DCC plans for climate change

Nicola Johnston
Nicola Johnston
The Dunedin City Council is set to spend the next three years developing a wide-ranging response to the problem of climate change, after some alarming warnings about what the future holds.

The response will include a major study on the future of South Dunedin, and four other ''hot spots'' identified as the most vulnerable areas of the city.

The climate change adaptation project plan, to be implemented over three years at a cost of $67,500 a year, was approved at a finance, strategy and development committee meeting in late November.

Corporate policy team manager Nicola Johnston said staff would begin gathering information for the South Dunedin study early this year.

One of her first jobs after the Christmas break was to recruit a dedicated sustainability adviser, though she emphasised that meant ''redefining'' an existing role rather than adding to staff numbers.

The adaptation project plan's genesis was a report in April by University of Otago emeritus professor of geography Blair Fitzharris that made it clear the city faced some stark choices by the end of the century, with sea-level rise expected to cause serious problems in South Dunedin, St Kilda and St Clair.
The area was identified as one of five hot spots.

The others were the lower Taieri Plain, including Dunedin International Airport; populated estuaries along the coast; the ecosystems of upland conservation regions; and the harbourside shoreline, including the entrance to Otago Harbour.

A recent report on the issue by Ms Johnston said completing the studies on the hot spots would enable the council to understand what methods could be used to adapt to the changes, and the costs and impacts.

With input from the community, options for each area would be developed, as would an implementation plan.

''The work areas are getting larger, and the need to plan for the future is fundamental to the work of the council,'' Ms Johnston said.

The plan included eight actions to be taken by a group of 14 staff from across the council's departments.

Of the five hot spots, South Dunedin was the highest priority because of already high and rising groundwater levels, and modelling that predicted ponding of water within 20 years in parts of South Dunedin.

''Of all the hot spots identified, the possible impacts on South Dunedin affect by far the most residents, businesses and critical infrastructure.''

The South Dunedin study would assess the risks and scenarios and present engineering solutions, mitigation methods and costings, as well as a social impact assessment.

''That programme is a key piece of work [this] year,'' Ms Johnston said.
Ms Johnston said feedback from the community made it clear residents wanted the council to take a leadership role on the problems of climate change and peak oil.

The community would be involved, as the council was aware there was plenty of expertise and passion in the community.

''We should be harnessing that.''

That community input will, in part, be channelled through Cr Jinty MacTavish's community resilience forum, which has replaced the council's sustainability panel.

Cr MacTavish said the panel would be more ''outcome focused'' than it was.
It would be able to provide expert advice, and identify issues and topics that needed action.

This year, the group might focus on key areas such as transport, energy and food security, identify what the situation was, and what was known from the reports and from community expertise.

''Then we'll explore the alternatives, what other councils are doing, how we might do things better.''

A briefing of potential members would be held in early February and the panel would be put together later in the month, with members from organisations including Sustainable Dunedin, the Waitati energy project and tertiary institutions.

- david.loughrey@odt.co.nz

This thread is now closed

This thread is now closed - Editor

No problem

No problem here.

For a starter, I didn't admit to seeing only one paper, I implied that only one paper had made any sort of impression.

Secondly, reviewing the PDFs and bookmarks I have on my laptop, it becomes abundantly clear to me that the arguments are the same as in the Russian paper, and the oversights by the authors appear to be much the same as well.

All of the arguments that I have seen - and I'm not just referring to the russian paper here, which I chose as the freshest in my mind, boil down to one of two groups "We don't like the way the data was adjusted" or "We don't like the data that was included/excluded".

Not one single paper, among the ones that I have seen appears to actually stop and examine why data was included/excluded/anomalously adjusted it they simply point at the difference between the results and say "This difference, or that difference exists, adjusting the data this way or that way reduces the warming trend, therefore they're faking it to exaggerate the problem."

This statement "New Zealand is in fact one of the worst offenders" is over exaggerated hype - do you even know what the Cliflo website is?  Here's a clue - the debate wasn't over what's in the CliFlo database, and your own link supports that, it was the '7 stations' data set that was in question.

