Global Warming (or is it Global Cooling?)

January 2, 2010

Hasn’t anyone ever heard of the Medieval Warm Period?

Don’t forget to check out these links. Great sites and excellent information  =======>

Quote of the week :-

“In the case of climate change, if we follow their instructions and the catastrophe doesn’t happen, they’ll claim the measures worked. If temperatures continue to rise, they’ll say we didn’t do enough.”

Charles Gulotta

Look the Emperor has no clothes on!

Scientists, people and officials who do not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming are not fit for office!


Please click on the cartoon and see it full screen-

Far more interesting that way.

Rajendra Kumar Pachauri the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), (who is a strict vegetarian, partly due to his beliefs as a Hindu, and partly because of the impact of meat-production on the environment), is accompanied President Obama and Al Gore.

Does Rajendra believe in climate change?

Well he does have a  MS degree in Industrial Engineering from North Carolina State University and a joint Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering and Economics.

He has had a number of directorships including one at the Indian Oil Corporation and has been awarded the prestigious Padma Bhushan by the Indian government and ‘Officer of the Legion of Honour’ by the French government.

We can tell from this that he is certainly an authority on Anthropogenic Global Warming in his own right. (not)

With his PhD in Economics he will no doubt be aware of the effect on the world, should governments adopt the recommendations of the IPCC.

In a special report, The Sunday Telegraph said “Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a (climate) scientist, as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics, he has no qualifications in climate science. What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Pachauri has established a worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies that have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s policy recommendations.”

Rajendra denies these allegations vermently.

Well one of the catches in telling huge porkies and spreading copious BS around the world is that you start to believe your own BS.

So Rajendra one way or the other,  has invested so much in the dangers of global warming that he has to believe his own BS.  He may personally gain so much financially, it is fitting that he wears the clothes of his own making.

However maybe it should be Ki Moon with the crown.

President Obama believes in climate change because he will do anything to woo the voter, besides he would not be fit for office if he did not respect the UN.

I hope for his sake that he has a Plan B.

Al Gore dosn’t really believe in global warming but has also positioned himself to become ultra wealthy (hence the smug look and gesture) especially should Rajendra Pachauri become head of a world government. (which is what the UN will be once the revenues and commissions from world carbon trading and a signed Copenhagen agreement start flooding in)

What would one expect from someone who buys carbon credits to offset the huge “carbon footprint” of his home from a company he owns?

 Of course he will continue to admire the emperor’s new clothes and even regularly suggest that the emperor deck himself out in even greater and more expensive(for the tax payers of the world) gowns and uniforms.

Helen Clark prime minister of New Zealand (emeritus) and John Key current prime minister of New Zealand hold the invisible train for the emperor.

Of course they dont believe in Anthropogenic CO2 induced Climate Change either.

Helen Clark is looking daggers, because at number three on the UN she feels that at least she should have the Empresses job but she knows better than to wear invisible clothes(Thank God).

John Key looks a bit weary but he will do his bit to cooperate with the IPCC because back home it buys him votes from a gullible New Zealand public.

Behind them marches Gordon Brown who is ready to permanently mortgage the UK economy in the name of Anthropogenic CO2 Induced Climate Change. He marches even though the UK public are gradually catching on to the depth of the lies and how much they are likely to be shafted.

Also behind marches Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia who believes so passionately in climate change he tried to ram an ETS bill through the Australian Senate.

Unfortunately when he tried to make a deal with the leader of the opposition, which if successful, would have ensured the ETS scheme passing into law, the opposition quickly fired their leader and elected another, on the condition that he was not a believer in Anthropogenic Climate Change, which ruined the deal.

Hence the sad look on Kevin Rudd’s countenance.

Hans Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes” the meaning of which was always lost on me as a child, illustrates the current climate change hysteria perfectly.

Man are we ever being bombarded by porkies every day. I am going to list some more remarkable or laughable porkies in other pages or the comments section of this blog, if you have some as well please feel welcome to contribute.

What is this Climate Change nonsense all about anyway?

The truth about Climate Change Simplified

One can argue about ice pack melting, weather being measurably warmer recently, hurricanes more common and more dangerous, the effect of ocean levels changing etc until the cows come home but the real question is :-

“Can something be done about it?”

Actually the answer to that question is:-


and you don’t need to be a scientist or highly qualified person to figure that out.

Neither should you be dismayed to realise that humans cannot yet control the climate any more than good ole King Canute could control the tide.

I’m with the church on this one, only GOD whoever or whatever he/she may be can control the climate! So Far!

So lets get out and save the planet from the real dangers it faces, like heavy metal contamination, pollution of water,  noxious gases (of which CO2 is not a member), garbage filling our oceans and landfills and the like and at least enjoy the warmer weather while it lasts.

By the way, the notion that warmer weather causes deserts, icecap degradation and worldwide starvation etc is another porky. We should be more afraid of global cooling which history shows is the real danger to mankind and other living things.

Boring Bits:

Just to share with you my reasonings behind all this.

I mean why else would I be so disrespectful towards Rajendra Pachauri and President Obama?

Anyway lets put our wonderful brains (bequeathed to most of us by the above mentioned God) to work and find about about things.

Didn’t we all at primary school study the vikings, Eric the Red and the colonisation of Greenland and voyages to Vinland?

I did and I also know that a Viking “Long Ship” is simply little more than a large undecked rowing boat, and during the Medieval Warm Period it was possible to row (and occasionally sail if the wind was favourable) these boats between Europe and North America.

It was warmer back in those days, so warm in fact that the vikings settled in Greenland and had dairy farms and a working community and culture for about 400 years.

Unfortunately the weather closed in on them. Global cooling occurred, (known as the “Little Ice Age” and one way or another, by about the 15th century the community at Greenland was abandoned.

How do we know it was warmer?  Here are a number of clues:

1.A viking farm was recently archaelogically examined at a place named “Gården under Sandet”


and what is fascinating to me is that the archaeologists had to remove layers of PERMAFROST to examine the remains. This is mentioned in several accounts and probably more if you can read Danish. The archaeologists also stated that this was a wonderful find because the site had been frozen for the last 500 years.

To me this says “Greenland was warmer than the present because I am quite sure that dairy farming etc. is not possible where the land is subject to permafrost!”

Although things may be getting warmer, we haven’t got warm enough to melt the permafrost at Gården under Sandet yet.

2. At a place called Schnidejoch in Switzerland (sometime spelt Schneidejoch) all of a sudden medieval, roman and stone age artifacts are being discovered emerging from the ice and snow. It appears that this area has been used a short cut between North Italy and the Bernese upper country for a number of periods in the past. In fact the artifacts appear to relate to only four different epochs, The late Stone Age, the Minoen Warm Period, the Roman Warming and the Medieval Warm Period.

Even the remains of a roman guest house has been found a few hundred meters below the pass.

It appears that because of the current retreat of glaciers the pass is opening again!

So we can be very sure that not only  Greenland was once warmer than the present but so were many other parts of the world!

WOW! Maybe it was warmer globally?

Want some raw data? Check out the Greenland Ice Core research results.

Looks like we have another .5C warming yet at least to equal 1,000 years ago.

In fact the era around about 1,000 AD is well documented and is known as The Medieval Warm Period.

So here is the rub!

The world has been warm before.

And at that time it could not have been due to humans putting co2 into the air.

So why do we think nowadays that CO2 causes global warming?

Well thats one of the porkies I have been mentioning so please look in the comments.

Anyway further research of the historic kind (which I touched on above) show a number of warm periods, most warmer than now.

Check out the graph below which I got from :-

An unbiased analysis

There are many important issues to consider from the graph above these paragraphs.

The sky-blue line, which corresponds to the boreholes obtained from Greenland, shows that the amplitude of change of temperature at those latitudes was wider than the other proxies; for example, it is wider than the change of temperature at the Sargasso Sea surface, where the amplitude of change of temperature could be the narrowest change compared with the other proxies.

The green line corresponds to the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere obtained from the study of bubbles of air trapped in the ice at the Vostok ice core. The line is almost smooth from 11000 to 5000 years ago, and it starts to ascend when the amplitude of the change of temperature decreases (red line), that is, becomes narrower. That time corresponds precisely to 5000 years ago, not 250 years ago, related to the industrial revolution. Actually, the increase of the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere began 5000 years before present.

The red line is the average of the change of temperature deduced from all the proxies represented here. It is evident that the sharp increase of the concentration of atmospheric CO2 is closely related to the very narrow amplitude of the change of temperature given in the last 250 years. Consequently, it suggests that the increase of the concentration of the atmospheric CO2 cannot be attributed to human activities, but to natural phenomena.

The global change of temperature during the Holocene Epoch has been from 2.25 K to 7 K. In the last two centuries the change has been only 0.52 K. Thus, the global warming throughout the last decades has not been unique or higher than in the past.

Nasif Nahle
8 December 2007

Broecker, Wallace S. Was the Medieval Warm Period Global? Science. 23 February 2001. Vol. 291. No. 5508, pp. 1497 – 1499.

Bond, Gerard et al. Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene. Science 7 December 2001: Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 – 2136.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Lewis, M. W. The Flight from Science and Reason-Radical Environmental Philosophy and the Assault on Reason. Editors: Paul R. Gross, Norman Levitt and Martin W. Lewis. 1996. New York, NY.

David Jablonski, Douglas H. Erwin and Jere H. Lipps. Evolutionary Paleobiology. 1996. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Ill.

Loehle, C. 2007. A 2000-year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based on Non-treering Proxies. Energy & Environment 18(7-8): 1049-1058.

Parrenin, F., L. Loulergue, and E. Wolff.  2007. EPICA Dome C Ice Core Timescales EDC3. IGBP. PAGES / World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 2007-083.NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.

Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J., Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin, L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M.  1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica.  Nature 399: 429-436.

Sykes, Bryan. 2001. The Seven Daughters of Eve. W. W. Norton & Company Ltd. London, UK.

V.L. Koshkarova and A.D. Koshkarov (2004). “Regional signatures of changing landscape and climate of northern central Siberia in the Holocene”. Russian Geology and Geophysics 45 (6): 672-685.

Yang, B., A. Braeuning, K. R. Johnson, and S. Yafeng (2002). General characteristics of temperature variation in China during the last two millennia. Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(9), 1324.


Global temp – CO2 over geological time

Temperature after C.R. Scotese
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today– 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

You may be aware that IPCC reports typically use a mixture of direct data and proxies (measurements from tree rings and ice cores etc) in their essential graphical reports. They certainly do this with their CO2 level reporting as well. Just scrutinise their graphs carefully!

But proxy deductions are not as accurate as direct measurements so why not use them? 


What do direct measurements of CO2 tell us?  Check for yourself on the graph and report below!


CO2 measured from 1812-2004  by chemical methods
 CO2 measured from 1812-2004 by chemical methods from Ernst-Georg Beck and Merian-Schule Freiburg, 8/2006 “180 Years accurate CO2 – Gasanalysis of Air”

Check out a summary of the paper here

At the very least IPCC publications should at least acknowledge this data and provide very good reasoning on why has been ignored.

Ice Core data doesn’t appear to be too hot either when the method of analysis is examined and any calculation of error or uncertainty of ice core data is conspicuously absent.

Check out these publications.

Thats all for now folks, just keep right on voting for our “Anthropogenic Climate Change” leaning government. (I hate to say that they actually believe in it), but so long as us, the voters want them to, they will happily tax us and if Gordon Brown and others are examples,  simply ruin our economies and standard of living and create severe hardships for us all trying to chase after CO2 a friendly gas upon which all life depends which at higher concentrations improves tree growth and agriculture and food production and most certainly any Emissions Trading Scheme will have zero effect on the health of our planet.
PS.  I have recently been alerted to this documentary which shows things far better than I can write them.
It includes interviews of some IPCC associated scientists, a number of other scientist eminent in this field AND the co-founder of Green Peace.  Allow for over an hour to view.
I am going to lobby my local TV channel to show it. It certainly is of sufficient quality so why dont we all do the same?

PPS:  I have just been alerted to these following web sites. I cant believe they have got so little publicity but if you want a good solid and well referenced review of the Climate change science, which has the support and recommendation of what looks like most of the scientists in the US then take a read.
They are not a source for my blog but certainly they share many if not all conclusions.
Will be interested to hear your comments about these sites.
About these ads


  1. You say “I’m with the church on this one”, but I see the main-stream churches falling for the CAGW scam hook line and sinker, so siding themselves with the human-hating environmentalists.

    Comment by ilma630 — March 13, 2014 @ 5:55 pm | Reply

    • Like I say, I’m with the church on the issue of who controls or can control the climate. I make no claim any further than that in the text.
      Thanks for visiting.


      Comment by rogerthesurf — March 13, 2014 @ 6:02 pm | Reply

  2. Hi Roger, I only just discovered this site through your latest comments on quakerattled which I fear may yet be deleted by Rachel. My friend, DouglasS, and I have given up commenting on her site simply because she started to censor views which she regarded as attacking the “settled science”. People who have to censor have already lost the debate in my view. Many of her regular supporters also resort to vile, ad hominem attacks whenever alternate viewpoints are put forward for debate.

    Comment by Eve Elizabeth — December 2, 2013 @ 10:56 am | Reply

    • No worries Eve, Rachel is a prime candidate for my other blog where I deal with people like her.
      As for myself, I will believe anything if there is reasonable proof. Rachel’s censoring and ad hominem attacks are typical for someone who is believing on faith instead of fact, so I entirely agree with you there. Are you from Christchurch?

      Comment by rogerthesurf — December 5, 2013 @ 12:09 pm | Reply

    • Hi Eve,
      For your information, Rachel made my site at

      Please feel free to have a read and to leave a comment. It is a chance for you to repeat your spammed messages that you left on quakerattled of you wish.

      Anyway I hope its at least worth a visit.
      All the best,

      Comment by rogerthesurf — December 10, 2013 @ 12:08 pm | Reply

      • Thanks, Roger. Will have a look later today. I followed yours and other comments at the time but will have to get back into the swing of the debate.

        Comment by Eve Elizabeth — December 10, 2013 @ 2:26 pm

  3. Hi Roger,

    I notice your reference at the end of your article to the petition project and I too was curious about the number of scientists who signed the Oregon Petition. What I found out about it is that the link . Your readers should find the article interesting.



    Comment by J.C. Moore — October 23, 2011 @ 2:52 am | Reply

  4. Hi Roger,

    I could tell by your comments that you very carefully read Plass’ paper and you wrote a very good critical analysis of it. Plass’ work followed the methods used by Kaplan, who a few years earlier did a similar analysis of the upper atmosphere by using hand calculations to do the integrals. Kaplan considered only the upper atmosphere as that was a simple enough system that he could do the integrals by hand. His work is highly regarded by skeptics as he found that adding CO2 the upper atmosphere had a cooling effect.

    By 1956, computers were available, so Plass was able to use numerical methods to do the integrals layer by layer down through the troposphere to the surface. He found that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would raise the temperature of the surface by 3 to 4°C. That was a surprise in light of Kaplan’s work but it makes sense, as retaining thermal energy near the surface would cause the upper atmosphere to cool – as it is warmed mostly by infrared radiation from below. You are correct that Plass made a number of assumptions to simplify the calculations and also because the spectra of water and CO2 were not completely resolved at that time in areas of the spectrum where they overlapped. However, Plass had the fundamental factors right and his work has been confirmed by experimental evidence as the amount of CO2 has gone up by 37% and the temperature of the surface up by about 0.9°C , well in line with his work. His work has also been confirmed by later calculations that used much better models of the atmosphere and used well resolved spectra of CO2 and water vapor, such as Kiehl’s and Lacias’ papers use.
    Clouds are not usually considered in the models as there are many kinds of clouds at different altitudes and they are not uniformly distributed. Clouds are part of the feedback loop to the rising temperatures caused by increasing CO2, and the overall effect seems to be that they have an overall positive contribution to global warming. Climate scientists would like to pin down a little better the overall effect of clouds and there has been much interest in the area. Some mention is made of that in the articles referenced below. I have looked at historical records of climate change and the natural factors that influence the Earth’s temperature. Articles on those are at and .


    Comment by J.C. Moore — October 22, 2011 @ 3:04 pm | Reply

    • J.C.
      Thanks for your comment.
      However I really need to point out that you have consistently avoided the questions put to you in my comment of 2011/09/02 at 6:14 pm .

      First of all I think you should read the comment again, try and grasp what it is asking and then be honest with yourself as to whether there is an answer that is consistant with your thinking and beliefs of which you write so profusely.

      I might add that these are perfectly reasonable SCIENTIFIC questions and deserve a proper answer.

      If you are unable to answer them, then I suggest you rethink your beliefs because you are chasing yourself up a tree. Don’t you at least know the difference between correlation and proof?

      Finally, since I spent so much time reviewing many of the papers you sent me, which I might add turned out to be irrelevant to my actual questions, I suggest you spend some time reading the following document equally as carefully.

      Here is an excerpt : “Having morphed into an obnoxious adolescent, the IPCC is now everyone’s problem. This is because it
      performs one of the most important jobs in the world. Its purpose is to survey the scientific literature
      regarding climate change, to decide what it all means, and to write an ongoing series of reports. These
      reports are informally known as the Climate Bible.
      The Climate Bible is cited by governments around the world. It is the reason carbon taxes are being
      introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being enacted. It is why everyone
      thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous.
      Put simply: the entire planet is in a tizzy because of a UN report. What most of us don’t know is that,
      rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire, this report was
      produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.”

      I would like to give you a link for the entire pdf but the author does deserve her USD$4.99.
      I thoroughly recommend you download for yourself.



      Comment by rogerthesurf — October 22, 2011 @ 8:46 pm | Reply

      • Hi Roger,

        While you are right that correlation does not imply causation, it is true that causation does imply correlation. Plass’ work uses well accepted ideas and methods and clearly shows that there is a causative link between increasing CO2 and the Earth’s temperature. His theory has been confirmed by many other researchers since that time and it is rather amazing that work that he did over 60 years ago agrees quite well with the experimental evidence that we are observing today. In science, it doesn’t get much more convincing than that.

        I do not seem to be answering your questions to your satisfaction. I have tried to focus on the sound scientific theories and the experimental evidence. I hope that you will also focus on the evidence and remain respectful to those who disagree with you.

        I tried to have a look at the address you gave me at http://www.globalwarmingsupporter/ but that link and variations on it don’t work. Do you have a correct link for the site?


        Comment by J.C. Moore — October 23, 2011 @ 2:49 am

      • J.C.

        “While you are right that correlation does not imply causation, it is true that causation does imply correlation”

        Are you being silly or something? Correlation is a necessary condition for proof as I think I pointed out earlier.

        “I do not seem to be answering your questions to your satisfaction”
        Correct, you have not even attempted to answer my questions which are aimed at the very foundation of truth. In your last answer, you have even forgotten to provide authority and references to support your somewhat sweeping assertions. e.g. ” His theory has been confirmed by many other researchers since that time and it is rather amazing that work that he did over 60 years ago agrees quite well with the experimental evidence that we are observing today.” You seem unable to see past a doubtful correlation and keep calling it proof.

        In my previous comments, I have stated what would constitute scientific proof in this case, but you won’t find a paper that contains those things, because there isn’t one!

        Of course I focus on the evidence! You are the one beating around the bush!

        Now read the book I mentioned in my previous comment, I am sure you can afford USD$4.99. All the information and facts in that book are verifiable, which gives it some authority. If you don’t like what it says, spend some time verifying or otherwise some of the facts contained therein.

        If you are afraid to read it, well you had better sneak away somewhere and hide, because this would show that you do not believe your own assertions.

        The link is probably Its where I archive conversations like this. No one has provided me with reasonable proof yet. Thats why I maintain that there is none.



        Comment by rogerthesurf — October 23, 2011 @ 7:09 pm

  5. Hi all, as you know it’s Al Gore’s reality 24 hr reality show. But this has been released and you can download it free for today. Maybe after too.

    Comment by bushbunny — September 15, 2011 @ 5:55 pm | Reply

    • Hi bushbunny, thanks for the heads-up on the A/V. For me it nicely sums up the debate about the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis I’ve passed it on to associates who are supporters and sceptics of the hypothesis and hope that it encourages open-minded debate.

      Best regards, Pete Ridley

      Comment by Pete Ridley — September 17, 2011 @ 2:07 am | Reply

  6. Sorry about my error in referring to Jo Olson as “Professor”, he’s a PE.

    Comment by Pete Ridley — September 8, 2011 @ 2:21 am | Reply

  7. Hi Dr. Moore, I don’t recall ever starting any comment or post with “Human Induced Global Warming is the biggest crock in all of history.” but it looks as though you are getting mixed up by who says what. Maybe you have the same problem with the CACC hypothesis.

    I have put some quite simple scientific questions to you without getting any worthwhile response from you, which tends to make me puzzled about your area of scientific competence. You claim to have an interest in spectroscopy and at present I am exchanging E-mails on the subject of that “back radiation” question. If you have competence in that area then perhaps you’d lie to join in. Those included in the E-mails are Dr. John Nichol, former Dean of Science at James Cook University Queensland (a skilled spectrometist I believe), Chairman of the Australian Climate Science Coalition; Roger Taguchi, retired science teacher (like you) with expertise in spectroscopy (unlike you?); Colin Davidson, science enthusiast; Professor Jo Olson, PE (,%20PE/); others like Dr. Tim Ball, past Professor of Geography at the University of Winnipeg and several of his fellow authors of “Slaying the Sky Dragon” and executive members of the embryonic global science association Principia Scientific International (

    Two more experts (from the University of Wisconsin-Madison) have just been invited to participate, Dr. Grant W. Petty, Professor of Atmospheric Science in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department and Dr. Robert Knuteson of the Space Science and Engineering Center, and the textbook was written by at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I’m sure that any expertise in this area that you can offer would be most appreciated.

    Here’s the challenge Dr. Moore, show us how much you know about spectrometry by adding to the discussion. All that I need is your E-mail address and you can prove that you are able to do more than just parrot what real scientists say. You can send it to

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — September 7, 2011 @ 11:06 pm | Reply

    • Please ignore “, and the textbook was written by at the University of Wisconsin-Madison” which was a hangover from another communication.

      Comment by Pete Ridley — September 8, 2011 @ 8:21 am | Reply

  8. Hi Pete,

    Sorry I can’t answer all your questions, but as I pointed, out many of them are out of my area of expertise and many of them were asked just for the sake of arguing. It appears you want to argue from a perfectionist position – that if you can find one small thing that I don’t know, you may reject all the things that I say which disagree with your ideological position. When you start your post saying “Human Induced Global Warming is the biggest crock in all of history.”, your ideological position is established, and it is very unlikely that any reasonable argument will make any difference to you. I posted several references in response to Roger’s question about the link between CO2 and global warming. They are true whether the medieval warm period existed or not, and I would suggest that you read them if you really want to understand.



    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 7, 2011 @ 2:52 am | Reply

  9. Hi Roger, having had one-to-one discussions with several “experts” in the ice core record (e.g. Severinghaus, Alley, Frank, Jaworowski, Nisbet, Dr. Raynaud, etc.) during the past couple of years I recently started up a group E-mail exchange with them on the issue of the validity of the ice core record. Initially I am trying to focus on size-dependent fractionation of CO2 in deep firn as it approaches close-off but ultimately would like to look at all of the possible processes that could distort the record, from the starting point of an ice sheet – falling snow – to the final stages of ice-core disintegration and analysis of the extracted air. I initially included Professors Michael Bender and Eric Wolffe but both have opted out of the exchanges. There are others who have appropriate expertise and I will be inviting them to participate. Several others, like Ferdinand Engelbeen, are mainly “lurking” as Ccs so are you interested in being added to the participants, even just as a “lurker”?

    Many viewers were simply “lurking” during the exchanges with Eric Wolff on the University of Cambridge’s Naked Science Forum “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread ( but I expect that they were learning as much as I was. That thread was prematurely locked by the forum moderator Yor_on, a confirmed supporter of the CACC hypothesis whose biased moderation cut short a very interesting discussion. He mustn’t have appreciated the challenge to his beliefs.

    As far as the uncertainty about the processes taking place in the deep firn of an ice sheet, Professor Wolff acknowledged on that thread that “ .. we don’t fully know what mechanism is taking place because we cannot reasonably observe or reproduce the very slow enclosure process in the lab .. ” ( and “ .. I think that none of us has a definite molecular-level understanding of the physical process occurring at closeoff .. ” (

    Taking into consideration all of the scientific uncertainties that persist perhaps it is time for scientists involved in research relating to climate change (which includes those involved in trying to reconstruct past atmospheric composition from air recovered from ice) to be somewhat more modest in their claims about the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis and in their rejection of the opinions of others who disagree with them.

    Two of the comments made in response to my first E-mail to this group of “experts” were:
    - “ .. I see your efforts as confused and futile, and all of this arises from .. not appreciating the diference between a scientific debate and a political debate .. ”,
    - “ .. 2 true facts about scientists are that they want to know stuff, and they hate being wrong .. ”,
    and my response included QUOTE:

    The power-hungry, politicians and environmental activists have made the debate about the numerous scientific disciplines contributing to our poor understanding of the processes and drivers of the different global climates into a political debate, with all of the distortions of truth that they are renowned for. The UN’s IPCC is the figure-head for this.

    Another fact about scientists is that they are not gods but merely humans with a little more knowledge that most in specific areas. Scientists are driven by the same basic motivations and failings as most of us, such as self-preservation, self-esteem and a desire to be noticed and respected, etc. etc. etc. These human motivations and failings can have a detrimental impact upon their search for scientific truth and how they present it to others. There have been many factual reports of cases where scientists have distorted the evidence in order to enhance their own individual standing in society.

    It is unfortunate that absolute honesty is not a pre-requisite for scientists, as the words of a scientist who was highly respected by staunch supporters of the CACC hypothesis make clear. In 1989 The Detroit News had an editorial starting QUOTE: On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. … On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. … To avert the risk (of potentially disastrous climate change) we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination. That of course means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. …Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.
    –Stephen H. Schneider, author of the book Global Warming (Sierra Club), in an interview in Discover Magazine, October 1989. UNQUOTE.

    This tells me that in Schneider’s opinion scientists were not obliged to tell the truth but that he only hoped that they would. I find that very disappointing coming from a scientists of Schneider’s stature (more of that at and I can rant some more on this if you like).

    Another example is the dubious statistical manipulations used by Professor Michael Mann et al. in order to produce the infamous “hockey stick” that so delighted the authors of the IPCC’s TAR ( Thanks are due to McIntyre and McKittrick for exposing that “trick”. Then in 2009 we had the revelations of Climategate indicating that some significant scientists closely connected with the UN’s IPCC had chosen for 19 years to be what they considered to be effective rather than truthful. Thanks to Andrew Montford for his excellent book “The Hockey Stick Illusion; Climategate and the Corruption of Science” (

    Please don’t anyone bother responding on the lines that several enquiries cleared those scientists – there are different shades of “independent enquiry”, especially where politicians are involved (


    It was after this “rant” of mine that Professor Bender opted out.

    I’ve made frequent reference here to the University of Cambridge’s The Naked Scientists because I expect organisations and individuals purporting to present science to do so in an unbiased manner, presenting facts where possible and opinions as a last resort. I hope for an honest admission of any uncertainty, in a nut-shell, science, not propaganda.

    Dr. Chris Smith, Founder and Managing Editor of The Naked Scientists, introduces himself as “ .. a Doctor and scientist here at Cambridge University .. ” (2009 He goes on to say “ .. what we try and do is strip down science to its bear essentials and make it fun and interesting but also scientifically rigorous and educational .. we are trying to reach audiences that perhaps other science programs overlook .. ”. These are very important and worthy objectives, contrasting with the view expressed by Professor Stephen Schneider that I quoted above.

    Dr. Smith goes on to say “ .. The idea is to give people a quick snapshot of what’s hot each week in the world of science .. each program is themed so we’ll look at an important aspect of science each week and we invite .. guest scientists to come into the studio and talk about what they do and what their science is all about .. What I hadn’t been prepared for though was quite how much this was all going to cost .. ”.

    Once again that evil thing “money” rears its head. Sceptics are often accused by CACC supporters of being funded by the evil energy industry. What about the funding of those who support the CACC hypothesis? I am investigating the sources of funds for the University of Cambridge’s The Naked Scientists and have used the UK’s Freedom of Information Act to get details. It’s very revealing – more on that later if you are interested.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — September 5, 2011 @ 11:26 pm | Reply

  10. Hi Dr. Moore, I hope that your family problem isn’t causing too much unhappiness and that things improve soon.

    I’ve just checked through you most recent 1160 words and once again find your comments somewhat lacking in science. It is claimed that you “ .. taught chemistry, physics, and general science at the college level for 38 years .. ” ( but your comments here and on your blog remind me of one of my teachers who simply handed out textbooks to students to read while he read his newspaper.

    Several questions have been put to you here and you have shied away from giving a scientific response to all of them. That tells me that you don’t know the answers, which is fine as there is no shame in ignorance – but why not just admit it?

    Two questions that I asked were:
    - “ .. Please can you provide a link to the evidence .. ” supporting the claim of a positive feedback effect.
    - “ .. can you explain it for me? .. ” what makes mixed gases move from one container to another.

    I can find no answer to them. What has “I assume that you are familiar with the ice core data, which also provides records of dust particles and methane. Obviously, you cannot tell the water from a feedback loop from any other water in the ice. However, the vapor pressure of water depends only on the temperature, and if you look at the vapor pressure/temperature graph you can just look up on the chart how much additional water vapor would be in the air.” to do with either question?

    Regarding the impact of our use of fossil fuels on atmospheric CO2:

    - you said “ .. In the past there was an approximate equilibrium by the amount of CO2 emitted by animals and other sources and amount of CO2 used by plants than plankton. That equilibrium has been upset by the fact that man is digging up fossil fuels and putting CO2 back into the air that has been buried for millions of years. The CO2 man is emitting has upset the equilibrium and it is now building up in the air .. ”. – I said “ .. Then of course it is necessary to remember that those figures are estimates only and I’m sure that with your detailed knowledge of the subject you’ll be able to provide a figure for the error .. ”.

    Can you define your understanding of “approximate” and explain what happened to upset that “approximate equilibrium” of atmospheric CO2 during the past 650K years? ( – note that the graphs are from your favourite source of science, Realclimate.
    Also, can you please provide that “ .. figure for the error .. ”?

    Not that I expect you to give me an answer to these questions either. I am forced to conclude that trying to have a worthwhile discussion with you is a waste of time so I’ll get back to exchanging opinions with ice core “experts” like Professors Jeff Severinghaus, Richard Alley, Hartmut Frank, Zbiniew Jaworowski, Euan Nisbet, Dr. Dominique Raynaud and others.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — September 5, 2011 @ 11:16 pm | Reply

  11. Oops. “Summarizes classes work” should be “Summarizes Plass’ work”

    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 5, 2011 @ 6:25 am | Reply

  12. I had a little time so I thought I was you and you the links to the scientific articles on climate change. Not all of the links came through so you might have to post the address into your browser window. Also, some of the papers are not available online, so you may have to go to the library to read them.
    I posted the pictures and graphs I mentioned in an earlier post here for those who would like to see them all in one place. I found the pictures with a little explanation are much better than just posting links:

    Here is the AIP review of the physics of climate change :

    and here is the pertinent section that summarizes classes work that is given in the several papers below:

    Plass, G.N. (1956a). “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change.” Tellus 8: 140-54. Online here.
    Plass, G.N. (1956b). “The Influence of the 15 Band on the Atmospheric Infra-Red Cooling Rate.” Quarterly J. Royal Meteorological Society 82: 310-29.
    Plass, G.N. (1956c). “Infrared Radiation in the Atmosphere.” American J. Physics 24: 303-21.
    Plass, G.N. (1956d). “Carbon Dioxide and the Climate.” American Scientist 44: 302-16, online with commentary here.
    Plass, G.N. (1956e). “Effect of Carbon Dioxide Variations on Climate.” American J. Physics 24: 376-87.
    Plass, G.N. (1959). “Carbon Dioxide and Climate.” Scientific American, July, pp. 41-47.
    Plass, G.N., and L.D. Kaplan (1961). Exchange of Letters. Tellus 13: 296-302.

    This is a link to Kiehl’s paper that shows that CO2 accounts for about 25% of the greenhouse effect_under clear sky conditions:;2

    This is a link to some more recent work, where they concluded that CO2 was the “control knob” for climate change:


    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 5, 2011 @ 6:23 am | Reply

    • J.C.
      Thankyou for your answer to my comment.
      I have spent some time exploring some of the references you gave me.

      I am familiar with the histpry of AGW theory thank you. However any empirical conclusions have yet to emerge past the laboratory.

      Kiehl measures the Earth’s mean energy budget.
      All very interesting but forgive me if I cannot see the relevance to our conversation.

      Andrew A. Lacis*, Gavin A. Schmidt, David Rind and Reto A. Ruedy looked very relevant I must say until I managed to find a scientific commentary on it.
      Alas Lacis et al are simply exercising some sort of climatary model in order to gain their conclusions. You must know better than this! Models are simply hypothesis’ and enable the scientist to see the effect IF that hypothesis is true.
      This is not even close to proof, it is simply scientific speculation as you must well know!

      I also read Plass’s paper. I am not very impressed. First of all he presents the whole paper as a hypothesis, or as he puts it, a theory. In that he is absolutely correct.
      Also he acknowledges a number of short comings and assumptions

      “In order to obtain the temperature change it
      was assumed that an additional amount of
      heat energy equal to 0.0033 cal/crn2 min
      would be radiated to space from the surface
      of the earth, if the average temperature increased
      by 1’ C. Unfortunately this number
      cannot be calculated accurately until a detailed
      study of the H,O spectrum has been made.
      When a more accurate value for This number
      is obtained in the future, all the temperature
      changes given here should be multiplied by
      the ratio of the new to the old values.
      With this assumption, PLAS(S1 956 b) finds
      that, in order to restore equilibrium, the
      surface temperature must rise 3.6″ C if the
      CO2, concentration is doubled and the surface
      temperature must fall 3.8′ C if the CO, concentration
      is halved. It is also assumed here
      that no other factors change at the same time”

      ….. theory of
      climatic change has been that, since the H2O
      absorbs so strongly in the same spectral region
      as CO2,, the CO2, can have little influence on
      the infrared flux. Until a more detailed study
      is made of the H,O spectrum and its influence
      on the atmosphere, it is not possible to investigate
      this matter quantitatively. However,
      several considerations suggest that

      and acknowledges
      “Many reasons for climatic change have
      been proposed, such as variations in the radiation from the sun that reaches the earth, the amount
      of volcanic dust in the air, the average
      elevation of the lands and changes in the
      general circulation. It is entirely possible that
      some of these factors may have had an appreciable
      influence on the climate at particular
      times and places in the earth’s history. A recent
      summary of the evidence for and against
      these theories has been given by WILLET 1949″

      and as far as I can see, no consideration of radiation into space on clear nights. Neither reflection of solar energy from clouds back into space.
      in fact none or little mention of the effect of clouds on atmospheric temperature at all.

      Neither Plass or any other of your links addresses any reasons for previous recent warmings.

      For a start, in order to even approach a scientific proof for the current warming (if thats what we actually are experiencing) very good papers analysing previous warmings, at least the three or four in historic times, are necessary. And these would need to definitively show that they were not caused by something that could be happening at the present. This has to be the first neccesary condition, unless there is some empirical evidence that effectively rules out any other cause of the supposed current warming.

      So there we are back to the original deficiency in the AGW theory. All that science has is some sort of correlation between CO2 levels and climatic mean temperatures. A correlation would be another necessary condition, but in itself is meaningless. Of course this may explain the fighting over world temperature analysis’s. Whilst looking for changes that are greater than the coefficient of error in the statistics looks fairly pathetic to me, it is the one possible necessary condition that exists, which would explain the pains that have been taken to try and create a believable and supporting dataset.

      However, if we are going to ruin our economies on account of AGW, there is no doubt in my mind that we need an awful lot more than a possible correlation for a reason to risk poverty and starvation.



      Comment by rogerthesurf — September 15, 2011 @ 5:42 pm | Reply

  13. Dear Roger,

    I see that you have not posted the data that I sent you. If you’re going to control the flow of information on your site, then I would suggest that we both move our post to a neutral site, such as Newsvine. You may look it up on Google and it is free to join the site. A number of skeptics and scientists alike post on the site so you might find it interesting to participate in the discussions. I have about 30 articles on my site pertaining to the science of climate change and each article has a number of scientific references. My time is been rather limited lately by illness in the family , so I would suggest that you and your readers check my site at If they will put the topic in the search box, then the related articles with the scientific references can be found.


    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 3, 2011 @ 1:31 pm | Reply

    • J.C. Moore,

      The links you gave me are still in the comment below where the public can access them. I would have thought that is sufficient for the purposes of our conversation.

      Sorry about the illness in your family, but things may move forward some if you use, what time you hav,e to address my questions.



      Comment by rogerthesurf — September 3, 2011 @ 5:44 pm | Reply

  14. Hi Pete,

    I assume that you are familiar with the ice core data, which also provides records of dust particles and methane. Obviously, you cannot tell the water from a feedback loop from any other water in the ice. However, the vapor pressure of water depends only on the temperature, and if you look at the vapor pressure/temperature graph you can just look up on the chart how much additional water vapor would be in the air.


    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 3, 2011 @ 1:23 pm | Reply

  15. Hi Roger,

    You said on the Chimalaya site that you are interested in the scientific data. I have sent you references to the data , but perhaps you have not yet time time to post it yet. Please do so and then we can discuss it.


    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 3, 2011 @ 1:06 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme Blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: