The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Quasievil]

In Relation to the c13/c12 ratios.... the science on the significance of that isn't settled yet either, as atmospheric scientist Roy Spencer points out on

http://www.TBR.cc

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/...-simple-model/

All my arguments are still valid and not proven to be otherwise

[Badjelly]

There you go, sorry for the delay I had to ask my new Friend Ian.

UN's own reports, AR4 published 2007, which says humans produce about 3.4% of the CO2 but only half remains in the atmosphere (1.7%), the rest being soaked up.

I can't find that specific figure---the AR4 is a long document. But it sounds like what I said a few posts back. The anthropogenic flux of carbon is much smaller than the flux of carbon to (and from) the biosphere every year. This is one of these FACTS that's really just a plain old ordinary, widely accepted fact.

In Relation to the c13/c12 ratios.... the science on the significance of that isn't settled yet either, as atmospheric scientist Roy Spencer points out on

http://www.TBR.cc

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/...-simple-model/

The URLs you've given point to a page which does a bit of curve fitting on seaonal CO2 variation in the Northern Hemisphere. It's bollocks, frankly. He's fitted a curve to something and he thinks this proves something. Just the sort of model-wanking that a true sceptic would reject out of hand. He points out that the seasonal variation in CO2 in the northern hemisphere lags the SST, so he says it's driven by the SST, completely ignoring the seasonal variation in photosynthesis. Guess what? In the Southern Hemisphere the SST varies seasonally too, but the seasonal variation in CO2 is much smaller.

Anyway, this has got nothing to do with the trend in CO2, or if it does he hasn't shown why.

But he does mention C13 and says that "a C13 change is not a unique signature of [a] fossil fuel source". True, it could also indicate a plant source--I've mentioned this before. But there's also the change in C14 and oxygen and the biggie: why now and not for (at least) the last 800,000 years?

In the paragraph where he mentions C13 he links to another page...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/...%A6or-natural/

...with more analysis on C13 and CO2 changes. He shows, as far as I can see, that CO2 and C13 vary seasonally and interannually in ways that aren't completely determined by human input. Well, duh. Of course they do.

In this post, and in a follow-up here...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/2...isotope-ratio/

...Spencer does some manipulation of the data on dCO2/dt (rate of change of atmspheric CO2). He slices and dices it and and at the end of the follow-up he says

Significantly, note that the ratio of C13 variability to CO2 variability is EXACTLY THE SAME as that seen in the trends!

That's actually a glaring blunder, that's documented here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/...ag-of-hammers/

He's claimed it's significant that two things are EXACTLY THE SAME when his analysis has forced them to be exactly the same. Hmmm, that's a bit embarrassing.

But anyway, when he writes all this up in a scientific paper, he can document his analysis thoroughly and say exactly what he thinks it means, instead of hand-waving, then other scientists can comment on it. Until then, you might want to be a wee bit sceptical about it.

Be careful in your choice of friends.

[Quasievil]

The URLs you've given point to a page which does a bit of curve fitting on seaonal CO2 variation in the Northern Hemisphere. It's bollocks, frankly.

bollocks? here is his credentials

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

Dr. Spencer’s first popular book on global warming, Climate Confusion (Encounter Books), is now available at Amazon.com and BarnesAndNoble.com.

[Badjelly]

bollocks? here is his credentials

Yes, bollocks.

[Pixie]

You smell like dead bunnies

[Quasievil]

Yes, bollocks.

Then in that case the debate is over, as a qualified opinion is not even given a consideration, even when coming from a noted scientist who possibly holds a higher qualification that any Pro Taxation to save the world attendees thus far.

[Badjelly]

Yes, bollocks.

Then in that case the debate is over, as a qualified opinion is not even given a consideration...

Roy Spencer has more impressive credentials than me, and has done some decent work in the past(*), but what he wrote in those pages is still bollocks. I have given it consideration, as have others, and concluded it is bollocks, and I have told you why.

(*) The past work that I'm aware of is on tropospheric temperature trends, with John Christy.

