Climate Science domains battle it out

In response to the website of the newly-formed Climate Science Coalition,, Greenpeace have launched, which not surprisingly, sets out the case that climate change is occurring and is caused by humans. The coalition obviously weren’t savvy enough to do what many other groups do and register similar domain names to their own and redirect traffic, so Greenpeace leapt in and registered and Legitimate? This was discussed on Nine to Noon this morning, with Owen McShane of the coalition complaining that Greenpeace are trying to mislead people looking for his group.

I think it’s fair enough. Greenpeace are perfectly entitled to do what they did, though I would certainly be annoyed if someone did it to me. Where I lose sympathy for the coalition – aside from my abhorrence of their views – is that I don’t think anyone can claim ownership of a term like “climate science”. It’s too broad, and their attempt to brand themselves this way was misleading in the first place.

52 Comments Posted

  1. Duncan – Have you gone to realclimate yet? I generalized for that rant and I had just got off a separate line with a less rational “market rulez” believer… so I apologize, cause that wasn’t all aimed at you…. but we have to detect the harm as well. I personally have no resources to determine that my wait loss diet isn’t in fact missing the essential ‘t’ ingredient. However stupid I might or might not be to believe some fatuous advertising, it is almost impossible for an individual to catch the B*t%^ds and stop them or even to know what has happened to them. I am thinking of a guy who is suffering from dioxin poisoning…. took YEARS to get it diagnosed… and the company that did it is long gone. Once I am injured, along with a few thousand others, it may become apparent that something should be done… or I may rely on being organized enough to prevent some of that harm occurring. To keep the dioxins from being released, to keep the atmosphere from warming.

    As for the climate, ownership of the sky is a real stretch…. and my imagination is about as elastic as they come.

    stay well

  2. BJ,

    You’re misrepresenting and / or misunderstanding my position. I am not an anarchist; I am a Libertarian. There is a very real need for Government, courts, Police, etc. – and part of that is to uphold a framework of common law, so that people can take legal action against those who cause them material harm, be it through selling faulty products, pollution, etc. etc.

  3. Duncan – Go to realclimate NOW. If you won’t educate yourself I won’t talk with you. You seem to think that paying for use of the environment is a bad idea unless we all somehow “Own” a couple of cubic miles of atmosphere. OK… You figure out how to separate mine from Stuey’s. I am sure he’d appreciate it, I had beans for lunch 🙂

    You “Caveat Emptor” types are pathetic… as if you’d have a snowballs chance of defending yourself against a corporation that sold you something like a Pinto or flammable PJ’s without the help of the government… as if the whole world could suddenly change and make human business organizations act more responsibly than individual humans that make them up. The BALANCE of government versus business has to be maintained and where it fails, the society follows. Please pay attention to the word BALANCE as well as to the implied opposition. No corporation has any duty to do anything but make money for its shareholders.


  4. ah, just realised, you’re a friend of Trevor “reds under the bed” Loudon aren’t you? The comparison is not so much the fact you see communist plots in everything, more the fact that you quote something that someone has said as if it is some damning statement that proves that they are some sort of communist radical, but when anyone else reads it, they think, eh? what? what’s wrong with that? that’s sounds entirely reasonable!

    what is wrong with “economics as if people mattered”? it sounds great.

  5. It is absolutely not true that it is “typical” of groups who believe in AGW to be “also anti-capitalism, anti-growth, and anti-industry”.

    Groups and people who believe in AGW are a very broad church, and run the full range of political opinion from Greenleft to respectable sustainable business networks, major intergovernmental bodies, august scientific bodies, the UN, NGOs, and very many right-wing pro-business people, including Tony Blair.

