Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dereks approach (and why) to moderation and discussion in this forum.
LATER ADDITION - The piece is now sort of finished, but it will always be "ongoing".
Some tidying and further additions are needed and planned.
Comments and suggestions are invited.
So, I will open the thread.

Part 1 - Why do people sometimes discuss, and at other times debate..

What is discussion? - Usually found in science. - Discussion (which assumes an agreed paradigm) should be positive in both nature and intent.
The aim is to improve everyone's knowledge and understanding.

Sunsettommy Wrote:People who are truly into discussing the topic will be able to talk about what is known and what needs to be better understood.
No need to prove who is more correct since the objective is to learn.
To better understand what is being postulated.
The presentation under discussion may be incorrect or has room for improvement.
But talking about it will benefit all parties to the discussion.

What is debate? - It is the "way" of doing "things" in politics. - Debate is negative in both nature and intent.
The tactics employed are to WIN, or destroy the opposition, so the only concern is to win, being "right" is actually incidental, winning is the point.
Link to Nizkor project plus other links for logical fallacies as discussed on,
Debating / discussion tactics used..

Discussion versus debate - is discussion + facts stronger than debate ? No (wrongly) in reality.
Discussion is delicate, all parties in a discussion must consent to discussing, if not the discussion will inevitably become a debate.
In a straight battle debate usually wins, because discussion does not cheat, debate does.
Debate can also be used to hide a shift of position, even a complete reversal of position.
This is the context of climate science wasmost notably "achieved" by Stephen Schnieder, and hence
the sometimes used term of some being a "Schnieder", more often the word "turncoat" would be used,
but the meaning is the same.

Do old and new science paradigms effect whether we discuss or debate?
Yes, especially if there is a vested interest in the old paradigm.
Kuhne - All science paradigms are wrong - This is really better put in terms of degrees of "right" and "wrong".
The old paradigm will be more wrong than the new paradigm, whilst neither will be exactly correct, or the full and complete truth of the matter.
Question = Who has to debate, and who wants to discuss?
Discussions within an agreed to be correct, or the best we have at present paradigm are relatively easy...
But between paradigms, there will almost inevitably only ever be debate.

Wrong paradigm - a simplified example - SST very patiently some years back explained to me about
the problem with the idea that the Gulf Stream was closing down.
"We" were all quite worried about it at the time in Europe, well, I was.
The BBC had done several quite worrisome documentaries about it as well.
I have never visually explained the issue, and it is about time I did, so I hope others find this useful.
It is difficult to convey how profound the effect of this was upon me at the time, and it still is now,
this changed the way I view things forever, and got across to me how the wrong interpretation can be so very, very misleading.
Thank you SST.
Gulf stream - 2 measurements, straight line (plot) - linear thinking.
[Image: Slide1.jpg]

Three measurements = cyclical (plot), natural, robust, and complex (NRC) system.
[Image: Slide2.jpg]

It seems reasonable to me to describe the present state of climate science discussions to be between three distinct groups.
1) There are the Anthropogenic (caused) Global Warming protagonists,
these are supporters of and believers in man made climate change, and that this is the best paradigm at present.

2) There are the main stream sceptics. This "group" accepts the basic tenants of AGW but
believes that they have been applied incorrectly.

3) The radical sceptics suggest that the whole paradigm is wrong, based on what amounts to imaginary physics and processes that can not be observed in reality.
This group contains such widely differing views and approaches, some having more merit than others, that it is not really a "group" as such.
However from this 3rd "group" there does appear to be a real group emerging, which it seems will (eventually)
combine a thermodynamics approach to climate science and space weather.

This will probably (in my opinion) happen when Piers Corbyn of weatheraction dot com "comes out" and explains his approach to weather and climate forecasting,
which he has never really done as of yet.
I assume because he is still working on his approach, which is incomplete yet, and
he does not need the unnecessary "distraction" of debating with others,
when he is getting on with his own works.

The three groups as I "see" them has led me on many occasions recently to post as I have at Jo Nova's recently in comment 101.
In my opinion, groups 1 and particularly the main stream sceptics of group 2 above,
" have chosen to,
merely quibble the figures of AGW,
when they should of been
questioning the principles of AGW.

On reflection the above quote is too harsh of me with regards to many main stream skeptics,
this is because it was written with the underlying assumption that all parties participating in the climate change discussions / debates are being honest.
If one side, or some on one side are not being honest, then to
" merely quibble the figures of AGW, "
may well be very productive, and this approach I have to admit HAS been very productive.
Numerous examples should and do spring to mind upon reflection, but in this piece I will keep to four examples,
to illustrate the fact that some have not been honest in the discussions and debates so far.
The reasons why some are not honest in the debates will become obvious to any reader,
but I do try to show these reasons more clearly in Part 4 of this "piece".

1) The "Hockey Stick". The most infamous and prominent "debate" so far in "climate science" has been
the debates in regards of the "Hockey Stick" plot of Micheal Mann (1998).
I will refer to this again later, and attach a Power Point slide show of my own, that tries to explain simply what the Hockey Stick debate was all about.
The question of how reliable are (the) trees as used in the "Hockey Stick" plot as a proxy to reconstruct past temperatures
has been covered many times, in many places, and it has also been aired in this forum, notably on the below thread.
Tree rings record manure not temperature
Dr. Richard S Courtney's post 6 is of particular note, as well as Sunsettommy's post 2, Mike Davis's post 3, and Richard111's post 10.
It seems an inescapable conclusion that trees are not a reliable way to reconstruct a past temperature proxy.
There are major issues regarding scientific malpractice in regard to the "Hockey Stick" by Kieth Briffa which amounts to a deliberate fraud,
because the malpractices seem to deliberately misrepresent the analysis which Briffa himself conducted.
Peer review and data provision practices of several leading scientific journals also appear severely corrupted as Dr. Courtney has explained in his post 6.

In the end the "Hockey Stick" debate was all about some, in a supposed position of higher authority,
taking data of their own, and misrepresenting others data, in such a way as to
(whilst having being proven to have been using incorrect and inappropriate statistical methods),
portray a certain preferred picture that strongly supported, some even suggested proved, the AGW unproven hypothesis.
When the reality is that the study could not actually determine anything of relevance either way,
with the proxy data and methods (both scientific and of statistics) employed.

2) Climategate is by far and a way THE most important "debate" in the whole of "climate science" in regards of AGW.
This in itself is a massive subject area, that I will not try to cover because of it's size, and importance overall.
However a reference link to one of the most complete "repositories" devoted to this area is worthwhile.
Links to everything about Climategate here.
Relevant links posted in comments will be added.

Anthony Watts blog - Watts Up With That?
I will return to some issues raised by climategate later, but in regards to whether people involved in the climate change debates are debating and why,
an understanding of the basic issues raised by climategate are necessary.
As a short (relatively speaking) explanation of the whole subject area of climategate, I think it is difficult to do better than,
Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists
John P. Costella
(December 10, 2009)

He has also done a complete run through of the emails that are climategate,
and has covered many issues raised.
Although I am not sure he has grasped the EU funding references contained in the emails that John Rosenthal has expanded upon, as I link to later in Part 4 of this "piece".
Climategate analysis
by John P. Costella

3) Global Mean Temperature (GMT), is there one?
Are the metrics we use at present to "calculate" our best understanding of what GMT is reliable at present?
In this forum we have been extremely fortunate to have as one of the longest standing and most active members who is known as Questioning Climate.
His name is Dr. Jonathan J. Drake.
He has been looking at the gridding, station number, and location problems of the GHCN network / data for some considerable time now, and with startling results.
The Influence of Station Numbers on Temperature Measurement
by Dr. Jonathan J. Drake
reprinted by SPPI Monday, 14 February 2011

The above paper has been the basis for further work obviously, and
a later paper is in draft form at the below link from Questioning Climate's own website.
Is there a Solar Component in the Global Historical Climatology Network?
Dr. Jonathan J. Drake

Many others are also following this, and similar line/s of enquiry in regards of GMT "reliability", notably,
Is 2010 the Hottest Ever?
By Steve Goddard, SPPI Exclusive

This subject area of debate (the reliability of GMT) has been rumbling on for some time now.
It is inescapable that the same names of AGW "higher authority" keep on cropping up, again and again, and again, from subject area to subject area, all in the name of defending AGW.
AGW is afterall when all is said and done ONLY an unproven hypothesis.
It must be asked then, if "they" are scientists, why do "they" do what "they" so obviously do, seemingly beyond reason and honesty?

Later addition - GMT as discussed above is actually near surface air temperature GMT,
because the measurements are taken at about 6 foot above the ground.
This is a completely different "thing", to the actual surface temperature.

4) Steig's Antarctic. I think, in time, this will fall into a category or rather desciption of,
" You can fool some of the people some of the time, BUT,
you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
(Particularly when you repeatedly use the same techniques to deceive with..)

This is at present a developing story, or saga, that is in my opinion about to explode.
It will explode I suggest not because it is any worse than previous deceits by "the Team", but because
of the poor economic situation many of us face that will make people have to listen.
It is a profound shame that science alone was not (seemingly) enough, but such is life, and so is human history..
Dr. Richard S Courtney summed this up best for me when he said words to the effect,
" In times of plenty people merely grumble,
in times of famine they will revolt.
So, what has Steig done to Antarctica that is such a heinous a crime in science terms, in my opinion.
I will try to simply explain.
The "saga" is unfolding and developing on this thread on the main forum,
Steig's Warming Antarctica Massacred (The Easy Version)
You may remember a couple of years back that Ban ki Moon (United Nations big man) visited the (supposedly) disappearing ice sheets of Antarctica and
with much media ado and fan fare of impending disaster drank whisky with 40,000 year old (glacial) ice in it.
In short, and with Team AGW's obvious support, Steig has,
in regards of perfectly natural localized volcanic activity within some parts of Antarctica and
it's effect upon global mean temperature taken what is
locally significant, but globally insignificant,
and using (known to be dodgy) "statistics" (applied incorrectly) has presented this as,
perfectly natural volcanic activity that is portrayed as locally insignificant , yet
it has been transformed into something that is globally significant for man made global warming "theory".

The present climate change debates are plainly "loaded", and biased by some of one side more than the other.
Peoples faith in "higher authorities" is going to be sorely tested, if not destroyed.
This alone has caused much angst for many at many different levels right "down" to personal and family relationships.
In this regard I can not say how important it is to me that my father recently gave me a book to read.
The book is Operation Mincemeat by Ben Macintyre.
" One overcast April morning in 1943, a fisherman notices a corpse floating in the see off the coast of Spain.
When the body is brought ashore, it is identified as a British soldier, Major William Martin of the Royal Marines.
A leather attache case, secured to his belt, reveals an intelligence gold mine: top-secret Allied invasion plans.

But Major William Martin never existed. The body is that of a dead Welsh tramp and every single document is fake.
Operation Mincemeat is the true story of the most extraordinary deception ever planned by Churchill's spies
- an outrageous lie that traveled from a Whitehall basement all the way to Hilter's desk.
One book review -
" With it's fantastic plot and it's cast of eccentric characters,
the book reads like the most improbable of spy stories.
It is a tribute to Macintyre's skill that we never for a
moment forget that it is actually all true.
Daily Telegraph.
A book well worth reading may I suggest.

There are many other subject areas that will be "debated" more properly in time,
such as atmospheric CO2 levels and MLO "measurements", ozone "science", MODTRAN, computer General Circulation Models, "back radiation", etc, etc, etc...
The specifics are beyond this piece at this point (although I will refer to some in more detail later), but,
time will tell.
Let me keep a little more specifically "on track" for this piece.

Attached Files
.pdf   The influence of station nbrs on temp measurement Dr. J Drake.pdf (Size: 694.27 KB / Downloads: 354)
.pdf   2010 the hottest year ever (SPPI reprint) Steve Goddard.pdf (Size: 2.35 MB / Downloads: 426)
.pdf   Why Climategate is so distressing to scientists John P Costella.pdf (Size: 41.69 KB / Downloads: 331)
Part 2 - The (old) "Radiative equilibrium" paradigm presently dominant in climate science
- frequently referred to as AGW, or man made global warming, or climate change, or climate chaos, etc, etc, etc..

The Greenhouse effect.


[Image: 750px-Greenhouse_Effect.jpg]

" This figure is a simplified, schematic representation of the flows of energy between space, the atmosphere, and the Earth's surface, and shows how these flows combine to trap heat near the surface and create the greenhouse effect. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2) and derived from Kiehl & Trenberth (1997).

The sun is responsible for virtually all energy that reaches the Earth's surface. Direct overhead sunlight at the top of the atmosphere provides 1366 W/m2; however, geometric effects and reflective surfaces limit the light which is absorbed at the typical location to an annual average of ~235 W/m2. If this were the total heat received at the surface, then, neglecting changes in albedo, the Earth's surface would be expected to have an average temperature of -18 °C (Lashof 1989). Instead, the Earth's atmosphere recycles heat coming from the surface and delivers an additional 324 W/m2, which results in an average surface temperature of roughly +14 °C [1].

Of the surface heat captured by the atmosphere, more than 75% can be attributed to the action of greenhouse gases that absorb thermal radiation emitted by the Earth's surface. The atmosphere in turn transfers the energy it receives both into space (38%) and back to the Earth's surface (62%), where the amount transferred in each direction depends on the thermal and density structure of the atmosphere.

This process by which energy is recycled in the atmosphere to warm the Earth's surface is known as the greenhouse effect and is an essential piece of Earth's climate. Under stable conditions, the total amount of energy entering the system from solar radiation will exactly balance the amount being radiated into space, thus allowing the Earth to maintain a constant average temperature over time. However, recent measurements indicate that the Earth is presently absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 W/m2 more than it emits into space (Hansen et al. 2005). An overwhelming majority of climate scientists believe that this asymmetry in the flow of energy has been significantly increased by human emissions of greenhouse gases [2].

I find it somewhat surprising in the above article / explanation that the most obvious missing link as such is a link to or for,
"and derived from Kiehl & Trenberth (1997)"
Given it's central importance to the whole issue then a later reference / link will be useful.

K&T as of 2008 -
Earth’s global energy budget
Kevin E. Trenberth, John T. Fasullo and Jeffrey Kiehl

National Center for Atmospheric Research
P.O. Box 3000
Boulder, CO 80307-3000

[Image: radiation_budget_kiehl_trenberth_20.jpg]

" Capsule
An update of the Earth’s global annual mean energy budget is given in the light of new
observations and analyses.
Changes over time and contributions from the land and ocean domains
are also detailed.

An update is provided on the Earth’s global annual mean energy budget in the light of new observations and analyses.
In 1997 Kiehl and Trenberth provided a review of past such estimates and performed a number of radiative computations to
better establish the role of clouds and various greenhouse gases in the overall radiative energy flows,
with top-of-atmosphere (TOA) values constrained by Earth Radiation Budget Experiment values from 1985 to 1989, when
the TOA values were approximately in balance. The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System
(CERES) measurements from March 2000 to May 2004 are used at TOA but
adjusted to an estimated imbalance from the enhanced greenhouse effect of 0.9 W m-2.

Roy Clark quote.
" The fundamental problem is that Trenberth is taking long term averages of short term energy transfer processes.
In doing so he throws away all of the relevant energy transfer physics and
creates his own hypothetical "greenhouseland" that has no bearing on the real physics of the problem.

I have also posted (post 101) this in respect of the K&T types of budget plots at Joanne nova's blog.
" the K&T plots depicting a supposed “greenhouse effect”,
if the climate system on earth was represented by a picture of a mature forest, then
the K&T plots are merely a brown sheet of paper.
To then try to argue over if the brown sheet of paper has an artificial wood effect / grain upon it or not, and
what shade of brown the paper should be,
is about as much use as main stream sceptics have been to date.

The global energy budgets of Kiehl and Trenberth have been the subject of much, and ongoing discussion generally,
but in this forum a discussion (one of many) is on going on in the below thread as well.
Do Global Energy budgets make sense. ???
Many of the later comments by other posters are of particular interest, because of
the number of different directions from which the K&T plots are criticized,
and from the posters many differing viewpoints as well.

In short,
1) CO2 - is purported to be a heat trapping gas - but there is no known or suggested mechanism.
Furthermore the effect of CO2 within the open and mixed atmosphere upon climate is also unknown and disputed.
I have looked at what the effect is supposed to be, before I started questioning the greenhouse effect "theory" itself, with some quite surprising results.
The one assumption of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) “theory” (or, so called Man made climate change) modeling you should understand.
The 10 degrees celcius / 280ppm CO2, and 1 tenth per doubling thereafter assumption.

It is probably then little surprise that chemists and physicists disagree over the specific heat capacity of CO2 within the atmosphere.
Chemists using mass balance equations show CO2 has a low heat capacity within the atmosphere, yet,
physicists using closed, isolated flask samples show CO2 has a high heat capacity.

Sunsettommy has also looked into and explained this amazing life giving gas CO2, and many of the properties of CO2.
Question and Answers Part #1
Question: What is Carbon Dioxide?

CO2 is plainly not capable of "trapping" heat, nor is it, in any conceivable way, a "pollutant".
Any atmospheric concentration increases in CO2 from it's (geologically) historically low present levels (less than 500 parts per million...0.05%...)
will only increase plant growth, and therefore increase the amount of life on the planet.
That is NOT pollution.

2) "Back radiation" - twice the power of the sun (see K&T plot) - Unphysical.
Sunsettommy has also looked into this recently and the resulting thread is excellent.
The Myth of Backradiation
Which is in this sub forum section.
What about Back-Radiation?

3) The Greenhouse effect "theory". - The accepted explanation has already been given above,
but I have a question...
My question is what does a thermal image of a greenhouse and it's surroundings actually show?, from (originally),
Eureka …Revisited. (The untold “discovery”)
which is probably better phrased on this later thread,
Considered questions and comments arising from free to ALL pdf.
" Question, have you ever looked at a thermal camera picture of a greenhouse and it’s surroundings. ?

The greenhouse will be warmer than it’s surroundings, so it will be a brighter image than it’s surroundings.
AGW “theory” says the greenhouse is warmer because it traps radiation,
YET the thermal image will clearly show beyond doubt that the greenhouse IS radiating MORE than it’s surroundings
(with the same solar input).
What does this show. ?

It shows whatever is cooling the surroundings is far more powerful than radiation, AND
that it is not radiation doing most of the cooling (otherwise the higher radiating greenhouse would be cooler than it’s surroundings).

If one opened the doors and windows in the greenhouse, especially on a breezy day,
the greenhouse would soon reduce it’s temperature to that of it’s surroundings.
Logically the temperature difference was removed from the greenhouse to the surroundings or aloft by air.
Air transporting sensible, and latent heat (of water vapourisation), I would suggest.

When the doors and windows are closed it logically follows that the increase in temperature inside the greenhouse is due to
the reduced transport of sensible and latent heat (of water vapourisation) from inside the greenhouse to the surroundings.
Obviously even with the doors and windows of the greenhouse are shut,
some conduction and convection at the greenhouse glass surfaces occurs, and
this explains why a greenhouse remains warmer than it’s surroundings for some time after sunset.

Hopefully this has illustrated that a greenhouse works by reducing conduction and convection,
NOT by “trapping” radiation, as AGW pseudo climate science, “physics”, and “theory” suggest.

4) "Radiative equilibrium" - Which timescale, and omitted geothermal inputs, AND life.. - No - Silly idea.
"Radiative equilibrium" is the "king pin" of AGW.
AGW has to debate.

Attached Files
.pdf   K&T revised July 2008 early online release version..pdf (Size: 991.37 KB / Downloads: 422)
.pdf   The one assumption of AGW you SHOULD understand - Derek..pdf (Size: 1.82 MB / Downloads: 322)
Part 3 - The (new) Thermodynamics approach paradigm
- Climate is a natural, robust, and complex (NRC) system.

At present to my knowledge the most complete on a forum explanation to be found of the thermodynamic approach to climate science
is probably to be found at Jo Nova's blog.
The oceans, clouds and cosmic rays drive the climate, not CO2
Dr Noor van Andel

Hans Jelbring is probably the best known so far proponent of the atmosphere effect with regards to climate change discussions.
Please see his attachment.

Joe Postma is also in the process of producing an excellent pdf in regards of explaining this approach.
I will send a copy of this so far to Joe Postma asking for permission to post (openly) "as is" his pdf I refer to, or an approved / created by him version of it
- Update Joe Postma has now sent me an updated version of his pdf, and kindly agreed that I (and anyone) can use and freely share his pdfs.

Explain thermodynamically the -18 lie to illustrate this approach / paradigm.

A new paradigm that is open to discussion and an old paradigm that must debate..
The present transition from an old ("Radiative equilibrium") to a new (Thermodynamics approach) paradigm in climate science
which is happening (in my opinion) at this very moment in time.
This transition has been given an immeasurable push forwards by the recently released Slaying the Sky Dragon book/s.
(11-26-2010, 02:14 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote: The book is finally released as promoted by ClimateRealists:

United States version:

British version:

Book website:

The transition between paradigms can possibly best be seen presently at Judith Curry's blog Climate etc.
Much debate, unsurprisingly, seems to be occurring.
Slaying a greenhouse dragon - Posted on January 31, 2011

Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part II - Posted on February 4, 2011

Slaying a greenhouse dragon. Part III: discussion - Posted on February 4, 2011

Attached Files
.pdf   KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf (Size: 3.65 MB / Downloads: 462)
.pdf   Understanding the atmosphere effect - Joe Postma..pdf (Size: 593.76 KB / Downloads: 303)
.pdf   Solar Flux - Joe Postma..pdf (Size: 346.98 KB / Downloads: 403)
.pdf   Reasons for Climate Chnage Hans Jelbring.pdf (Size: 44.11 KB / Downloads: 322)
.pdf   Regarding Thermodynamics and Heat Transfer. Chuck Wiese.pdf (Size: 818.76 KB / Downloads: 323)
Part 4 - Are there any "vested interests" in the climate science debate?
- if there are vested interests,
Who are "they".
Who funds them.
How much is their "vested interest", and
on which side/s of the debate are "they" to be found.

Maybe "we" should pop over to the realclimate blog and see how they are discussing (read "dealing with") the issue. Maybe not.
"They" are most likely in flat out denial mode, so no change there then. I have never been keen about the realclimate blog.
In particular the blog does have a very strong and distinctly biased approach to "moderation" of threads and comments,
which is probably best described in the following thread on this forum,
Where have you been recently..
and where the original, now quite altered / "moderated" version of the original discussion took place.
What about those e-mails from the Uni of East Anglia?
A comment of mine from the Scottish forum thread in regards of how the realclimate blog "moderates".
To illustrate I used part of a comment by Steve Oregon says:
December 20, 2009 at 12:31 pm (which is well worth reading in full) at the Wattsupwiththat? blog.

"A telling omission by Real Climate

Excerpt of a Steve Oregon comment.
" The premiere example is the skeptic’s post which asks a reasonable question.
One or more of the RC thugs such as Ray Ladbury would respond with a critique of
the motivation behind the question while including a refutation of a supposed premise.
In follow up the skeptic gets specific, provides a basis and asks again.
The RC thug or thugs then pile on more mistreatment, dispute the premise they earlier created, and
avoid the growing substance from the skeptic.
This is where the value added moderator’s role (Gavin or Eric) comes in.

Gavin or Eric will allow the discussion to grow to this point only.

When the skeptic attempts to rebut the RC thugs, his more substantive post is blocked by Gavin or Eric.

The entire discussion is then truncated by the thugs declaring that
the skeptic left in defeat with nothing more to add.

Gavin, having severed the skeptic’s participation, lets this stand.

The exchange becomes a contrived demonstration for readers to be impressed with
how little the skeptics have and how overwhelming the Team’s science is.

The reason virtually all of the more damning substance is no where to be found on RC is it is prohibited.
It’s been blocked, censored and distorted in cold blooded propagandizing by the Team.

Again, this deceit has long been used by RC. It is particularly useful in misrepresenting the fallout over CRU-Leak and
for providing the rank and file (and journalists) with fodder for dismissing the scandal.

The realclimate blog was set up with, amongst others, a previously convicted internet fraudster, and Micheal Mann.
Mann is the main author of the Hockey Stick plot, which I have also looked at, as have many..
My overview of the hockey Stick is posted on this forum,
Derek's Hockey Stick slide show.
There is a powerpoint slide show version of this attached to this post.
I put the slideshow together several years ago now.
I think it is standing the test of time quite well, and, to date has not received any real or substantive criticism.
It has been dismissed of a few occasions however...

I used to exchange emails and comments with Richard S Courtney quite regularly,
but of late sadly not so much. He stated the below "paraphrased" by me comments which I really did not fully understand at the time.
Today, as I hope I have at least partly conveyed why in this piece, they mean so much more to me.
You MUST ALWAYS admit when you are wrong.
The best science has ALWAYS been amateur.

The thorny issue of who finances which side/s in the climate debate?
Unfortunately money and power inevitably raises it's head. "Sceptics" are frequently accused of being financed by "big oil", yet
to date I have not seen, and am not aware of a single given or shown example of "sceptics" being paid for what they do by "Big oil".

However it is very easily shown that the AGW paradigm has been, is, and will continue to be (it appears presently) funded very, very well, at many levels.
Greenpeace for example has for a long time received large (and regular) amounts of financing from unknown and undisclosed sources.
The Well-Funded "Well-Funded Denial Machine" Denial Machine
Greenpeace is very pro AGW "climate science"..
Later addition - It seems that lately others many now be looking into the anonymous funding of Greenpeace.
Some not so surprising "connections" appear to be being found.
Peer into the Heart of the IPCC, Find Greenpeace
No Frakking Consensus blog - Donna Laframboise
March 14, 2011

The WWF is also undeniably very pro AGW "climate science". It's funding is a little more transparent than Greenpeace's though..
Infact the IPCC reports contain many, many "science papers" that come from the WWF.
The 4th IPCC report contained about 60 references or citations of such "pro AGW climate science" papers from the WWF.
These were largely nothing of the kind, being more truthfully described as opinionated rubbish papers really.
"Glaciergate" is a good example of such rubbish, as included in this excellent list of 128 other "climate science" scandals by Pierre Gosselin (129 "gates" in total so far),
Climate Science Scandals – List Of Gates Balloons To 129
Himalayan glaciergate is listed as number 59, where the year 2350 got changed (about 10 years later) to 2050, or was it 2035...
More Dodgy Citations in the Nobel-Winning Climate Report
The European Union is a large and continuing donor to the WWF.
The EU Connection in Climate Research by John Rosenthal
" According to publicly available European Commission data, WWF was awarded nearly 9 million euros in EU support in 2008 alone. "
The Climategate emails have been referred to earlier in passing on some of the threads linked to in this piece, but
I suggest most have missed a major revelation in the emails, John Rosenthal has not however.
He has pointed out and shown where in the climategate emails funding from the EU has been referred to, and the massive size of it.
Another exceprt from the above link should illustrate this point, and it's size, or rather value to AGW pseudo "climate science".
" The successful bid would become adam — “Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy”
— a project funded by the European Union to the tune of nearly €13 million.
According to an “indicative budget” included in the East Anglia document file,
as the lead participating institution the University of East Anglia alone was slated to receive a cool €1.84 million.
If you were not already aware of the amount of EU funding for AGW "climate science" then
the above John Rosenthal link will be, well, rather eye opening...

The number of vested interests in AGW are too numerous to mention.
I have not, for instance, mentioned pensions at all yet.
Have you heard of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), a network of 26 pension funds? (I am sure this number is actually quite a bit larger..)
The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for
collaboration on climate change for European investors.
If your pension is with one of the listed members of the IIGCC, then may be the IIGCC should be of interest to you, and
[Image: Green-Bubble-201x300.gif]
possibly indicates your pensions future security...
IIGCC members
I have not mentioned Robert Napier either. The below link should suffice..
Eco-Imperialism – every Environmentalist’s Dream
He is a very, very busy man indeed..

Given the amount of funds given to AGW, the amount of pensions invested in AGW, the amount of time, the number of brains,
all devoted to proving the AGW "science",
yet still there is no proof.
This must tell us something about how "right" or just plain wrong the paradigm is, and
why so many seem so committed to blindly and unswervingly believing in and debating AGW..

Attached Files
.pps   Greenland Hockey Stick Plot - how to make one the Mann way - Derek..pps (Size: 3.07 MB / Downloads: 256)
Part 5 - My resulting approach to thread moderation

Books - "dead" or rather stationary.
Live debates - Too fast, no time to check, aimed at speed and (by any means - you can get away with) winning.
Forum threads - discussion and facts, facts that can be referenced / checked / verified. Points / views raised to be considered.

Threads are a real and tangible threat to "old" ideas, but threads and forums are also open and weak to debaters...
Both forums and threads need strong moderation to keep on track and positive.
I will endeavor to keep each thread short, and to the point, but not loose anything discussed, relevant / worthwhile points raised.
Hopefully this will be achieved by "archiving off" periodically into appropriate pdfs that will be made available on the thread.
This approach I will try to develop here will also hopefully free up moderation making it more of an ongoing process rather than it having to be a constant observation as it seems to be now.

My and this sub forums "place" in the climate debate.
I am not in the climate debate as such, but
I have frequently been dragged or rather attempted to be dragged (successfully of occasion I have to unhappily admit) into debating with AGW proponents...
I try to have and keep an overview of the relevant points / views / science (as I hope "we" all do here) then I will try to
"compile" the threads overall discussion into an overall "resulting" view of our best understanding at present, and
where it would appear is probably best to go towards next.
I will freely admit my bias in this respect at present is towards the thermodynamics approach for climate science,
but I will try to remain open to persuasion if other or better directions seem to be emerging from the discussions (hopefully) arising.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Notes to self.

Don't forget -18 lie explanation.

Include David Dilley Global Warming Oscillations - now global warming and global cooling oscillations.
Will he allow me to post / attach pdf version I have made of his ebook?

Better though is Professor Otto Petterson
Published in 1913 in UR Svenska Hydrografisk-Biologiska Kommisionens Skrifter
as recently written about by Eduardo Ferreyra.
Permission to post a pdf has already given by Eduardo, but
later pages not completely checked through yet, by amongst others Hans Jelbring.
This may well be a great big step back in time, but it still seems to represent a great big step forward most seem to have missed,
particularly in our understandings of oceanography, and therefore also climatology.
I also think it expands from Dilley's works.
There may also be in Petterson's works some relevance to what may now be rather too simplified explanations of Gulf Stream strength and the reasons for it's variations.

Attach Hans Jelbring Atmosphere effect pdf to Part 3. - Done.

Attached Files
.pdf   Climatic variations in historic and prehistoric time. By Otto Petterson 1913 (pdf).pdf (Size: 2.3 MB / Downloads: 2,030)
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.
Spare - just in case..
Last spare - just in case.
That said I think Parts 1,2 and 4 are pretty much finished.
Yet another "last spare", Part 1 may need to be split into two posts, a latter part covering the honesty issue.
I think Part 2 should be split into two parts, a latter one for the 2nd group in climate discussions at present that I have effectively omitted, ie,
the mainstream sceptics point of view.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken.  

The hobgoblins have to be imaginary so that
"they" can offer their solutions, not THE solutions.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Big Grin Dereks (for sharing) pdf repository Derek 12 21,619 03-26-2012, 12:28 PM
Last Post: Derek

Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)