An on-camera argument between skeptic and warmist hosts on a popular Aussie breakfast show later turned into a proper debate when they agreed to each bring an expert along:
Lots of kudos to a breakfast show for showing global warming is still an active debate. Maybe the news people could take a lesson?
Watch to the end, the phone poll is a riot. Thanks to Keith for the tip.
[ad#insert-large]
The ignorance displayed especially by Associate Professor Mark Diesendorf is equally stunning as the EPA ignorance displayed by Lisa Jackson.
He states,
1) Earth’s temperature over the last 150 years….Note how he corrects himself from “steady” to “average warming” over the time period from the start of the industrial revolution to the present – what you might call a “cherry pip”…
Average over 100 years, 50 years, 20 years, increasing rate of warming – there was a 30 odd year phrase of cooling straddling the 100 and 50 year time scales he mentions, which is wholly absent in the last 25 years.
You need a lot of cherries for a cherry pie this big (AGW), but boy is he picking them..
We live in an interglacial period called the Holocene, which is about 11,500 years old now,
over this time period the earth has been cooling overall, there is no question at all about that.
150 years is cherry picking that’s all, as is the 100, 50 and 25 year time scale averages he has also “picked”..
2) Assoc. Prof Diesendorf jumps straight to computer climate models – these are not evidence, they are models.
” We know the natural effects ” No, we do not, not as implied, we do not know the full extent of any natural effects, let alone the physics.
“Well beyond astronomical effects” – They are not fully known, understood, or quantified, this is “flannel” at absolute best.
“Now we are seeing really abnormal growth in average global temperature”. By what measure???? Not by past natural variability, this is just flat WRONG. What is the global temperature he refers to???, is it the near surface air temperature, or that measured from space of the planet as a whole? Which no one apparently does actually..
Earth’s temperature is the temperature the object earth is, as measured from space, that is the real measure, it is about minus 18 degrees Celsius, it is not even remotely near the near surface temperatures he refers to.
Has it changed, if so, is it warmer or cooler, over what time period.
There is gross simplification and then there is deliberately misleading spin, near surface air temperatures, measured by varying numbers of stations, of various quality, selectively included and excluded, is what???????? Simplification, or deliberately misleading spin.?
“and, it can not be explained by natural effects” – The very same effects that are not fully known, understood, or quantified, either at a moment in time, or how they vary and interact and why over time. I repeat, simplification, or deliberately misleading spin.?
Note how no one questions the actual principles of AGW, which does not seem to stand up, even if you “accept” “the principles” and “the physics”, and therefore “the modeling” of AGW…
The biggest giggle for me was how the question that we did not see any global warming between 1945 to 1975 when CO2 was (rapidly) increasing,
was completely dodged and funding of sceptics was preferred to be discussed thusly,…
Prof Diesendorf ” The Pentagon who are funding anyone who opposes taking any action on climate change “,
and,
” the oil industry, the coal industry, aluminum, forestry ”
Amazing, complete rubbish, but amusing all the same.
If “we” are going to talk about who funds which side of the climate change debate then this link may well be useful…
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/43291#note11
The EU Connection in Climate Research
by John Rosenthal
Millions of euros come with an agenda
The US (yes, even the politicians) seems to be catching on, in regards of who, whether knowingly or not,
is actually funding the AGW “consensus” side of the “climate science debates”.
http://www.climatedepot.com/r/9853/Another-victory-for-science-House-votes-244179-to-kill-US-funding-of-UN-IPCC-It-no-longer-wishes-to-have-the-IPCC-prepare-its-comprehensive-international-climate-science-assessments
House votes 244-179 to kill U.S. funding of IPCC
If “funding” is to be discussed, they really should get their facts straight, sceptics are as a whole NOT FUNDED,
AGW is funded, alost wholly by Governments, with our taxes, without our permission, in something “we” do not believe in,
well, apparently 74% DO NOT BELIEVE..
Talking of public global warming “discussions”, the EPA did not do too well in this exchange.
In fact the level of ignorance is stunning, it is beyond that actually, it is unbelievable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ2weFQTA6E
Goose52 first posted about it, with a wonderful under exageration as follows,
” Rep. John Shimkus questions Lisa Jackson. It really gets good around three minutes in. Enjoy. ”
Enjoy it you will, I have no doubt…
I have sort of paraphrased a small bit of the above like this,
on this thread at the GWS forum.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-1129.html
Congressman Shimkus -
“What percentage of the GHGs in earth’s atmosphere is water vapour? ”
EPA administrator – Lisa Jackson answers, slowly
(either it is a considered reply, or she does not know),
” About 30% ”
Then unbelievably she adds,
” I am not going to guess. ”
Congressman Shimkus -
” 95% ”
She does not fair any better for the rest of the film,
IT IS A MUST WATCH.
The global carbon fraud is (at last) exposed in political circles – undeniably.
BTW – Has anyone else picked up upon the immanent arrival of the second “Hockey Stick” yet?
It’s what Steig (with lots of help from Micheal Mann et al) did to the Antarctic.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-1111.html
Thread title –
Steig’s Warming Antarctica Massacred (The Easy Version)
[...] LOTS OF KUDOS to a breakfast show for showing global warming is still an active debate …. [...]
I have seen and heard this so many times before…. ‘warming is increasing during winter and at night’ rather than summer and day. Is this not what is more advantageous? Would this not mean a reduction in my home fuel consumption?
All the best… Jeff
Hat tip guys
Never thought you could better the hippie clip, you have