[Winston001]

In Relation to the c13/c12 ratios.... the science on the significance of that isn't settled yet either, as atmospheric scientist Roy Spencer points out on

http://www.TBR.cc

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/...-simple-model/

All my arguments are still valid and not proven to be otherwise

Good links Quasi and I'm trying to get my head around the isotope article. I'll give Spencer his due as a scientist, his discussion is unemotive and he is open to other views. My main reservation is he is only able to use very recent data and the time frame for analysis is too small. Not his fault, our technology to read isotopes etc is very new. Ideally we'd have at least 300 years and preferably 1000 years of data.

[Quasievil]

My thoughts and investigation is now at a close I understand this Carbon emissions and global warming are not solely mankinds doing and the whole circus about the ETS and Copenhagen agreements for the purpose of getting our money is a SCAM

I listened to Gareth Morgen and Ian Wishart debate the SCAM yesterday on Newstalk ZB, they obviously discussed this and that like we have here but they both agreed on one thing (one fact) the ETS and the Taxing in relation to Carbon emissions is stupid and will achieve nothing, it is infact a scam!

With that in mind I am satisfied with my learnings thanks for the great debate

[Winston001]

.... the whole circus about the ETS and Copenhagen agreements for the purpose of getting our money is a SCAM

I listened to Gareth Morgen and Ian Wishart debate ..... they both agreed on one thing (one fact) the ETS and the Taxing in relation to Carbon emissions is stupid and will achieve nothing, it is fact a scam!

Scam - A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle

No disrespect Quasi, good on you for thinking about this stuff.

Your theory is that somehow 1500 scientists (IPCC), plus thousands of other scientists, prime ministers and their governments, have all been simultaneously duped into believing that controlling carbon emissions is a good thing?

And they have been duped by........whom? And these mysterious scammer/s have somehow convinced all of these disparate people in many different countries because.....? They somehow thought up a scheme to trade carbon credits so they could make money as the middlemen? And no-one - not a secretary, personal assistant, IT tech, disregarded wife has broken the scammers cover?

Well ok, but its got to be the biggest most successful con in the history of the planet. :tui:

[Quasievil]

Scam - A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle

No disrespect Quasi, good on you for thinking about this stuff.

Your theory is that somehow 1500 scientists (IPCC), plus thousands of other scientists, prime ministers and their governments, have all been simultaneously duped into believing that controlling carbon emissions is a good thing?

And they have been duped by........whom? And these mysterious scammer/s have somehow convinced all of these disparate people in many different countries because.....? They somehow thought up a scheme to trade carbon credits so they could make money as the middlemen? And no-one - not a secretary, personal assistant, IT tech, disregarded wife has broken the scammers cover?

Well ok, but its got to be the biggest most successful con in the history of the planet. :tui:

You can pay the money mate, Im going to stand up and tell where to go.

Where is the money going, why is it about money? the science aint settled period, thats a fact.

Money to governments = problems solved (insert my Tui moment here)

Con, swindle, con, collective manipulation call it what you like.

When both of the pro and anti parties get together and agree with me Im satisfied with my conclusion.

[Badjelly]

The great success of the deniers has been to get many people to accept 2 propositions:

• There is a two-sided debate going on
• We don't know everything, so we don't know anything

[Finn]

I just wish that it would hurry up and warm up. NZ is just a few degrees too cold and tourism would boom if it was as warm as say Fiji. Also, it would put an end to all those Central Otago farmers having a whinge about this time of year.

[Quasievil]

The great success of the deniers has been to get many people to accept 2 propositions:

• There is a two-sided debate going on
• We don't know everything, so we don't know anything

I think that is the success of both sides actually, but a fact remains with a complete lack of settled knowledge its seems many Pro global warming theorists are quite happy for the Tax scam to take effect and advocate it in their agendas both in a direct and a indirect method

[davereid]

I just wish that it would hurry up and warm up. NZ is just a few degrees too cold and tourism would boom if it was as warm as say Fiji. Also, it would put an end to all those Central Otago farmers having a whinge about this time of year.

I'm with FINN.

If global warming is happening, it will be great.

The Romans used to grow grapes in York, cos it was 5-6 degrees warmer then than it is now.

I'll be able to home-brew all year without a heater, and can sell me heated handle bar system to a russian.