    The fact that you say that Tony Blair is anti-growth and anti-industry just goes to show that everything else you say is heap of steaming …

  6. Lean is a socialist, widely cited in socialist publications (e.g. the Socialist Viewpoint), and no friend of laissez-faire capitalism. E.g.:

    > In an article in The Observer late last year, Geoffrey Lean suggested
    > that the proposals of Fritz Schumacher, whose ideas were launched 25
    > years ago, merited much closer attention than they were accorded.
    > Schumacher, a German-born, naturalised Briton, had formally
    > enunciated in his 1973 book Small is Beautiful theories first published in
    > The Observer in 1965. According to Lean: “His ideas swept the world.
    > But the movement he founded … has curiously failed to take off.”
    > Schumacher’s approach was certainly unorthodox. Strangely for an
    > economist, he attacked the convention of considering the soundness of
    > an industrial or commercial project on the basis of whether it was
    > economic or uneconomic, insisting that there was a deeper,
    > metaphysical aspect to such questions which outweighed ordinary
    > material considerations. He envisaged a higher science — he called
    > meta-economics — whose principles are conveyed by the sub-title of his
    > book: A study of Economics as if People Mattered. He argued that giving
    > overriding weight to the needs and circumstances of the people when
    > taking economic decisions would not only bring a much-needed breath of
    > humanity into a cold, conscience-less science, but would give new hope
    > of solving the world’s basic social problems.

    You say “university funded”. Do you mean that the universities in question are commercial entities that make money to spend on research – or do you *really* mean taxpayer-funded? If the latter, just how independant do you think their research will really be?

    Haven’t got time to look into the rest (at the moment). I will get back to it though.

  7. exactly duncan
    which is why i’m sending you to
    these are university-funded scientists, not associate with any NGO.

    and the national academies of science. What’s their bias?

    What about today’s herald, for example.
    please inform us about the bias of this scientist who has just published this paper. And also,while you’re there, tell us about the bias of the Independent and Geoffrey Lean.

  8. Those adamant that humans are to blame for global warming are every bit as biased; for typically those groups are also anti-capitalism, anti-growth, and anti-industry.

    Restrictions on CO2 & other emissions are a godsend to such groups, who rightly see such restrictions as a gigantic boat-anchor slowing down (or even reversing) growth in Western countries. is a great example; note their prominent links to Communist organisations, and the image of the mass-murderer Che Guevara on their banner.

    Whenever you’re investigating a claim, try to look beyond the spin. That warning applies equally to claims by oil-company executives, and claims by tree-hugging communists.

  9. *sigh*
    just go to

    Take your arguments to the climate scientists. It’s all full referenced and whatever your question they will probably answer it. I’m sure you’ll be able to give a full reference rebuttal of everything they say there. Do let us know how you get on.

    The IPCC is made up of about 1500-2000 people, drawing on a vast number of studies about oceans, clouds, forests, icecaps, rainfall, snowfall, meteorology, etc etc etc.

    They have decided that climate change is happening and that we are causing it. This despite the efforts of the fossil fuel industry to lobby against their conclusions.

    And, if you refuse to acknowledge the UN, then 17 National academies of science agree. And Last year 11 national academies from the G8 countries (the UK, the US, Canada, Italy, Japan, Russia, France, Germany), plus Brazil, India and China came out and said that the science said that climate change was happening and we are causing it through the burning of fossil fuels.

    The Royal Society – in the UK and here, all agree. Every country that has signed the Kyoto Protocol agree.

    Oh, but no! Hold your horses! Augie Auer, Bob Carter and Vincent Gray, three scientists (last peer reviewed published papers on climate when???) say that it’s not happening!

    Stop all action. Continue to pump shit into the atmosphere. Bring on the fossil fuels. Pump the oil dry. Dig up the coal. Buy SUV’s. Don’t save energy. Cut down the windfarms.

    Because Augie Auer, that INCREDIBLY distinguished, internationally renowned climate scientist who’s been a pioneering scientist in the area of climate, doesn’t believe it.

    Augie, Vince and Bob, and their mates Owen and Brian (none of whom have any links to the fossil fuel industry, definitely not!) say it’s not happening, so we’d better believe them.

  10. As I said at the beginning the green movement in this country is more about anti Americanism and anti big business than any other motivation.

    I am still sceptical that global warming has been totally driven by mankind. The green are using research that supports the like of Auer as seen last week when a spin was put on the speed of chnage is increasing due to natural co2 being released form oceans etc as the earth warms. This increasing co2 could well be as the so called sceptics have claimed the increasing co2 is a result of global warming not the cause.

    What has never been countered is that the has has been warmer than it is now before.