[Abridged]

800 Peer-reviewed anti-warmist papers

Rob Fischer & Mike Palin: about the list of 800 peer-reviewed anti-warmist papers, you say these are mostly not peer-reviewed scientific papers. In my opinion have made some errors, so let us re-examine your list of the first ten:

2, 3, 6 & 7 - These are addendum, responses, corrections etc and are NOT INCLUDED in the list of 800 papers. These are written in italics and begin with a -dash (as stated in the preamble).
1 & 9 - Two papers published in Energy and Environment. About 130 of the 800 papers are published by E & E which is considered to be a peer-reviewed journal. It is rated as such by EBSCO and perhaps even by Scopus. You say how Scopus defines "Trade Journal", but you don't show that they currently classify E & E this way. Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) lists E & E as peer reviewed. Even Phil Jones thinks it is probably a peer-reviewed journal - CRU email- 1188478901.
4 - "A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming": this is not an abstract of a conference paper. It was published in "Environmental Geosciences" which is a peer-reviewed publication.
5 - Rob Fischer agrees that this is a peer-reviewed paper.
8 - "A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate (1994)". You may disagree with New Zealand Geographer, but this is a peer-reviewed publication and they published it.
10 - "A dissenting view on global climate change (1993)": Rob says "The Electricity Journal" is a "Trade Journal" but ProQuest rates this as a peer-reviewed/scholarly publication.

To me it looks like all, or nearly all of the 800 papers are valid peer-reviewed papers. The list has now grown to 850 papers.

[Abridged]

There are more minds...

...than are contained within elitist institutions.

In my opinions your viewpoint excludes anyone who is not affiliated with an academic institution and excludes the possibility of intelligence outwith those institutions.

Your viewpoint assumes that anyone who does not have a degree, doctorate and academic tenure does not have qualifications to critically read and understand.

The Internet stands at odds to your viewpoint.  The open source movement stands at odds to your viewpoint.  Even efforts like Wikipedia stand at odds to your viewpoint.

People are not stupid; they are able in many cases to form their own views and read critically.  Many of those in the "contrarian blogosphere" ARE qualified, as statisticians, analysts and so on.  They ARE capable of analysing the data in the correct manner. 

If those proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are so sure of their facts, how come they keep making so many basic mistakes?

Are you really saying that nobody can comment or replicate scientific work and unless they publish their work in a recognised journal, then that work is worthless?  You are kidding, right?  You know what the rejection rates are for the high-impact journals. 

 

I'll scream if I like

Mike, I agree that the energy can only be lost to space by radiation. But it is also true that the energy is transferred from the earth/oceans by the convection/conduction loop to the upper atmosphere. It is also true that the energy absorbed from the sun by the earth/oceans is radiated 'sensible' heat, while the energy transferred from the earth/oceans to the upper atmosphere by the convection/conduction loop is both 'sensible' and 'latent heat'.
As an aside on the "Closeup" TV show last night an IPCC spokesman in Melbourne said the Australian floods were caused by global warming brought about by 'greenhouse gases' causing extreme temperatures. I was astounded, because those floods are a product of the current 'La Nina' event. This is a result of the cyclical upwelling of the 'Thermocline' (cold water) along the Sth American coast. This drives the Pacific warm water westward towards Australia. These 'La Nina' events are quite frequent and bring increased rainfall whilst the opposite brings droughts.
[Abridged]

Assumptions and accuracy

You seem to be making a number of assumptions about what I'm saying, versus what I'm actually saying.

To address your comments:

- Science has moved ahead since the 1900's
It certainly has, but to make this comment is bordering on dishonest and misleading - as I was fairly sure I made clear, the point of addressing the history was to illustrate that all of 'this' came about well before Al Gore, so to attribute it to him is simply wrong.

- Firstly, CO2 levels have reached incredibly higher values in the past compared to current levels (around 384ppm now). In fact it is estimated that CO2 values in the late Ordovician period, around 440 million years ago, reached 5000ppm.

This is simply a distraction that people opposed to AGW like to raise. They also generally seem to fail to understand the uncertainty in the measurements is such that during the entire period mentioned above, the levels of CO2 may never have gotten above about 3000ppm.

