Monthly Archives: July 2012

David Archibald addressed the senate?

In response to a comment below my post about David Archibald, I decided to check things out. There is a website belonging to the Institute of World Politics (IWP). The IWP is a “Graduate School of National Security and International Affairs”. I don’t know quite what they are about other than their list of guest speakers has former heads of the CIA and former diplomats, most of whom seem to be from central American countries. Whatever, I don’t know what their story is but given they are giving David Archibald air, one has to wonder where they sit. Archibald as I pointed out in a previous post, is a whole world of crazy.

So, what is it of Archibald’s they are promoting? Check this screenshot out.

David Archibald addressed the Senate?

The page can be found here. It asks you to click a link for his “testimony”. What it opens up is a speech transcript from Archibald presumably to a Liberal Party conference asking them to select him for a spot on a senate ticket. That is a long way from testifying “before the Australian Senate.”

I emailed the IWP asking for their clarification.

my email asking for clarification.

I am yet to receive a reply. I have subsequently contacted David Archibald. See below.

Time will tell if I will get a reply. I doubt I will and I’ll just have to chalk it up to more dishonesty from deniers.

12 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

Denier comment of the day July 27, 2012

This comment comes courtesy of Joe Bastardi. I think he wants Bible study at his university in Earth Systems class?

Anyway, I don’t put any credence into anything Mr Bastardi says. He might know a few things about the weather but when it comes to climate, well…..

3 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments

Can do? No he can’t.

Climate change denier and Premier of Queensland, Campbell “can do” Newman along with the other conservative Premiers, has decided to reneg on a decision to support the National Disability Insurance Scheme in a purely political decision. I have no doubt if fellow climate change denier Tony “the mad monk” Abbott was Prime Minister, Newman would have fulfilled his promise. So what does it mean?

Well, while individuals with disabilites and their carers will struggle on and struggle to make ends meet, and struggle to achieve basic dignity, climate change denier, serial polluter, LNP donor and Australia’s richest man, mining magnate Clive Palmer will still have hundreds of millions of Queensland taxpayer dollars spent on mining infrastructure that will only benefit him and his bank balance in the long term.

 

There’s nothing more to say really, other than Campbell, you’re a lousy bastard.

6 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

Censorship?

What is it with deniers and their insecurities? Recently I was visiting a denier den blogsite called Bishop Hill which was highlighting a recent WUWT post about homogenisation of surface temperature data. It’s the post where Anthony Watts misrepresented the status of a conference abstract and presentation as a “peer-reviewed paper” and which I commented on here.

I decided to mention Anthony Watts’ tactic in the thread and was immediately targeted with comments about this blog and not one person bothering to answer the questions I had raised. Typical. Anyway, eventually someone suggested I had not answered a question raised by one of the mob (apparently its only ok to dodge questions if you’re a denier) so I duly answered. It was in relation to the baseless fraud allegations raised by Douglas Keenan against Phil Jones and Wang. This is what I replied.

and surprise, surprise if it didn’t attract Doug Keenan himself! I am truly blessed. These people must get an alert when there name is mentioned or at least are as thick as thieves and in cahoots. So, this was Doug’s response.

I duly checked out the letter that Doug had written and it was full of the smae garbage I have already mentioned. Of course, if you want to check it out the address is there in his post. I replied…

To which he replied…

Okay, you see what happened there? the good Bishop Hill decided to step in and remove a few posts. I’ll be honest, a couple of them were off topic as one was an attack on my character from some idiot and the second was my response to said idiot. Fair enough although a little disappointing because I believe my response was rather witty. Anyway, if that was all that was removed I’d be happy. I questioned Bishop Hill…

Last time I checked this comment was still there but as yet I haven’t received a response so I am guessing I am unlikely to. I also wouldn’t be surprised if this last comment of mine disappears. So,what was the contradiction? Well, Doug Keenan is trying to appear like he isn’t the hardcore denier that he is so I found a quote of his. I had to go back through my emails for the original confirmation email from Bishop Hill with my comment. Here is the screenshot.

Apologies for the size of that. The important part is the second last paragraph. I quoted Doug…

April 5 2011 ” I believe that what is arguably the most important reason to doubt global warming can be explained in terms that most people can understand.” Doesn’t sound like someone who “accepts that his allegations do not on their own change the global picture”

I then went on to say, “So what do you believe Douglas?”

I have to wonder why this last comment was removed? I am just assuming that it is a deliberate case of censorship for the sake of protecting one of their own, which is of course is extremely dishonest. There are suggestions getting around that Anthony Watts has been engaging in a bit of censorship in regards to his own statements about his former hero now turned enemy Richard Muller. Its happened to me also at the official blogsite for the Climate Sceptics Party as I demonstrated here. So what is it? Is it paranoia? Is it an extension of being a Wig (wilfully ignorant git- I’m trying to start a meme)? Whatever it is, it’s juvenile and sad. To look at the whole exchange….while its still there…go here. If I ever get a response, I’ll post it.

 

27 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

Denier comment of the day July 22, 2012

A new twist on the “CO2 is plant food” canard, courtesy a commentator at WUWT.

14 Comments

Filed under Classic denier comments

David Archibald -wtf?

Well, I reckon there’s more than few kangaroos loose in the top paddock. David Archibald, the alleged climate scientist from Western Australia has written a remarkable opinion piece for Newsweekly, a right-wing online editorial offering “Independent opinion for independent minds”.  Doesn’t that slogan just give you a warm fuzzy feeling? When reviewing the content on that website it becomes patently obvious that the slogan should be changed to “Right wing loony opinions for empty gullible minds.”

So, what is so remarkable about the David Archibald piece? I’ll get to that. First, who is David Archibald? For the uninitiated, Archibald is on the scientific advisory panel of the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC). They bio David as follows:

David Archibald is a Perth, Australia-based scientist operating in the fields of cancer research, oil exploration and climate science.  After graduating in science at Queensland University in 1979, Mr Archibald worked in oil exploration in Sydney and then joined the financial industry as a stock analyst.  Mr Archibald has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia.  He has published a number of papers on the solar influence on climate, and is a director of the Lavoisier Society, a group of Australians promoting rational science in public policy.

With him on the scientific advisory panel of the ACSC are the usual suspects in the Australian denier ranks e.g. Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Viv Forbes and David Evans. He is mentioned as a director of the Lavoisier Society, an even wackier group made up of individuals from mining, big business and the liberal party. he has also published a number of really dodgy papers on solar forcing. Rather than rehash what others have said, go here, and here, to see just how shonky he is.

So, now you know where Archibald sits, let’s look at his opinion piece. It is titled “Time to raise hell over the climate tax.” It drips with venom and pontification. I actually got the feeling while reading it that the writer was somewhat unhinged as he practically preached fire and brimstone like a religious zealot on a street corner. The alarmism in it puts to shame anything the alleged “alarmists” from the AGW proponent can come up with. It’s quite extraordinary. There are dozens of quasi-religious words and phrases in it as he refers to the politicians and others associated with the carbon tax. Here are some examples.

“… we are ruled by evil men and evil women — evil men and evil women who…”

“…  promoted by evil people.”

“The evil goes back a bit further…”

“The last dark deed of the Howard Government…”

“The evil that men do lives after them…”

“…and we stare into the abyss …”

“… and sold their souls for a handful of silver.”

“… promoted the bizarre cult…”

“The easiest sacrifice to make…”

“The huge sum that is spent keeping the beast alive …”

“Your sin was not a love of nature…”

“…push back against the darkness …”

It goes on with this sort of language endlessly with references to “making hell on Earth” and also referring to “paradise”.  It’s really quite bizarre. Anyway, what was of more interest to me were some of the bold predictions Archibald makes about our future climate. I for one am glad he put it down on paper again so that in the future it can be held up as the ramblings of a nutcase. Here they are…

It is an accident of history that that notion of global warming caused people like me to enquire as to what actually is going on with our climate. I am proud to have done my bit to push back against the darkness that ever encroaches on us.

What I found is that there is much to fear, but of course in the opposite direction to that claimed by the socialists.

I will summarise the findings of my last six years of research in the field of climate science in two sentences:

1) Our generation has known a warm, giving sun.

2) The next will suffer a sun that is less giving, and the world will be less fruitful.

Specifically, the current solar cycle is going to be a very long one. That will result in the climate over the following solar cycle being very cold.

The grain belts of the world will shift up to 700 km towards the equator. World grain production will fall by at least 25 per cent. That is going to be the biggest problem the world will face in the next 30 years.

What about carbon dioxide? Carbon dioxide is tuckered out as a greenhouse gas. The total warming from here due to carbon dioxide may be up to point four of a degree centigrade. Or it may even be nothing.

All we can be sure of is that it is not a problem. The heating effect from carbon dioxide will be lost in the noise of the climate system.

Yep, you read all of that right. He is basing this on his dodgy cherry picked data from a couple of his papers, each of which  I linked to earlier. One can only wonder if this quasi-religious, oil company owning, right-wing thinktank directing, friend of big polluters who claims to be a climate scientist will admit that he was wrong when that is inevitably borne out? i guess time will tell but I highly doubt it. He is no scientist. He’s a paid shill for big polluters. The only time he will change his mind is when he is told to by his keepers.

On a final note, it is not surprising that Geoffrey Brown, the official blogger for the Climate Sceptics Party referred to  Archibald’s quasi religious rant as  an “excellent article“.

28 Comments

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

CO2 and tree growth

Anyone who has ever engaged a hardcore denier in conversation has come up against the “CO2 is plant food” canard. The fervent denier will then tell you about this or that glasshouse study that demonstrated that CO2 increased plant growth. Of course, that’s all fine and good…in the glasshouse, but these kinds of studies are useless for conveying what happens in the real world. In the glasshouse, variables can be tightly controlled so that the only thing being manipulated is CO2. These plants are not subject to other variables like

  • increased temperature
  • altered rainfall
  • changes in water table
  • increased nitrification
  • increased or changes in pest and disease incidence, especially fungal pathogens
  • variable ecosystem responses (e.g. changes in species composition)
  • nutritional limiting factors

The clever denier when confronted with this information will resort to highlighting a few studies in cereal crops that purport to show increased biomass and yield, however, these are few and far between. More and more as these studies increase in duration, negative effects begin to appear due to some of the factors I mentioned above and cast doubt on the “CO2 is plant food” meme. For example see here, here, here. Of course, the denier can tell you that many of these things can be overcome by increasing irrigation, fertiliser and pesticides which of course that adds to the environmental and monetary costs of production. In many cases, this is going to be inevitable anyway.

What the denier can’t explain away though is the effect on natural ecosystems. There’s no farmer to go around spraying chemicals, applying water or fertilisers. There’s certainly no way to prevent range shifts. So, are natural ecosystems starting to feel the effect of human induced climate change? The authors of a new study published in Global Ecology and Biogeography certainly think so.

tropical forest trees – most at risk from increased CO2 and climate change

Analysing dendrochronological and isotopic records of trees from all over the globe, Silva and Madhur evaluate the impacts of atmospheric changes on tree growth and intrinsic water use efficiency. They have summarised their key findings as follows.

” In 37 recently published case studies changes in iWUE were consistently positive, increasing by between 10 and 60%, but shifts in growth varied widely within and among forest biomes. Positive RC values were observed in high latitudes (> 40°N), while progressively lower (always negative) responses were observed toward lower latitudes. Growth rates declined between 15 and 55% in tropical forests. In subtropical sites growth declined by between 7 and 10%, while mixed responses occurred in other regions.”

They conclude, “Over the past 50 years, tree growth decline has prevailed despite increasing atmospheric CO2. The impact of atmospheric changes on forest productivity is latitude dependent (R2 = 0.9, P < 0.05), but our results suggest that, globally, CO2 stimulation of mature trees will not counteract emissions. In most surveyed case studies warming-induced stress was evoked to explain growth decline, but other factors, such as nutrient limitation, could have overridden the potential benefits of rising CO2 levels.”

This study only looked at two aspects of climate change effects being growth and water use efficiency. The effects of changing phenology of pests could be potentially worse as demonstrated by the effect of mountain pine beetles in North America and altered rainfall and water table issues as seen in Western Australia. Given that these issues are manifesting after an average 0.8 degrees temperature increase since the 1950’s, what the hell is it going to look like at 2.0 degrees?

 

17 Comments

Filed under Climate Change