  11. Duncan

    Oh! No UN? therefore no outlet for countries in disagreement other than war? Just how long do you think the planet would last if we had more wars? Would we even be talking here?

    It is way better than most of the alternatives. You have to map the path from where you are politically and socially to where you WANT to be. I submit that the libertarian ideals are unobtainable and unstable in a social organization made of humans. Your dream is actually a nightmare… fortunately it cannot come true.


  12. bjchip,

    The alternative is no UN. If you were trying to fight a fire, how would you respond to someone asking you what you planned on replacing the fire with?

  13. GSM – if you’d believe “anyone” then you should’ve started believing us, I think you are more selective and less sensible than you realize. Duncan? You have to compare the UN to the alternatives. – BJ

  14. My views:

    UNdesirable: Why You Shouldn’t Support the United Nations

    The United Nations (UN) is a socialist organization with fascist leanings. The purpose of this article is to highlight existing problems with the UN and its policies, and to lead the reader to question whether membership or support of the UN is moral, or even pragmatically desirable.

    These problem areas are:

    1. Property Ownership
    2. Firearm Ownership
    3. Corruption and Coverups
    4. Intervention in Lawmaking

  15. GSM

    give us your views on the UN. go on, amuse us all!

    extend your already massive credibility.

  16. exactly stuey.

    who would you believe: 11 national academies of science, the IPCC and every other national scientific institution you can think of…

    … or a bunch of industry-backed or funded front groups who’re quoting selected text and a scattering of scientists whose work hasn’t been properly peer reviewed?

  17. GSM: “So Exxon is responsible for all science that is sceptical of global warming driven by co2??”

    no-one said that. Can you read properly?

    GSM: “You telling me that every scientist the does not agree with you, is being brought off by the oil industry to tell the public that climate change in not man driven. ”

    no-one said that. Can you read properly?

    or are you being deliberately obtuse?

  18. GSM asserts: “There is no consensus of opinon amongest climate scientist that proves increased co2 is causing OR a result of global warming.”

    Wrong. There is a well established and long-lived consensus amongst working climate scientists that CO2 is causing global warming. Read the last IPCC report, or read the leaks about the next IPCC report.

    GSM asserts: “The problem is also due to the fact that, even though water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, it is essentially ignored by climate models. These simulations are so primitive that they are even unable to determine today’s climate when starting with known past temperatures and rates of CO2 level rise.”

    This is also wrong. The GCMs not only take water vapour into account (they wouldn’t work if they didn’t), but they can quite happily forecast and “hindcast” climate states.

    If you want to argue about policy responses to global warming, fine. But don’t get the science so wrong. Envirotruth and the other US contrarian sites are not reliable sources of scientific information – they’re lobbying organisations, doing what their paymasters want.

    Global warming is a real problem, and getting worse. Credible politicians need to determine credible policy responses, not deny the obvious.

  19. Greenscare, you’re getting there. I’ve never said that Exxon is responsible for those few pieces of climate science that go against the thinking of the IPCC.

    What am I saying? Yes, you’re right, Exxon is certainly pretty up there in terms of responsibility for the way that science is pushed down our throats by a bunch of US think tanks. And certainly for the way anti-climate science is pushed down the throats of US citizens and media.

    fact: Exxon has spent US$12.8 million spent on these think tanks in the 7 years from 1998-2004. That’s not to be sniffed at. A big bunch of money.

    Fact: The Competitive Enterprise Institute has received at least $1 million from Exxon since 1998. In 2004 it was US$270,000 – with 2/3 of that for climate change work.

    Fact: The CEI itself admits that Exxon is a major contributor.

    Fact: The CEI is the coordinator of the “Cooler Heads Coalition”, a network of think tanks who work together to challenge the science of climate change.

    Fact: at least 70% of the Cooler Heads Coalition membership has received regular funding from Exxon since 1998, and some in the hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars.

    Fact: The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s latest ad campaign? see it here. Yes, it’s on their front page. This is NOT a scientific organisation. It’s a think tank and lobby group.

    This sort of ad campaign, in 14 cities across the USA, is why Exxon funds an organisation like the CEI.

    This is NOT a conspiracy theory. it is fact. the sort of thing you seem to like. The stats come from Exxon.

