Comments on: The staggering thought we cause storms

By: Anthropogenic Global Cooling

Anthropogenic Global Cooling — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:21:15 +0000

The ’97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing, believe that climate change “very likely” caused mainly by human activity’ comes from the Doran survey (2009). The reality of this survey is it only surveyed 79 scientists, which is hardly representative of the wider scientific community:

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/the-'scientigic-consensus-on-climate-change‘.pdf

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 07:03:24 +0000

Weird….. (the particles that is)

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:46:51 +0000

There is a consensus of 100% of physicists that particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Oh, wait….

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:21:49 +0000

Richard M, you say:-

“If you want to educate yourself about the actual science of climate change”

We are, e.g. see,

More learned about water — science still not settled

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/09/more-learned-about-water-science-still-not-settled/#comment-67182

Just One Fact

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/09/more-learned-about-water-science-still-not-settled/#comment-67182

IPCC Science

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/un/ipcc-science/#comment-67021

Lots of “facts about climate change”.

BTW, loved your joke about the survey result that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing” “believe that climate change “very likely” caused mainly by human activity” – hilarious.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 06:13:56 +0000

Not another Richard, Richard M!

I hope your points will be taken up by our vigilant and well-informed readers and lead to a vigorous conversation. I will just say that, clearly, there is a consensus, since the CAGW views wouldn’t have conquered the establishment position without some kind of broad agreement.

There are, however, very good reasons for doubting the dominance of the consensus, chief among them being the almost universal reluctance of the “warmists” to debate with sceptics or even approve of sceptical views in their newspapers and magazines. What are they afraid of?

The second important element in relation to the arguments you raise is that, when a valid question is asked about science, it does not inevitably mark the questioner as belonging to a particular school of thought. That’s what we attempt to abandon here at the CCG.

The above post mentions that the observed record of atmospheric water vapour since 1948 shows a modest decline, which is contrary to your assertion that warming will cause a rise of some unstated amount. If the record is accepted, your prediction fails, and with it, any alarm over increased storminess.

This does not represent a battle between schools of thought, but between scientific observations. This is good.

Welcome aboard.

By: Richard Matthews

Richard Matthews — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 05:23:44 +0000

I appreciate all of your comments and I assure you that I am neither Chicken Little nor am I a medieval monk. I recieved my scientific training at McGill University and I am currently the owner of a consulting firm. I have taken it upon myself to share the facts about climate change.

Whether you like it or not, there is a scientific consensus on climate change: According to a survey from the National Academy of Sciences, 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing, believe that climate change “very likely” caused mainly by human activity. The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is “very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century. Estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract

If you want to educate yourself about the actual science of climate change, take a look at this fairly comprehensive review:

http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2011/09/14/science-and-pernicious-ignorance-of-climate-change-denial/

By: Alexander K

Alexander K — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 13:58:46 +0000

The Matthews bloke is a well-known Chicken Little in the UK, whose beliefs (not science!) are genuine, if totally misguided. He wants everybody to cycle or walk everywhere, to eat Ragwort Lasagne and to be thoroughly uncomfortable all of the time. A couple of hundred years ago he would have been crouched in a bare and freezing monk’s cell, attempting to make his fellow man aware of the mortal danger sinning was putting everybody in through prayer. He is the type of imaginatively pessimistic cultist that got so thoroughly up Martin Luther’s nose (as opposed to the pay-per-sin cartels the Church ran that also got up ML’s hooter) and is an intellectual throwback to the medieval era in which scientific cause and effect had not yet arrived.
And I was joking about the Ragwort – don’t try eating the stuff!
I have just enjoyed a week in an industrial city in the far reaches of the Czech Republic and can vouch for the wonderful and restorative qualities of Czech beer!

By: Anthropogenic Global Cooling

Anthropogenic Global Cooling — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 07:18:08 +0000

I’m sure a Guiness would contain all the main vitamin groups.

By: Richard Treadgold

Richard Treadgold — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 05:50:42 +0000

Another pleasing evisceration of a patently myopic, entrenched arm-waving eco-capitalist.

Well expressed!

Thanks. Vitamin C has gone in. Now a bacon, roast garlic and tomato risotto is in preparation.

PS: Beer contains vitamin C, does it?

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 05:18:18 +0000

RT – Another pleasing evisceration of a patently myopic, entrenched arm-waving eco-capitalist.

My comments:
1. What warming? Given NIWA’s crappy pseudo-science in reporting NZ temps, and numerous other examples like that revealed by Watts’ surfacestations.org, are we really sure that they got all the myriad homogenisations, pasteurisations and gravytrain alignments correct?

2. Talk about a denier. His assertion regards “a strong and growing body of evidence” actually applies to the skeptical side. The “strong and growing body of evidence” meme peaked about 2.5 years ago, just after AR4 and before Climategate. There is now a “shonky and shrinking corpse of evidence” on his side of the debate.

Keep up the good work RT (and the vitamin C)