Friday, 13 July 2007

Climate changes. Always has.

I've been called several times now a "climate change denier," and I'm not alone in being tarred with that brush. It's a common insult used by warmists, most of whom will otherwise evince some opposition to so called "hate speech," except that is when used by themselves or by fellow travellers.

As you're no doubt aware, the change of phrase from "global warming" to "climate change" betrays the loss of confidence in the mantra evinced by warmists since the failure of the climate to warm past its 1998 El Nino high. It's also intended to evoke the holocaust by equating non-warmists with Nazi apologists such as David Irving and his ramshackle brood of holocaust deniers (scum so soundly exposed in Deborah Lipstadt's fine book which almost single-handedly brought the deniers down).

Quite aside from the disgraceful affront to dignity and to the six million victims of genocide that warmists are happy to cheapen simply to make a rhetorical point, the idea that I or any other non-warmist denies that climate changes is just not true. No one, least of all me, denies that climate changes. Climate has always been changing. It's been changing for all of the 4,550 million years since the planet condensed from recycled stardust.

The irony to me is that its warmists who like to deny the evident fact of those 4,550 million years of change in which continents were pulled apart and stitched back together; 4,550 million years in which volcanoes and glaciers played tug of war with the earth's climate while sea levels, carbon dioxide levels, temperature levels and life on earth rose and fell and rose and fell to heights and depths much greater and much more extreme than anything seen in the last hundred years of relative stability. But warmists like to ignore all that history of change and to reify instead the last few decades as if they're climatically unique.

These are people who need to get out more.

Climate changes. That's what earth's climate does, and always has done. It's time warmists themselves began recognising that fact and learning some climate history instead of wringing their hands in global warming dismay every time a one-in-hundred-and fifty storm event happens in their neighbourhood. In his climatic history of the world, University of Melbourne professor of geology Ian Plimer takes you on that 4,550 million-year journey of the planet's history. It's the entire history of the world in just four pages, including pictures. Print it out and read it over lunch: The Past is the Key to the Present: Greenhouse and Icehouse over Time - Ian Plimer.

It's so succinct you'll still have time left over to discuss it over coffee.


  1. The problem domain is not one of climate change, or even global warming over milenia, it one of adverse consequences to the energy within the atmosphere subsequent to imbalances from whatever sources and losses of sinks. The emissions of C02 (equivalents) is one source of the problem that can be both measured and forecast. And we know sinks are under duress.

    What is without doubt is that the contribution to the increasingly visible problem from emissions and sinks is anthropogenic. It is US. We are the problem. There is too many of US.

    What ever argument is put up that the cycle of adverse weather is due to nature, it is implausible and dangerous to assume just because a component of climate change is natural we should avoid taking measure to mitigate it.. simply because your theory as to its cause doesn't fit the fact that the best science we have says.. it's 'US' that is significantly and disproportionately adding to making this potentially expensive mess. Non-insured damage is acruing at seven times GDP. It is economically unsustainable, be it nature/background or us.

    The precautionary principle applies until we know for sure which part of the energy in the system your attributing to nature is mitigated by evidence based policy founded on equitable access to the atmospheric resource, ie: the inalienable and constitutional property right to pollute.

    If so then there is a solution based upon a cap at 2 degrees and a process to achieve that [C&C]. If such a proposal still finds your right, that climate variation is natural... there isn't a problem, no harm done at least expense. But based upon current data, experience and anecdote... its not looking good.

    I for one, wish and hope you are right.

    Can I test your confidence levels and ask you this, have you cancelled your insurance?


  2. Blair

    that jus so much potty wash what ya wrote there. Doncha read and think boy?

    What you have is a blind belief thar. Youse fellas been touting yer climate sky-is-fallin religion for decades- an ' non of it ha' come to pass. The sky didna fall. the angels never did a-come and Al Gore does not glow in the dark in Holy Glory.

    "Without doubt" what you are is a BS artist. You have no proof for any of the cuss stuff of yer creed of mumbo jumbo graoning and moaning and praying.

    Grow up and be a man, ya yellow belly whining do not substitute for real fact, real proof and real logic.

    Look and see.

    "The burden of proof falls upon he who claims the positive." - Y Solomon

    Yer silly religion faith and dogma makes plenty of claims abourt climate and what is happening and what penance is needed to appease the weather god and the environment god amd the great spirits or ghosts or whatever. But You aint got any real proof. Just choirs of whining sub-human noises and jibber jabber.

    On yer knees again? Such savage primitive nonsense. Incredible.


  3. Whilst it is true that climate has changed in the past and obviously will in the future I find someone saying 'look at the carbon levels in the Precambrian period' slightly hilarious, umm.. the earth was kinda different in those days, not exactly human friendly. Its kind of like using the carbon levels on Venus.
    But undoubtedly the climate change panic is getting slightly ridiculous.

