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  =======>

“Check this out. A high school girl says it how it is”


Quote of the CENTURY :-

“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.



  1. Hi Pete,

    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. You claim that man is only emitting 5% of the amount emitted by nature, but when you think about it, that is each year. At 5%, how long will it take to double the amount of CO2 in the air? I have sent some information on that to Roger and asked that he post it on his site. Perhaps after he does so we can discuss it.



    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 3, 2011 @ 12:55 pm | Reply

  2. Hi Dr. Moore, it seems to me (a layman not a scientist) that in all of your 2431 words on this blog you have offered only 112 that can be considered in any way scientific. That was on 28th August @ 1:20 pm, in paragraph 3, but even those words are suspect. “ .. The warming is, however, enough to decrease the solubility of CO2 in the ocean, which leads to higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. This, by the greenhouse effect, causes further warming, .. ” sounds OK. “ .. feedback loops in the water cycle, an increase in the release CO2 and of CH4 .. “ sounds more like speculation. Please can you provide a link to the evidence.

    As for “. The greenhouse effect is at work, except this time man is supplying the CO2 by burning billions of tons of fossil fuel .. ”, Roger has already alluded to, sceptics don’t deny that our use of fossil fuels etc. could cause a very small increase in temperature (on a logarithmic scale) but please provide a link to the evidence that shows a positive feedback effect, otherwise we have to regard that as more speculation.

    For someone who claims to be a scientist “ .. you are very light on facts in your answer but strong in your opinions .. ”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — September 2, 2011 @ 9:51 pm | Reply

  3. Hi Dr. Moore, that sure is a big number so lets make it a little more recognisable by calling it approximately 30Gtons CO2 (or about 8Gt carbon). Now, lets see how that compares with what the IPCC tells us nature puts into the air each year:
    – Land Respiration 440Gtons, Sea release 260Gtons, = 700Gtons ( or

    So, we are releasing 30 versus Nature’s 700 or about 5% of the total. That doesn’t sound so bad, does it?

    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.

    BTW, those GISS graphs that you provided a link to do NOT show how CO2 is vhanging the earth’s temperature, they show how that particular set of statistical manipulations of raw temperature measurements made over a small percentage of the earth during the past 130 years suggests the earth’s mean surface temperature has changed. You (and the IPCC) make the assumption that our CO2 emissions are the cause of most of that increase but that assumption is not substantiated.

    As for your pictures of the Arctic, try this one which is more up to date, but just because there are changes taking place on earth doesn’t justify the assumption that our CO2 emissions are causing them. The earth has been changing since it was first formed.

    Once again “ .. you are very light on facts in your answer but strong in your opinions .. ”.

    BTW, I eagerly await your answer to my simple question about the flow of gases from one container to another – or was it too difficult for you? If so, just admit it, after all, there’s no shame in ignorance.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — September 2, 2011 @ 7:39 am | Reply

  4. Roger,

    I see you are now recommending the Great Global Warming Swindle even though I pointed out to you that the film has distorted the views of some of the scientists and the panel that reviewed complaints against it ruled that it was not even controversial because the questions it raised have been decided in favor of the scientific views. I also gave you a reference that pointed out that the OISM’s petition project was mostly a hoax, yet you recommended a video based on the OISM’s views. I saw on another site that you said that you were interested in scientific accuracy based upon good data. Is that true, or are you just interested in promoting controversy?


    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 2, 2011 @ 12:10 am | Reply

  5. I once was sent a paper to evaluate for an engine that used the energy it produced to run itself. The paper was filled with complicated thermodynamic equations and relationships, but I did not need to work through them or even read the paper to know that the claim was fiction. It violates the second law of thermodynamics. Likewise, I do not need to read papers and books whose conclusions are inconsistent with the best scientific evidence. Although there is much yet to learn about climate change and how it affects the Earth, the basic principles have been established firmly enough that it is now the skeptics job to produce evidence to the contrary. Just criticizing the way the ice core researchers handled diffusion within the ice is not adequate unless you have some data that shows that a different measure of molecular size is reasonable and will provide better data.

    As I suggested, perhaps you should encourage Dr. Jaworski to examine the problem. My specialty is in quantum mechanic and spectroscopy and what you are asking would take a considerable investment of time and energy to research the problem, years perhaps. Also, badgering scientists about what they know and don’t know will probably not elicit favorable responses from them, particularly when you are questioning the opinions that are outside their area and could be better answered by experts in the research area. You would not go to a proctologist and criticize him for not being able to explain why you’re having headaches, would you?

    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 1, 2011 @ 11:58 pm | Reply

  6. Science is about using observation and reason to understand the physical world. I thought rather than argue about computer models and theories; perhaps we should look at the data. I cannot post pictures in the comments section, so please put these on your site so we and your readers can comment on them.
    Man is now putting about 30,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Much of it stays there and you can see how it is building up in air:
    CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases that warm the Earth and NASA’s graph shows how its increase is changing the Earth’s temperature:
    Many of the changes in the Earth are subtle but here is one of NASA’s pictures that shows how the Earth is changing:

    Comment by J.C. Moore — September 1, 2011 @ 1:41 pm | Reply

    • J.C. Moore,

      You are disappointing me further with each of your comments.

      If you have something to say, please start by answering my questions. Whenever you sidestep a question, I and my readers believe less in your credibility. This is exacerbated by your reluctance to quote any peer reviewed academic papers.

      Now your comment 2011/09/01 at 1:41 pm suggests that there is a terrible great hole in your understanding. You see, first of all you emphasise how CO2 is building up in the air (although increase of concentration as a portion of the atmosphere is only about 0.0213% since 1960 which does not seem very much when one views it that way). However no one is denying that CO2 is increasing.
      Then you emphasise that the earth is getting warmer. Well aside of some suspicions in the way it is being measured, no one is denying that either.
      Now please think about this fact . When I was a freshman studying statistics, we were told that a correlation is NEVER proof. Of course perhaps that fact has not kept up with pythagorus and is not valid any more? However pre IPCC a correlation used to be regarded as a necessary condition for a proof but never a proof in itself.

      This leads to my questions in my comment 2011/08/28 at 12:55 pm | In reply to J.C. Moore. where I requested some proof other than this correlation you keep emphasising.

      1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.
      2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. Im sure you know that correlations are never proof.
      3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

      Now how would you like to show that you are a real scientist and discuss those questions. If you cannot or are unwilling to show the way beyond your correlations then you have very little standing with myself or my readers. I might point out this is the underlying theme of my blog which seems to have escaped you. Excuse me while I spell it out for you:- If the world has been warmer than present before, (a number of those instances within historical times), when it is known that anthropogenic CO2 was confined to itinerant sword sharpening, where is the evidence that shows that THIS TIME the warming is the fault of CO2?

      Furthermore, I would like to inform you that if you are unable to at least address the issue I raise (which I do because as you claim to be a scientist and a contributor to IPCC reporting and I expect you to be able to disuss them) I will copy these comments to my other site where my readers will see that the credibility of another global warming alarmist bites the dust.

      So please stop skirting the questions, use some academic references and lets find some truth here!



      Comment by rogerthesurf — September 2, 2011 @ 6:14 pm | Reply

  7. Hi Dr. Moore, I have to agree with Roger’s “ .. you are very light on facts in your answer but strong in your opinions .. ”. You have failed to offer any science relating to that fundamental CACC hypothesis issue, the validity of the ice core record. Because you follow up with a reference to Professor Jaworowski I make the assumption that your “ .. I have not read your references –as ”fictional science” is mostly a waste of time .. ” was in response to my comments here. In relation to the ice core record I have provided three references here,;; so without reading what Professor Eric Wolff (British Antarctic Survey), Dr. Jaworowski or others say you are able to tell whether it is science fact or fiction. That is quite a talent you have – or is it simply a demonstration of how closed your mind is?

    Unlike disciples of the CACC doctrine, sceptics like Roger and I are eager to consider scientific arguments from both sides of the debate before making a judgement.

    Here’s another reference for you to poo-poo as science fiction without even reading it “Do Glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 record?” by Z. Jaworowski, T. V. Segalstad and N. Ono, 1992 ( and there are plenty more that I have read from both sides of the debate. The Naked Scientists link above has lots of them.

    With your knowledge of Physical Chemistry I’d have expected you to have at least a little understanding of the movement of molecules within a nano-porous medium like deep firn or zeolites and some understanding of the measures of molecular size but the impression you have given so far is that you don’t. In a nut shell I suspect that you haven’t a clue about the different process affecting the ice core record, but please prove me wrong.

    I’m not a scientist, just a retired electrical engineer and would appreciate help on this so here’s a simple question for you which you should be able to answer. When giving an explanation of the movement of gas molecules in the deep firn a theoretical physicist commented “ .. Regardless of the detail of the mechanism a material (CO2 in this case) can only move from regions of higher concentration to lower concentration (else the second law of thermodynamics is violated and we can design a perpetual motion machine around the phenomenon) .. ” ( I find this puzzling because in my ignorance I envisage the flow of a mixture of gases from place to place as resulting from the total pressure gradient between those places, regardless of the source of that gradient or the mixture ratios of the component gases, with flow being down the total gradient. I understood the 2nd Law to relate to total energy in a system, not partial energies, in this particular case to total pressure not partial pressure.

    On that basis it appears to me that if the total pressure in one container of mixed gases (C1) is greater than the total pressure of another container (C2) gases will move from C1 to C2, regardless of the gas components in the mix provided that there is a negotiable path between the two containers. It seems that I misunderstand something about what makes those gases move so can you explain it for me?

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — September 1, 2011 @ 2:42 am | Reply

  8. I looked over your list of references that included Michaels, McIntyre, Christy, Spencer, Pielke, etc. …and I’ve read papers by most of them and researched their views and their funding. I seldom look at a thing on YouTube anymore as most of the anti-science posts are long on presentation and short on facts. Al Gore’s movie had some errors, especially about predicting future as that’s a little hard to do for anyone, but it had its day in court in England and won. The judge ruled that as long as it was pointed out that it had some political content that it was soundly based on scientific fact and could be shown in the public schools. On the other hand, the review committee that Investigated the Great Global Warming Swindle found out some of the scientists who appeared in the film had been misled and that rules describing controversial films really didn’t apply as the film really wasn’t controversial since the matter had already been settled in favor of science.

    As for references, you might try reading the AIP review on global warming, the series of 1950’s papers by Plass that showed that doubling the CO2 concentration would give a 3 to 4°C rise in global temperatures, or Kiehl’s paper that showed that about 25% of the greenhouse effect comes from CO2. Most all that research is summed up in the IPCC report and it would be a good place for you to start reading if you want to understand climate change. The site also has some good explanation of the science behind global warming written for a layperson.

    I have researched and written articles on many of the topics you bring up and if you will go to my site and type in the term into the search engine. It will bring up the papers. As for the Oregon petition, it doesn’t really prove much about anything as is explained at .

    Cheers, and happy reading,


    Comment by J.C. Moore — August 31, 2011 @ 3:27 am | Reply

    • J C Moore,

      For a scientist, you are very light on facts in your answer but strong in your opinions.

      I asked you a series of very reasonable questions and as far as I can see you have skirted around them all.

      For a start you could begin by explaining why you differ from Al Gore when you say “Interestingly, the CO2 concentrations usually occurred 800 to 1000 years after the warming began which has led to the accurate idea that CO2 concentration follows warming “ whereas Al Gore and many others rely on this historical correlation as “proof” that CO2 does cause global warming.

      I expect paper references for my other questions as well, do not get the idea that I have not already looked for such papers, I have been looking for something satisfactory now for 18 months or more.

      For your information, I suspect researchers who are either funded indirectly or otherwise by the IPCC about as much as you suspect researchers that have been funded by the private sector. Lets just consider the content of the papers shall we?

      I would like to see some papers that empirically show the CO2 mechanism in AGW is proven.
      Do not quote results from models to me. I am quite familliar with models from my economic studies thank you.

      “” I think I am quite able to go into greater depth than some of the things you suggest. Once again, if you are so confident about the validity of the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” you must be familiar with academic papers that I am not, so I wish to see these.



      Comment by rogerthesurf — August 31, 2011 @ 3:16 pm | Reply

  9. I like science fiction… but I have not read your references -as” fictional science” is mostly a waste of time. If, as you claim, Dr. Jaworski is an expert on ice core samples and “he discusses some of the processes that could (-or not) distort the ice-core record”. If he is an expert, then why doesn’t he show why one molecular radius is preferable over another and figure out what difference that would make in the results of the experiments. Just because you can think of things wrong with the current scientific findings does not mean they’re actually wrong. You seem not to like the fact that the ice core data does not agree with your ideological position on climate change but, though the history it provides is interesting, but it is mostly irrelevant to the current global warming we are experiencing. It is not only detrimental to mankind, but it is caused by our release of billions of tons of CO2 into the air each year. If you do not understand the link between the increase in greenhouse gases and the extreme weather, droughts, wildfires, and more acidic oceans we are observing, you will probably not understand why scientists are worried about the changes we are observing in the Earth.

    Comment by J.C. Moore — August 30, 2011 @ 3:34 am | Reply

    • J.C. Moore

      ” If you do not understand the link between the increase in greenhouse gases and the extreme weather, droughts, wildfires”

      I don’t understand any of these links either. Where are your peer reviewed scientific papers that show these things?

      You may have noticed I answered your original comment above.

      I hope you read it already.

      Would appreciate a balanced answer.



