported to [CRU head Phil] Jones who contacted my Head of Department, suggesting that he needed to reconsider the association of E&E with Hull University. Professor Graham Haughton, while expressing his own disagreement with my views, nevertheless upheld the principle of academic freedom…

4.5 The emails I have read are evidence of a close and protective collaboration between CRU, the Hadley Centre, and several US research bodies such as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory where former CRU students had found employment. Together they formed an important group inside IPCC Working Group 1, the science group…

The CRU case is not unique. Recent exposures have taken the lid off similar issues in the USA, the Netherlands, Australia, and possibly in Germany and Canada… It is at least arguable that the real culprit is the theme- and project-based research funding system put in place in the 1980s and subsequently strengthened and tightened in the name of “policy relevance”. This system, in making research funding conditional on demonstrating such relevance, has encouraged close ties with central Government bureaucracy. Some university research units have almost become wholly-owned subsidiaries of Government Departments. Their survival, and the livelihoods of their employees, depends on delivering what policy makers think they want. It becomes hazardous to speak truth to power…

Postglacial climatic history is by no means well understood and the human contributions cannot yet be assessed.

E and E, trade journal run by all the usual clowns

CR - 22 March 2010 11:54 AM

http://rcs-audit.blogspot.com/2010/03/dodgy-post-offices.html

Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Dodgy Post Offices
Next to airports, an historical location for weather stations has been post office buildings, and this is the next category of “high quality, long-term climate monitoring” stations under examination. When looking at the examples provided below, it is worth keeping in mind that stations such as these have been at the forefront of developing the narrative that global warming is real, is happening faster than we previously thought, and that man’s contribution to this impending disaster is unequivocal.

The RCS stations surveyed in this installment include:

008039 - Dalwallinu (WA)
009510 - Bridgetown Post Office (WA)
010035 - Cunderin (WA)
026026 - Robe (WA)
037051 - Winton Post Office (Qld)
073054 - Wyalong Post Office (NSW)

I am waiting for , “the satellites are to close to the moon ,”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8578576.stm

Volcano erupts near Eyjafjallajoekull in south Iceland

An Icelandic volcano, dormant for 200 years, has erupted, ripping a 1km-long fissure in a field of ice.

Icelandic airspace has been closed, flights diverted and roads closed. The eruption was about 120km (75 miles) east of the capital, Reykjavik.

CR - 22 March 2010 11:50 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2602.htm

Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26)

Excerpts:

I was peer reviewer for IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)… Since 1998 I have been the editor of the journal, Energy & Environment (E&E) published by Multi-science, where I published my first papers on the IPCC. I interpreted the IPCC “consensus” as politically created in order to support energy technology and scientific agendas that in essence pre-existed the “warming-as -man-made catastrophe alarm.”…

Some background info on Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and the Energy & Environment (E&E) journal…

Criticism

It is listed by Scopus as a trade journal, with coverage from 1995.

EBSCO Publishing lists Energy & Environment as a Peer-Reviewed, Academic Journal.

Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature’s blog in 2007 about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: “...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)”

Climate change skepticism

Skeptics on the journal’s editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians, have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen.

When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, “I’m following my political agenda—a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”

Some of the journal’s articles opposing the mainstream scientific positions on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton.

Well, what do you know…all the usual liars and deniers turn up.

Spatch. - 22 March 2010 12:18 PM

CR - 22 March 2010 11:50 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2602.htm

Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26)

Excerpts:

I was peer reviewer for IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)… Since 1998 I have been the editor of the journal, Energy & Environment (E&E) published by Multi-science, where I published my first papers on the IPCC. I interpreted the IPCC “consensus” as politically created in order to support energy technology and scientific agendas that in essence pre-existed the “warming-as -man-made catastrophe alarm.”…

Some background info on Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and the Energy & Environment (E&E) journal…

Criticism

It is listed by Scopus as a trade journal,[3] with coverage from 1995.[4]

EBSCO Publishing lists Energy & Environment as a Peer-Reviewed, Academic Journal. [5][6]

Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature’s blog in 2007 about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: “...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)”[7]

Climate change skepticism

Skeptics on the journal’s editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians, have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen.

When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, “I’m following my political agenda—a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”

Some of the journal’s articles opposing the mainstream scientific positions on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton.

Well, what do you know…all the usual liars and deniers turn up.

Your background has no background…..eg a Link ?????

Red Star - 22 March 2010 09:42 AM

Report shows summer emissions down

Even if the heat has gone out of the climate change debate, Australians appear to be heeding the message to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

According to a report from the Climate Group, total emissions from Victoria, NSW, Queensland and South Australia for the 2009-10 summer period fell by 1.6 per cent.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1030158/report-shows-summer-emissions-down

1.6% is insignificant. This could be just some different weather conditions, or a slight downturn in the economy. I doubt it has anything to do with environmental responsibility.

CR - 22 March 2010 12:28 PM

Spatch. - 22 March 2010 12:18 PM

CR - 22 March 2010 11:50 AM

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc2602.htm

Memorandum submitted by Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (CRU 26)

Excerpts:

I was peer reviewer for IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)… Since 1998 I have been the editor of the journal, Energy & Environment (E&E) published by Multi-science, where I published my first papers on the IPCC. I interpreted the IPCC “consensus” as politically created in order to support energy technology and scientific agendas that in essence pre-existed the “warming-as -man-made catastrophe alarm.”…

Some background info on Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and the Energy & Environment (E&E) journal…

Criticism

It is listed by Scopus as a trade journal,[3] with coverage from 1995.[4]

EBSCO Publishing lists Energy & Environment as a Peer-Reviewed, Academic Journal. [5][6]

Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature’s blog in 2007 about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: “...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn’t have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.)”[7]

Climate change skepticism

Skeptics on the journal’s editorial staff include Boehmer-Christiansen herself and anthropologist Benny Peiser. Contributors considered as climate skeptics or contrarians, have included Sallie Baliunas, Robert M. Carter, Ian Castles, Bjorn Lomborg, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Garth Paltridge, Roger Pielke Jr., Fred Singer, Willie Soon and Richard Lindzen.

When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, “I’m following my political agenda—a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”

Some of the journal’s articles opposing the mainstream scientific positions on climate change have been quoted by policy makers known to be skeptical of the subject, such as U.S. Senator James Inhofe and U.S. Congressman Joe Barton.

Well, what do you know…all the usual liars and deniers turn up.

Your background has no background…..eg a Link ?????

Here’s a list of the references that support the comments..

[3]  “List of titles”. Scopus. http://info.scopus.com/detail/what/documents/title_list.xls. Retrieved 2009-06-24.
[4] “Energy and Environment”. Scopus. http://www.scopus.com/source/sourceInfo.url?sourceId=29360. , accessed 24 June 2009 (subscription required)
[5] “Environment Complete: Database Coverage List”. EBSCO. http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-30.
[6]  “Environment Index: Database Coverage List”. EBSCO. http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/egh-coverage.pdf. Retrieved 2009-11-30.
[7] “Climate Feedback: Should Hurricanes be Part of the Mitigation Debate?”. http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/should_hurricanes_be_part_of_t.html#comment-86797. Retrieved 2007-10-01.
[8] Richard Monastersky, (September 5, 2003), “Storm Brews Over Global Warming”, Chronicle of Higher Education, p.16.

.

Climate change odds much worse than thought

New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth’s climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important “to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science,” he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. “In that sense, our work is unique,” he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees. This can be compared to a median projected increase in the 2003 study of just 2.4 degrees.

.