NZ Green Party
Leadership

Obama telling it like it is and as we have always said it is:

My presidency will mark a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change that will strengthen our security and create millions of new jobs in the process. That will start with a federal cap-and-trade system. We’ll establish strong annual targets that set us on a course to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020, and reduce them an additional 80% by 2050. Further, we’ll invest $15 billion each year to catalyze private-sector efforts to build a clean-energy future.

Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combatting climate change. The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear.

Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.

When a Green Party MP says these things, it’s just the loony left who don’t understand science and should shut up and wait to see what the Aussies and the US are going to do. Meanwhile, the New Zealand government reopens the talking shop to debate whether the sun revolves around the earth.

39 thoughts on “Leadership

  1. lmao@”When a Green Party MP says these things, it’s just the loony left who don’t understand science and should shut up and wait to see what the Aussies and the US are going to do”. So true and a sad indictment on our countries thinking. New Zealand used to be known as the country who set the moral standard for others to follow, now we are known as members of skepticsrus

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. The difference, Frog, is if Obama gets America’s greenhouse gas emissions down by just one percent, that would be a big deal. If we stopped emitting greenhouse gasses altogether (a 100% reduction – impossible, but bear with me a minute) then we would still have done less than Obama’s 1%.

    You need to get a sense of proportion.

    Oh yeah, Obama is going to be in a place to do something about it, whereas Green Party MPs…. (groping for words) aren’t.

    Still hoping everyone (including NZ) follows Obama’s lead, and note it is a cap system with a reducing cap, which has a real shot at actually reducing emissions, not just make carbon traders rich.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. I’m sure the world will take us seriously when Hide’s select committee determines that AGW is all a big conspiracy of power-hungry scientists, or something.

    Anyone else see parallels between Dubya’s preelection promises to deal with global warming (shelved as soon as he took office) and Key doing likewise? And is Hide taking on the James Inhofe role of extreme denier to make the leader look fractionally more moderate?

    Just a thought.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. Frog Re:
    >When a Green Party MP says these things, it’s just the loony left

    Therein lies your problem as a party. Because of all the left wing extremism that the Green Party in New Zealand has adopted, you are classed as the loony left. If you focused as a party on things that were ‘green’ and abandoned the pursuit of communism based societal control, you would get more traction.

    There are many examples of single issue parties succeeding, why doesn’t the current party split into two, one for green issues and one for social issues, and see which gains substantial support form the electorate?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. And how does he intend to fund it?

    That will be interesting…..

    >>wait to see what the Aussies and the US are going to do

    Absolutely. We can’t lead on this, because no-one follows New Zealand, and if we try to, we run the very real risk of destroying our economy because we incur costs that other producers don’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. I’m not sure that I would go so far as your conspriacy idea, XYY. Yes, Hide makes Key look moderate, but he always did and Key didn’t have to give him rope on this one, unless he himself is a closet denier.

    As for proportion dbuckley, kiwis are amongst the worst in the world for emissions and per capita, our porportion is huge. Any changes we make are huge, too. I do agree with you on the cap. We called and fought for a real cap and a reducing one. Cap and trade without a cap is really a tax in disguise… But that’s another post I’m working on…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. >>per capita,

    That doesn’t mean anything.

    A lone guy on a desert island could have the highest emissions per capita, but it is ludicrous to suggest he will have any effect on climate change.

    >>any changes we make are huge, too.

    Wrong. It is true to say that any changes we make, including reducing the population to zero, will be utterly insignificant on a global scale.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. - “I’m sure the world will take us seriously when Hide’s select committee determines that AGW is all a big conspiracy of power-hungry scientists, or something.”

    Yes, they probably would. If Hide gets to publicly present some of the evidence piling up against the theory a lot of people currently in the dark would wake up to the fact that the science is anything but “settled.” After all, how many people know that the Hockeystick was totally discredited?

    But all he really needs to do is make the agreement conditional: A lot of people would support the government saying they’d implement a carbon tax if and when China and India do the same. And that won’t happen for at least ten years, by which time we’ll have had some 20 years of cooling so the issue will be moot.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. There is something incredibly spooky about the way this con man is being accepted by so many from the left as the Messiah, and all this from a party that hates religion (western religion anyway) with a passion normally reserved for everything pre Obama Messiah USA.

    I wonder how long we will have to wait for the first anti USA post here at Frogblog once the Obama Messiah takes office, my guess is that it will be years.