      Comment by rogerthesurf — August 30, 2011 @ 5:22 pm | Reply

  10. Hi Dr. Moore, I understand your efforts to justify your support for the CACC hypothesis but am surprised that for someone with your credentials “ .. you do not seem to have adequate reasons for your .. ” acceptance of the hypothesis.

    The claims made about the ice-core record of past atmospheric composition are fundamental to the CACC hypothesis and as you have acknowledged you “ .. have never done research on ice core samples and I certainly do not claim to be an expert on that .. ”. Having “ .. at one time read several papers on how the research was done and I was satisfied that the scientists doing the research knew what they were doing .. ” I would have expected you to have found the answers to the questions I have asked about the subject. I too have read research papers, many of them and discussed it with several of the “experts” who wrote them. I am not at all satisfied that understand enough about what happens to the air allegedly “trapped” unchanged in ice for centuries and millennia.

    In exchanges with me only recently one of those “experts”, Professor Eric Wolff acknowledged that “ .. I think that none of us has a definite molecular-level understanding of the physical process occurring at closeoff, and it would be great if someone can do the experiments in the lab to understand that better .. ”.

    I get the impression that you haven’t bothered to take a look at any of the links that I have provided and I also suspect that you are quite happy to accept without question what “experts” and others say as long as it supports the CACC hypothesis. You recommendation that I use Realclimate and Wikipedia as reliable sources suggests to me that you don’t approach the CACC hypothesis in a scientific (sceptical) manner but if I am mistaken then I sincerely apologise.

    My interest in the validity of those ice-core reconstructions of past atmospheric composition resulted from reading “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time” ( by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. in which he discusses some of the processes that could distort the ice-core record. His Fig. 3 is another version of the graph provided by Roger in his article above. The two graphs that Jaworowski provides in Fig. 2 and his discussion of them relate to your point about “ .. the ice core data merging neatly with Keeling’s data .. ”.

    Professor Wolff (and other supporters of the CACC hypothesis, such as Chris Colose) claim that Jaworowski has been refuted, particularly by another “expert” Professor Hans Oeschger, but this is not so. Oesher (and others) have simply rejected what Jaworoweski says, not refuted – there is a big difference. I discussed this nearly two years ago on Chris Colose’s “Richard Alley at AGU 2009: The Biggest Control Knob” ( Professor Richard Alley is of the opinion that the ice core record sets the gold standard for reconstructing past atmospheric CO2 content but during discussions last year he, lie all of the other “experts” that I have discussed this with, could only fall back upon the argument that empirical evidence supports the use of collision rather than kinetic diameter.

    If you have no expertise in the subject of molecular dynamics within nano-porous media do you, as a physical chemist, have any knowledge of any of the physical or chemical processes that could take place in a porous crystalline medium comprising mainly H2O and the atmospheric gases? Such knowledge is essential for a proper understanding of the processes affecting the composition of atmospheric air as it takes its journey from the earth’s atmosphere through to the laboratories of the expert analysts of the air recovered from ice sheets.

    I’ve been trying to find someone competent to debate this with but after several years of trying I’m little further forward. Maybe you are the one – or do you have any associates who have expertise in this subject, including the different diffusion processes, who are interested in debating it. As Jaworowski said in an E-mail last June “ .. This is a highly specialized field of science. My impression is that it is a terra incognita for glaciologists .. ”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — August 29, 2011 @ 1:58 am | Reply

  11. Oops. The word “Insulation” in my post should be “insolation”.

    Comment by J.C. Moore — August 28, 2011 @ 1:50 pm | Reply

  12. I took your word that you are a skeptic , but you do not seem to have adequate reasons for your skepticism. That was the graph on Roger ‘s site that had the ice core data merging neatly with Keeling’s data. The reason is that both the Antarctica ice core data and Keeling’s data are more representative of the CO2 concentration in the entire atmosphere as they are not affected by local sources of CO2. It has nothing to do with tree rings.

    I have never done research on ice core samples and I certainly do not claim to be an expert on that. I did at one time read several papers on how the research was done and I was satisfied that the scientists doing the research knew what they were doing. I thought with your level of knowledge that Wikipedia would be a good place for you to start . You can argue about whether the scientists should use Van der Waal’s radii or some other type of molecular size in their diffusion calculations, but I imagine they have chosen the most reasonable parameters to use, and I suspect that the choice will make very little difference in their conclusions. You may of course dispute that, but you might wish to consider that research teams from many countries have been involved in the studies on the ice cores taken from many different parts of the world, but they get similar results.

    Comment by J.C. Moore — August 28, 2011 @ 1:43 pm | Reply

  13. The role of CO2 in the Milankovitch cycles is quite easy to understand. The increased solar energy during the warming part of the Milankovitch cycles is not enough to account for all the rise in temperatures. The warming is, however, enough to decrease the solubility of CO2 in the ocean, which leads to higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. This, by the greenhouse effect, causes further warming, feedback loops in the water cycle, an increase in the release CO2 and of CH4. In the past, the rise in CO2 concentration usually followed the rise in temperature by 800 to 1000 years. However, the solar insulation has decreased slightly over the past 50 years, yet NASA data shows the temperature of the earth is continuing to rise. The greenhouse effect is at work, except this time man is supplying the CO2 by burning billions of tons of fossil fuel.

    Comment by J.C. Moore — August 28, 2011 @ 1:20 pm | Reply

  14. Hi Dr. Moore, I love your comment “ .. the data from the ice cores fit neatly into the pattern found by Keeling .. ”. It reminded me of the novel manner in which Michael Mann used the PCA procss to statistically manipulate tree-ring data to make it “fit neatly into the pattern found by” the statistically manipulated global mean temperature data of the past 150 years or so in order to get rid of the Medi-evil Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Let’s hope that McIntyre & McKittrick or other sceptical statisticians can make the time to research the manipulations used on the ice core data. What’s that well-known saying? – “There’s lies, damned lies and statistics”.

    I’d like to recommend several books to you:
    – “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford,
    – “The Real Global Warming Disaster” by Christopher Booker,
    – “Scared to Death” by Christopher Booker and Richard North, Chapter 4 “Saving the Planet – Global Warming: The New Secular Religion”.
    – or if they are too heavy for you, try “The Greenhouse Delusion” by Vincent Gray.

    Perhaps before you read those you can make some time to try provide convincing answers to my questions on 25th, particularly about preferential fractionation of air molecules dependent upon the size of the molecules of the different constituents and why collision diameter is used in the analyses rather then kinetic diameter. I was very disappointed with your response to my question on your blog yesterday as you seem to understand the issue even less than I do and I’m no scientist. As for your suggestion that I try for answers at Wikipedia and Realclimate – no thanks, prefer to look at knowledgeable and unbiased sources and had hoped that you, being an analytical chemist and teacher, would have been of some assistance. If you can’t help but would like to learn more about the issue then I suggest that you take a look at those links I have provided here and on my “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread at the University of Cambridge’s The Naked Scientists Science Forum (

    I had hoped that those “ .. physicians and researchers from Cambridge University .. ” would have been able to answer my questions convincingly but was disappointed by them too, however, Professor Eric Wolff of the British Antarctic Survey and retired physicist Dr. John Christie gave some very helpful relevant input after I asked them to join in the discussion. It’s such a shame that my threads were closed by the forum administrators and I was banned from the site as there is much more to discuss about the validity of those attempts to reconstruct past atmospheric composition from air allegedly “trapped” in ice for decades, centuries and millennia.