- Now, I wonder if it was all those four wheel drives and factories that the dinosaurs used to operate that caused that? Imagine how hot it must have been then, huh?
An absurd claim made by opponents of AGW. There seems to be this perception that if the modern rise in CO2 is caused by humans, then all rises in CO2 must because by similar activities.

- However, either way it has been long known that CO2 does not cause any significant increase in the earth's temperature, in fact many of the scientists leading the GW scam now all but admit that, and now use the line that CO2 is not the only, or possibly even the main cause of man made warming.
Again, here you're quite simply wrong, for example:
Hansen etal 1984:
The time required to reach an effective doubling of atmospheric CO is reduced by trace gases such as methane and the chlorofluorocarbons, which have begun to increase at substantial rates during the past two decades. The contribution of trace gases to the atmospheric greenhouse effect is now comparable to that of CO2. If current trends of atmospheric composition continue, effective doubling of CO2 will occur in several decades.

[Abridged]

So there lies the problem?

You admit you have only "seen one paper" that looks at the purposeful 'adjusting' of raw data.

I have seen numerous studies that show completely different results between raw temperature data, and that published by the IPCC and its cohorts.

New Zealand is in fact one of the worst offenders, and made international headlines last year when a report was put forward proposing NZ had a dramatic warming trend, when the actual raw data showed no such thing. See this link

I suggest, 'Trippy', you read more than "one paper" that uncovers the GW Scam.  Even the IPCC members are starting to question themselves.  

 

800 peer-reviewed anti-warmist papers

Rob Fischer & Mike Palin: about the <a href="http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-
reviewed-papers-supporting.html">list of 800 peer-reviewed anti-warmist papers</a>, you say these are mostly not peer-reviewed scientific papers. You have made some errors, so let us re-examine your list of the first ten:

2, 3, 6 & 7 - These are addendum, responses, corrections etc and are NOT INCLUDED in the list of 800 papers. These are written in <cite>italics</cite> and begin with a -dash as stated in the preamble.
1 & 9 - Two papers published in Energy and Environment. About 130 of the 800 papers are published by E & E which is considered to be a peer-reviewed journal. It is rated as such by EBSCO and perhaps even by Scopus. You say how Scopus defines "Trade Journal", but you don't show that they currently classify E & E this way. Wikipedia has dead links and a subscription is needed to check this. Elsevier (parent company of Scopus) lists E & E as peer reviewed. Also the classification of "Trade Journal" by Scopus doesn't necessarily prevent a publication from being rated peer-reviewed. Even your hero Phil Jones thinks it is probably a peer-reviewed journal <a href="http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?
eid=811&filename=1188478901.txt">CRU email- 1188478901</a>.
4 - <cite>"A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming"</cite>: this is not an abstract of a conference paper. Although Mr Balling did some seminars by this name, the list clearly shows that his paper was published in "Environmental Geosciences" which is a peer-reviewed publication.
5 - Rob Fischer agrees that this is a peer-reviewed paper.
8 - <cite>"A Critical Appraisal of the Global Warming Debate (1994)"</cite>: You may disagree with New Zealand Geographer, but this is a peer-reviewed publication and they published it.
10 - Rob says this is a "Trade Journal" but <a href="http://www.proquest.com/tls/jsp/list/ListHTML.jsp?start=3000&productID=770&productName=ProQuest+5000+International&IDString=343+422+182+180+181+8+224+347+567+348+445+223+602+604+350&format=formatHTML&all=all">ProQuest</a> rates this as a peer-reviewed/scholarly publication. Mike Palin makes the point that this and 2 other publications specialize in unrelated fields. Without any evidence to the contrary I can only assume that because these are reputable publications, they would have ensured that the reviewers of these articles were chosen to have the appropriate level of expertise in the field of climate.

