Let us understand!
WITH COPIES TO
-
- Minister for the Environment, Hon James Shaw, Whaleoil, Newstalk ZB, ODT, NZ Herald, Stuff
LETTER
Mr Andrew Robb
Chairman
West Coast Regional Council30 January 2019
Dear Andrew,
The Climate Conversation Group admires your council’s decision—which has gained widespread attention—not to support the Zero Carbon Bill until the science of the underlying theory of man-made global warming has been clearly explained and properly proven.
To support this decision and to strengthen your resolve, we write to let you know:
- The CCG has been asking for evidence of dangerous man-made warming (DAGW) for many years without success.
- Two weeks ago we asked the IPCC Secretariat itself for this evidence; they have none.
- We wrote last year to the Royal Society in London for this evidence; they had none.
- We asked the Royal Society of New Zealand a few months ago for this evidence; they had none.
- In December 2017 I asked the Minister for Climate Change, the Hon James Shaw, for this evidence; he had none (which means the Ministry for the Environment has none).
- We have asked numerous scientists in New Zealand and around the world and the publicly-employed ones universally tell us to see the IPCC Assessment Reports. Many of the independent scientists tell us there is no evidence.
I note that NIWA scientists have already started to bully you and your council, but please withstand the temptation to give in. No matter how much it may seem that the weight of public and official opinion is against you (and it’s a terrible weight) know beyond a shadow of doubt that truth is with you and truth is very weighty indeed.
The evidence for that is easy to find (unlike the evidence for DAGW) — it is simply that so far nobody has clearly explained the evidence.
Keep asking for the evidence and be assured that we will, too. If we can be of any assistance to you, you need only ask.
With my very best wishes,
Richard Treadgold
Convener
Climate Conversation Group
Views: 953
Most people who want to understand something start by doing a course:
https://online-learning.harvard.edu/subject/climate-change
Once again Simon you deliberately miss the point. It isn’t the people that hold opposing views to you that need educating, it is obviously the authority figures & institutions that can’t answer the question, or wont because to do so would be embarrassing for them, that obviously need enlightenment! If the solution is to simply go to that Harvard web site to get the answer, why haven’t all of those listed above done so?
Also once again you come across with your elitist attitude implying that we are all dummies because we haven’t been taken in by the lies foisted on us by the people on the above list, as you have. You very rarely answer a direct question, similar to those on the list, and you re-direct to some source that you tout as being an authority.
What lies? How do you know they are lies? Who is doing the lying? How many people are in on the conspiracy? How do they stop someone in the know from spilling the beans?
The alternative hypothesis, which you should seriously consider, is that the experts know more about climate science than you do. If you are not prepared to take a course, maybe try reading the IPCC assessment reports https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/ which is what everybody seems to have suggested that Richard should do.
As a member of the Climate Conversation Group, do I get an opportunity to proof letters before they go out?
The West Coast Regional Council were brave to stick their necks out but, in my view, are asking the wrong question.
What they should really ask is whether there will be any measurable change to the world’s climate as a result of NZ’s Zero Carbon Bill, and whether the government can offer any assurances that the Bill won’t cripple an area that is already suffering from some fairly major economic hardship
(For example, I hear that Eugenie Sage turned down an application for a mining project that would have created 50 jobs)
Andy,
I can see where you’re coming from, but I’d say both questions are right and either could bring down the IPCC.
Simon,
To start with, consider the frequent statements from the UN, the IPCC, UNFCCC, scientists, politicians, academics of all stripes, physicians, lawyers, and so on that, specifically, “the evidence is overwhelming” of dangerous man-made global warming, and that, to view the evidence, “just” read the assessment reports.
But we did and there’s no evidence there. Ergo, it’s a lie, that’s how we know and that’s who’s doing it. I cannot justify talk of a conspiracy, and we didn’t mention one.
If you say (and I don’t recall your saying it) there is evidence in those reports, kindly state precisely what they say and on which page.
I can’t see the West Coast District Council bringing down the IPCC. At best, they are seen as “rednecks” especially with one in the main Stuff article wearing a MAGA hat (obviously a deplorable then)
But, as someone who identifies as a redneck, in spirit at least, more power to them ..
Andy,
That’s right! But I meant the question itself is toxic for the IPCC. If it doesn’t exactly bring the IPCC down, even when others take up the argument, it can neutralise their credibility. A functional castration.
