Potholer54 carbon dating

Second, the idea of carbon capture from the atmosphere, as with any pollution, has a big problem: In thermaldynamics terms, pollution is taking an substance CO2, mercury, nitrates, … — you name it that is initially in a high concentration, which is a low entropy state, and dispersing it widely to very low concentration, which is a high entropy state. The 2nd law say you can do that, but only of the entropy of the system is increased — and, that requires energy! Trees capture and concentrate carbon using the energy from the sun — but it is a slow process.

Trees have evolved to solve this problem of s of millions of years. Once you consider that carbon capture requires energy, I have to ask, is there really a man made technology that can do better. Adding in exported emissions, the picture is probably worse. Every bit of effort counts. Rather than focusing on the perils of climate change, which the general public does not as a whole care about, what about focusing on how the technologies can save people money. This is the silver bullet. You give us hope and reason to keep working for what makes sense. Keep up the good work. And kudos to Nick for his positive comments above no.

Nick — You are not the only person who still believes we can save our species. In fact Guy even believes it. That spells increased CO2, heat, and waste. What we need to do is LESS!!! Which is nothing anyone wants to propose or can propose thus the predicament. Can only assume with increased warming water vapor will also play a greater role. Interesting as this is no specie sentient or otherwise can expand forever in a closed system without eventual problems.

That the rate of GHG accumulation in our atmosphere is generally increasing appears to be correct and its acceleration will most likely continue because of inertia. The increasing rate of climate change strengthened by feedback mechanisms is out of our control. Our entire ecosystem is in the balance. Now including October data. There is no economic evidence that a Carbon Tax will slow down anything. A better idea, offered by attorney Ruth Silman last Tuesday at a Massachusetts Environmental Business Council meeting, is to reward proper Carbom reducing behaviors with credits akin to SRECs, whether for energy efficiency, or demand resonse shifts, or even eating vegan.

What caused sea level rise before Humans really started to emit CO2 into the atmosphere around ? Will sea level stop rising if we stop emitting CO2 into the atmosphere? Does this say that to meet the peak 1. We are unleashing forces that will take centuries to roll out their final effect. Whether or now we feel comfortable now is irrelevant although many people are not so comfortable, even now. Surprisingly to some, we can actually make long term predictions better than short term. I use the following example. Now, go the Wikipedia and get the numbers you need like the volume of land ice, the surface area of the earth and the specific heat of melting ice, etc.

The answer is about years. This simple calculation — which anybody high school physics student should be able to do — illustrates that climate dynamics will take centuries to fully play out their course. We are literally gambling with the future of civilization! I like the COPrelated document released by the White House the day before this thread got started: Plenty of good tables and figures. To me the best part is a new US emphasis on placing excess carbon back in soils.

There is one area that has been neglected, and I wish forest scientists like Harmon and Birdsey would appear here. Not to mention oriented strandboard and plywood laced with formaldehyde, a banned product all over the world except here and a few other places. Our houses are toxic, fragile, wasteful contraptions, which last an average of 60 years, accompanied by many times more per capita deaths from fire than in other parts of the world. Heath and Birdsey did a study some years ago that included this exercise: What would happen if we stopped logging in the US?

Steel would be cheaper if the many subsidies for clearcutting were removed. I drew a complete blank, apart from support in the bar and halls of Congress after giving my presentations. The main obstacle here is the political power of NAHB, which has political reps in almost every Congressional District. Their constant mantra is to keep two by fours cheap. I became a member of their political action committee in order to learn how they operated, and most were innocent victims of timber industry misinformation.

Forest restoration in the US would be a very cheap way to capture carbon, though of course we will also need CCS thanks for the data, Dan Miller. We would also see restored landscapes, increased precipitation, and cooler microclimates. This is a huge wasted opportunity. Even now the timber industry fights with bogus claims about clearcuts increasing albedo, so we should do more of it partially true in very cold areas at high elevation, but most trees are harvested at lower elevations. The task should be nonpolitical. Can someone comment as to whether the graph making the rounds on social media showing total sea ice at somewhere like a sigma event right now is accurate?