  4. First of all, a plea to 'Cleetus': You may find your adopted persona personally hilarious, but I (and I'm sure others) find it ridiculous and kind of annoying, making me skip most of what you write. Give it up, or at least do a passable caricature of a southern yokel.

    PC: A few weeks ago you were questioning that the world wouldn't be cooler in forty years! (Explicitly agreeing with Mörner, if you recall). Asserting that 'climate always changes' is just a truism, and one that you won't find anyone with an elementary grounding in climate issues disagreeing with.

    Quite how you piece together the affront to Holocaust victims being perpetrated by all 'Warmists' is a mystery, but again ties in to your propensity for outrageous exaggeration to make a contentious point forcefully ("Would you shoot your grandmother?").

    I really think you're creating a bunch of straw-men here (people accusing you of believing 'climate doesn't change,' and a view held by most 'Warmists' that the last hundred years is unique in history in terms of climate), to benefit what is a fairly pointless argument. I'm sorry, but *yawn*.


  5. This one should get your blood boiling!

    A whole bunch of claims, claimng that they have the data, the smoking gun, but no data present, just more rhetoric.

    I think they are starting, curiously slowly, to believe they are on the losing side, and are now getting all personal (personal attacks are the last refuge of the left).

    Have a look at their claim that now the royal society agree with them, I think you'll find that if you selectively read the parts of press release and not the actual sciene you'll get a different picture.

    btw I seem to have lost your email address PC.

    can you send it to me?

  6. Robert Winefield13 Jul 2007, 10:36:00


    "Quite how you piece together the affront to Holocaust victims being perpetrated by all 'Warmists' is a mystery"

    It's a mystery because he emphatically did not accuse ALL warmists of doing so.

    Quote: "It's a common insult used by warmists"

    'Common' does not mean the insult is used by ALL warmists.

    Quote "most of whom will otherwise evince some opposition to so called "hate speech,"

    Likewise 'Most' does not mean ALL.

    You accuse Peter of the following:

    "but again ties in to your propensity for outrageous exaggeration to make a contentious point forcefully"

    Pot, Kettle, Black.

  7. Robert: Agree. Probably jumped a bit quick there - I should spend more time proof-reading, but these comments are written over a quick coffee whilst working. However, if you remove the 'all' from my sentence, the point stands.

    'Climate Change denier' is not meant in the same spirit as 'Holocaust denier' and to claim any affront to victims of that atrocity is shameful grandstanding.


  8. Den, I suggested that warmists reify "the last few decades," not the whole century. And perhaps you've missed the prime minister all over the media in recent days telling all and sundry of the drastic changes "we" have caused to today's climate to make it so special?

    I'm pleased you're continuing to abjure the worst extremes of your confreres (or at least to avert your eyes when they exhibit them), but I really can't believe you're so obtuse as to not have realised why the phrase "denier" is being so widely used.

    At the very least you must recognise it begs the question the warmist is trying to prove. You might say it's simply trying to invoke the syndrome of psychological denial, a clinical condition requiring treatment. Either of these two would be bad enough, but it's clear from those who first began using it that the holocaust connotation is intended to taint what should be an objective scientific argument.

    But the increasingly shrill invective suggests objectivity on AGW died some time ago, doesn't it.

  9. Blair, you insist it "is without doubt ... that the contribution to the increasingly visible problem from emissions and sinks is anthropogenic."

    I say that there is entirely too much doubt for that claim to be proved, both that there is an increasingly visible problem (do you perhaps disagree with Den in saying that the last few decades ARE special?), and that the cause is us.

    You say "We are the problem." [Emphasise mine.] May I inquire who this we is? You say "There is too many of US." [Emphasis yours.] Without at all accepting the truth of that claim, I wonder what your solution would be: acquiescence to nature and mass death?

    You ask, "Can I test your confidence levels and ask you this, have you cancelled your insurance?"

    May I ask why this would be relevant?

  10. CC, you said, "Whilst it is true that climate has changed in the past and obviously will in the future I find someone saying 'look at the carbon levels in the Precambrian period' slightly hilarious..."

    You don't think that as a general rule debate about today should be informed by a knowledge of the past? I've always observed that forming opinions without a firm grasp of history is like pouring concrete without steel: there's nothing to hold the poorly made opinion to the ground.

    Knowledge of the history of the past gives an invaluable perspective to the knowledge of today.

    Perhaps in the case of climate for example if there were more knowledge of actual climatic history then people wouldn't sit still while they're told we're living at a unique moment in climatic history, as the prime minister and Al Bore would have us believe.

  11. If not already in train, I would like to propose consideration of Sport Miles as an analogue to food miles. Under this regime sports teams playing away internationally would incur a handicap score based on how far they and their supporters travel to fixtures. This would have a useful side-effect of slowing down the barmy army.

    Other spin-offs could be entertainer miles - penalty payments on international concert tickets by artists who supported Live Earth.

    and what about spiritual miles - no more pilgrimages

  12. Den, just to reinforce that my "outrageous exaggeration" isn't so outrageous, consider the Wikipedia entry for denialism, a reasonable measure of widely accepted (if not always accurate) views:

    "Denialism is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups, interest groups or individuals who reject propositions that are, or are claimed to be, strongly supported by scientific or historical evidence, and who seek to influence policy processes and outcomes accordingly. The term has been used in relation to holocaust denial, AIDS reappraisal, global warming denial, and the creation-evolution controversy.

    "The term "denialism" is normally used in a pejorative sense, since it carries the implication that the person or group concerned is denying evident truths..."

    Still think I'm exaggerating at the guilt by association?

  13. Eddie visits occasionally13 Jul 2007, 12:23:00

    Shorter PC: Anyone who calls me a denier for denying the scientifically proven importance of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions to the current warming trend is being rude, whereas it's perfectly OK for me to call them by a word that implies their support of the mainstream scientific position is purely ideological. It's also OK for me to consistently mis-spell Al Gore's name because it's not an insult when I do it.

    Shorter shorter PC: Any mental health professional who describes their patients as being "in denial" is clearly comparing them to David Irving. Their patients are not in denial but merely sceptical.

    Shorter shorter shorter PC: I'm still in denial, and misrepresenting science is not working out so well, so now I'm being pedantic about words.

  14. Eddie visits occasionally13 Jul 2007, 12:35:00

    gman is to be commended for his honesty. Referring to recent research by the Royal Society which disproves the solar/cosmic ray theory much touted by denialists (both signals have headed in the wrong direction since 1985), he writes:

    I think you'll find that if you selectively read the parts of press release and not the actual sciene [sic] you'll get a different picture.

    That's the denialist strategy in a nutshell.

  15. Here's another example of begging the question, Eddie: your own insistence on "...the scientifically proven importance of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions to the current warming trend."

    Repeated insistence is not proof of anything except a shortage of evidence. Proof requires the demonstration of a causal connection between human CO2 production and the warming trend from 1979 to 1998, and the co0ling trend from 1945 to 1979. Still hasn't been done.

    BTW, your sneering humour is wearing thin.

  16. BTW Eddie, readers here are intelligent enough to read the complete PC, without needing the bowdlerised Readers Digest version.

    Your normal diet might require reading between the lines to ascertain meaning, but you can be assured if I want to say something I'll say it up front.

  17. “And we know sinks are under duress.”
    “What is without doubt is that”
    “the fact that the best science we have says..”
    Um, anyone else detect a quasi-authoritative tone pleading not to be questioned? “This is the consensus and you better believe it! What do you mean you want to see the irrefutable proof? I said it was, so it must be.”

    “Non-insured damage is acruing [sic] at seven times GDP.”
    Never before has so much BS been packed into so few words. Talk about making up numbers – might as well be 27 times. I’ve studied economics – ever heard of opportunity cost? Valuing the damage as you do, what would our wealth creation have been in the absence of coal-fired energy plants and hydrocarbon-fueled transport?

    “The precautionary principle applies until we know for sure [blah, blah, blah].” The PP essentially says you can’t do anything that might be regarded as different to what you were doing before unless you can prove that it won’t do any harm to any one at any time in the future. Only now we’re not to be allowed to do what we’ve been doing for ages. You might like to look at PC’s previous post – the one about those asserting a positive being required to provide the proof or be dismissed.

    “But based upon current data, experience and anecdote... [that hasn’t proven anything] its not looking good.”

    “Can I test your confidence levels and ask you this, have you cancelled your insurance?”
    My house insurance? Leaving aside that it’s a mortgage covenant, no I haven’t cancelled my fire or flooding insurance. Those were happening before AGW hysteria got big. But yes, I did fail to take out the “Damage due to Anthropogenic Global Warming” protection. Could I sell you such insurance?

  18. Eddie visits occasionally13 Jul 2007, 16:28:00

    Shorter PC: To prop up my delusions, I'll link to an article written for a non-peer reviewed free market policy journal by a geologist with no research history in climate science, and then giggle when he draws a false analogy between current climate data and climate data from millions of years ago, when the GHG emissions contribution from humans from transport, energy, deforestation, etc was ... nil.

    This, people, is the Environment spokesperson for the Libertarianz Party, now polling at a glorious 0.1%, lower even than Destiny NZ!