Mike Palin said some papers should not be on the list of 800 because they did not oppose the Global Warming Theory. Mike chose <a href="http://www.es.ucsc.edu/%7Ejzachos/pubs/Zeebe_etal_ngeo578.pdf">this paper (PDF)</a> as an example. It says the Global Warming Climate Model doesn't work, but Mike (see below) has carefully re-interpreted the conclusions. Compare Mike's version with the final 2 sentences of the actual paper: "<cite>Nevertheless, our results imply a fundamental gap in our understanding of the amplitude of global warming associated with large and abrupt climate perturbations. This gap needs to be filled to confidently predict future climate change.</cite>

To me it looks like all, or nearly all of the 800 papers are valid peer-reviewed papers. The list has now grown to 850 papers.

Science without peer-review is worthless

farsighted-

Do you go to doctors who don't have medical licenses?  Do you let anyone work on your electrical and plumbing?  If you do, then it is only a bit of luck between you and a systems failure.

Scientific research is done by scientists and the only findings worth their weight are those that have been peer-reviewed and published so that other researchers can repeat them and, if necessary, contest them.  The forum for doing this is through peer-review and publication.  That is simply how science is done in the modern world.

But you're not talking science

GW-

I'm an active researcher in geology and can verify that you have no idea what you are talking about.  Yes the Ordovician had higher atmospheric CO2 and it had some glacial periods.  It also had no land plants and a much different configuration of the continents.  Oh, and slightly dimmer sun.  You can read an excellent account of how these factors all make sense - based on peer-reviewed research - at www.skepticalscience.com.  Look up argument 46: "CO2 was higher in the past."  Along the way, you may find answers to some of the other misinformation you have been spewing.

In space, no one can hear you scream

Calvin-

I can see you have thought about this a fair amount, but you need to go a wee bit further.  Now, what is the best insulator to conductive or convective heat loss?  If you said a vacuum, you'd be correct.  Now what is space?  Whoops!  That's right, it's a vacuum.  So Earth can't loose energy to space by conduction or convection of heat as you propose.  Energy can only be transmitted across the vacuum of space by electromagnetic radiation.

Specifically, Earth receives a spectrum of radiation from the sun based on the temperature of its outer glowing bits (hot, but not nearly as hot as its interior where the nuclear reaction take place).  This has a peak wavelength in the yellow part of the visible spectrum (yes, that's why it is visible to evolved animals such as ourselves).  As this radiation is transmitted through the atmosphere, some of it is reflected back into space and some of it is absorbed by certain molecules (mainly H2O, O3, O2). The remaining incoming solar radiation - only about half of what was originally received - gets absorbed by Earth's surface.

The heated surface re-radiates energy, but of a much longer wavelength because it is much, much cooler than the sun.  This radiation has a peak in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  The same thing happens to some of the absorbed radiation in the atmosphere, but, and very importantly, this energy can re-radiate in all directions.  Some of it is re-radiated up and eventually out into space, and some of it is re-radiated downward - adding to the heating of the surface.  In this way, some of the "re-radiated" infrared radiation gets "trapped" through preferential absorption by H2O and CO2 in the atmosphere - the so-called "greenhouse" gases.

Earth tends toward a balance between the radiative energy it receives from the sun and the energy it re-radiates out into space.  (Yes, there is a small bit of energy produced inside Earth, but this is thousands of times smaller than the amount of incoming solar energy.)  On short time scales, this balance is achieved by an increase or decrease in surface temperature which shifts the wavelength of the re-radiation so more or less of it gets past the absorption filter of the various greenhouse gases. On longer time scales, atmospheric CO2 composition adjusts through feedbacks involving slow geologic processes of rock weathering, carbon burial and volcanic degassing. Humans are messing with this balance by emitting geologically huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere by burning hundreds of millions of years worth of coal, oil and gas over a few decades.  The atmosphere is responding by trapping more re-radiated infrared energy and warming to restore the radiative energy balance as it has in the past, but this time more rapidly than ever before.

'Your' facts

This is in reponse to GW_Scam's post:
You are joking aren't you?

Many others have and have found it to be inaccurate and not a true reflection of the raw data. Always in favour of warming, of course, yet the raw data either showed no warming, or in fact cooling. You haven't answered any of my questions. Why do they not include rural stations, why do they not include stations showing cooling trends... etc?