These come from an ASIF user afaik. Is there any sensor error anywhere that could account for it? In March of , they said global warming stopped in Augist of By April of , they said global warming stopped in December of They had to change the start date, because even in the cherry-picked dataset they use RSS , the Earth keeps warming.

I wrote a blog post about what I saw. If someone with better math skills than I have would falsify it, that would be useful. The blog post is here. The loudest deniers, I am speculating, are doing it, even though they don't believe it, because inwardly they have been convinced that we don't need to do much, if anything. However, as political animals, they know that selling the public that is a weak flawed message. FUD works better to achieve their ends. I don't think it strains credulity to suggest that Inhofe, Morano, Monckton inter alia understand perfectly well that the costs of AGW will be paid by someone, sometime, but they just don't care.

They'll say whatever they think will maximize the profits of their patrons in the short term. Knowingly making counter-factual assertions for personal aggrandizement is the second-oldest profession, after all. I have long suspected that the most voluble deniers, such as Morano, Inhofe, Monckton etc continue to use arguments that they surely know have been debunked for one reason. That is that those sound bite factoids and arguments work very well to sway the minds of the general public, in op-eds, lectures, articles or debates.

Why wouild they want to do that? I think that behind all the out and out antiscience they spout, these people have been secretly convinced by the lukewarmers, such as Lindzen and Spencer, that the ultimate results of us continuing to use fossil fuels won't be very much at all - benefits may balance harm and we'll have enough time to adapt to any harm. I think most ordinary people are sensible enough to judge what to do.

They look both ways when crossing the road, they don't buy outdated food. They wouldn't risk their climate on a minority scientific view. I have come round to the belief that the danger of trusting in the lukewarmer position is the greatest problem we have. I think science and science communicators need to get that message out far bettre than has been the case previously. Thus, Monckton I think it is shows clearly that "global warming" increased just 16 years ago. Not only that but the fun part now: Surely not, it might cost him his title.

Ryland, I'm surprised that you start your post describing accurately some newspapers' attitudes then ends by chiding scientists for not including the margin of error. Seems you're the one being naive. The only thing doing damage to climate scientists is to be targeted by despicable people who will back at nothing to undermine the public's understanding of science.

The silly talk about margin of error is laughable coming from the clowns who keep saying that it hasn't warmed since or that there is a pause. Let's start there for statistical accuracy why don't we? But the media never calls this kind of BS a "scandal" do they? The real problem of climate scientists comes from the stooges willing to organise harassment campaigns, steal e-mails to twist their meaning, threaten them with physical violence, use every dirty trick in the book with no regard whatsoever for any kind of intellectual honesty or scientific accuracy.

The real problem comes from media outlets that are used to foster the ideological agenda of their owner and manipulate peope's minds without any scruples or regard for such details as physical reality. The real problem is that scientific illiteracy is so deep and prevalent that a buffoon like Monckton can manage to attract attention with his delirious ramblings and gather more credibility than those who know what they're talking about.

That's the real problem. There is no other. Regardless what they do, climate scientists are damned. There is no debate with people like that.

Potholer54 and Carbon Dating

It's like being on trial with Staline as the judge. They're only out to silence you and they'll stop at nothing so long as they are reasonably sure they'll get away with it. Give me a break. That has been Monckton's line for at least five years now. Indeed, if anything it represents a toning down of the rhetoric.

In his blurb for Ian Wishart's propaganda piece, Air Con very well self named , he wrote:. Ian Wishart's book demonstrates that there is not the slightest scientific reason for the new, quasi-religious belief that The Planet needs Saving. The new religion is merely an excuse for world government. World government will not, repeat not, be democratic government. It is the aim of the growing world-government faction amont the international classe politique to take away our hard-won freedom and democracy forever.

I commend [Wishart's] book Those who read it will will help to forestall the new Fascists and so to keep us free. So whereas Monckton formerly described all of us as both and simultaneiously communists and fascists, he he toned down to calling us communists and totalitarians. I'm sure he would have a fainting fit to think that such abusive language would be used in the climate debate. He also would be forced by his logic to concede that AGW is both real and dangerous. I will note as an aside that the way in which large numbers of quite influential members of the anti-climate science brigade take a known conspiracy theorist, and demagogue like Monckton seriously damns their cause far beyond anything I could manage.