    Three are a lot of people who are going to be extremely disappointed when they realise he is not going to CHANGE one single thing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. “After all, how many people know that the Hockeystick was totally discredited?”

    Totally discredited by who?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. Wat

    If we DON’T have 20 years of cooling at that point, and we’ve started dying because you and Rodney have defective theories and selective hearing, can we take it out on you? Not that it would do a lot of good but…

    Because the consequences if WE are wrong are that our kids can burn what they like and not much else happens.

    The consequences if YOU are wrong are a very real environmental catastrophe that kills billions of people.

    …and you are STILL stuck on the hockeystick!

    BB… you should be able to figure out from what you yourself posted that the Greens aren’t against the USA…. the current administration gathers the opprobrium, but the USA as a country is not so reviled.

    I don’t reckon the “Hockey Stick” as originally presented or modified, has much of a handle. Too much fuzz. Not enough certainty in the data.

    Wat thinks this is indication of original sin and therefore there can be no such thing as AGW. He doesn’t look at anything else, just Mann vs MacIntyre. All other sources of information are ignored. No valid alternative theories are presented.

    I am sure such fixations are treatable. Me, I don’t want to go through this nonsense yet again. I’ll probably have to, as every time he goes off someone has to clean up the mess.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. and so bjchip resorts to the precautionary principle again.

    of course using that principle we would also be spending billions of dollars on space lasers to defend against attacking aliens and space nets to catch earth-bound meteors.

    and before you say ‘there’s evidence for global warming’ or ‘global warming is much more likely’ – that may well be… thanks for bringing us back to the evidence debate, rendering your entire argument about the precautionary principle redundant.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. Peteremcc,

    >> and before you say ‘there’s evidence for global warming’ or ‘global warming is much more likely’ – that may well be… thanks for bringing us back to the evidence debate, rendering your entire argument about the precautionary principle redundant.

    I don’t think that the probability of an event is irrelevant when it comes to risk management.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. exactly, that’s why we look at the science and the evidence.

    the whole point of the precautionary principle argument is to provide an argument even if the science doesn’t stack up:

    “well even if it’s not likely at all, we should prepare for it anyway because if it does happen it’ll be so bad”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. petermcc

    We are already working at tracking the major earth orbit crossing asteroids… not that expensive. What we’d be able to do if we found one that was likely to hit is questionable, but somehow your argument makes a lot less sense when you recognize that if we DID find one and the odds were up there at the 90% range, we’d spend whatever it takes to save ourselves.

    Next up is the question of likelihood of the event. As Presse-puree has covered that I won’t bother repeating.

    We’ve been through this before. If Wat had made an argument, presented a theory or had data to offer I would have addressed those. He made a prediction backed by zero evidence and I provided a similarly trivial opinion… with a real reason to choose one side rather than the other.

    I’m tired of this. Time for sleep.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. Petermcc… the IPCC and the scientific community as a whole reckons that it is happening and it is us. The confidence is quite high as scientific predictions go. That’s the problem… it IS likely. It is quite likely and you don’t want to believe that either. I can accept that it might not be what I think it is… but the odds against are formidable. You are not accepting that it might not be what YOU think it is, and the likelihood of that is considerable.

    There is more to this than “precautionary principle”… this is a risk benefit matrix and probability plays a part in it. Just not a part you are willing to accept, because it is based on actual science and all those scientists are in a conspiracy with the environmentalists to take over the world….

    No.. it is not worth staying up to argue every irrelevant bit of malarkey some wing-nut needs to have refuted.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. “Meanwhile, the New Zealand government reopens the talking shop to debate whether the sun revolves around the earth.”

    Frog, if you use the Earth as your centre point, then you can rightly argue that the sun revolves around the Earth. Hard to believe, I know, but if you utilise your two fingers (or coins) as the position of Earth and the Sun, and switch your centre points, then you would probably understand where I was coming from.

    What the issue was back in the 16th Century was that everyone assumed that everything revolved around the Earth, which is of course incorrect. Even if you utilised the Earth as your centre point, the other planets would still revolve around the Sun. Likewise, you could use any planet as a centre point and the Sun would revolve around them. You could use the black hole at the centre of the galaxy as your centre point, and the Sun would revolve around that, with your planets revolving around the Sun.

    I sound crazy, yes, but there is some logic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. I see this morning that there has again been an increase in the green house gas emissions worldwide. I assume there are more scientific reports on this than merely the news link.
    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5171191

    BJ, some words of encourgement. Your audience is not the right wing AGW deniers, it is those of us with less scientific knowledge of the subject that appreciate the arguments that you and BOSH and others put forward. You will never convince the deniers and hopefully you will never in a position to say “I told you so.” Your arguments and the links you provide are followed by those who have an open mind about this and are capable of being persuaded. See the deniers on this blog merely as foils that allow you (and others) to educate us about the issue.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. Frog

    I’m not sure that I would go so far as your conspriacy idea, XYY. Yes, Hide makes Key look moderate, but he always did and Key didn’t have to give him rope on this one, unless he himself is a closet denier.

    I wouldn’t rule it out, given his previous volte-face on the subject. If Key is a denier, it would explain how Act got to dictate such an important issue when they were initially content with just being in government. It would also allow Key to renege on his previous position while claiming his hands are tied.

    I may prejudging and Key might yet surprise us. I just don’t want it to be a nasty surprise, like “fast follower” meaning “follow the US’s position from eight years ago”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. XYY – point taken. I am just giving Key the benefit of the doubt at the moment on this very serious issue. It won’t stop me from continuously hammering him, as any good opposition frog would do, but at this point I’ll keep my thoughts where they are – at the grave misgivings stage, and see where Key goes with it. On the flip side, promising a ‘review’ is the best way to look like you are making concessions without having to do bugger all. This is a lesson the Greens learned some years ago, but Act and the Maori Party have yet to learn. I hope I’m right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. wat – I like how you have moved the goalposts. First it was “We should do nothing until Australia and the USA do something.” Now, your argument has shifted to “We should do nothing until China and India do something”. When will it end? When will it be time to act? After the polar ice cap is gone?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. IceBaby Says:
    November 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    >>per capita,

    That doesn’t mean anything.

    A lone guy on a desert island could have the highest emissions per capita, but it is ludicrous to suggest he will have any effect on climate change.

    the same applies to any individual american as well as any new zealander. there are states in the usa as small as nz… what if they demanded exemption on that basis? then within the other states, towns or industries began to claim exemption just because they alone could not make much of a difference?

    peteremcc Says:
    November 25th, 2008 at 11:34 pm

    and so bjchip resorts to the precautionary principle again.

    of course using that principle we would also be spending billions of dollars on space lasers to defend against attacking aliens and space nets to catch earth-bound meteors.

    but building a space defence might cost us resources which could be expended on other uses, while cutting fossil-fuel usage merely defers the use of a resource, so there’s one difference

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. # IceBaby Says:
    November 25th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    > Wrong. It is true to say that any changes we make, including reducing the population to zero, will be utterly insignificant on a global scale.

    Icebaby,
    did you bother to vote in the recent election? Following your logic you shouldn’t have, because your vote by itself would not be enough to make a meaningful difference to the result.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. Individually, any changes any of us make are pointless. Obama can do more with one wave of his executive order machine than any mob of individuals. Theres no per-capita fudging there, just reality.

    On the other hand you have to think that when the Republicans get back in, they’ll reverse all this stuff. Kinda like Ronnie having the solar panels on the White House removed, pretty much “gone by lunchtime”.

    And kahikatea – the problem of your voting analogy is that voting isn’t an individual act: its a collective organised act. If you were to vote today it would have no effect. If 2m of us decided to vote today it would have no effect. It only had effect between certain hours on a certain day.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. bjchip,

    - “…and you are STILL stuck on the hockeystick! ”

    And that’s because, absent the distinctive and alarming Hockeystick pattern, you are forced to admit that recent changes are entirely within the bounds of normal climate behaviour.
    Such a bombshell revelation would cause most people to complete re-evaluate their position and back-off a long way from their earlier alarmism; but not you lot.

    And that really lifted the lid on the shocking state of the so-called science behind your circus.

    Another example would be the “adjustments” to the temperature record applied by organisations like NASA, whose previous good name has been dragged into the gutter. In essence, they apply a false warming trend to the data (if anything, they should apply an increasing negative adjustment to counter the urban heat island effect), and then announce that, er, there’s a warming trend.

    Lies by crooks and charlatans.

    - “I don’t reckon the “Hockey Stick” as originally presented or modified, has much of a handle. Too much fuzz. Not enough certainty in the data.”

    That’s very big of you: Mann completely messed up the processing of his (cherry-picked) data so that even completely random numbers passed through his program almost invariably produce a hockeystick-shaped chart, and you say that there is “not enough certainty in the data.”

    Can you see why you have zero credibility?

    - “The confidence is quite high as scientific predictions go.”

    Except for the fact that the planet is cooling you mean, rather than warming at faster and faster rates. Because that’s another thing, isn’t it: Your leading propagandists are telling people that the Earth is getting warmer faster, when in fact it’s doing the opposite. Yet still you berate the sceptics rather than those self-interested liars.

    frog,

    - “When will it be time to act? After the polar ice cap is gone?”

    Cooling is predicted over the coming two or three decades. This understanding is based on a proper understanding of what drives climate change (and it sure ain’t CO2). However, if there is significant warming over that time then that will be the time to re-evaluate.

    To do so whilst the climate is behaving perfectly normally (cooling, in line with predictions, while your theory insists it should be warming) would be a crime.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. Can you see why you have zero credibility?

    Sorry, wat, you’re the loser in the credibility stakes, because you demonstrate (yet again) that you simply don’t understand the issues. The “hockeystick” has been specifically endorsed by ever major examination it has been subjected to. Mann’s paper wasn’t perfect, by any means, but it was the first to cover the subject in a rigourous way (over ten years ago!) – and most tellingly of all, has provided the foundation for a huge amount of subsequent work, all of which has confirmed the general conclusion. Recent decades have been warmer than any time in the last few thousand years (perhaps since the last interglacial), and the rate of change in the global average temperature unprecedented.

    The planet is not cooling, It wasn’t the last time you asserted that as fact, and it still isn’t. Here’s an excellent explanation from Prof Barry Brook in Adelaide.

    There’s only one charlatan on display here, and that’s you I’m afraid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. BOCC,

    - “The “hockeystick” has been specifically endorsed by ever major examination it has been subjected to. ”

    Could you list them, please.

    - “Recent decades have been warmer than any time in the last few thousand years (perhaps since the last interglacial)”

    On what evidence do you say this?

    I have already pointed you at a site which has collated a very large collection of independant studies using various types of proxies, which demonstrate the the Medieval Warm Period was at least as warm as recent temperatures, and quite possibly warmer.

    You covering your ears and closing your eyes doesn’t change these inconvenient facts.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. The National Academy of Sciences report & the National Research Council report (both US – linked at the Wikipedia page on the “controversy”), but perhaps more importantly, the point I made above – that the paper has proven a fertile source of inspiration for dozens of subsequent studies (most recent linked above), which you can read about in IPCC AR4 WG1.

    That work, all of it, confirms that during recent decades the global average temperature has been warmer than any time in at least the last thousand years – probably longer. The rate of change in global average temp is currently (last 30 years) somewhere between 0.15 and 0.2C per decade, 15 to 20 times faster than the change in global average temp during the 5,000 years it took the world to warm out of the last ice age (about 5C).

    There is no credible peer-reviewed paper that shows anything similar to your claim above.

    And I suppose the world is still cooling is it? Or are you still shutting your eyes to the facts?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. BOCC,

    You said “The “hockeystick” has been specifically endorsed by ever major examination it has been subjected to”, clearly implying there was quite a number of them.

    But you’ve just mentioned one.

    Where are the others?

    Before I refute the NAS one you mention, please supply a list of all the others you had in mind.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. BOCC,

    It’s not clear why you would quote the NAS report. It was a very limited review which specifically qualified its luke-warm approval by saying it’s only confident of the last 400 years history reconstruction and not the 1000 years depicted by the Hockeystick.

    Did you actually read any of this stuff before grandly claiming it supports your position? Because quite clearly it doesn’t.

    It merely used the neutral term “plausible” regarding the claim that recent temperatures were the warmest for a millenium. That is understandable, because all they’re saying is that there’s nothing inherent in the Hockeystick to rule out such a possibility. But the point here is that the panel restricted their efforts to the Hockeystick itself; they didn’t go looking for data (of which is there in abundance) to try and prove this point one way or the other.

    As for your National Research Council report, it specifically mentions the Medieval Warm Period – something which was notably absent from the Hockeystick:- “Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents”

    So, in support of the Hockeystick chart, which explicitly erases the MWP (and the LIA) from history, you cite a report which specifically says that both events did occur (and, again, this report specifically says it is “less confident” about claims made for the climate prior to 400 years ago – so you are completely wrong to claim that it supports the 1000 year period of the Hockeystick.)

    So, again, did you actually read any of this stuff, or did you just grab the titles from Wikipedia?

    First question: Which is correct? The Hockeystick, which asserts no MWP and no LIA, or this report which you mistakenly cited in support, but which actually contradicts it and says both those events did take place. They can’t both be right.

    Further, you strangely don’t mention the Wegman Report which looked at Mann’s use of statistics in constructing the Hockeystick.
    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

    This report confirmed that completely random data fed into Mann’s homemade computer program almost invariably results in a hockeystick-shaped chart which is indistinguishable from the notorious original. The effect can be reproduced at will.

    More than that, the precise mathematical reason for this phenomenon was identified.

    So – second question – do you understand and accept that completely random data passed through Mann’s program nearly always produces hockeystick charts? If not, why not.
    Further, do you agree that such a hockeystick-shaped chart, produced by what is essentially a hockeystick-chart producing program, can have no significance whatsover?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. And that’s because, absent the distinctive and alarming Hockeystick pattern, you are forced to admit that recent changes are entirely within the bounds of normal climate behaviour.

    BullSH!T Mr Dabney… it means no such fncking thing.

    You are ASSERTING by that statement of yours that temperature changes an order of magnitude faster than any observed in any known paleoclimate with CO2 changes 50 times faster than any observed in any paleoclimate are meaningless.

    You have no evidence AND no theory to support that statement and I’d appreciate it if you would actually think before you made such an assertion.

    Your insults and the rest of your tirade are rendered meaningless by that initial error. Did you really think you could slip it past me?

    I am going to go to bed.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. I think it perhaps relevant to quote the original title of Mann, Bradley and Hughes paper of 1998: Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. It wasn’t about laying down tablets of stone – it was an enquiry, an exploration, and a fruitful one that has been replicated many times over.

    You mention Wegman. That was a politically-sponsored and motivated report, and has nothing to do with the reality of the underlying dispute.

    As far as the “hockeystick maker” in Mann’s technique is concerned, it’s there under certain conditions, but the effect is very small (Wahl and Ammann 2006). Processing the same proxy data in different ways still produces a clear hockeystick.

    Nobody has ever tried to deny the existence of a MWP or Little Ice Age. They certainly occurred in parts of the world, but there remain doubts about the MWP in particular being a truly global phenomenon (partly due to the limited availability of SH temperature proxy series).

    But here’s a thing. Let’s suppose that you perform a miracle, and show that the MWP was as warm as today. That would mean that the climate system was capable of much greater unforced swings in temperature than we thought. We’ve now added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and it’s warming up. If you’re right, then we’re headed toward much greater temperature increases than even the IPCC’s worst projections suggest.

    But I’ suspect that’s not the point you’re trying to make… ;-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. >>because your vote by itself would not be enough to make a meaningful difference to the result.

    It doesn’t.

    I vote in order to feel like I have a say in the outcome, but the reality is that I don’t.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. bjchip,

    - “temperature changes an order of magnitude faster than any observed in any known paleoclimate”

    Good grief. I knew you had some strange ideas on the subject, but I had no idea you were so profoundly ignorant.
    Some slight warming over the last two hundred hundred or so years and, for some reason, you think it is not just remarkable but “an order of magnitude faster” than, say, the warming of the MWP or the cooling of the LIA. No wonder you’ve scared yourself to death.

    BOCC,

    - “You mention Wegman. That was a politically-sponsored and motivated report, and has nothing to do with the reality of the underlying dispute”

    Let’s grab just the first couple of lines from his entry in Wikipedia: “Edward Wegman is a statistics professor at George Mason University and chair of the National Research Council’s Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. He holds a Ph.D. in mathematical statistics and is a Fellow of the American Statistical Association and a Senior Member of the IEEE.”

    So, firstly, this scholar confirmed that even completely random data passed through Mann’s program almost invariably produces the famous hockeystick graph then, secondly, identified and explained exactly why this happens; and your response to all that is to try and smear and dismiss it as a “politically-sponsored and motivated report, and has nothing to do with the reality of the underlying dispute”

    Do you think your reply tells us more about the Wegman report, or more about you?

    Let’s start from basics: Do you dispute Wegman’s findings concerning the Hockeystick chart – specifically that even completely random data produces an indistinguishable hockeystick chart? If so, on what grounds do you dispute it?
    On the other hand, if you accept his findings, why are you a) still angrily defending the Hockeystick and b) trying to smear Wegman for documenting its failings?

    - “Nobody has ever tried to deny the existence of a MWP or Little Ice Age. ”

    Apart from your Hockeystick chart of course. The reason why it was so significant is precisely because it falsely depicted a completely stable historical climate, with no MWP and no LIA. That’s what made the recent warming seem to stick out like a saw thumb.

    Let me repeat my question from my previous post, which you seem to have overlooked:
    Which is correct? The Hockeystick, which asserts no MWP and no LIA, or this report which you mistakenly cited in support, but which actually contradicts it and says both those events did take place. They can’t both be right.

    - “Processing the same proxy data in different ways still produces a clear hockeystick.”

    This is not only incorrect it contradicts what you’ve just said about there being an MWP and LIA. If the Hockeystick pattern were correct then there could not have been an MWP or LIA because they are noticably missing from the chart. So make up your mind. What exactly are you saying? Do you even know yourself?

    - “They certainly occurred in parts of the world, but there remain doubts about the MWP in particular being a truly global phenomenon (partly due to the limited availability of SH temperature proxy series).”

    If you bothered to refer to the proxy collection I linked to, you’d know that this is untrue. There is evidence showing the MWP to be a global phenomenon.

    - “But here’s a thing. Let’s suppose that you perform a miracle, and show that the MWP was as warm as today. That would mean that the climate system was capable of much greater unforced swings in temperature than we thought. We’ve now added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere, and it’s warming up. If you’re right, then we’re headed toward much greater temperature increases than even the IPCC’s worst projections suggest.”

    Heads you win, tails I lose, eh? If the historical climate were stable, it means recent warming is really alarming. But if historical climate fluctuated significantly, it means future changes could be even bigger, which is really alarming.

    It seems that, for you, whatever the climate does, that’s the thing we’ve got to be most alarmed about.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. Wat,

    First you create an army of straw men, and then set about demolishing them. If it keeps you happy, I suppose that’s fine, but it doesn’t amount to sensible debate. You are also aggressively rude, which disinclines me to waste further time on your misinterpretation of the evidence.
    When you’ve read (and understood) Spencer Weart’s excellent Discovery of global warming, we might have some basis for discussion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. Wat

    We’ve been over the rate of warming in this century. Quantified it and compared it with the start of the interglacial. Ten times faster was the result. The CO2 similarly. Now we ALREADY did this once and not that long ago and since your memory apparently sncks as badly as your manners it didn’t stick.

    Insulting me only tests my patience. It proves nothing.

    Some slight warming over the last two hundred hundred or so years and, for some reason, you think it is not just remarkable but “an order of magnitude faster” than, say, the warming of the MWP or the cooling of the LIA

    Nope… I didn’t mention the cooling of the Last Ice Age. I mentioned WARMING which had ITS driver from the Sun, similarly to what you postulate and which spent thousands of years in the process. I find it annoying that you keep laying these little traps so that you can play “gotcha”… it is VERY juvenile behavior. If you know something, spit it out. It is probably annoying YOU that I avoid them, which might explain the insults.

    Tell us all what caused the MWP, since you are apparently such an expert. Tell us all how you KNOW that it was warmer. Given the margin of error of the experiments and proxies used kindly direct us to the time machine with which you send thermometers back to measure the temperature of the entire planet (quite a project actually) to overcome that margin. You and that claim about what we “know” about the MWP are completely out of line.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig610.html

    Moreover, as I pointed out earlier, the MWP is irrelevant to what is happening now. You have presented no evidence or theory about why the MWP happened and there is little evidence about how extensive it was. You have further, presented no alternative theory about what is happening now.

    I see nothing in your posts of any value, they fill a desperately needed emptiness.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. There is evidence that there was some MWP in NZ ( but not in Tasmania ? ) and that it was during different centuries (per the proxies) than the record shows in the Northern Hemisphere. There is no evidence I see that there was a contemporaneous warming in both hemispheres. It is POSSIBLE that there was, the error bars are quite large.

    It is irrelevant. You aren’t “disproving” AGW by claiming that climate warmed for some other reason some other time. That’s probably the most important problem you have. We don’t care about then, we care about now.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>