By: opit

opit — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:33:39 +0000

I won’t add to John Nichol’s comments about scientific evidences…though a multitude of rebuttals to your statements are available. I will, however, note you postulate a ‘conspiracy theory’ as operating to rebut the ‘conspiracy theory’ proposed by others !
You’re a fun one. Logical Fallacies have seldom been so stretched beyondf credibility as when one must use Strawman Argumentation to establish Poisoning the Well conditions to prediscredit other views.
Is this a scientific method which you espouse in some particular variation of ‘peer review’ ?

By: Water in the news | BlueGranola

Water in the news | BlueGranola — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 10:01:15 +0000

[...] the way, this article is an interesting add-on to my last post called “Gravity is a theory [...]

By: John Nicol

John Nicol — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:44:15 +0000

Peter Gleick, You and others totaslly misrepresent the position of most “deniers”, “sceptics” – call them what you will. The sceptics have NEVER denied that the climate is changing. We are those who point always to the huge changes in the past geological history when the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide were much higher than they are today, lagged the temperature by about 800 years in rising and falling, and were at their highest just before the onset of an ice age. You should also remember that the medieval vvarming period when Greenland was settled and where townships were built which still lie under glaziers, was warmer thasn the climate today. Why did Michael Mann and others find it so necessary to remove the data representing thios warm period along with that from the little ice age in order to present his now so infamous Hockey Stick Graph which even the dedicated IPCC has now, three reports later, denounced as fraud? There is much sound scientific evidence showing the reasons for warming and cooling over the millenia and for the recent warming from 1979 to 1998 which has been exagerated by the published data, as evidenced from the CRU emails and was not found in the more accurate satellite data. There are good scientific reasons for the current decade of cooling and the fall in SST, but none of them include the effects of carbon dioxide. My own work as a gas spectroscopist and physicist with 40 years of experience, provides ample evidence that the spectroscopic characteristics of atmospheric CO2 do not include the processes of “radiation” as used universally in the models provided to the IPCC. McLean et al have clearly shown the natural reasons for the recent changes in climate from ocean circulations and corresponding temperature changes. So from Geology (Carter, Plimer), the atmosphere and oceans (McLean et al.) the basic spectroscopic physics (Nicol) the measured characteristics of CO2 (Hug, Barrett) there is not one scrap of evidence that carbon dioxide increases cause warmings. Australia’s CSIR)O Climate Science Group with whom I have had long correspondence and who provide advice to the IPCC and carry out extensive “modelling” can anly say, along with the IPCC ” the increase in global temperatures during the latter part of the twentieth century is very likely due to the increases in concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide”. Very likely indeed. How scientific is that. Please tell me if you can find a more positive statement with references, in any of the IPCC’s four reports.
John Nicol jonicol@netspace.net.au

Comments on: Peter Gleick: The Real Climate Hoax

By: opit

By: Water in the news | BlueGranola

By: John Nicol