If they cannot determine that Monckton's thinking is, quite frankly, nuts; and act accordingly, but rather provide a ready conduit for any rubbish he puts out, they have shown themselves completely incapable of critical thinking on the topic. The least effective is Ethos, the most effective is Pathos. However, it is a bit short-term. We can be swayed by a powerful, plausible sales pitch e. So Logos, which science uses, is the most effective in the long term for those willing to engage with it. Since Logos is demanding and tiring, it is difficult. But for an "elevator pitch", Logos is pretty much long, slow thinking, so for a quick impression, go for Pathos every time.

It tells me that NewsMax which I had never heard of before is an unabashed propoganda site. Quoting Monckton, and using his propaganda terms "the great pause" as though they were a common term among scientists as opposed to never having been used by scientists, SFAIK makes that clear. It also manages to suggest that a measurement of the average across the lower tropopheric temperatures sort of refutes the results of surface measurements - as though humans actually live floating two or three kilometers in the air rather than with their feet firmly on the ground.

Roy Spencer's blog post is better, both because it avoids the propaganda excesses of the NewsMax piece, and because it is clear that they are talking about the Satellite record only although they do not bother to clariffy what that means. It remains disappointing, however, for it fails to mention the ovious fact that lower tropospheric temperatures are far more strongly influenced by ENSO than are surface temperatures. Therefore it is not surprising that while the ENSO neutral topped the El Nino influenced and in the surface record, it did not do so in the sattelite record.

Disappointingly it trys to suggest an El Nino influence on the temperatures due to ENSO features durring December, entirely failing to mention the 6 month lag between ENSO events and their peak temperature influence.

Potholer54 and Carbon Dating

Finally, Christy and Spencer make a big point about the close values of with 4th warmest and 5th warmest. The clearly mention that there is only a 0. The odd thing is that on their own figures, the later is actually a 0. Worse, the actual annual mean for using their monthly figures is 0. The actual differences, rounded to three significant figures are 0. Via a non-standard rounding and a simple reporting error, they have virtually halved the reported difference between and I suspect that as a result, is statistically warmer than Unfortunately I do not know their stated measurement error.

The fun bit is that those skeptics who claim that they are part of the consensus because they accept that adding CO2 to the atmosphere does not cool it also claim that Scaffeta's paper was incorrectly rated - which is an inconsistent position. The point is that both claims are rhetorical, and are not expected by their proponents to actually be logically cohesive, only to serve a purpose. Do you think that Obama's tweet was a fair representation of your study?

I'm thinking particularly of the way that he added 'dangerous' to the consensus. I may have missed it, but I couldn't find the word danger in your ERL publication, or the Guardian blog post you linked to announcing it. I think it does. Many skeptics including e. I suspect that if the consensus was 'real, man made and dangerous' then they would have a much harder time claiming to be part of the consensus. The vast majority of those involved — scientists, economists, commentators, activists, environmentalists and sceptics — accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that will, other things being equal, warm the planet.

But whether the effect is large or small is unknown and the subject of furious debate. If true, this would mean that climate change was inconsequential. At the other end are estimates based on computer simulations, which would, if realised, be disastrous. It may be that you're not interested in engaging with skeptics such as Montford or Michaels, and are more interested in talking to a wider 'unconvinced' public although even there, I believe you have things wrong.

Have you considered the possibility that some of the "criticisms from scientists who accept the science on climate change" arose because those scientists are engaging with a different audience, skeptics such as Montford and Michaels, where simply asserting that climate change is 'real and man made' does indeed miss the point? As for reading anything from him, the answer is no, that would be a complete waste of time. And I don't find that you have appropriately addressed Tom Curtis points at 92 and 99 above. You're long on assertions and rethoric, rather short on substance and references.

The way you use references is itself quite questionable on several occasions. I understand more than I care to why you think how you think. It doesn't make it any more convincing. I find it rather amsing that you'd adopt such snark toward Wikipedia but maintain deference for a buffoon like Monckton. I am showing "deference" to Monckton by agreeing with a single thing the man said? I simply attributed the comment to him. I've read very little about, or by him, but happened to have done so recently enough. Surely you know what it is. Wikipedia can be convenient for some things, but you almost always better check the references.

The quality of information on it varies wildly. I usually avoid it for anything other than a starting point when possible. Perhaps you might point us to what you are precisely what you are implying but "relevant"? It seems you are yet again confusing sensitivity with attribution. Why do you continue to ignore the points the about OHC? Attribution is about sorting which cause created a particular change. Show us your evidence for another cause or stop trolling. I've not once confused sensitivity with attribution. But if you change how much warming is assessed by CO2, it follows that the relative attribution of the warming is altered.

I mostly ignored the points on OHC, because I am trying to stay on topic attribution. OHC seems to me to be about where the heat is going, not what is causing it in the first place. Some are speculating issues with assumptions. And these "some" are many in the IPCC. Over-estimates of CO2 sensitivity could be one of those reasons.

Who I am

If there's nothing wrong with the attribution percentages, but only that the heat is all going into the ocean. That's fine, then the models have to be adjusted accordingly for the policy-critical estimates of surface temperatures. But I don't think there's complete agreement that that is indeed what we are seeing.

I am trying not to. If you don't understand the "why's" of those thinking somewhat differently, you stand little hope of convincing them, should you think that important. Well, it seemed you did, kinda, or not, I'm not sure. I think it's over-estimated. And there's evidence that it was declining into the late 20th century. I suppose I should be grateful that you implicitly agree to there being negative anthropogenic forcings.

I know not what "kind of agree" is meant to men except when the difference between "kind of agree" and "agree" are made plain, something you fail to manage. But then it is dangerous ground being associated intellectually with the Viscount of Brenchley. I would suggest that there is a contradiction hiding within something appering to be " As negative anthropogenic forcings are not easily evaluated, their impact could easily be over-estimated as they could be under-estimated.

And you say there is "evidence" of their decline. Where is that evidence? It appears to apply to a time " I point out this proportion to demonstrate why some of the assertions within your comments will go without comment despite their complete lack of veracity. Moberg trend from - 0. Moberg mean trend from start years between to inclusive through to - 0. Moberg maximum trend from a start year between inclusive to - 0.

  • Recent Posts?
  • Dating Sites Perth W A;
  • organising a speed dating event.
  • kent free dating sites.
  • Horoscope Match Making Software Free Download!

I see your error straight away. Yes, picking an end still at what is considered to be the end of the little ice age would indeed give a low estimate, and wrong just by inspection. The IPCC considers about as being the threshold period when anthropogenic causes start to be detectable in the record. Before then anthropogenic forcings just too small. I should have specified a range. But it honestly didn't occur to me that someone familiar with climate would decide that at the end of the LIA was a sensible choice.

As for the troll discussion? I prefer to keep things on a mature and civil level or not at all. I'm funny that way. I think you'll find that it's not that easy to get a rise out of me though. I'm not so thin-skinned. Perhaps it's a relative age thing. Standard troll attempt to mistake regional Greenland temperatures for global or NH temperatures by jwalsh - One to date.

Yes, there's a tricky limitation with ice cores. The ones at the equator don't last nearly as long. I didn't say they were a perfect match to NH temps or global. Evidence that the Greenland temperature swings were localized for some reason? Evidence of the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods from either historical records and other proxies? But sure, might not be as extreme in swing. Do you have a good explanation for the approximately year cycles? Firstly there are positive anthropogenic forcings of which CO2 is the biggest, and scariest because it is very long-lasting.

The force of this first group can be evaluated with some accuracy. I kind of agree with Lord Monckton that this appears to be somewhat of a universal "fudge-factor", varying wildly. The third category is natural forcings which can be evaluated with fair accuracy. There is no evidence to suggest they are very large. There is no evidence to suggest they are at present a positive forcing. The fourth category is unforced internal variability of the climate system.

There is no reasonable evidence to suggest this is a large effect. A combination of the two of these seem to be completely off-setting anthropogenic warming for the last decade and a half, and may have accounted for a good piece of the warming. I think this is the IPCC's current biggest challenge. I have yet to see convincing a explanation for the warming, and the above two reasons seem as likely as any other. I see you missed my bit about the IPCC currently and quietly estimating temperatures at the the bottom range of model estimates and even below.

This appears to be an expert determination that the models are simply over-projecting by the IPCC. Perhaps you disagree with the IPCC on this. He even, for three years, held an Assistant Professorship at Harvard. None of that has any bearing on whether or not he is in denial about anthropogenic changes to climate. On the other hand, he has political opinions so right wing that he wrote regarding the mass murder of young Norwegian members of the labour party:. I may speculate and I often speculate about the future in which tough decisions may have to be made to avert threats that are worse than anything we are seeing today but this mass murder didn't occur in the future.

It occurred a few days ago and given this fact, it's unforgivable. Do not over interpret that. He also wrote in the space of the elipsis , "Sorry but this looks unforgivable to me - unforgivable at the level of a death penalty which doesn't exist in Norway" and earlier wrote:. It is both scary as well as incomprehensible. I just don't understand what the young people affiliated with the Labor Party who are having fun on some summer youth camp - and perhaps some random people on the street of Oslo - have to do with all the ambitious political plans.

They were innocent children and young people, weren't they? So like any decent person he was shocked by Breivik's horrific acts. But not so shocked that he could not see a legitimate political role for them in the future. I will state categorically that there is no political trajectory from any center left or center right party in Europe that would ever justify taking up arms against it; and no trajectory from any party ever that justifies murdering civilians as the primary target of the attack. That Motl can contemplate current political trajectories in Europe as, in the future, justifying such acts shows him to be contemptible, and his thought on politically related matters including on science that touches on politics to be beneath contempt.

As with Monckton, the fact that the climate denier community do not disown Motl shows how low they have sunk. There's even a "Galileo Movement" in Australia set up to fight against carbon taxes.

  • !
  • cochin free dating.
  • Horoscope Match Making Software Free Download!
  • Term Lookup!
  • Highlights.
  • Post navigation.
  • .

They were the folks who foot the bill for Monckton's tour. These tests show that climate models have provided good estimates of year trends, including for recent periods and for Pacific spatial trend patterns. I'm a bit confused by this as well. I must admit looking at the maps of the regional trends around the Pacific look inaccurate based on the graphs shown by Russ.

This seems to conflict with the bolded text above. I'm not convinced anyone has really provided a reasonable answer to this. In this case, what exactly are the authors referring to here? It's confusing because the paper's goal seems to be to test whether models can provide the correct global temperature scales if the ENSO input is modelled correctly, and it shows that the models are actually accurate globally. But this almost throwaway line seems to suggest that the spatial distribution of the warming was also predicted correctly, when it really looks like it wasn't. Some commentators have pointed out that the model's aren't expected to get the spatial distribution of warming accurate, and that's fine, I don't think anyone excluding Watts, Monckton, et al can reasonably expect accuracy where the models are not designed to provide it, but if that's the case, why is the bolded phrase even included in the paper?

Murdoch is a wealthy man and he can't take it with him when he pops his clogs, so to speak. As he believes in his view of climate change so much, let him put his money where his mouth is. Both sides should be constrained to a set number of words to be agreed. Perhaps the Guadian might like to sponsor this side of the debate with exclusive rights to publish the correspondence and outcomes.

Other Opinions

Daft as the above might be it is more intended as a thought-starter than a finished, completely thought through idea , let's face it, anything is worth a try. As thing are, Murdoch is going to continue spouting his erroneous opinions and editors, enjoying their freedoms, are going to take the view: It's not the sun. What is it if not the enhanced greenhouse effect? Is this "not playing out" simply the result of the trend doing something, over the last six years, that the models--which were not designed to provide subdecadal accuracy--did not project?

I have a feeling the upcoming El Nino is going to breed several new species of meme that will replace "it hasn't warmed since X. They have no interest in scientific progress. They attack simply to shape public opinion in the interests of their employers. It's easy to tell when someone is only interested in shutting up the science, ending it, silencing it. The comparison with open, evidence-based dialogue is night and day. If I were you, Terranova, I'd spend less time worrying about what people are labeling you and spend more time continuing to read the science, letting it take you wherever it takes you, regardless of your existing politics.

I don't want "IMHO. Maybe I've missed something. Maybe you can tell me. Climate change is happening, I don't know anyone who disagrees so stating that as part of an argument tends to lend itself to the logical fallacy of false implication. Sadly I do not recall the name, although I believe it is featured here on Skeptical Science. One of the spots in the program showed Christopher Monckton egging on a Tea Party rally in, if memory serves, during the run-up to the Congressional elections. I'm skeptical of both sides particularly because so many of the key players have a profit motive.

Go to your closest university with atmospheric physics department and look at the cars the scientists drive. My interest here is to find out the truth based upon as much hard science as possible and not be side tracked by spin, emotionally driven or financially motivated agenda's. To elaborate a bit on the characteristics of denialism, and how creationists, climate science deniers, and anti-vaccine activists share them in common, let me provide some examples:. Dr Jay Gordon is a pediatrician but who are using their credentials to support or propagate false or misleading information, in the public sphere at least, if not in the literature e.

Dr Spencer and the Cornwall Alliance. Some creationists I have named above might be misleading experts; but I'm not familiar enough with them to say so. Creationism - claims about radiocarbon dating, this article showing distortion of so-called "No Free Lunch" algorithms, claims about the eye, or flagellum, making Charles Darwin out to be a proto-eugenicist, etc. Anti-Vaccine - Wakefield's retracted Lancet paper I don't recall seeing that one get trotted out as much since its retraction , some rubbish papers by Laura Hewitson et al also retracted , claims about various ingredients in vaccines formaldehyde, aluminium, etc.

I could go on - maybe search the vaccine topic thread on Science-Based Medicine for some more examples. Anti-Vaccine - ad hominem what Dr David Gorski calls the "pharma shill gambit" , red herrings appeals to the issues surrounding thalidomide, Vioxx, or, say, the Tuskegee experiments. Creationism - In Expelled , Ben Stein alleges that the scientific community conspires to ruin the careers of those who express any doubt in the "scientific orthodoxy of Darwinism" quotes used to denote sarcasm, not direct quote.

Especially religious creationists are liable to discern the influence of Satan or other supernatural forces of wickedness in the widespread acceptance of evolution among biologists. Anti-Vaccine - One activist, Jake Crosby, is famed for trying to playing "six degrees of separation" to try and tie pro-vaccine advocates to pharmaceutical companies.

Climate Science Glossary

Any time the claim is made that climate scientists are engaged in a hoax or fraud for the purpose of securing grant money. Any time the claim is made that climate science is part of a wider "eco-fascist", "Marxist", or what-have-you plot to establish despotism. Creationism - I'm not as well-read on creationist tactics on this front, but I understand that creationists have made a big fuss about lack of certain transitional forms, or even set up impossible expectations for what sort of transitional forms might be found e.

Anti-Vaccine - Despite its unethical nature, many anti-vaccine activists call for a double-blind trial of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. I have personally had an anti-vaccine commenter demand that science either develop the capacity to predict who would be harmed by vaccines an impossible expectation at present. The final comment there is mine and intended to be read side-by-side with the article. Unsurprisingly he finds a discrepancy between those two results, but he assumes that is a flaw in the models!

I didn't start from an ad hominem premise, but can't help trying to understand what was driving Monckton in that article. In the Meet the Sceptics documentary, he claims to have cured himself of Graves' disease. As I understand it, mental confusion is an occasional symptom of hyperthyroidism. I don't mean that gives additional reason to dismiss his varied claims, but it might invite a more sympathetic response.

Tom, seriously, are you happy that this site can publish a post entitled 'Corrections to Curry's Erroneous Comments on Ocean Heating' concerning her flawed evidence to the Senate? If they really are as effective as you claim them to be, Dana should have raised the fact that she had contravened them and unless she can provide an extremely good reason for such behaviour, faces … add a fitting sanction.

I too am a champion of free speech and see it as a right. Indeed, it is impossible to have a functioning democracy without it. However, it needs protection from abuse and here is possibly where we differ most. It is important that they be brought into line with the existing science if they cannot provide a rebuttal to the received position on the matter in hand.

Furthermore, unless you can suggest some alternative, I think that they need to face some sort of sanction. If science is about anything, it is about seeking the truth. The deliberate publication of what can legitimately be said to be flawed at best and downright wrong at worst, does, after all, provide the politicians with an excuse to not act, and, one suspects, get their envelope of thanks from the fossil fuel industry, which has a lot to gain from the b. By all means support free speech, but not without sanction for abuse of the right to speak freely.

I have no objection to homosexuals, but if I had, I certainly could not publish work that would reflect such a view. Not where I live at any rate. I have no objection to such constraints. To conclude, I think that it is well past time to take the gloves off and do whatever we can to bring the debate round to a discussion of the facts.

If he is right, it is all too late to do anything meaningful about it anyway. I just happen to think that it would be a good thing for those who have done so much to ensure the b. That is a single year, cherry picked, baseline. It's something you see Chris Monckton constantly doing in his presentations.

Jeez, I wish you guys would apply even just a tiny fraction of scrutiny to the claims a wide range of high profile individuals who challenge man-made climate change. Why not apply the same level of scrutiny to WUWT. The OFA drops in one word that oversteps and all hell breaks loose. All the while, others on the "skeptic" side get away with intellectual murder.

Very good point Albatross, Willard's playing on words does not fool anyone. Curry's testimony in Congress had little more value than that of Monckton. Robert Way is one of many regular contributors to SkS who can claim publication in a serious journal. It is one more in a list that is becoming significant and continues to grow. I'm not sure if this is the right thread but I would like to propose a new tab on the upper left of the home page: I'm not suggesting competiton with RC but something that would allow newcomers to see that this site is not to be given the same weight as clowns like Goddard or other internet junk After due consideration, I think the case that MoreCarbonOK should be debunked is stronger than you put.

Would SkS hesitate to debunk say a Monckton or a Lindzen because Monckton or Lindzen as the author would not be able to understand why their thesis is nonsense? So an appraisal of the offending thesis is presented here on a more appropriate comment thread. That is not good.

Amazing how the anti-science folks have gotten into position in AUS, by the sound of it. Up here in Scandinavia, the deniers have been unusually quiet after month after month with extremely mild temperatures. Last 30 days average sits an amazing 7C above normal, but the cold weather just arrived, so the anti science guys will start to blow their horns any day now. The public just soaks up their nonsense like a sponge.

Just saw an interview with random folks on the street in the local paper, and it read like a Monckton statement. He was also appalled that the locals did not care at all. Note that he deliberately omitted the data showing decrease in extent and dramatic fall in volume , the data available at the time of his preaching. BTW, that episode was the biggest and most shameful cherry-picking show I've ever seen.

I wonder where our famous "cherry-collector viscount" is right now when provided similar oppotunities? Maybe his line of preaching does not not fall into fertile ground anymore which would be good news. There is no doubt however, that Monckton would love to relive his fulfilment of misleading the audience and coming "infinite sea ice recovery" will be an opportunity too good to miss. I personally feel that a parallel thread is needed that goes beyond the actual science here at SKS; a place where the message is discussed and not just the metrics of science.

Alas we do not have one so I am confused about this post. Unfortunately this is going to be for Heartland, WUWT, Morano and his lordship Monckton the kind of unrelated to the actual science focus point on which they can anchor all manner of obfuscation and irrelevance. This will be for the denailinistas what Sara Palin is to logic, reason and informed political discourse; a side show that addresses style over substance, where Hollywood takes the place of MIT and where science is shunted aside for a rain of tears as little innocent children run naked in fear.

Yes tell the human story, yes tell it to a mass audience on Showtime, sure why not get James Cameron involved, by why discuss it here on SKS? If we are supposed to stay on topic and use linked sources to address the actual science why do we entertain these diversions that are neither scientific nor empirical in nature? I did that myself just now, lining up the chart so the end of the GISP2 data correctly lines up over rather than What I find by doing that is, the modern warming period must have started quite a bit earlier than we normally understand, at least in Greenland.

I've been under the assumtion that modern warming started around to or so, as many believe. But the data presented on this thread shows or David Smalley Public figure. Sarah Haider Public figure. Cartoonist, Paul Kinsella Artist. Philosophical Atheism Community organisation. The Atheist Pig Fictional character. Carbon dating doesn't work -- debunked. This video was first posted a year ago on the Potholer54debunks channel.