So far I believe I have seen one paper that looks at this seriously, it was published by a consortium that has a vested interest in opposing the currently proposed 'solutions' to AGW. The consortium that published the paper did so in a journal of economics, and are publicly open about having a free trade agenda, which puts them in opposition to redistribution of wealth, and increased taxes.
Incidentally, I have the original paper, in Russian, and have reviewed it. In every single case that they raised, the data that was being suggested as a substitute for any given cell had a higher degree of noise, and less meaningful trends - positive or negative.

You also have not answered why does the lead scientist of the scam (Phil Jones), even admit himself there has been NO significant warming?
Actually, that's not what he said - what he actually said was this:
Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

So there is a trend in the data since 1995, it is positive, but it just barely falls short of reaching significance at the 95% level, and the lack of statistical significance may simply be the result of a small data set.

[Abridged]

Peer-review is no joke

GW-
Hello, that's why we have peer-review of scientific findings. Read what ab67 says above (Do you understand peer review?). I'll stand by what I said about peer-reviewed global temperature compilations. Your questions are irrelevant.


As to your scurrilous attack on Phil Jones, you are taking his comments out of their proper context. If you don't know this, then you are ignorant of the facts. His complete answer explained that the period of time was too short for the observed warming trend to be statistically significant, but only barely.


Any reply you give to this comment will be too thin to bother answering - now that's a joke.

Peer-review is essential

Hi Calvin-
Peer-review is an essential step in a sequence by which the results of research undergo quality control. It is a necessary test that must be passed before findings can be published. After publication, findings undergo further scrutiny and subsequent research determines whether they are accepted or rejected by the scientific community. So-called "contra arguments" that are never submitted to, and hence cannot pass the test of, peer-review are simply not worth acknowledging. They are effectively cowards who run away long before the battle even begins.

I understand it

Peer reviewed scientific publications are a means of ensuring that acceptable standards are maintained i.e. the writing is understandable and the sums are OK.
It isn't the end-point.
And peer review publication does not equate with science.
Science was performed long before the peer-reviewed journals came along. It is still possible to do science without publishing a peer reviewed article.
A peer reviewed publication is the starting point - for replication of the results and for questions to be asked arising from the results. Not the end point.

Sure, look to the literature for the current level of understanding and for some answers. But it is natural and indeed encouraged to question results that do not seem consistent with reality, particularly if they cannot be reproduced.

Science is independent of publication.
Answer this: if a peer-reviewed publication can be overturned by subsequent work, or even retracted in the case of serious error, why is it not valid for the work to be questioned or discussed with reference to other observations? Why must comments from the "contrarian blogosphere" be automatically considered invalid.

[Abridged]

What of the latent heat?

ab67; you say that the warming of the oceans puts more vapour in the atmosphere, and so more rain and snow is dumped everywhere. True. But what of the tremendous amount of heat transferred to space in the process. It is classic 'Carnot's Cycle'. It only takes one BTU of energy to change one pound of water through one degree fahrenheit. But it takes 288 BTUs to convert one pound of water to vapour. That vapour rises up in the atmosphere to where it meets sufficiently cold air to condense back to water, thus releasing the 288 BTUs which rise and largely dissipate into space. If in the case of it falling as snow there is an additional 144 BTUs removed to freeze into snow. this is also lost to space. So it could be argued that, as the ocean increases in temperature so is the amount of heat transferred increased. A balancing factor you would agree.
Further, as the vapour increases in the atmosphere so too is the reflective value of clouds increased, thus reducing the energy arriving from the Sun. Again a balancing factor. It could quite well be that the claimed loss of reflection value lost by ice depletion is offset by the increase in cloud area. This is the sort of activity which drives climate much more than CO2 content, I believe. In essence, the greater the input of energy from the Sun the greater the impact on climate. Historical records would tend to corroborate that line of reasoning don't you think? This important function of 'Latent Heat' is, I believe a seriously ignored factor by the AGW advocates.

Whoops again

So, if you do admit that "peer-reviewed research does not always turn out to be correct," how then can you dismiss every contra argument as being invalid if not peer-reviewed? And by the way, how about the MWP and LIA both of which have been extensively peer-reviewed, correct or not?