  19. Do you have an argument Eddie? Or in your world is a sneer a suitable alternative?

  20. Holocaust denial is a bit strong. Intelligent design advocate is better comparison. "The Great Global Warming Swindle" views very much like a documentary on ID. The arguments sound good - to anyone with only a small understanding of the subject of evolution, or climate change in this case. Those arguments are easily disputed by anyone with a decent level of knowledge on the subject, which is probably why they don't offer a balanced set of scientists for and against the argument.

    What I don't understand is why, as a libertarian, you can oppose the protection of property rights environmental activism advocates on this issue. In my own home, I am forced to breath the same air that industry produces, regardless of my affiliation or support for it. The effects of the increased CO2 levels currently in the atmosphere on human health is unknown, The effects it has on the climate are becoming clearer every year.

    However, regardless of this, I should have the right to at least have a say about what the contents of the air I'm breathing on my own property consists of.

  21. I love the greenies reasoning at the

    "Which isn't to say that the sun's activity does not influence the
    climate, it does. It's just that current warming is not due to variable
    activity, it's due to us releasing greenhouse gases".

    By that token we could say

    "Which isn't to say that cloud cover doesn't influence the likelihood of
    rain, it does. It just that the current rain is not due to the clouds,
    it due to releasing greenhouse gasses."

    Two negatives don't prove a positive.

  22. "You don't think that as a general rule debate about today should be informed by a knowledge of the past?"

    Of course it should, but as seems to be your want, you are trying to take my point out of context by only reading half the statement.

    So here, I'll spell it out again in big easy words, nobody argues the climate has and will change, the real debate is whether humans are having an impact on climate change.

    So to quote carbon levels at a point where the earth would have been completely hostile to human life and say 'oh look how high the carbon levels are there! nothing to see here!' seems somewhat illogical IMO (slightly out of context, lets say). As mentioned above the fact that you are 'environment' spokesperson for the libertarians, will keep this party solidly below the margin of error, your maddening simplistic views on the human impact in the environment (no doubt share by the other 'libz') could only be borne of some deep seated psychological flaw as far as I can tell. The environment is not a exercise in half arsed philosophy.

    The real shame here is that I first came across this blog I an effort to seek an alternate party in which to put my support, having become completely disgusted with other options. Initially the tags of 'freedom' & 'small government' seemed to be on the mark, but the more I dig in 'libz' reveals itself to be just another hopeless exercise in extremism and drastic oversimplification of real world issues.

    I know you all see your self as Randian super heroes struggling against the mediocrity of the world and that anything I say is not going to make any dent in your watertight internal map of the world. To me this hardly form the basis of a viable voting option.

  23. den

    Little littel man!

    Notice yer dirty weenier habit how you routinely claim to be writin on behalf of other people. Ya slipped into that weak habit and do it a lot. Waaall boyo,

    as all right thinking people know you aint representin' no-one but yerrself alone and only. Youse naked and exposed.

    Now wees got that over done wid, let's put a few things to yer.

    1/. Go read the post by the host of this here site Jus' a few days bakc he wrote, "Arbitrary and out."

    Applies to the likes of you.

    Espacially you.

    Read and learn.

    2/. "The burden of proof falls on he who calims the positive".

    denny boy, that apply on you. If yer going to be a claimin' climate religo enviro stuff be true, yer got ta prove it.

    A wee while back I reproduced the questions you need to answer. There are a list of proofs ya need to provide. Afore ya go off and start blusterin' and BSing again. Go read 'em and think fer a change.

    I'm still laughin' at ya, hollow man!


    P.S. I from a place jus' out of Colorado Springs. It be called Green Mountain Falls. It aint the south moron.

  24. "Armstrong and Green looked at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Working Group 1 report from earlier this year. This is the major source for the orthodoxy.

    They focused on chapter eight, which sets out the methodology used for the forecasts in the report. They found that the panel, despite its immense assembly of scientific talent, appeared to have no idea of how to make a reliable forecast. Although the chapter has 788 references, none relates to forecasting methodology.

    Armstrong and Green rated the methodology used by the panel against 89 principles of good forecasting derived from years of research. They found that the panel report breached 72 of those principles. They concluded that the forecasts the weather was likely to change in many negative ways were worthless." [emphasis mine.]

    This is interesting, new (to me, anyway), and damaging to the AGW supporter's arguments. It should be given wider attention.

    Jeff Perren

  25. what about "polar cities" for the future survivors of Glo war?

    google or wiki the term "polar ciites"

    scary stuff

  26. I don't really feel the need to question if mankind is causing global climate change. We probably are. But does it really matter? At some point it will simply be better to get away from fossil or carbon based fuels because the alternatives are cheaper (as we have seen, it costs a lot of money, and you have to kill so many people, to guarantee access to the fuel). Climate change is a non-issue, because it is already clear it will be in our best interest in the next 50 years to use alternatives to fossil fuels.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.