    In my comment here on May 6, 2011 @ 9:55 I mentioned complaints about the bias shown by the BBC in favour of the CACC hypothesis. They keep pushing the propaganda at every opportunity, perhaps they have a lot of their pension fund tied up in renewables. Today BBC News had an extremely interesting item from their “Our World” series about the slums in Manilla ( but had to spoil it for me by trying to put some of the blame for those slums onto climate change (and by implication on our use of fossil fuels. Starting at 01:00 minutes the program shows beautiful landscapes with small groups of people enjoying rural pass-times, with presenter Paul Mason talking about the “ .., lush, calm, idyllic .. ” rice fields “ .. but more than 1 million people here are leaving it. Poverty, climate change and a population boom are pushing people off the land and the paces they end up in look like this … ”. The scenes change to squalor, squalor and more squalor.

    Let’s take as much money from taxpayers as we can squeeze out of them on the pretext of saving the world from CO2 pollution, throw most of it away building windmills and solar panels, give some of the money to the politicians of the developing economies and give all of the men-folk contraceptives. That should eliminate those slums for good.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — August 28, 2011 @ 8:05 am | Reply

  15. I’m sure that the graph of CO2 measurements from 1812 to the present gives accurate CO2 measurements within the limits of the procedures at the time and the conditions under which the samples were taken . Local conditions such as plant growth, nearby factories, and time of year, will affect the amount of CO2 measured at a particular location. Charles Keeling establish accurate procedures to measure the worldwide CO2 concentration at the top of Mauna Loa to get away from these local conditions. While some of the measurements in the graph fluctuated wildly, you can see a different pattern from 1957 on in the world CO2 concentration when Keeling’s procedures were followed.

    You may also notice that the data from the ice cores fit neatly into the pattern found by Keeling. That is because isolated areas, such as Mauna Loa, high altitudes, glaciers, Antarctica, Greenland and other cold areas are isolated from factors that caused the fluctuation in many of the previous samples. It appears that whoever did the graph, lumped all the data together, which forms a very inaccurate picture of the Earth’s historical CO2 concentration. To find out more about this, look up Charles Keeling and the Keeling curve.

    Probably our best records of climate conditions and CO2 concentrations have been taken from ice core samples in Antarctica, which was isolated has been mostly undisturbed for the 800,000 years studied. Though there is been some criticism of the accuracy of the data, they correlate well with ice cores taken from other areas and also with data from other types of measurements. I think scientists and skeptics alike agree that they give an accurate picture of the ice ages and that the onset of ice ages and interglacial periods was triggered by the Milankovitch cycles. The core samples show that the ice ages ended when the increasing sunlight cause the Earth to warm releasing CO2, methane, and water vapor in the atmosphere. Interestingly, the CO2 concentrations usually occurred 800 to 1000 years after the warming began which has led to the accurate idea that CO2 concentration follows warming – in those cases. That Idea cannot be applied to the current warming trend because never before has a species dug up billions of tons of carbon fuels and put CO2 into the air at the current rate of 30,000,000,000 tons per year.

    However, current research shows that near the end of the Permian era, volcanoes may have done that. Volcanoes in an area rich in coal in the Deccan Steppes, put trillions of tons of CO2 into the air. If you will look on the graph above of the late Permian era, you will see that the CO2 concentration and the temperature both rose rapidly at the end of that era. There is evidence which shows that the oceans became acidic, 75% of the land species disappeared, and 95% of the ocean species. That is certainly not a bit of history that we should like to repeat.

    Comment by J.C. Moore — August 27, 2011 @ 2:26 pm | Reply

    • J.C. Moore,

      Thank you for your comment.

      “Interestingly, the CO2 concentrations usually occurred 800 to 1000 years after the warming began which has led to the accurate idea that CO2 concentration follows warming “

      Funny! Thats not what Al Gore says in his movie, in fact he claims that it is the correlation of the CO2 with the warming in the past that “proves” that CO2 is causing the warming. Although I do not have a doctorate, I do have difficulty in understanding how an event that happens some time after another event, can be the cause of the first event.

      I am pleased that you appear to have a doctorate and therefore you must be used to working with hypothesis’ so perhaps you can explain a few things to me.

      I know that there are basically three ways to prove a hypothesis.

      Therefore you will be able to provide or reference, for this unbeliever, one or more peer reviewed, published academic papers using at least one of the following methods to show that the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” is more than just a possibility.

      1 Empirical proof that shows the causation factor of CO2 with respect of Global Warming.
      2. Statistical proof of Anthropogenic CO2. Im sure you know that correlations are never proof.
      3. Evidence for the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis to be adopted over the null hypothesis?

      Now I’m sure you do not need it, but just in case, here is a little reading to understand what these things are. Here is a site which describes what is needed for #3 which might help.
      I think number three is the most important, because it means, as far as my understanding goes, that in order to consider the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis as a better hypothesis over a null hypothesis (such as “The climate naturally changes anyway”) one has to explain how and why all the previous warmings occurred (At least three in historical times).

      Now I do have some standing as an economist, therefore I must ask you:- Have you ever consulted with your economic collegues what they think of the economic effect on us all will be, should we all abide by the IPCC demands of a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions. (Thats roughly in line with their statement of 40% below 1990 levels).
      If you care to do some unbiased research into the economic side of things, you will understand why a very very high standard of proof that the current warming is anthropogenic and therefore reversable, must be obtained before we start to pay this terrible price.

      “I noticed a number of your statements and comments are contrary to the opinions of the world’s leading climate researchers and also of all the major scientific organizations in the world “

      Your reference to OICM:

      I believe the Oregon Petition is quite reasonable for the following reasons.
      1. The statement signed is clear an unambiguous- no-one is going to be misconstrued and sign that by mistake.
      2. A petition that large will certainly have the names of a few deceased. That is just because people do die.
      3. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE A CLIMATE SCIENTIST TO RECOGNISE THE DEFICIENCIES OF GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMS. Any reasonably educated person can examine the method and conclusions for something outside their speciality. In fact that is a very good test of an academic paper because it constitutes an ABSOLUTELY UNBIASED review.
      4. A large petition like the Oregon Petition is likely to have a few bum entries and have a few people that change their minds.
      5. The number of criticisms by AGW believers supports the validity. If it was a bum study they could simply leave it.

      Anyway here are some links to other petitions and open letters which are also significant.