  20. GSM,

    You should read a book called 1000 Barrels a Second for a realsitic view of global oil demand and supply and a good lesson on history.
    So why does Peter Tertzakian stop his analysis at the so called “breaking point” then. Why does he ignore issues such as climate change, population growth ? Are the results disturbing and would interfere with the picture he’s painting (Don’t Worry Be Happy). His book is merely one viewpoint along the route.

    Are you awear [sic] that as a result of the last oil shock many economies have disconnected their economies growth form[sic] their demand for oil.[sic]
    I think I might have figured out what you are trying to say 😉 However, the situation is more complex than you would imagine. Many energy intensive industries have relocated out of OECD countries, NG displaced oil in Europe and North America etc. The fact remains that global primary energy consumption has increased year on year – take a look at the
    BP Statistical Review of Energy
    if you’re in any doubt.

  21. So Exxon is responsible for all science that is sceptical of global warming driven by co2?? Yeah Right

    You telling me that every scientist the does not agree with you, is being brought off by the oil industry to tell the public that climate change in not man driven. Yeah Right

    I saw that CBS story and thought what a beat up. They focused on the actions of a small group connetected them to the oil industry and claimed a moderation of language in a report is all about hiding the truth.

    Get you head out of the sand. Reports are altered all the time by those responsible for any actions that may result following the reports release.

    They change the word “will” to “may” big deal. There is no science pro or against the issue that can claim they know for certain what the climate is going to do.

    The funniset thing is, that a move away from reliance on fosial fuels is happening anyway and is a result of consumer demand, economic’s and developing technologies. All the things green politics would have watered down by regulation and dictating how we all should live.

    Are you awear that as a result of the last oil shock many economies have disconnected their economies growth form their demand for oil. Meaning that their economies growth does not result in a corresponding growth in oil demand. Unlike NZ, due to the restructive policies like the RMA we haven’t developed our infrastructure, we ingore the overtime gains from incremental improvements to energy efficiences. For example the greens oppose new roads being built claiming the new roads only entrench the use of cars.

    They forget or don’t realise that a reduction in roading conjestion improves vehicle efficiency and reduces fuel demand, incremental gains of this type are readily achievable and policitally acceptable to the majority. This type in infrastructual improvement is far more do able than getting significant numbers of people out of their cars!! Lets look for positive solution instead on negitive focus on big brother pushing us around

  22. Wrong. Exxon is NOT funding research. It’s funding PR sceptic websites like envirotruth. These organisations are NOT scientific organisations, they’re lobby groups. They lobby the US Govt to ignore Kyoto. They put their own people into the White House. They run adverts challenging the science of global warming. And they’re all funded by Exxon.

    hmmm, now how could that be? It’s not that Exxon’s product, oil, causes global warming or anything. No vested interest there then, noooooo definitely not.

    Look at the CBS science gagging story.

    American Petroleum Institute lawyer Phil Cooney leaves API and goes to work in the White House as Bush’s chief environmental advisor. Introduces a new system where the White House gets to vet all climate science reports being released by the US scientific community. Cooney, a lawyer, waters down and edits a scientific report which says global warming WILL happen, (he changes it to MAY, etc etc).

    Scientists are now screaming that the White House is gagging them. Which it is.

    O, and Cooney has now left the White House and gone to work for – yep, you guessed it – Exxon.

  23. shindig did not say that just because the research is funded by ExxonMobil it is slanted.

    He or she said look at all the websites of the organisations that ExxonMobil fund – can you find anything that is not skeptic? If not, isn’t that suspicious?

    P.S. You obviously can’t read properly if you think that all the arguments in this thread are aimed at “denergrating the doubters”. There are a handful, I grant you, such as “loons” but there are a whole lot of reasoned polite arguments as well.

  24. So Exxon fund research, just like any industry research funding comes form either public purse or commercial organistions.

    We all know the debate that goes on about funding research to find specific answers. But at the end of the day all research is reviewed and has to jump the peer review hurdel.

    One could get the impression that because the funding is comming from Exxon your assuming it has to be slanted and all those organistions listed are staffed by corrupt people who are going to turn their back on their specific field to mislead the public.