Simon,
Do you subscribe to the CCG motto shown above, ending with the word “lunatics”? If not, then no. If you do, the answer is still no.
Andy,
I think that West Coast Regional Council’s question is the right question. I just wish a few more RC’s would be brave enough to do the same.
The issue you raise is actually not a concern to the CAGW movement or this Government. Their aim is to annihilate certain industries deemed as bad and replace Enterprise with welfare dependency. It is all part of the green /socialist (some would say marxist) agenda to control through redistribution of resources.
Strength to their arm!
I put the same to Northland RC. Acknowedged by the CEO, but a waste of breath so far. However, now the ball is rolling thanks to these brave folk…… maybe time to hit them all with cc’d CCG emails?
Brett
I tell them it is only models, and such can never provide data. No Engineer should touch such with a 40ft bargepole etc…. and so on. PS from Brett
Simon
I’ve done that online Harvard course. It’s very good but doesn’t offer a jot or tittle of scientific evidence supporting the hypothesis that observed 20th century warming was predominantly caused by human activities.
Surely, the easy route is to simply provide those Councillors, and the rest of the country, with a link to the relevant journal paper, with a page number. Why don’t you do that?
And Neale, in emailing the other Regional Councils asking what evidence convinced them, mention that the request is made under the Official Information Act. They are obliged to answer.
The IPCC is the only possible source for the missing evidence, BUT :
1. Their 1991 report (WG1) said they could find no such evidence
2. Their 1995 report came to the same conclusion,(but Ben Santer said he had something (obscure) at a minute to midnight).
3. The 2001 report bet the farm on Michael Mann’s ‘hockey stick’; (Santer paper ignored)
4. The 2007 report relied upon “expert judgment” and mumbled about models (hockey stick ignored)
5. The 2013 report relied upon “expert judgment” and an irrelevant graph from a Phil Jones model
See earlier post: http://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2018/10/human-influence-is-unquantifiable/
Hemi McK
The government and fate have conspired to decimate the West Coast – esp Buller / Westport, with various coal mines and the Holcim concrete factory closing.
The area is being run down with medical services being cut back and even policing scaled back, while crime increases.
My wife comes from this area so it’s a bit personal
Barry, never tried an FOI. Any hints how to go about it? Brett
I recommend that you reread the AR5 Summary for Policymakers:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal”
“Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions … are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”
“Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.”
“Surface temperature is projected to rise over the 21st century under all assessed emission scenarios. It is very likely that heat waves will occur more often and last longer, and that extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent in many regions. The ocean will continue to warm and acidify, and global mean sea level to rise.”
“Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems. Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in countries at all levels of development.”
“Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). “
Simon,
The most charitable reason I could give for your suggestion that we reread the whole SPM is that it will keep us quiet for a day or two. It is impenetrable, wordy and dense, and it certainly won’t help our search for truth, as it contains precisely zero evidence. All the science is in the Working Group I report—as you should know.
When this report was released in 2013, a lot of people were drawn to these compelling statements. Finally, there seemed to be a well-evidenced conclusion that warming was man-made. But look closely and you’ll discover two contraindications.
1. The first statement doesn’t mention a human influence. Presumably the IPCC felt that everyone was waiting to know whether the world had warmed, oblivious to the fact that anyone can access thermometers and temperature records at any time, when what we really wanted to know was whether it was our doing.
2. The reasons for the second statement are in Chapter 8 of the WGI report. Reading it, you find that what purports to be “evidence” is only opinion. Expert opinion, to be sure, but there’s no evidence at all. You can see that the statement is expressed as a probability, so on principle it’s unacceptable as proof.
I’m surprised you don’t know this, but we cannot be surprised that the councillors don’t know this, so we should give them every assistance. I must say, Simon, that comments like yours are most useful in allowing answers like these to be made available for them.
Oh, one more thing: the remainder of the statements you quote are scary predictions — definitely guesses, not evidence. Please try harder.
I suggest all those criticising the WCRC submission to the Zero Carbon Bill actually READ it in detail rather than taking Media interpretation and distortion. The submission is very well put together, it is not ‘Red Neck’ and raises extremely valid points which pertain to “The Coast”.
It is my experience that the vast majority of people who live ‘outside’ have little reality of the actual geography, distances and true facts of the area under the WCRC in particular those immediately North of the Bombay Hills including the extremists of the Green Party.
A question I keep asking is when James Shaw quotes that the sea level will rise 1.5 and 3.5 metres over what time scale … he always makes it sound as though it will happen tomorrow. He never says how much the sea level has risen in the last 100 or whatever years……always the alarmist detail.
I am a Master Mariner and have Hydrographic experience consequently tidal data and depth under the keel is of great importance …. cant say there has been any difference these lat 50 years.
David Barnes
Westport
Brett,
Let me know if you have the info you need, but in case you haven’t, it basically means including somewhere in your letter asking for information the words: “This request is made under the Official Information Act.” Simple as that. It compels them to answer; not to supply the information, but at least to answer.
The https://www.dia.govt.nz/Official-Information-Act-requests Department of Internal Affairs website on OIS requests suggests:
See the Ombudsman’s Making official information requests – A guide for requesters (Ombudsman website), or the State Services Commission guide (SSC website) explaining how agencies will respond to requesters. This guidance explains the process in more detail.
It would be tremendous if you asked the other councils what persuaded them, because the odds are against them providing any actual evidence. Be lovely to get stuck into that. Let us know how you get on.
Two observations from the distant past –
1 – CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been **far** higher than they are now (around 7,000 ppm versus around 460 ppm now). Life thrived then and there was no “runaway greenhouse effect”.
2 – The average global temperature has been as high as 20 degrees Celsius (as against about 12.5 degrees now). Again, there was no “runaway effect”.
Given these two facts, I won’t be losing any sleep over so-called “climate change”.
Chapter 8 of AR5 states:
“It is unequivocal that anthropogenic increases in the well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs) have substantially enhanced the greenhouse effect, and the resulting forcing continues to increase.”
“Industrial-Era Anthropogenic Forcing
The total anthropogenic ERF over the Industrial Era is 2.3 (1.1 to 3.3) W m–2.3 It is certain that the total anthropogenic ERF is positive. Total anthropogenic ERF has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic ERF estimate for 2011 is 43% higher compared to the AR4 RF estimate for the year 2005 owing to reductions in estimated forcing due to aerosols but also to continued growth in greenhouse gas RF. {8.5.1, Figures 8.15, 8.16}”
Keep reading, the proof is there. The fact that every country bar one signed the Paris Agreement demonstrates that the report represents the best understanding of the science at the time.
Simon,
Perhaps, but we want to know (and don’t you?) what effect all that forcing has on the actual temperature.
I tested the effect of this by comparing five global temperature datasets for 2005 and 2011. In 2005, all five sat about 0.2 °C above the running 37-month average. In 2011, with anthropogenic forcing apparently 43% higher, all five datasets cooled to about -0.1 °C of the 37-month average. The climate didn’t just fail to warm, it actually cooled by about 0.4 °C. To have even the sign wrong, the calculations had to have been poorly informed. It’s likely that more than a few trace gases determine the surface temperature of the planet.
Then you start to sound stupid. You say: “Keep reading, the proof is there.” That shows you haven’t been listening. It’s what they all say: James Shaw, The Commissioner for the Environment, James Renwick, NIWA, the Royal Society, the Royal Society of New Zealand, Al Gore, the IPCC Secretariat. Nobody tells us what the evidence is, yet if it’s overwhelming somebody must have memorised it. What about you, Simon? Have you memorised the evidence?
Simon.
“demonstrates that the report represents the best understanding of the science at the time”
So the science is not settled then, its just the best we have at this time.
David Barnes: Thankyou. Someone who is there and knows the Engineerng and Science. Simon believes you are ignorant, we do not. Having clocked up years of seatime and work on coastal protection eg Mangawhai Spit, now at Ruawai on the Kaipara, below sealevel. Have not found worthwhile SLR n my 71yr of intense observation except where we used proven methods to strengthen dune systems, with sand ie soft protection by plant accumulation. The counters quickly aired after your announcements were for sedimentary erosion near homes too close to the shore. WC is tectonically very active too of course.
You folk know far more than James Shaw, let alone Simon.
We really need to better understand WCRC’s reasons for their stand and learn more, because it s not they who are ignorant, but the greenies. I say so as a trained Soil Scientist too, among other disciplines and it has been a wearisome road. New company makes a great difference.