      Click to access UN_open_letter.pdf

      I also took a look at the studies where probably the information for your quote comes from, have YOU ever done that?.

      Doran and Zimmerman and Anderegg 2010

      Even I can see the flaws in the studies. These are not random samples but either self chosen as in an online survey, or the sample groups were chosen by the authors.
      There are problems with the questions although Anderegg 2010. does not appear to publish his questions.
      This commentator describes it better than I.

      In any case, the studies are basically seeking out the converted and the deeply commited. One does not have to be a climate scientist to know whether scientific method is being followed. Therefore all scientists need to be polled if any meaningful result is to be obtained from such a survey.
      I also checked out Anderegg’s supporting documents and links. It is obvious which way he wants his results to turn out. Hardly a neutral stance.
      And of course, the number of scientists upset enough to put their names to public documents is not consistant with the results, even the results claimed by the authors of the above studies.

      For a start CLIMATE SCIENTISTS need to prove their theory. To do this they need to explain all the many disproving facts. This has not been done and the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis is therefore easy to disprove and this has wide media coverage. Maybe you should get off the green channel so you can be aware of this.

      Here are some academic papers which look at facets of the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis. This is just a quick sample of many hundreds which are floating around and somehow ignored by the IPCC.

      Please enjoy.

      An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999)
      – Richard S. Courtney
      An Alternative Explanation for Differential Temperature Trends at the Surface and in the Lower Troposphere (PDF)
      (Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 114, November 2009)
      – Philip J. Klotzbach, Roger A. Pielke Sr., Roger A. Pielke Jr., John R. Christy, Richard T. McNider
      Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation (PDF)
      (Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
      – David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
      A test of corrections for extraneous signals in gridded surface temperature data (PDF)
      (Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
      – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
      – Are temperature trends affected by economic activity? Reply to Benestad (2004) (PDF)
      (Climate Research, Volume 27, Number 2, pp. 175–176, October 2004)
      – Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
      A null hypothesis for CO2 (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
      – Roy Clark
      A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
      – William Kininmonth
      A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions (PDF)
      (International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
      – David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
      A Climate of Doubt about Global Warming
      (Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
      – Robert C. Balling Jr.
      A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies (PDF)
      (Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December 2007)
      – Craig Loehle
      An empirical evaluation of earth’s surface air temperature response to radiative forcing, including feedback, as applied to the CO2-climate problem
      (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Numbers 1-2, pp. 1-19, March, 1984)
      – Sherwood B. Idso
      An upper limit to global surface air temperature
      (Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, Volume 34, Number 2, pp. 141-144, June 1985)
      – Sherwood B. Idso


      Comment by rogerthesurf — August 28, 2011 @ 12:55 pm | Reply

  16. Sorry about the flawed references to previous comments. In future I’ll provide date and time.

    Comment by Pete Ridley — August 26, 2011 @ 6:45 am | Reply

  17. Following up on my earlier comments about the University of Cambridge’s The Naked Scientists (TNS) project and possible funding concerns (see comment 4 below) I made a Freedom of Information request about the funding of TNS. The University of Cambridge provided me with details of “Current and previous Naked Scientist funding” and an “Account Analysis .. Cost Centre: PKFTResearch Account:- Or Chris Smith – the Naked Scientist Fund .. “ for the years 2011.

    Although the funding information provided was incomplete, since it only went back to August 2005 therefore didn’t include the extent of BBC funding that ceased in March 2005, it was still very interesting. Included among the information was that the main UK government agency for funding research and training in engineering and the physical sciences, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), which had provided £328,714 during 2007-10, is no longer providing funds. Another major source of funds for TNS since 2005, the UK’s Wellcome Trust, which provided £178,517 during 2005-10 has allocated a lesser £125,000 for 2010-14.

    During my FOI enquiries I exchanged E-mails with the Wellcome Trust about the CACC hypothesis, saying QUOTE:

    I see from “Public health benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions” ( that The Wellcome Trust supports the .. (CACC) doctrine. Having read several of the articles available on the site I can understand why it gives support to The Naked Scientists in its efforts to persuade the general public to believe the propaganda coming out of the UN’s IPCC. Are you able to provide a link to any convincing research that has convinced the Wellcome Trust that our emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are causing “the biggest global health threat of the 21st century”? I have been researching this for about four years now and can only find speculation, not evidence UNQUOTE.

    Wellcome Trust Policy Advisor Nancy Lee responded with QUOTE: .. the Trust’s concerns arise from the conclusion of the UN’s IPCC report that climate change is “likely to affect the health status of millions of people” UNQUOTE. When I responded with QUOTE:
    .. I can understand the interest that Wellcome Trust has in the impacts of climate change on our health (regardless of the causes of any climate change) and have no disagreement with the need for research into the topic. My concern is about the uncertainties underpinning the claims of the IPCC that humans are causing significant and potentially catastrophic changes in the different global climates through using fossil fuels.
    Our understanding of the causes of any climate changes that are taking place is very poor and significant research is required before we can hope to understand the processes and drivers of those different global climates. In my opinion organisations that try to help the general public have a better understanding of the issue need to present the science in an unbiased manner, giving voice to hypotheses and evidence from experts from both sides of what is a very contentious debate.
    If you are interested I can give you plenty links to scientists who are sceptical of the IPCC’s position UNQUOTE.

    Unsurprisingly Nancy’s retort to Wellcome Trust’s Ben Stewart, Grants Manager, Public Engagement, Medical Humanities and Engagement Grants, was “Ben, I’m not proposing to respond to this. Agree?” and I heard no more from them. That sounds just like the stance of another charity that gives its staunch support to the CACC hypothesis. Ben Stewart (perhaps a different one,) Media Director of Greenpeace UK, is discussed in the May 2007 article “How the Enviro-Fascists Are Trying to Close Down the Climate Change Debate” ( Ben is reported to have declared that “We have a policy at Greenpeace that we no longer debate people who don’t accept the scientific reality of anthropogenic climate change”.

    I have tried to engage in debate with Greenpeace and found them to have closed their minds to the significant uncertainties about the processes and drivers of the different global climates, however, you may be interested in Ben’s comments about this on May 31, 2007 12:13 PM at “Ben Stewart: An Apology” (

    Notice how hooked these supporters of the CACC hypothesis are on the IPCC’s interpretation of climate science.

    Talking of politicised organisations, maybe Government QUANGOs, Charitable organisations like the Wellcome Trust and academic institutions are at last experiencing the reality of the global economic upheaval that members of the hard-working general public have been suffering from for several years now. Maybe that explains why the Founder & Managing Editor of the University of Cambridge’s The Naked Scientists, Dr. Chris Smith, is appealing to users of the forum to “Help save the Naked Scientists” to make donations. Dr Smith says “Up until now we have been entirely supported by our generous sponsors, but due to the vagueries of grant applications and the present financial situation we need to look more widely to pay the rent” (

    It always makes me worried when people start asking for my money. As soon as that happens I start looking at motives and “follow the money” (my comment 4 below).

