The Dim-Post

March 17, 2009

Quote of the day

Filed under: general idiocy — danylmc @ 8:58 am

Is there unequivocal evidence that such global warming is real and dangerous? Well, actually, no. In the opinion of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is a roughly 90 per cent “risk” that climate change is man-made and a 10 per cent “risk” that it is natural.If it is natural, there is no need for the emissions scheme . . . All it will do is damage our economy and make it even more difficult to adapt. And humankind will adapt – as it has done through past ice ages and warmer periods.

- Brian Leyland ‘power industry consultant’, New Zealand Herald. Tuesday 19th March 2009.

This is the level of debate that climate change denial has been reduced to. Amazing.

About these ads

46 Comments »

  1. Talk about selective quoting, and lifting things out of context! Read the whole article. (And since you couldn’t even provide a link for your readers to check your sources — bad form — here it is: Bryan Leyland: Climate adoption a safer option)

    My turn to quote from his opinion piece:

    The “risk” that man-made global warming is real must be considered. A carbon charge is not going to make much difference to the climate because, according to the IPCC’s computer models, Kyoto, if fully implemented, would decrease world temperatures by 0.06C by 2050. So we can be confident that we will never notice any climate change from the trading scheme.

    All it will do is damage our economy and make it even more difficult to adapt. And humankind will adapt – as it has done through past ice ages and warmer periods

    Comment by David White — March 17, 2009 @ 9:31 am

  2. Kyoto was only ever intended as a first step in meeting UNFCCC objectives, so Leyland’s point here is disingenious, if not outright false.

    Good point about the link though – I’ve updated the post.

    Comment by danylmc — March 17, 2009 @ 9:50 am

  3. As someone who would advocate for these things put it to me: If you’re in a car accelerating towards a cliff, Kyoto is taking you foot off the accelerator.

    Comment by lyndon — March 17, 2009 @ 9:59 am

  4. Kyoto was only ever intended as a first step in meeting UNFCCC objectives, so Leyland’s point here is disingenious (sic), if not outright false.

    Not at all. If I add up the year-end Kyoto liabilities from the Treasury data, it appears that Kyoto has so far cost NZ $2.8 billion, FOR NO MEASUREABLE CHANGE.

    The alarmists agree that Kyoto will have (is having) no measureable impact on global temperature.

    Would you be happy to pay your mechanic $2800 to tune your car, and when he’s finished there is no measurable change in the emissions or performance? (If so, let me introduce you to a mechanic friend of mine. )

    The alarmists are the ones being disingenuous (note the correct spelling), by trying to frighten the public with climate scenarios that are completely imaginary — they have no scientific basis whatsoever. They belong in the fiction section.

    On the contrary, I don’t mind public policy considering the environment, provided:
    – it is based on sound science
    – it is subject to rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

    “Sound science”, as I understand it, is scientific experimentation that is independently repeatable by others, and is published in peer-reviewed journals.

    Comment by David White — March 17, 2009 @ 10:19 am

  5. Keep these posts on how ridiculous climate change deniers are coming danyl. Can you tag them somehow so we have a convenient list we can later use to make fun of you?

    Comment by Berend de Boer — March 17, 2009 @ 10:21 am

  6. And if you really believe this global warming nonsense, then you should be able to rake in the money off the “sound science” sector at IPredict.

    Comment by David White — March 17, 2009 @ 10:31 am

  7. Well why not. Leyland reckons:

    We also know that the panel ignored the close correlation between sunspot effects and temperature that has existed over many thousands of years. Hence the “risk” that climate change is natural is much greater than 10 per cent.

    This has been so comprehensively covered in the last several years it boggles the mind to think where he gets his info – blogs?

    Usoskin 2005: “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
    Solanki 2008: “solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”.
    Ammann 2007: “Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.”
    Lockwood 2007: concludes “the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.”

    On and on and on…

    Odd that they’d publish a ‘power industry consultant’ on this, but that’s for them.

    Comment by StephenR — March 17, 2009 @ 10:40 am

  8. And if you really believe this global warming nonsense, then you should be able to rake in the money off the “sound science” sector at IPredict.

    So unless I pick “Global temperatures in 2009 to be highest ever” at iPredict, then I don’t seriously think there is a long-term warming trend, is that what you’re saying?

    Comment by StephenR — March 17, 2009 @ 10:42 am

  9. Odd that they’d publish a ‘power industry consultant’ on this, but that’s for them.

    To put things in perspective, I guess they also publish a horoscope . . . just not on the op-ed page.

    Comment by danylmc — March 17, 2009 @ 10:46 am

  10. So unless I pick “Global temperatures in 2009 to be highest ever” at iPredict, then I don’t seriously think there is a long-term warming trend, is that what you’re saying?
    You don’t think it will be warmer in 2009 than every other year since 1850? Hmmmm, interesting. Ok, how about Global temperatures to be warmer in 2009 than 2008?

    Or do you not really believe in global warming? And are warmists only interested in putting other people’s money at risk?

    Comment by David White — March 17, 2009 @ 11:25 am

  11. @DW ” “Sound science”, as I understand it, is scientific experimentation that is independently repeatable by others, and is published in peer-reviewed journals. ”

    so all we need to do to verify man’s impact on the climate would be to conduct an experiment where we take 2 identical planet earths and put people on one and none on the other and watch them for a couple of thousand years and then take the temperature on each. sweet.

    the IPCC reports are based on a great deal of the ‘sound science’ you describe. it is certain that we do not yet have a complete understanding of the systems involved in our planet’s climate, but this does not mean we shouldn’t use science to offer some prediction of future dangers for the generations we pass the planet on to (that way we can start thinking of solutions before it’s too late).

    “trying to frighten the public with climate scenarios that are completely imaginary”

    imagining there is no danger does not make it so. the scenarios you speak of, while imaginary are based on extrapolation from the current science. none may prove accurate but don’t try to make it sound like they are just pulled from thin air. the predictions are based on data obtained from millions of years of data showing climate cycles. there is a good reason to be frightened by what science has made apparent so far.

    ” As someone who would advocate for these things put it to me: If you’re in a car accelerating towards a cliff, Kyoto is taking your foot off the accelerator. ”

    and even if you’re not quite sure of exactly how far away the cliff is through the dirty windshield it’s probably be wise to start thinking about putting the brakes on pretty quickly…

    Comment by nommopilot — March 17, 2009 @ 11:34 am

  12. David White: Put down that straw man. One year does not make a trend.

    Comment by Chris S — March 17, 2009 @ 12:05 pm

  13. I am also struck by their insistence that natural changes are necessarily harmless. I mean, if a two degree warming is a tremendous problem surely it doesn’t matter whether it’s caused by AGW or hyperactive pixies? If they think natural processes are harmless I invite them to demonstrate by, say, wandering through some pure and natural molten lava…

    Comment by Moz — March 17, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

  14. Straw, delicious straw.

    Comment by StephenR — March 17, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

  15. nommopilot @ “so all we need to do to verify man’s impact on the climate would be to conduct an experiment where we take 2 identical planet earths and put people on one and none on the other and watch them for a couple of thousand years and then take the temperature on each. sweet.”

    Or you could take recorded temperatures from reliable high resolution data sources and plot them carefully against CO2 levels over the last few centuries. And then plot them against the carefully recorded solar activity for the last few centuries. And then discuss the results without shouting down the non-believers.
    And when measuring Antarctic ice loss, measure the entire continent and report how each zone is going, including, shock horror, the ones where the ice is thickening. And when a sea route opens up in the Arctic ice, remember to report when it freezes over again. Etc.
    Oh, and when the computer models fail to predict what happens, ensure you’re honest enough to say they are worthless: as you say yourself: “it is certain that we do not yet have a complete understanding of the systems involved in our planet’s climate”. So how do you model something that you don’t understand?

    “If you’re in a car accelerating towards a cliff, Kyoto is taking you foot off the accelerator.”
    Good analogy…but is the cliff towering above you, or are you approaching the edge? And if you can’t see through the windscreen, is the dirt actually spin from Al Gore actually obscuring a grassy meadow with a bunch of multimillionaires out walking with the taxpayer’s cheque book?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 17, 2009 @ 12:43 pm

  16. Moz, I think the idea is “why stop burning coal if it’s going to happen anyway?”

    Comment by Chris S — March 17, 2009 @ 12:49 pm

  17. And then plot them against the carefully recorded solar activity for the last few centuries.

    See comment no.7

    Comment by StephenR — March 17, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

  18. Danyl, shameless attempt at getting more comments on your blog – when’s the abortion post scheduled for?

    Comment by StephenR — March 17, 2009 @ 12:50 pm

  19. I am also struck by their insistence that natural changes are necessarily harmless.

    That interests me as well. Leyland’s attitude is that we can just ‘evolve’ our way past problems.

    It’s true that there’s been climate change in the history of our species and that we’ve survived those changes, probably through evolutionary adaptation. But ours is an incredibly young species. The natural history of our planet is filled with climate events that caused global mass extinctions that wiped out a majority of life on the planet.

    The current changes in climate don’t look like they’re going to be on that scale but if you bear the past in mind then your attitude towards interfering with the atmosphere of the planet you live on becomes a lot more conservative, while Leyland’s approach seems to be that there is ‘only’ a 90% change that humans are changing the climate, so we shouldn’t trouble ourselves to mitigate the problem

    Comment by danylmc — March 17, 2009 @ 1:12 pm

  20. StephenR @17, re StephenR @ 7

    http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf

    Interesting reading, StephenR. 95% correlation until 1975, which is about when folk started worrying about the coming ice-age?

    “CONCLUSIONS: The sunspot number index related to solar activity that has been reconstructed from the cosmogenic 10Be isotope data since AD 850 shows correlation with terrestrial northern hemisphere and global temperature reconstructions at a significance level above 95%. The major part of this correlation is due to similar long-term trends (‘hockey-stick curve’) in the data, but there is also a consistent (although only marginally significant) correlation in the detrended data. i.e., on centennial and intracentennial time scales. This suggests that long-term climate variations are affected by solar magnetic activity.
    Note that the most recent warming, since around 1975, has not been considered in the above correlations. During these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source. “

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 17, 2009 @ 1:29 pm

  21. “I am also struck by their insistence that natural changes are necessarily harmless.” Actually, what the fellow says is; “If it is natural, there is no need for the emissions scheme.” What that means, is that if it is not co2 causing warming, then cutting co2 will not stop the warming.

    “Leyland’s attitude is that we can just ‘evolve’ our way past problems.” Wearing clothes, taking them off again, the harnessing of fire, air-conditioning, central heating, these are TECHNOLOGICAL, not evolutionary responses. Evolution can take millions of years, technological change can occur faster than sea-level rises.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 17, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

  22. CF, perhaps you’re just acknowledging the sheer awesomeness of my sources, but assuming otherwise, what’s your point @20?

    Comment by StephenR — March 17, 2009 @ 2:01 pm

  23. If David White’s still around, perhaps someone should explain: the difference between two successive years demontrates climate change about as much as the difference between two days shows winter is coming. I don’t know if you’ve seen the annual temperatures graph, but it’s quite wiggly.

    For the same reason, any particular year being warmest is unlikely but based purely on the last few I’d be surprised if there isn’t one soon.

    And if you can’t see through the windscreen, is the dirt actually spin from Al Gore actually obscuring a grassy meadow with a bunch of multimillionaires out walking with the taxpayer’s cheque book?

    Even accepting that – your response to this dilemma is to keep driving?

    BTW The Fundy Post also has words about Leyland. I realise official position-advocates on either side are not immune to saying daft things but the C”S”C needs to concentrate on being credible.

    Comment by lyndon — March 17, 2009 @ 3:24 pm

  24. If the argument is that human activity is having no effect at all on our climate then he’s right, we can’t do anything so we might as well not try. But I thought that was trivially false, as we’ve shown experimentally with the ozone hole (to give only one example). My apologies for not realising the true unreality of the denialist viewpoint.

    If instead you say human activity has a significantly smaller effect on climate than natural processes then cool, we can argue the degree of influence. Unfortunately as soon as you admit human effects you’ve also admitted that humans can mitigate undesirable changes. At which point we can argue about the cost and benefits of so doing, which is what I thought the denialists were doing.

    Am I so terribly, terribly wrong?

    Comment by Moz — March 17, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

  25. The car and cliff analogy is so fallacious.

    It assumes that mankind is the driver (ie the one controlling the accelerator and brakes, and steering). In reality, all the human effort in the world can only reduce the speed by 0.06 km/h! After paying billions of dollars for the privilege.

    That is more like a passenger opening a door, and putting their shoe on the road to try to slow down (while the wind is blowing clouds of banknotes out of our pockets).

    And to those having a go a me about 1 year v a trend: of course, I know that. But tell me, what is the atmospheric global temperature trend of the last 10 years?

    Comment by David White — March 17, 2009 @ 11:37 pm

  26. StephenR @ 22 re me @ 20

    Well, your awesome sources tell me that there is a 95% correlation between solar activity and temperature changes…

    Usoskin 2005: “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”

    And so the jury is out on the last on the last 30 years. Not to worry, the recent lack of warming will at least put paid to the idea that runaway human co2 emmission can have much to do with teh climate, either!

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 18, 2009 @ 5:49 am

  27. Actually: “The major part of this correlation is due to similar long-term trends (‘hockey-stick curve’) in the data, but there is also a consistent (although only marginally significant) correlation in the detrended data.”

    Does the correlation end because the temperature data they are using is the discredited hockey-stick family of temperature series? You know, the temperatures that show a sudden upswing in recent years, after appropriate (or inappropriate) changes were made to the underlying data?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 18, 2009 @ 5:53 am

  28. Yes, 95% is right, but what “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source” means is that this most recent warming episode must have another source i.e. not the sun.

    Have some more:

    -Lockwood 2007 concludes “the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.”
    -Foukal 2006 concludes “The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.”
    -Scafetta 2006 says “since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone.”

    Comment by StephenR — March 18, 2009 @ 8:43 am

  29. What temperature series doesn’t show a “sudden upswing” in recent years?

    Comment by StephenR — March 18, 2009 @ 8:50 am

  30. What temperature series doesn’t show that tempertures FELL during the longest period of war, industrialisation and economic growth (1940 to 1950), not returning to the level of 1940 until 1980?

    And what temperature series doesn’t show the trend to cooling in the noughties?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 18, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

  31. I would first be curious to know if you accept that it is extremely likely that sunspots haven’t caused the recent warming of the past few decades..?

    Comment by StephenR — March 18, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

  32. I would be curious to know if you accept that the studies you cite show strong correlation between sunspot activity, with a lead of some 10 years, RIGHT UP UNTIL 1970/75.

    So co2 influences on global temp don’t exist until 1970? That blows a few boats out of the water…

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 19, 2009 @ 7:04 am

  33. I would be curious to know if you accept that the studies you cite show strong correlation between sunspot activity, with a lead of some 10 years, RIGHT UP UNTIL 1970/75.

    Not sure what your point is with the ‘lead time’, but yes there is a strong correlation. Sunspots were one of a variety of factors affecting climate in the 20th century to the mid-70s, but then sunspots went down while temperature dramatically diverged in an upward fashion. Agree?

    Comment by StephenR — March 19, 2009 @ 2:10 pm

  34. I agree that your cited studies cover about 1150 years, and that for all but 30 or 40 of those 1150 years, your studies say sunspot activity has caused the temperatures we enjoyed.

    Lead time: Increases in activity lead the temperature rises by 10 years, reduction in sun spot activty is followed by temp drops 10 years later. A possible indicator of causation.

    Compare that to Al Gore’s CO2 correlation: temperature rises lead co2 rises by up to 800 years. That is: the temp went up first (due to sun spot activity and orbital oscillation factors no doubt) and then co2 followed as (accordiung to one theory) the oceans warmed and released co2. So indicating a poor causal link between co2 levels and global temps.

    I take it you READ the studies you cited (sorry if that sounds rude)?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 19, 2009 @ 5:41 pm

  35. I don’t have time to post here often. But based on some comments, I went off to investigate sunspots further.

    Yes, it appears that there is an unexplained divergence between sunspot activity and global temperature. But at the same time I found several divergent graphs quoted by IPCC where they covered up the divergence by not showing data beyond 1960. Why would you believe an organisation that resorts to such “unscientific” ethics (don’t forget the “hockey stick” debacle!)? Of course, the complete graph does not suit their goals.

    I also found disturbing accounts of other “non-scientific” behaviour, eg rejecting otherwise perfectly acceptable paper submissions on political grounds:

    “the only object I can see for this paper is for the authors to get something in the peer-reviewed literature which the ignorant can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard IPCC range”

    And in answer to #29, all the global temperature series I examined show a recent decline (clearly divergent with the CO2 levels)! Eg the HadCRUT3v series plotted here.

    Comment by David White — March 19, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

  36. I take it you READ the studies you cited (sorry if that sounds rude)?

    At the most i’ll read the abstracts.

    This does take a lot of time…

    So indicating a poor causal link between co2 levels and global temps.

    So if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature would be the same as it is right now? You’re saying CO2 has zero radiative forcing effect?

    Comment by StephenR — March 20, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

  37. So if there was no CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature would be the same as it is right now? You’re saying CO2 has zero radiative forcing effect?

    The answer is, we don’t know for certain. It might be positive. It might be negative. It is very complicated. Take a look at This “global warming” thing… what Watt is what?, even if you only read the conclusions.

    And for a quick indication of why it is complicated, skim through IPCC on Radiative Forcing #1: AR1(1990), by Steve McIntyre.

    This is important, as if there is no link — and the empirical evidence raises huge doubts about the connection — then there is no need for Emissions Trading Schemes, or bans on incandescent lightbulbs, or all the rest of the hysteria that certain factions are forever trying to whip up.

    Comment by David White — March 20, 2009 @ 10:46 pm

  38. StephenR @ 36 “So indicating a poor causal link between co2 levels and global temps.”

    Which particular study’s abstract is that extracted from?

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 21, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

  39. dear oh dear …………….. you kind of get the feeling that political leanings have more of an influence on peoples climate beliefs. I would have thought you’d have to have your head up your ass ……… or your fist, not to realize that mankind is obviously having an effect on the climate and just about every eco system on earth.

    Is Blue the new colour of filth ???????

    Comment by nznative — March 22, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

  40. you kind of get the feeling that political leanings have more of an influence on peoples climate beliefs

    “Beliefs” might be the correct word, if you think of “holding an opinion irrespective of the observable evidence”. Global temperatures have been declining for the last 8 years, yet some people still believe in “global warming”. And they think temperature rise is caused by rising CO2 levels (CO2 levels have risen — temperature has declined. See the cause and effect? Nor can I.)

    This whole “Green” stuff is not about the environment, or climate, or planet earth. It’s about the desire to exert control over others. To ban light bulbs, dams, anything nuclear, progress, cars, military, trade, energy, growth, families, individualism, freedom of thought and speech…

    Celebrate Earth Hour and embrace Big Brother (disguised as The United Nations).

    No thanks.

    Comment by WWallace — March 22, 2009 @ 10:24 pm

  41. “This whole “Green” stuff is not about the environment, or climate, or planet earth. It’s about the desire to exert control over others. To ban light bulbs, dams, anything nuclear, progress, cars, military, trade, energy, growth, families, individualism, freedom of thought and speech…”

    Jesus. Not on planet earth it’s not. In your world though, large scale environmental problems aren’t allowed to exist because they generally require collective action to correct. Therefore they don’t. Even if they do.

    Comment by Guy Smiley — March 23, 2009 @ 8:57 am

  42. You may have a point, Guy, when it comes to clear-felling, polluted waterways, urban smog, the plight of the kiwi, etc. The enviroment really IS “worth fighting for”.

    But co2 levels and temperatures are just a bit of a crock.

    Comment by Clunking Fist — March 23, 2009 @ 12:57 pm

  43. This is all getting a bit fuzzy.

    “As a physicist, I am concerned that some skeptics (a very few) are ignoring the physical basis,” Dr. Singer said in an e-mail message.

    “There is one who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which goes against actual data,” Dr. Singer said, adding that other skeptics wrongly contend that “humans are not responsible for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.”

    Pity they didn’t say which blog he found that info on…

    Comment by StephenR — March 23, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

  44. But co2 levels and temperatures are just a bit of a crock.

    Well yes, because there are more than two factors at play, apparently.

    Comment by StephenR — March 23, 2009 @ 3:34 pm

  45. Hello!
    Very Interesting post! Thank you for such interesting resource!
    PS: Sorry for my bad english, I’v just started to learn this language ;)
    See you!
    Your, Raiul Baztepo

    Comment by RaiulBaztepo — March 29, 2009 @ 10:34 am

  46. Hello !! ;)
    I am Piter Kokoniz. oOnly want to tell, that I like your blog very much!
    And want to ask you: is this blog your hobby?
    Sorry for my bad english:)
    Tnx!
    Piter.

    Comment by PiterKokoniz — April 8, 2009 @ 10:46 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 404 other followers

%d bloggers like this: