click to enlarge
We congratulate our friend Terry Dunleavy for his breakthrough in persuading the NZ Herald to publish his letter.
Regular readers know of the Herald’s intransigence in holding to the alarmist view of climate change, almost never offering a balancing view. Today, Terry Dunleavy, hon. secretary of the NZ Climate Science Coalition, finally got a letter published. Must be election season. Perhaps we should thank Jacinda for overhyping the climate change “threat” as “my generation’s nuclear-free moment”, thus turning it into an election issue.
Anyway, it is extremely gratifying to see such persuasive climate arguments made so clearly before so colossal an audience.
Well done, Terry.
Views: 725
The Herald used to regularly post opinion articles from Chris de Freitas. Unfortunately Terry does not have the same academic credentials. A balanced view would be giving AGW ‘skeptics’ 3% news space compared to 97% from acknowledged climate experts.
Terry does not understand that it is the CO2 flux, i.e. the difference between sources and sinks that is important.
CO2 fertilisation is only effective if it is the scarcest resource. This is seldom the case, refer to Liebig’s law of the Minimum.
There are many papers that provide evidence of the effect of greenhouse gases on the earth’s climate just as there are many papers that document the underlying theory. Terry will no doubt argue that none of them “prove” AGW as if this was some elementary high school maths problem. Real science isn’t like that, it’s about drawing together multiple strands of evidence to support the theoretical conclusions.
Hi Simon,
Please answer my questions from your last visit or I’ll stop wasting my time on you.
All right, I’ll waste a little time. Even the Herald never said Chris’s would be the only sceptical voice they would publish, and no reasonable person who has read Lewandowsky’s paper believes the ratio of 97:3. The truth is, the 97:3 ratio is the most fraudulent figure ever to come from a peer-reviewed paper.
Yes, Terry does understand about the flux. What he was referring to was the effect of the total atmospheric CO2 on the planet’s biomass (try to keep up). CO2 fertilisation works all the time, according to the scores of experiments recorded at CO2 Science.
You raise a perfectly good strawman argument to give voice to Terry’s likely account; it’s such a shame it’s all bollocks, I mean, the underlying theory is manifestly too vague to give skillful predictions of temperature changes. It is also true that the IPCC does not describe the temperature increase to be expected from a given increase in atmospheric CO2. Please don’t tell me that a range of about four degrees is helpful to anybody.
You say: “Real science isn’t like that, it’s about drawing together multiple strands of evidence to support the theoretical conclusions.” Consider this: real science is observing what is really happening and building a theory to describe and predict it.
CO2 fertilisation is only effective if it is the scarcest resource. This is seldom the case,
Someone needs to start reading the vast literature on CO2 enhancement of crop and forest production.
Someone should read the latest findings on increases in Global NPP
Start here:
https://www.cato.org/blog/half-century-increase-global-terrestrial-net-primary-production-driven-primarily-rising
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316606334_Quantification_of_the_response_of_global_terrestrial_net_primary_production_to_multifactor_global_change
To all intents and purposes all climate scientists — >30,000 — and all scientific institutions and scientific societies accept that the evidence for man-made global warming is incontrovertible.
So where does that leave Dunleavy?
Ah Dennis dear boy, you’re back again.
‘To all intents and purposes all climate scientists — >30,000 — and all scientific institutions and scientific societies accept that the evidence for man-made global warming is incontrovertible.’
Yes, you’re correct, even all the sceptic scientists like Drs. Roy Spencer, Judith Curry, John Christie, James Lovelock, etc. believe as well. The problem is the empirical temperature datasets have falsified the doomsday climate models thereby proving that the effects of CO2 aren’t as bad as predicted & are inconsequential, that’s all – the evidence is incontrovertible:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_FigTS-14.jpg
If you really believe that AGW is such a problem dear boy, then why do you spend your weekends hypocritically burning fossil fuels flying planes around as a hobby?:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2537244/Pilot-crash-landed-beach-attempts-taxis-straight-sea.html
Dennis,
Yes, the evidence is incontrovertible, but the forecasts of climate doom are ridiculous.
Looking at the evidence, as the others ought to be. If you took a serious look, you’d ask the same questions we ask. Like, how does the air warm the water from above by radiation? Not even all the air, but just the minuscule fraction of the air that holds humanity’s accumulated CO2, which is hard to find, but could be as much as 55 ppmv (when total CO2 was 385 ppmv), or 14% of the air’s total CO2 (now 400 ppmv) (0.14 × 400), which comes to 0.000056 of the atmosphere. Not much thermal density there.
Cheers.
Seems some of those scientists and scientific institutions don’t know how to collect temperature readings correctly.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2017/09/not-really-fit-for-purpose-the-bureau-of-meteorology/