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — August 26, 2011 @ 6:43 am | Reply

  18. Hi Dr. Moore, you are obviously convinced of the validity of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis but don’t you think it possible that sceptics like Roger, me, Roger Taguchi (another retired teacher of physics), Professor Zbiniew Jaworowski, Professor Hartmut Frank, etc. etc. etc. have all looked carefully at the claims made by supporters of the hypothesis and concluded on the basis of available evidence that it is without substance.

    Very few of us sceptics reject the notion that the global use of fossil fuels (which is not going to reduce for many many decades) could add CO2 to the atmosphere and (all else remaining the same) could cause a slight increase in mean global temperature. What we reject is the type of scare-mongering, encouraged by scientists like Professor Stephen Schneider, that is being used by the power-hungry to persuade us to hand over more of our hard-earned income to them.

    You claim to be “ .. a retired physical chemist and teacher .. interests are science education, professional ethics, computational chemistry, and spectroscopy .. ” ( What’s your opinion of the ethics of a scientist who says “To capture the public imagination, 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 the right balance between being effective, and being honest” (

    As a physical chemist and teacher with an interest in professional ethics and spectroscopy what is your opinion of the opening claim made by Professor Iain Stewart at the start of a demonstration presented in the BBC’s “Climate Wars” series that “I can show you how carbon dioxide affects the earth’s climate using this .. ” (my comment 3 below

    After you have responded on those two perhaps, with your fund of knowledge, you can answer my simple question “why do paleo-climatologists use collision diameter in preference to kinetic diameter when considering the migration of air molecules through firn and ice”? (my comment 6 below

    I reject the CACC hypothesis because I have seen no convincing evidence to support it, simply numerous uncertainties about the processes and drivers of the different global climates (my comment 4 below) – and I suspect that other sceptics feel that way too. All that I find are “ .. scary scenarios .. simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts .. ”.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — August 25, 2011 @ 11:48 pm | Reply

  19. I ran across your comments on Chimalaya and decided to check out your site. I noticed a number of your statements and comments are contrary to the opinions of the world’s leading climate researchers and also of all the major scientific organizations in the world who have a statement such as the one by the American Chemical Society that says:

    ”Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles. There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.”

    I also notice that you are a fan of the OISM. Their petition project doesn’t really prove much as many of those who signed may have been misled and many may not have been scientists at all. Some of your information appears as if it may have come from their journal, JAPS, which is not peer-reviewed by climate scientists nor is it recognized as a legitimate scientific journal.

    I certainly would encourage your curiosity about the effect man’s activities are having on the Earth, but I would suggest that you join the AGU and read what competent climate scientists publish.

    Comment by J.C. Moore — August 25, 2011 @ 10:00 am | Reply

    • Well JC have you educated yourself on the recent CERN report.
      Cosmic rays combine with atmospheric water molecules and create clouds that effect our climate, not AGW. When there is solar activity these cosmic rays are deflected from the Earth hence less cloud cover forming.

      They have been somewhat reluctant to acknowledge to say cloud cover, cosmic rays and solar activity effect climates. Yet it has been known and ignored for years. If you watch “The Great Global Warming Swindle there is an extra or special feature attached to the DVD. It was done some years ago to investigate why some years anchovy and sardines were more plentiful than others. The scientists who conducted this stated that cosmic rays combine with atmospheric water molecules and form clouds, hence more rain. But solar activity deflected these cosmic rays from earth, ie. via sun spot activity, solar flares etc.
      This is why in desert areas with no cloud cover the days are very hot and nights very cold. The same can be observed that in winter when there is cloud cover, no frost forms.
      Now as 95% of GHG is water vapour, and less than 4 % CO2 how
      does this meet with the AGW theory. Over 3% is naturally occurring Carbon Dioxide and humans do enhance this.

      So cutting carbon dioxide and/or carbon emissions won’t effect the climate one iota, so why tax it. Or invest millions in clean energy and carbon trading. Personally I think the IPCC and Al Gores should return their nobel prize.
      And although scientists who tried to con us on what controls our climate or weather should be sacked and made to return the funds they charged for perpetrating a fraud.

      Comment by Bush bunny — August 25, 2011 @ 8:56 pm | Reply

    • Reflexio,

      I watched the video. V interesting to hear the grandson of Henry Ford. I did note his comments on the world’s future population. I also note his mention of electric cars. I note his proposals to allow a continuation of personal mobility, which was pioneered by his grandfather, into the future.
      All good stuff really, and finally I noted his mention of zero emissions in his almost last phrase of the address, but I also note that none of his address actually addressed that. Share and smart cars is a great idea, but although that might limit emission growth to some extent while the population keeps growing, electric and hydrogen cars still use energy generated somewhere and that is unlikely to be hydro dams. Actually his mention of zero emissions at the very last minute, hints that he felt obliged in some way to mention it. Maybe thats a condition of talking on the TED show?
      Although I enjoyed the video, (I know a lot about cars myself, but wouldn’t own a Ford), I’m not sure about its relevance to this forum.



      Comment by rogerthesurf — June 24, 2011 @ 6:38 pm | Reply

  20. I’m sorry to say that the latest news from The Naked Scientists blog/forum is that all of my threads have now been closed and the founder of The Naked Scientists group, Dr. Chris Smith, sent me a message on 3rd May “asking” me to cease posting and leave the forum quietly, otherwise I’ll be locked out. Two of those locked threads continue to enjoy “Hot Topic” status, with viewing numbers soaring despite the threads being locked. “What does Iain Stewart’s “CO2 experiment” Demonstrate” ( was locked yesterday by moderator JP. “Another Hockey Stick Illusion”? ( was locked by moderator yor_on.

    I can understand them locking a thread that is dead but there are numerous threads on The Naked Scientists blog/forum going back to 2003 that only attracted 1 or 2 comments yet remain open to this day. Why would one that is still active and topical be locked unless the thread moderator or blog/forum administrators objected to the message?

    The message in my threads was that the CACC doctrine is based upon flawed science and why would The Naked Scientists dislike that kind of message? When I am puzzled about someone’s attitude I find it can be helpful to “follow the money”, so is there a money trail here? The Naked Scientists produce a show by the same name which is featured by the BBC ( & and Channel Africa (, so do they get much income from those sources?

    There was a 2005 article “BBC not funding Naked Scientists” which said “ .. we find that the BBC can’t find the funding to support The Naked Scientists .. Although the Naked Scientists’ activities have been supported by the Royal Society and Cambridge University the grant covered only travel costs and those of the NS programme guests; the team give their time for nothing. The BBC, whilst apparently happy to offer limited regional synidication of the programme produced by the NS team, have proved less willing to contribute to ongoing production costs. The original grant funding is now coming to an end and, as a result, what should be an important contribution to the public understanding of science looks like it’s going to bite the dust .. ”. That was during the false boom years (based upon rampant consumer borrowing) of the UK’s Labour government.

    There have been complaints about the BBC and biased reporting, including its reporting on CACC (, & An investigation was carried out after a complaint by Lord Monckton ( and it is perhaps no coincidence that Professor Iain Stewart featured in that too.

    Another source of income for The Naked Scientists is sponsorship funds ( According to The Naked Scientists funding from The Wellcome Trust was only up to 2008, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council award ended in 2010. It appears that UKFast, The Royal Society of Chemistry, Black Pig and the other organisations mentioned on that page provide facilities and expertise rather than funds.

    A search– “The Wellcome Trust” “climate change” “fossil fuel” – provides links to numerous articles which in my opinion show that The Wellcome Trust fully supports the CACC doctrine. Another using “Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council” found “ .. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuelled power stations are a major contributor to climate change .. ”, suggesting that the EPSRC also supports it (

    I wonder if funding has been drying up for The Naked Scientists during the current economic crisis just as it has for other charities, causing concern about comments on The Naked Scientists’ blog/forum from CACC sceptics like me upsetting potential sponsors. Dr. Smith did mention to me the direct impact that the reputation of The Naked Scientists has on their fund-raising endeavours, which I fully understand, but open discussion between supporters and sceptics of the CACC doctrine should not deter fair-minded individuals or organisations from continuing to fund an excellent blog/forum such as he provides. The features available to the user are the best that I have come across since I started blogging on CACC in 2007.

    BTW, am I the only person who is suspicious of those who hide behind false names? I mentioned the Greenfyre blog owned by eco-activist Mike Kaulbars in my earlier response to Raven73au and a contributor and one-time moderator there called Stewart Argo, an amateur astronomer from Moray in Scotland ( hid behind the false name S2. Apart from those who do not have the courage of their convictions, are afraid of bullies or are themselves bullies, why do people do this?

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — May 6, 2011 @ 9:55 pm | Reply

    • Sorry about tis coment appearing here. I tjhought that I had sent it as a reply to my comment of 4th May @ 6:13 am


      Comment by Pete Ridley — May 6, 2011 @ 9:57 pm | Reply

  21. Hi Raven73au, there is no problem with funding reasonable scientific research into global temperature changes, whether cooling or warming, or changes that may be occurring in the different global climates. Research is needed to find out what are the significant process and drivers of any such changes because at the moment they are very poorly understodd, as acknoweledged by Professor Barry Brook, Adelaide University in April 2009 in his article criticising the book “Heaven and Earth” by his fellow Professor at Adelaide U, Ian Plimer. See the paragraph starting “There are a lot of uncertainties in science .. ” (

    It looks as though the earth may be heading into a cooling phase again, as it did in the lead-in to the Little Ice Age several hundred years ago, which seems to have lasted until the early 19th century but whatever Mother Nature has in store for us, all that we little humans can do is what we always have done, live with it. We adapt to the changing conditions and pretending that we are the cause of it in order to extract money out of the general public, as is the objective of the power hungry (Strong, Gore, Soros, etc. e.g. see “Who is Behind the Climate Change Hoax?” @ especially the first comment), the politicians (UN, EU, etc.) and the eco-activists (e.g. see “The Truth About Greenfyre” @ All of these have agenda that are nothing to do with taking over Nature’s job of controlling the different global climates.

    Don’t overlook the fact that according to the attempts to measure mean global temperature we have experienced a beneficial 0.7C increase during the past 150 years and the global human population has continued to flourish. It continued to flourish even during the Little Ice Age and ice ages before that. Why do you think that is (and it certainly wasn’t through controlling global climates)? I’ll give you a hint – adapt.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — May 6, 2011 @ 7:02 pm | Reply

    • Thank you for your reply Pete. The more information for us ‘non-scientific’ types the better as we all try to understand the overload of available information on these issues.
      Kind Regards

      Comment by Raven — May 8, 2011 @ 7:08 am | Reply

      • Hi Raven73au, I have really only one objective in posting my opinions about CACC all over the blogosphere and that is to encourage others to do their own research into both sides of the debate then draw their own conclusions from a position of understanding. It appears that you are one of those and I say keep at it.

        I started out in 2007 as a very concerned grandparent after reading the propaganda booklet “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” by staunch environmentalist Mark Lynas ( Look at that scary picture on the front cover – pure science fiction. The book itself is much cleverer than that, merging fact with fiction so cleverly that even Dr. Joseph Goebells ( would have been proud of it.

        Much of the mainstream media cannot be trusted on this issue, likewise of course politicians, politically motivated organisations (like the UN), environmentalists, religious leaders and used car salesmen.

        I talked about The Naked Scientists and Professor Iain Stewart earlier. Both are closely associated with one of the larger global media organisations, the BBC. Roger has opened a new thread “SUZUKI ELDERS:-We’re doomed” which relates to this issue of CACC propaganda. “The Suzuki Elders are a voluntary association of self-identified elders working with and through the David Suzuki Foundation. We bring our voices, experiences and memories to mentor, motivate and support other elders and younger generations in dialogue and action on environmental issues. Suzuki Elders listen, learn, share and act through educating, communicating connecting and advocacy” ( Note that “ .. to mentor, motivate and support .. younger generations .. through educating .. ”. With Roger’s permission I’d like to join that thread and focus on that extract, which I believe more accurately should replace “educating” with “indoctrinating”.

        Meanwhile you may be interested in visiting the two threads of mine that The Naked Scientist administrators have taken a dislike to and locked, with a warning from founder Dr. Chris Smith that if I didn’t leave quietly then I’ll be locked out myself. Some blog administrators, particularly disciples and followers of the Church of CACC, just hate to hear those who challenge their own beliefs.

        Best regards, Pete Ridley

        Comment by Pete Ridley — May 8, 2011 @ 8:41 pm

      • Thanks Peter,

        Re the Suzuki Elders,

        Go for it.



        Comment by rogerthesurf — May 8, 2011 @ 10:43 pm

  22. Ok just asking a question, haven’t read the whole site (could take a fair while!) but interested to know this. You obviously don’t believe that we should be funding the Global Warming theories as there is not evidence to show that 1. we have caused it or 2. we can do anything to change the natural process which has occurred before and will do so again. So my question to you is…what about climate change? Do you agree that we are going through significant climate change that will perhaps change the earth as we know it within say the next century?
    Find your site very interesting thank you for all the information and I shall continue reading!

    Comment by raven73au — May 6, 2011 @ 2:51 am | Reply

    • I’m not Roger, but I am sure he will reply soon. Unless the Tornado did
      damage to his computer. Going back on palaeoclimate research, we are overdue for either an ice age or mini ice age. Either will be disasterous
      to the Northern Hemisphere. But a full glacial period is hard to shift once it gets established. All these extremes in weather are not caused
      by AGW. But bearing in mind, until about 8,000 years ago, Japan was not
      habitable because of volcanic and seismic activity. For some reason
      when the earth starts to cool, this happens. But there are articles on the web, regarding any scientific evidence that another cold period may occur during this period. It won’t happen overnight, and Australia will be OK. New Zealand might get colder too.

      Comment by Bush bunny — May 6, 2011 @ 4:11 pm | Reply

      • Thanks Bush Bunny. Appreciate your reply.
        Kind Regards

        Comment by Raven — May 8, 2011 @ 7:10 am

    • Raven,
      I think we are going through a period of climate change which is not unusual. You will see under the heading “Links to Illustrate the Globalness of the Medieval Warm Period and other warmings” on my blog, as well as evidence as found at Garden under Sandet and Schnidejoch that we have not even surpassed the warmth of any of the historical warmings yet.
      So it may get warmer and ironically enough, as it warms, historically crops get better and humans do better.
      Will this change the earth as we know it? Maybe, but not as Jesus Christ knew it during the Roman Warming and the vitners in Catalonia knew it around the 10th century. ( )
      Sea level rise will not be a factor because the increased precipitation will increase the ice in Antarctica. (This is discussed at length in many papers but usually ends with the statement that “this is only temporary” and never with any reference).
      Furthermore, a little known fact is the IPCC predicts that it will take more than 2,000 years for the Greenland Ice cap to melt. They use an ambiguous term and they could mean as much as 5 to 10 thousand years! (IPCC reports are evilly written in obscure language, but look for the word “Millenia”.
      So my thoughts are, that if anything cataclysmic happens to the human race, we will do it to ourselves and mother earth will keep on doing her thing as she has done for millions of years.



      Comment by rogerthesurf — May 6, 2011 @ 7:14 pm | Reply

      • Thanks Roger! I’m enjoying the site!
        Kind Regards

        Comment by Raven — May 8, 2011 @ 7:11 am

  23. Hi Roger, back to the topic. Those three interesting graphs, along with a couple of the papers and your short a little commentary about ice cores relate to the exchanges that I am having on the blog/forum of The Naked Scientists about “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” ( The object of that thread is to discuss the validity of the ice core CO2 record. I mentioned these discussions several times here, particularly in my comment of 27th April @ 2:57 am but neither of the scientific geniuses (Nemo and Dave), who both seem to be followers of the CACC doctrine, have been able to comment intelligently about them. Could it be that they are simply false prophets, or maybe, as Dave suggested on 30th April @ 5:57 pm they “ .. are full of it .. ”?

    That second graph of yours shows clearly how changing global temperatures appear to force a corresponding change in atmospheric CO2 level, just as do the ice core records. Also, if you compare the third with the “Global near surface air temperatures” graph for 1880 – 2010 ( there appears to be a similar forcing of atmospheric CO2 level around 1940.

    The first graph includes the lovely CO2 hockey stick which I am so suspicious about and have been discussing for over a year now, most recently on the “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread.

    I haven’t yet read the 1999 paper “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica” by Petit et al. or the 2007 paper “EPICA Dome C Ice Core Timescales .. ” by Parrenin, Loulergue and Wolff but if you are interested I gave links to some related ones (2006) on that “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread. I have exchanged E-mails with several of the authors in recent months and have been having interesting exchanges since 20th April with a co-author of one of your referenced papers, Professor Eric Wolff of The British Antarctic Survey.

    Professor Wolff agreed to my request that, rather than simply E-mailing me, he post his comments on the “Another Hockey Stick Illusion?” thread because of the keen interest being shown by viewers there since I started it on 13th April. It had attracted about 1000 views in only a few days and it is now a very “Hot Topic” thread, with 2086 views at the latest count.

    The “About” page of that blog/forum says “The Naked Scientists are a media-savvy group of physicians and researchers from Cambridge University .. ” ( but only one of them, their show producer Ben Valsler ( tried to answer imy question. If you look at his pedigree and the comments that he made you’ll understand why after only two days of trying he gave up with “ .. I’m also very sorry if no-one here can answer the question to your satisfaction either. Perhaps if you were to email it in to the show we would have an opportunity to put it to an expert in our next climate themed show? .. ”. In the end I became tired of waiting for those “ .. physicians and researchers from Cambridge University .. ” to find an expert and found one myself.

    Only Professor Wolff has been able to move the discussion forward on that thread, although it is far from ended yet, however the moderator for that thread, a Swedish person who hides behind the false name yor_on, refuses to accept that fact. yor_on has made numerous blog comments over the years that demonstrate that he is a dedicated believer in the CACC doctrine. When BenV had failed so miserably to answer the question yor_on had a go at it. He failed too and concluded that “As we both seem to agree on that TNS can’t take you any further for the moment, I will allow myself the liberty of locking this thread .. ”. yor_on seems to hate to allow discussion that challenges his faith and has locked my thread twice now (most recently today) on the pretext that my question has been answered by Professor Wolff.

    On the first occasion I repeatedly “notified” him of my wish for it to be reopened but he ignored my request. Unfortunately for yor_on, I was able to persuade Professor Wolff to ask that the thread be unlocked so that he could post his comment. This meant that the thread remained open for a further 11 days, attracting more views as the hottest topic on the forum, but yor_on’s at it again trying to put a gag on the debate.

    I have today written to yor_on and the founder of The Naked Scientists, Dr. Chris Smith, complaining about it being locked once again before the debate is over and have asked that the thread be unlocked again. If you are interested I’ll keep you posted, but better still, drop in to the thread with a comment and push the “notify” button that tells the moderator of your desire to comment. That way he may unlock it again as he did for Professor Wolff.

    Best regards, Pete Ridley

    Comment by Pete Ridley — May 4, 2011 @ 6:13 am | Reply

  24. roger you are such a duche bag and I dont’t need any academic papers to prove that.

    Well Nemo, thank you for being so restrained in your vocabulary.

    I welcome your comment if you have something to say, but this is an example of an inappropriate message.
    Unless you find something relevant to say and refrain from any sort of personal attack, I will not publish your comments.



    Comment by nemo — May 2, 2011 @ 3:56 am | Reply

    • Well well, Roger. Pete seems to have this conversation under his thumb. It’s your blog. It’s your right to trash any comment you deem unfit. Understood. I wouldn’t have subscribed here had I not found the subject matter of importance. It is. Your inquiry as to ‘academic’ credentials seems far-fetched. What exactly are you asking for? A birth certificate? A touchy subject in these parts.

      Cheers, always!

      Dave 🙂

      Comment by Dave — May 2, 2011 @ 5:00 pm | Reply

      • Dave just try and make your point with reasonable and non abusive language and remember this blog is about AGW issues. Do that and you are welcome here.

        You do not have to refer to academic papers etc if you do not wish to, but unless you do, no one here will take much notice.
        If you do not know what an academic paper is, well try and do some research on the subject.


        Comment by rogerthesurf — May 2, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: