Did or did not environmental activists misuse the temperatures of 1998 and blame that on manmade global warming?. Answer: Of course they/YOU did.

Unlike the hockey stick theorists, Spencer, Christy and Co published their raw data and made it available to all scientists. Not one pro AGW alarmist even attempted to use that data to prove Spencer, Christy and Co wrong. In addition not one pro AGW alarmist has suggested that the data Spencer, Christy and Co used was manipulated or wrong.

The Iris Infrared effect proven by Spencer, Christy and Co is now a known natural event in our atmosphere.

Why smear it especially with arguments totally unrelated to science?

The AGW Alarmist religion really needs to be held accountable for their/YOUR behaviour. While there will be some very mild temperature increases from the increased CO2 we humans are emitting, it will be nothing like what the AGW alarmists propose of hundreds of millions refugees fleeing from powerful cyclones/hurricanes and rising oceans.

Does anyone know if the medieval warming period was caused by increasing CO2 and ended because of decreasing CO2?

Does anyone know if the Little Ice Age was caused by decreasing CO2 or ended because of increasing CO2?

Surely there must be enough “pine cone data” to prove each of these events. LOL

What is known is that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around!

Has anyone found the “smoking gun” actually proving CO2 increases has been the cause of recent global warming? Answer: No! Climate Models are a poor guesstimate ONLY, and have never been a source of proof. Not factoring the Iris Hypothesis into climate Models is an example of that proof.

Cheers

I say you are lying. Lets see some backup to these extraordinary claims.

Paper published by Roy Spencer can be found here:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Spencer_07GRL.pdf

Now for some clearly needed Ad hominem. Marohasy, the scientist who has misrepresented the information in the interview, appears to have published only a dozen scientific papers or so in areas such as biological control. Her expertise is clearly not climate. She has had a long association with banking, industry and anti-conservation environmental groups that advocate actions like whale hunting. Not the person I would be quoting on climate change.

Check out Marohasy’s web site:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/about.php

I apologise if my words are appearing in the incorrect location for the topic. I am unfamiliar with these forums.

Simply, I feel that I must say something after first reading the Jennifer Marohasy article on Global Warming and then, by surfing, to an article about the Great Barrier Reef (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/articles119.html)

You see, I have some training in biology (BSC & Honors) but more importantly a strong interest in coral reefs and most important a job that allows me daily access to the Great Barrier Reef.

To be quick, I wish to make the following comments on this woman’s article:

1. Sea Level Rise is not the issue for the reef, it is temperature.
2. Corals need stable warm water, not spikes of hot, so will not expand south.
3. Corals found in warmer areas have adapted over millennia for those conditions.
4. Corals as a group persist but have had major extinctions due to climate change.
5. The 1998 and 2002 bleaching events by definition WERE severe and frequent.
6. Calm clear days enhance the effect and will occur randomly even with higher trending temperatures.
7. The GBR is best protected from destructive fishing & tourism practices but NOT from main reef killing actions (agricultural runoff).
8. Despite best protection, GBR fisheries are in major decline hence the new no-take zones.
9. Despite major projects & funding, pollution from farms still occurs visibly every day with zero observable change in sediment loads - entire trees make it out the outer reef so does nutrient.
10. There in no evidence that coral reefs are resilient to climate change - quite the opposite - only the group as a taxonomic level persists.
11. I visit the reef north of Cairns EVERY DAY and Ive never seen or heard of this “localised fall in sea level”. Further, how can a localised area of sea actually fall ?
12. Yes, the next ice age in thousands of years time will leave the reef high and dry. And in 5 billion years our sun will explode and destroy the solar system… whats her point ?
13. The fundamental paradigm of coral reef nutrients is that corals persist instead of algae BECAUSE of the lack of nutrients - increase nutrients and corals are out-competed: the reef dies to becomes a sea-weed field.

The only positive thing I can say is that she is right in this: Global Warming is not currently the biggest killer of the worlds reefs or the Great Barrier Reef and effort therefore should be spent on the current killer (coastal deforestation & agriculture in tropical island nations) but with a view that global warming IS real and WILL begin wiping out the worlds reefs soon so we should give the coral reefs of the world the best chance to survive by reducing every other impact upon them in preparation for the bleaching events of the coming decades.

I feel better for getting my opinion out I just hope its in the right area.

Sincere apologies if this is totally out of order.

Regards to all,

Chris Jones.

You wrote earlier:

“I’ll let you in on a little secret about science. Just because scientists argue over aspects of evolution climate change, it doesn’t mean that they are in denial about the basics of evolution climate change.”

It was fair for me to infer from this that you were suggesting something like what I suggested above. BTW, do you think that little secret is known only by scientists? Do you think those engaged in other discplinary studies are unaware of this? Do you think my reply unjustified considering your rather patronizing response?

But let me ask you this (and lets avoid these tired, old references to creationists and keep this exchange civil), what would you regard as implicitly or explicitly critical of current belief regarding climate change?

I suppose if your going to suggest that the scientific orthodoxy is simply the reasonable belief that the climate changes and nothing more, then yes, no paper could reasonably be explicitly or implicitly critical of the orthodoxy. The reason being that you have defined it so broadly as to be entirely meaningless.

Proteus, you would do a lot better if you could stop making stuff up about my arguments. I haven’t defined climate change at all on this thread. If you want to know my opinion on something, ask. Don’t assume that you know what it is. However, score two for aping creationist tactics.

BTW, in which comment do I confuse you with Ken Parish?

I assumed this because you asked me why one of your comments was in the spam filter. As a mere commenter on this blog, how should I know?

I suppose if your going to suggest that the scientific orthodoxy is simply the reasonable belief that the climate changes and nothing more, then yes, no paper could reasonably be explicitly or implicitly critical of the orthodoxy. The reason being that you have defined it so broadly as to be entirely meaningless.

BTW, in which comment do I confuse you with Ken Parish?

If you see an obvious Bird dropping, just alert Jacques by email and he’ll wipe it off.

I’m referring to recent papers that are implicitly or explicitly critical of the scientific orthodoxy; I’m not making-up a list of ‘deniers’.

Proteus, if you think that a paper criticising some technical aspects of another paper counts as being “implicitly or explicitly critical of the scientific orthodoxy” then you’re taking your lines straight out of the creationist playbook.

I’ll let you in on a little secret about science. Just because scientists argue over aspects of evolution climate change, it doesn’t mean that they are in denial about the basics of evolution climate change.

You’re also confusing me with Ken Parish.

In fact, the mark of a genuinely expert person in any area of endeavour (including law, science and politics) is that they have an ability and willingness to explain the technical aspects of their discipline in a comprehensible manner that allows others to engage and discuss it without being patronised.

That was well written, Ken. Dunno how well that works in practice though. If you have people who lie about the technical aspects of their discipline in a seemingly comprehensible manner, it’s hard to spot the liar.

I’m not criticising you, of course, I’m just sayin’.

How is Bird getting through the system? Is he visiting every Internet cafe in NSW?

My fault. He’s on the useless Wordpress blacklist, but wasn’t on the you-beaut Bannage plugin blacklist. It should stop him from here on.