RC thanks, starting to get info needed for Select Committee submissions and RC requests. Might eat into my sailing on the Kaipara, for research of course, ahem….. Sailed to Poutu a few days ago. Brett
Changes in radiative forcing do not instantaneously translate to changes in temperature. You really really do not understand climate science better than the IPCC. Have you heard of the Dunning Kruger Syndrome?
Simon,
All right, so if it’s not instantaneous (though energy is radiated very quickly indeed) then how long does it take, sir? Why do you imagine the IPCC might mention an increase of 43% in 7 years? Do you think it might possibly be related to an increase at some time in actual temperature? They bang on about that all the damn time.
Finally, can you consider the possibility that other factors are interacting with these trace gases and each other to arrive finally at a particular temperature, at a particular place, for a particular time? Of course, there’s no such thing as a global temperature, you do know that, right?
Actually, though doctors and nurses use and rely on thermometers regularly for diagnostic purposes, there’s no such thing as a bodily temperature, either.
And stop throwing the Dunning-Kruger insult around, mate, it’s offensive. Oh, that’s why you do it? Well, I could easily stop that. Please stop it yourself.
Sinon reminds me of some of the boys and young men I once entertained in my classroom (I avoided the term ‘teach’ as that was a non-starter for those particular beings.
It seems quite clear to me that as the evidence of CAGW we require cannot be produced, therefore a fraud is clearly being perpetraed which affects every citizen whose government is undertaking ‘mitigation’ which negatively effects us all.
The submission quoted in the article is, hopefully, evidence that not all local bodies have accepted nonsense disguised as ‘settled science’.
RT, David, Barry et alia: so far, Northland RC website refers me to MfE whch goes straight to the IPCC models first and foremost. Models we know produce no data – should be end of story. But NRC’s deciding presentation was in 2011 by guess who? Salinger, Saunders and Rod Oram as the mouthpiece I guess. With slides. What d’ya reckon about all this?
Brett,
I don’t know what was in the presentation, but since they’re all warmsters I can guess the tone of it.
By the way, went to Paparoa A+P Show today. Saw some great shearing and chopping etc.. Talked with NRC Field Staff, who don’t seem much more enamoured with DOC than I am. (Nor with the prostitution of research concerning sprays eg Roundup and false changing of test results which make anti-spray freaks give them a hard time. Which I saw today. I burnt their tender little ears, I fear)…… Brett
Okay then, that is what we have been saying, it is models all the way down until we reach Simon maybe. So next step, FOI’s to show that over many RC’s? Brett
This I regard as important info regarding how we define actual climate, especially in relation to the ‘Quiet Sun’ effect. Nasa physicists develope and use N2O emissions to find lowered UV and higher activity, sufficient to cause the lagged cooling some of us have noticed eg UV sunburns are rarer now while cosmic ray mesothelic skin damage is noticable to those who look from CME type activity. Typical of low sunspot periods of all stripes…..
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL064038
is the work published.
Lloyd Martin Hendaye February 15, 2019 at 5:30 am
Of course, valid statistical methodology is key to measurement in detail. But on broad, long-term semi-millennial and geologic time-scales, climate patterns are sufficiently crude-and-gruff to distinguish 102-kiloyear Pleistocene glaciations (“Ice Ages”) from median 12,250-year interstadial remissions such as the Holocene Interglacial Epoch which ended 12,250+3,500-14,400 = AD 1350 with a 500-year Little Ice Age (LIA) through c. AD 1850/1890.
In this regard, aside from correcting egregiously skewed official data, recent literature makes two main points:
First: NASA’s recently developed Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) “depicts how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (Hot); during Solar Minimum, it’s low (Cold). Right now, Earth’s TCI is … 10 times lower than during more active phases of the solar cycle,” as NASA compilers note.
“If current trends continue, Earth’s overall, non-seasonal temperature could set an 80-year record for cold,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “… (pending a 70-year Grand Solar Minimum), a prolonged and very severe chill-phase may begin in a matter of months.” [How does this guy still have a job?]
Second: Australian researcher Robert Holmes’ peer reviewed Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law (pub. December 2017) definitively refutes any possible CO2 connection to climate variations: Where Temperature T = PM/Rp, any planet’s near-surface global Temperature T equates to its Atmospheric Pressure P times Mean Molar Mass M over its Gas Constant R times Atmospheric Density p.
Accordingly, any individual planet’s global atmospheric surface temperature (GAST) is proportional to PM/p, converted to an equation per its Gas Constant reciprocal = 1/R. Applying Holmes’ relation to all planets in Earth’s solar system, zero error-margins attest that there is no empirical or mathematical basis for any “forced” carbon-accumulation factor (CO2) affecting Planet Earth.
As the current 140-year “amplitude compression” rebound from 1890 terminates in 2030 amidst a 70+ year Grand Solar Minimum similar to that of 1645 – 1715, measurements’ “noise levels” will certainly reflect Earth’s ongoing reversion to continental glaciations covering 70% of habitable regions with ice sheets 2.5 miles thick [see New York City’s Central Park striations]. If statistical armamentaria fail to register this self-evident trend from c. AD 2100 and beyond, so much the worse for self-deluded researchers.
Just putting that in for others to study. Other atmospherics such as Raaman spectroscopy and of the Gas Laws show the nakedness of alarmism, and how cold is what they should fear (being nude and all). I suspect the Trump effect is starting to show for US Physicists who can now start to publish the truth if tentatively. so far…..
And:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618301354
https://https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682618301354/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL032620
Therefore, all of the the ten warmest years in recorded history occurred during Solar Cycle 24 despite it being the coldest of the past seven solar cycles.
“Solar Cycle 24 .. being the COLDEST of the past seven cycles”
Oh dear, slight slippage of your brain cogs there, Simon . … Equating temperature to sunspot numbers ??? were you there ?? What !! , sunspot numbers having something to do with sea TEMPERATURE ?
Yeah, nah, it’s those 4 Hiroshima bombs / sec worth of your “greenhouse” rat droppings from the sky, causing “the ten warmest years in recorded history” , Simon. Warmth generated by corrupt, academic clowns massaging the data, year by year, harder and harder….every summer it starts with Salinger closely followed by NIWA , with hysterical heatwaves predicted and all amounting to a big fat nothing, a normal summer like any other, and the knowledge that everybody’s memory of the prediction will quickly fade.
Pack of troughing bastards.
Poor slimon, no concept of error margins, or possibly truth? Nah, just another red green shill. Tough when even Nasa turns on you, your end may be nigh at least.
Interesting to be reminded that GISS is not the only part of that weather and space avionics Agency……
As a realist, I stand ready to be proven wrong at any time. We see reasons for what is happening, but nature follows its own trail, not ours. There is enough warm and frigid ocean water to turn us tropical or frigid for thousands of years. But there must be reasons we are still in an Ice Age. Trace gas has never altered that before as geology tells us over billions of years and 10-20 times current concentrations. Cheers from Brett, waiting for a reply from NRC re my 1st FOI request, a sort of trial run.
Mack and Brett,
Could you please elaborate on your criticism of Simon’s remark, I don’t understand it?
I have no problem accepting that those “highest evah” years coincide with low solar output, if it’s correct, since the records were achieved by at most a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, which means nothing. They’re swallowed by the error margins and they’re not sequential, so there’s not even any significant warming. But you mock him; why?
I’m not mocking Simon, Richard. If I did, there would be this … aahahahahahahahaha.
Yes, it was ambiguous. Sorry about that. – RT
——————————-
As you say , records achieved by a few hundredths of a degree… and from that, NASA has concocted these global graphics getting redder and redder. … we’re right in the red now, so where to from here? They’ve run out colours.
You can see the whole hysteria getting desperate for the NIWA , NZ media, met office conglomerate, as they grasp around for some high temp record every summer.. any record of anything, rain , whatever, anywhere…. this year it was a record high in Cheviot by .. was it 0.1 of a degree.? Thermal Armageddon in Cheviot this year .. no wonder the kids are getting out of school to stand around in the street and chant with placards.
Continual wilful mis-spokenness. We can all be wrong, but shilling is different. I study the uncontaminated records and respect Holder’s Inequality. But tiny polar areas are misused by those who do not.
I do not know if Simon is a real identity or not, even. What I do know is that all calls for positive discussion are ignored, so contemptible troll is all I can see. Brett
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/26583-despite-climate-alarmism-global-sea-levels-fell-last-year
Haven’t studied this one yet. Should be worth discussing without contemptuous brushoffs…… Brett
Brett,
It’s a year and a half old, but at first glance looks solid. Look forward to hearing what you find.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
…….all others, bring data. Nothingburger, catastrophe-wise. Post-LIA rise is all. More power to The Coast! Living below sealevel at Ruawai, we watch sharply. Decisions made a century ago by Engineers, still stand up now. On a tectonically-subsiding coast. Brett
Brett,
I couldn’t resist the temptation to have a quick look. Using the same Colorado data, I get a different curve with a rising trend:
The New American must have done magic whizzy things to get their graph:
There’s reasons for the satellite jump on tide guages (GPS-verified). As you would know, they are not climatic . Brett
Parliamentary Questions for Written Answer:
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/order-paper-questions/written-questions/document/WQ_01822_2019/1822-2019-todd-muller-to-the-climate-change-minister
1822 (2019). Todd Muller to the Climate Change (Minister – James Shaw) (12 Feb 2019): Has the Minister seen reports of the West Coast Regional Council requesting evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that climate change is caused by human activities and if so, what references, if any, has his office/Ministry supplied to that Council?
Hon James Shaw (Climate Change (Minister – James Shaw)) replied: Yes I have seen their media statements. My office and the Ministry for the Environment have not provided any specific references on climate change to the West Coast Regional Council as a result of their recent statements. There is a range of international and domestic information publically available on this.
I wonder why? The West Coast’s much-publicised ‘denialism’ gave the Minister a perfect opportunity to swat them away with just a few well-aimed links to the “overwhelming” evidence of human causation. That would have soon put an end to their embarrassing ‘redneck’ attitudes. But no – the Minister didn’t even trust Parliament with his ‘publicly available information’.
Perhaps we can look to New Zealand’s largest news source, for the missing links:
“Stuff accepts the overwhelming evidence that climate change is real and caused by human activities…”
Brett,
Sure, but there has been no jump in the tide gauges, which genuinely measure the water level on our coastline. No matter what the satellites measure far out at sea, and why, the tide gauges remain reliable.
Barry,
Yes, nicely put, and surely the simplest course, better than risking a denial of science. I’d add that if evidence is a bit sparse, then throwing some money at it and doing a little more proper science might be justified.
Put it like this: if we thought that mitigation and adaptation was going to be expensive, such as trillions per year or something, we might conclude that spending several million (well, oh hang it all, even a billion, ok?) on detecting solid justification for the alarm would be money well spent.
Is that sensible or what?
There won’t be evidence that human causation is “more than half” until the IPCC is able to explain and quantify the remainder of the observed warming. This has been beyond their brief.
In a recent paper, Ben Santer says anthropogenic cause is now provable to a ‘gold standard’ because satellite-based temperature series (which he has previously dismissed) have finally found the tropical tropospheric ‘hot spot’. But the inventor of satellite measurements, John Christy, says otherwise.
Yes RT, and of course I agree, Satellites jumped, we saw it, but gps-verified guages never have. Brett
Greenhouse gas increases have almost certainly contributed more than half of the observed warming. It is likely that greenhouse gases have contributed more than 100% of the observed warming as solar + volcanic + aerosols have likely had a negative contribution. Please re-read the peer-reviewed literature until you understand this.
Ben Santer’s recent paper is discussed /dissected by Ross McKitrick
https://judithcurry.com/2019/03/01/critique-of-the-new-santer-et-al-2019-paper/#comment-889955
It’s worth reading through some of the comments below the Critique
Simon, “likely” is a term of probability that has no place in statistical science, which is part of my qualifications. It is only part of a sick propaganda attempt to rule the world and profit hugely thereby. Started by the criminal fraudster communist Maurice Strong.
It is used to fool the credulous that claims are valid, when they are NOT. It is of similar worth to detergent claims re competing products. That is, none at all.
For more than half a century I have had practical cause to watch tide levels most days. No significant change but various cyclic trends in effect about a point very close to zero for all practical needs. The natural variation totally swamps anything else away from the glaciation zones. That is what us real NZers build and indeed pay for in our rural drainage rates for instance. And we manage the matter ourselves, locally. According to varying needs. Real engineering bears no resemblance to the fraudulent type practiced by the Santers of this world, and pushed by trolls. Brett