    Ask yourself is it realistic to expect all the staff of all these organisations likely to keep their mouths shut on research that is not accurate being released to the public?

    The NZ government could be accused of the same, I bet they wouldn’t fund Auers group to do climate research, they only fund those of the same views as them.

    As for Koyoto, its is well regarded as a nonsense. Even if its most succeful outcome was achieved the reduction in Co2 out put was negligiable at huge cost.

    To think NZ should pay billions in carbon tax for a contribution to co2 across the globe that is so small that it is less the the margin of error!! Madness. Generations in the feature will look back on the proposal of a fart tax and wonder how people could be so stupid.

    Not only that, the governement thought they would get a cash wind fall from Koyoto turns out we would pay billions!! Unbelievable that any one thinks Koyoto is credible.

    You should read a book called 1000 Barrels a Second for a realsitic view of global oil demand and supply and a good lesson on history. Mind you it was written by an oil industry guy!!! Fuuny how people who work in t the fosial fuel industry happen to have and interest and some expertise on it’s future!!!

    All the arguments I have read here are as I said from the beginning aimed at denergrating the doubters just as our environment minister dismisses scientist who oppose the direction the governement is taking, as outside mainstream rather than come up with arguments that can prove the point.

  25. Check out Exxon’s actual funding documents
    there’s one here:

    look at all the organisations it funds for “climate change” research. Then go to those organisations and see just what climate change work they do… it’s all around challenging the science.

    Take the George C Marshall Institute, for example. A shining beacon in Exxon’s anti-climate campaign. Its chairman emeritus, Fred Seitz, used to work for the tobacco industry (“doubt is our product”).

    Let’s look at its president, William O’Keefe. He:

    * used to work for the American Petroleum Institute.
    * headed the Global Climate Coalition, an industry group which lobbied heavily against Kyoto.
    * is a paid lobbyist for ExxonMobil, lobbying the White House.
    * claims to be a climate science expert.

    Exxon gave his organisation $145,000 to work on “climate change” last year. Challenge: find anything on that website that says climate change is happening.

    O, and I’m not a member of the Green Party.

  26. AHHH now we get the lovely chestnut consipracy theory!!! Unless you lack complete faith in mankind does it really matter where funding comes from. I bet your own Green Party has recieved donations from organiations that are not in total agreement with your green views.

    But of course looking though socialist tint any company that is profitable must be up to no good! And if it is American well they are twice as dastly.

    Forget that that country has become the largest economic power within a couple of hundered years. And that it is capitalist type policy that is powering the growth of countries like China and India.

    When the success of mankind is constantly driven by individuals desire to achieve more. The greens want us to have more regulation to keep us all the same. And then they look longly back wishing the world to be as it was, and forget simple facts like the average life is now twice that of a few generations ago achived by individuals not accepting that problems can’t be solved and using technology to forge progress.

    Now I am not saying all is perfect but come on we are bloodly lucky to live in this age.

    Stuey you really think that when comparing climate change of a plant that has existed for millions of years that the last five year are that relevant.

    Facts are facts and the point of what global warming secptics, as your lot call, them try to point out is that there is history of the earth being a lot warmer than today, this happened well before human activity.

  27. Envirotruth? Don’t get me started! It’s funded by the National Centre for Public Policy Research, which has received US$280,000 from climate sceptic oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998, including $55,000 in 2004.

    Envirotruth does link to some people – check out its global warming links and then look at those same organisations on exxonsecrets… in fact, i’ve just done a little map on exxonsecrets to really show what I mean.
    cut n paste the link below. When you get to Exxonsecrets click
    LAUNCH then
    and you’ll find the map

  28. ah that bastion of selective quoting and data sets that are not up to date.

    how about this graph?

    why don’t you post a public comment on their page asking them to update the graph to include 2000-2005, oh thats right they don’t allow public comments, I wonder why not? surely they’re not scared of scientific debate? maybe you can use their contact us form? Oh no they don’t have one of those either, how strange.

  29. Icehawk wrote:”you’re just denigrating me, I’m presenting a real argument about the underlying science discussing how Auer is wrong.”

    Icehawk: You presented no real argument here, you tried to make a basis of an argument on a out of context quotation.

    Auer is claiming that a small percentage of Co2 in the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels. Most of Co2 is natural. There is no consensus of opinon amongest climate scientist that proves increased co2 is causing OR a result of global warming.

    You proved my point by labeling those that don’t agree with you as “anti-global-warming loons”. It was not long ago that scientists were warning of a comming ice age!!

    The point Auer and is colleagues are making is that the arguement for man made global warming in not 100% a sure thing. Making any government legislation and policy direction that curbes NZ’s development based on theory’s of man made global warming are potientialling very damaging. Thats not to say any improvements in energy use efficiencies are not good practise.

    The point the seems lost on the global warming supporters is that going back even 500 hundred years in time is a blink of the eye in terms of how long the earth has existed.

    For more than 90 percent of Earth’s history, conditions were much warmer than today. Two million years ago forests extended nearly to the North Pole. As recently as 125,000 years ago, temperatures were high enough that hippopotami and other animals now found only in Africa made their homes in northern Europe.

    What those that question the current global warming debate wonder is that it’s supporters are guilty of exactly whatt they label non supporters with. Not listing to both sides of the argument. Statement of so called “fact” on Mankinds contribution to global warming are far from certian.

    The Icehawks of this world talk of computer models that prove the effect on manmade CO2 on the enviroment. Yet with not too much trouble you can find evidence of the arguments being had by the experts; See below:

    “Yet today, Hansen ( the guy that invented the computer models)admits that his computer simulations were wrong and that current climate change models are unreliable (see related article by climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia). After the U.S. spent $10 billion on this issue, Hansen wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “The forces that drive long-term climate changes are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate changes.” As more and more variables have been incorporated into the models, the amount of predicted change has decreased. Renowned Columbia University oceanographer/climatologist Dr. Wallace Broecker believes that more than one million variables influence climate change. Although not all are required to reasonably model climate, this fact underlines why contemporary computer simulations are not very accurate.

    The problem is also due to the fact that, even though water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, it is essentially ignored by climate models. These simulations are so primitive that they are even unable to determine today’s climate when starting with known past temperatures and rates of CO2 level rise

    If you look back over time you will see that there has always been groups of the comminity that have resisted technological development. I believe that this is largly were green support comes from.

  30. I totally support the approach Greenpeace took and applaud them for their work.

    The evidence is clearly stacking up in favour of global warming. Since big business doesn’t like the idea they are out to muddy the waters for as long as they can.

    In the same way they did with lead in petrol, chemical sprays, Agent Orange, Depleted Uranium.

    Organisations like Exxon Mobil fund climate change skeptics ( Exxon made more money in 2005 than any company in US history.

    Since the rest of us don’t have the kind of financial backing that they then we have to take the opportunities that present themselves.

    What do we tell our kids “Sorry about that. Well I didn’t want to make too many waves. I might have upset Exxon.”?

    We can’t afford to make any more mistakes.

  31. “comes from the green left whos arguements cannot stand scrunity so they have to denergrate opponents”


    When these anti-global-warming loons posted their website I tried: I tried explaining carefully why these guys maths just doesn’t add up.

    As far as I can tell absolutely nobody who support these guys is listening to the argument, or paying any attention to the maths. NIWA (our govt funded climate scientists) are out there saying these guys are just dead wrong. And yet we have greenskeptic posting claiming that is is we who are the “green left whos arguements cannot stand scrunity so they have to denergrate opponents”.

    Hey! Greenscaremonger! Listen up! If you’re willing and able to take their claims and do the math modelling it’s obvious that their claims make no sense. If you aren’t willing or able to do that, then don’t damn well lecture us on how right they are.

    What the hell: I’ll beat my head against this brick wall again.

    Auer takes the amount of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that has come from burning fossil fuels (ie the % of C02 molecules in the atmosphere came out of exhausts and chimneys). That’s about 3.2% of the C02 in the atmosphere.

    But Auer then treats that 3.2% figure as if it were the % of C02’s affect on global warming that was caused by anthropic C02. That’s just plain wrong.

    In each year lots of C02 goes into the atmosphere (from the oceans, your lungs, burning stuff, etc) and lots goes out of the atmosphere (into the oceans, trees, etc). About a third of the C02 in the atmosphere is absorbed and emitted to/from it each year. In the long run if 3.2% of the C02 going into the atmosphere each year comes from burning fossil fuels, then 3.2% of the C02 in the atmosphere will have come from fossil fuels.

    Now take two scenarios: For each, assume that fossil fuels make up 3.2% of the amount of C02 going into the atmostphere each year.

    Scenario 1: The global warming skeptics are right. Suppose nature’s effects cancel us out: suppose that us burning fossil fuels doesn’t cause any increase in C02 levels or any global warming. Suppose that over the next 100 years there is NO increase in C02 levels because natural absorbtion of CO2 out of the atmosphere increases to absorb as much extra C02 as we burnt. In that case, after 100 years, atmospheric C02 levels are no higher than at the start, and fossil-fuel based C02 levels measured the way Auer does (the % of C02 that has come from fossil fuels) would be just a little a bit less than 3.2%.

    Scenario 2: The global warming skeptics are completely wrong. Suppose nature does nothing to absorb more C02 if we pump more into the atmosphere. In that case, after 100 years, atmospheric C02 levels will have doubled, and fossil-fuel based C02 levels measured the way Auer does (the % of C02 that has come from fossil fuels) would be just a little a bit less than 3.2%.

    I’ll summarise:

    If global C02 is set to stay unchanged, Auer’s figure after 100 years would be 3.2%.
    If global C02 is set to double, Auer’s figure after 100 years would be 3.2%.

    In the long run if 3.2% of the C02 going into the atmosphere each year comes from burning fossil fuels, then 3.2% of the C02 in the atmosphere will have come from fossil fuels. That doesn’t tell you at all how much C02 levels will increase by over 100 years because of fossil fuel burning. It could be 0%, it could be 100%.

    The figure he _should_ use is how much have C02 levels changed because of anthropic causes. The figure he _does_ use is not that.

    I could go on (and on). Auer’s physics just doesn’t make sense. When he multiplies by that 3.2% figure his results are utterly meaningless as a measure of anthropic global warming. He might just as well divide by his shoe size or subtract his IQ: it’d make just as much physical sense.

    There it is: you’re just denigrating me, I’m presenting a real argument about the underlying science discussing how Auer is wrong. But I wonder why I bother coz I’m sure as hell you’re never going to listen to anything that disagrees with your point of view.

  32. Wellington Animal Rights Network bought the domain to display the cruleties involved in factory pig farming. A lawyer for premier bacon ( sent a letter threatening all sorts of nasty consequences if WARN did not hand the domain name to Premiere Bacon. The lawyer’s letter gave free publicity to WARN, but did nothing for Premiere Bacon. WARN just ignored it, which made premiere look like even worse fools than they were before.

    Auckland Animal Action got into the act with its website. Two individuals have bought and, to capitalise on the similarities with the Egg Producers Federation websites.

    I see no problems with this tactic, as long as the playing field is so unbalanced in favour of wealthy corporations. If the meat industry truly want a level playing field then they should be restricted to spending the same amount on advertising and PR as animal welfare and environmental groups are spending to counter their lies and propaganda. The Egg Producers Federation spent half a million dollars lobbying to get the government to drop all plans to phase out battery cages. They sent threatening legal letters, and arranged extra meetings with ministers and officials to ensure their point of view was adopted.

  33. Hi Mos, you said

    “No offence, but it’s a very recent thing indeed for The Greens to have registered the other domains in NZ. When I brought it up a few years ago (and offered to pay for it) the webmaster didn’t seem to understand the idea and just went “we already have a domain?.

    three things.

    1) it was greenpeace who bought the domain not the Greens
    2) the Greens have always been into securing alternative domain names to prevent parody sites, not just in the last few years. e.g. whois shows that we have owned at least since 09:32, 5/9/2002, since 09:33, 5/9/2002 (and if memory serves me correctly that was the date that we consolidated all the domains under one account and we did own them before then as well) meanwhile for example we don’t own because whois shows that was registered 00:00, 16/11/1999
    3) I don’t ever remember you contacting us suggesting we buy alternative domain names and offering to pay. The Greens are always delighted to get donations to pay for our IT costs. You can earmark donations using our donations form – say its for IT expenses/domains, cheers 🙂

  34. I definately recommend the trackbacked article by Tim Lambert and it’s comments thread

    It seems that Owen McShane and his buddies are experts at selectively quoting the IPCC.

    First of all Google for “the observed change may be natural” and you can see how many people have quoted that line from the IPCC somewhere on the web.

    Now search to see who quoted that line and the lines that follow it that qualify the statement. Google “the observed change may be natural.” “Having detected a climatic change” or how about googling “the observed change may be natural.” “unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system”

    bit of a difference, eh?

    Now I wonder why people are so eager to quote “the observed change may be natural” but not to quote

    “The SAR concluded nevertheless, on the basis of careful analyses, that “the observed change in global mean, annually averaged temperature over the last century is unlikely to be due entirely to natural fluctuations of the climate system”.

  35. I can’t believe that you trolls and Owen McShane think that Greenpeace have done anything wrong.

    Greenpeace have a perfectly legitimate right to buy an available domain name and put what they want up.

    I agree that they should link to the skeptics site though, but in the context of refuting their arguments.

    Does anyone remember and – I don’t remember the right-wing bleating about the unfairness of that parody alternative site when it was them doing the domain confusion alternative site.

  36. Erm
    How VERY naive of the CSC to not register other domain names. Good on Greenpeace for doing what’s become normal web campaign practice in other parts of the world. And how very shrill of CSC bleat about it now.

    CSC can in no way try to claim that what they are representing IS climate science – indeed climate mis-science would probably be a better name. That their warped view over the massive body of scientific evidence could be deemed “science” is highly questionable.

  37. No offence, but it’s a very recent thing indeed for The Greens to have registered the other domains in NZ. When I brought it up a few years ago (and offered to pay for it) the webmaster didn’t seem to understand the idea and just went “we already have a domain”.

  38. I think I may have deleted someone’s legit comment just now when clearing a whole lot of spam. Sorry to whoever it was – please post it again if you can!

  39. The only drawback I can see of Greenpeace’s web action is to have under-estimated media interest in the web action itself.

    If Frog has accurately summarised the radio programme, then shame on NatRad for not steering the argument back where it belongs. If not, then shame on Frog! (Frog, take that in the spirit in which …)

    Aren’t we missing the point here? The debate is about climate change, not media strategies and tactics.

  40. Both sides need to sharpen up in my humble opinion. It was fairly naive for CSC to not register some (pretty obvious) alternatives to their chosen domain name. Domains are hardly expensive, so they can’t moan now if they left the domains available.

    Likewise, it might be technically easy and legally OK for Greenpeace to snaffle these alternatives, but it doesn’t exactly advance their standing as a credible source if they have to resort to these tactics.

    I agree that CSC don’t have a monopoly on the phrase “Climate Science” but the timing and nature of the registrations make Greenpeace’s motivation seem a little juvenile and poorly thought through in my opinion.

    1st post – be gentle with me Mildred.

  41. Gotta say, if the CSC want people to read their stuff, they should start putting content up in HTML, rather than PDF. I usually can’t be bothered looking at PDFs, and I know I’m not alone..

    [hmm, and are both still available…]

  42. I agree with Duncan Bayne Greenpeace are trying to keep the population in the dark about global warming. Well done to the Climate Science Coalition. They now have to put up with the name throwing that comes from the green left whos arguements cannot stand scrunity so they have to denergrate opponents.

    Having just read some of the blogs re climate change has inspired me to join the push to get some common sense into the climate argument. It seems to me that the green movement is more about the disgruntelment with mankind and its technological prograss than reasoned consideration of reality.

    If you consider the earths temperature of centuries not decades you will see fluctionations far greater the those of the last 50 years. There is reason argument that rising Co2 levels are a result of global warming and not the cause.

  43. This is deliberately misleading; GreenPeace are trying to capture users who mistakenly entered the wrong URL.

    If they weren’t trying to do that, then they’d have the decency to link to the Climate Science Coalition, something like “If you’re looking for the Climate Science Coalition, click here.”

    But of course they haven’t; this is just another dishonest attempt from environmentalists to silence the voices of their critics.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Deltoid

Comments are closed.