Science has moved ahead since the 1900's

Again, your statements are somewhat bizarre Trippy, but I will humour you with a reply in the interest of trying to inject some common sense into the debate.
Firstly, CO2 levels have reached incredibly higher values in the past compared to current levels (around 384ppm now). In fact it is estimated that CO2 values in the late Ordovician period, around 440 million years ago, reached 5000ppm. Now, I wonder if it was all those four wheel drives and factories that the dinosaurs used to operate that caused that? Imagine how hot it must have been then, huh?

However, either way it has been long known that CO2 does not cause any significant increase in the earth's temperature, in fact many of the scientists leading the GW scam now all but admit that, and now use the line that CO2 is not the only, or possibly even the main cause of man made warming. See this link

Peer reviewed research, correct[ed]

Mike Palin seems to be saying two contradictory things here: "Peer-reviewed research does always turn out to be correct" and "In fact, it is often revised or overturned by subsequent peer-reviewed research." Does this not mean that peer-reviewed research is often incorrect UNTIL it has been peer-reviewed again then revised or overturned? Does the original peer-reviewed research publication contain the information we should believe and act upon, or should we wait for the the first revision, or the one after that? Please provide the clues to enable the rest of us, Calvin included, to accurately pick when peer-reviewed research is worth taking seriously, because the idea of total reliance on the accuracy of peer-review Mk1, Mk2, Mk3 etc is making my brain hurt.

Editor - Mike Palin has subsequently corrected his comment to say: "Peer-reviewed research does not always turn out to be correct."

You are joking aren't you?

It is hard to decide whether to laugh or cry at your statement that "Temperature data used in peer-reviewed global compilations has never been misadjusted".
Have you examined every piece of it? Many others have and have found it to be inaccurate and not a true reflection of the raw data. Always in favour of warming, of course, yet the raw data either showed no warming, or in fact cooling. You haven't answered any of my questions. Why do they not include rural stations, why do they not include stations showing cooling trends... etc?
You also have not answered why does the lead scientist of the scam (Phil Jones), even admit himself there has been NO significant warming?
You are correct in that the IPCC does not directly fund research on global warming, however, it is responsible for publishing reports on so called warming due to human activity. Without the existence of the IPCC, the whole industry, which is what it is - not a science, would collapse within months.

[Abridged]

Whoops

The first sentence of my second paragraph should have read, "Peer-reviewed research does not always turn out to be correct." My bad.

Been around longer than that

Mike: Nothing fast about me. But why do you never answer except where it suits? Do you acknowledge the MWP and the LIA, and their effects or not?
Also, would you care to rephrase the last paragraph? It seems a mite paradoxical to me. If peer-reviewed research always turns out to be correct, how can it be overturned by subsequent peer-reviewed research? Therein might well lie your problem and the whole AGW dilemma.

Editor - Mike Palin has subsequently corrected his comment.

Pointless semantics point-scoring

Amongst all of the would-be point-scoring it seems to me there is only one vital issue; Namely, that, with time still largely on our-side, we would be foolish not to take prudent measures as assurances against the 'global warming' argument having the substance claimed for it.

Do you understand peer review?

Peer review is about experts knowledgeable in a given field looking at scientific data produced by a researcher in that field, reviewing the question asked in the research, the manner of data collection, whether the method addresses the question, whether there are any shortcomings, whether the data has been accumulated in a statistically accurate manner without introduction of the various types of bias, and whether there a statistically significant finding. If all of that is kosher, they then review whether the author(s) draw(s) reasonable conclusions (should not be faulty, should not exaggerate, should not overreach while talking of its significance). Those are the things peer review does
peer review is not about "hey buddy, I like what you write, I agree with you".
This is the reason it is not okay to disagree with expert-reviewed scientific articles (simply because you think otherwise or it makes a mess of your interpretation of the teachings of your faith). Unless you have more compelling data to the contrary, which you can get peer reviewed and published, it is not okay.

global warming debate

Having a cold winter or three or ten does not mean global warming is not occurring. Global warming is GLOBAL. The AVERAGE temperature of the GLOBE as a whole is going up. 70-something percent of the earth's surface is seawater and that IS getting warmer on average. This puts more vapour in the atmosphere, and so more rain and snow is dumped everywhere, on average, including land (by on average, that would include the few places that would have reduced rainfall contrary to the global trend).
That the frequency of the worst storms in the Gulf of Mexico has gone up drastically in the last decade. Just a 1.5 degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature puts incredibly larger amounts of water in the clouds......
(Hurricane Katrina and its companions)
There is an explanation if only all the climate change deniers choose to look. In the general scheme of things, yes, it is foolish to agree with 800 papers and disagree with the millions that concur on warming.
What would your response be if the DCC were to ignore the millions of documents that support usage of steel and concrete in construction and they chose to use adobe clay to construct the stadium, and they had 800 peer reviewed documents to quote?
Exactly.

Who's decent?

GW, You are suffering under a wide variety of misconceptions. The IPCC does not fund scientific research. Temperature data used in peer-reviewed global compilations has never been misadjusted. And, finally, I consider myself to be a perfectly decent scientist. If you disagree, then please be honest and don't hide behind a username to say so.

Missed point.

In response to "One of the warmest on record?" by GW_Scam:
Apparently you missed one of the points in my recent post.
Allow me to restate it, perhaps more succinctly this time.
You say "...one of the first things you are taught is 'correlation does not imply causation'..."
This, however, completely misses the point that I made - Climate change science does not merely hinge on an observed correlation.
A causal mechanism also exist.
Do you understand that?
The predictions that lead climate change scientests to believe that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will inevitably lead to some degree of climate change falls out of physics that was first stated in 1660 - Hooke's Law. The very same physics that governs the way your car bounces along a gravel road.
It falls out of Hooke's Law, the Beer-Lambert law, the Stefan Boltzman Law, and Simple Harmonic Motion.
That doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could cause a temperature increase of 5-6°C was predicted by Svante Arrhenius, who revised this down to 1.6°C in 1906 (2.1°C including water vapour feedback).
But then again, hey, if we're going to ignore High School Physics anyway, I suppose it's at least plausable that Al Gore somehow found away to travel backwards in time and influence someone who died 20 years before he was born, and cause them to make predictions 50 years before he was born - maybe he even had a hand in Hooke's Law.

Been around that long?

Now, now Calvin. Don't try to pull a fast one on me. I knew you had been around for a while, but all the way back to medieval times? Little ice age maybe, but medieval times? No way.

Peer-reviewed research does always turn out to be correct. In fact, it is often revised or overturned by subsequent peer-reviewed research. That's how science works and that's why I don't accept findings and opinions that have not been peer-reviewed - such as yours.

Get what facts straight?

No Mike we didn't miss the northern hemisphere summer, bush fires in Russia etc. Did you miss the mediaeval warming period? No, we did not miss the record snowfalls in North America and Europe this winter. Did you miss the 'little ice age'? Peer reviewed science is just that.What makes the peer reviewers views sacrosanct? Do you always take peer reviewed papers as correct, or do you reserve the right to peer review the peer reviews?

Mistaken list

JJ-
I simply pointed out that the list you linked to was not what it was purported to be. It included many items that were either not original research, not peer-reviewed, not in journals accepted by reputable citation databases, or misrepresented as being skeptical of the mainstream view on AGW when they were not. You have now verified this. Why would the person who constructed the list do such a thing? More importantly, why would you continue to spread such misinformation now knowing this to be the case?
Science doesn't work by consensus, but, if scientists working in an area of research happen to reach a consensus, should it be rejected? That seems a bit counter-productive to me.
See my response to "farsighted" below. I put the two of you in the same boat when it comes to these exchanges.

ODT/directory - Local Businesses

CompanyLocationBusiness Type
Postie+BalcluthaClothing
Fenwick Primary SchoolOamaruSchools
Procare ServicesDunedinHome & Garden Maintenance
dal Vivo Hair StudioDunedinHairdressers