Hi Jennifer,
I have devoted the best part of the last 20 years to reading, commenting and preparing objections to the many voluminous science reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Besides the actual comments as an "Expert Reviewer" I have published numerous articles in a variety of Journals, many of them in New Zealand, and a book "The Greenhouse Delusion: a Critique of 'Climate Change 2001'", currently still available from the publishers at
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/greendelu.htm
I visit the local University library about once a month and monitor "Nature" "Science" Journal of Geophysical Research", "Geophysical Research Letters", Journal of Climate" and copy signficant articles. I receive several daily or weekly Email summaries of publications and I monitor all the most useful websites. I possess a large library of photocopies, pamphlets and books which is tending to get out of hand. I maintain contact with a large number of local and international correspondents. I have lectured frequently, both locally and internationally.
I have written many pages of comments on the various IPCC Reports and most of them have been ignored. I assumed that they would never see the light of day. Owing to a change of location of the head office of IPCC to the USA it has become subject to an Official Information Act, and largely owing to the efforts of Steve McIntyre of
They have now published all the comments on the current 4th IPCC WGI (Science) Report at
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
They are rather tedious to wade through but they show at once that many of the scientists listed as supposed supporters of the report have serious doubts about it. A friend of mine, John McLean, has done a summary of the names of the reviewers and the number of comments they made.
I was rather surprised to find that I made far more comments than anybody else, 1,878 of them, 16% of the total. You will find that nearly all of them were rejected, allegedly, because "I gave no reason for them" The reasons were usually obvious, and when I elaborated them, they still claimed I had not given any.
It is difficult to understand any of the comments if you do not have the full report. The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who write it.
The "Summary for Policymakers" might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.
Cheers,
Vincent Gray
New Zealand
"The urge to save humanity is always a false
front for the urge to rule it":
H. L. Mencken
4 billion,
Does ZZZ in GGG mean snoring in Global Greenhouse Gas? Or something else? Is typing like that a side-effect of haloperidal?
ZZZinGGG.....
4 billion:
"Take a pill..."
You seem to be familiar with such a solution. Would that be Haloperidol?
"Haloperidol is indicated in the management of manifestations of acute and chronic psychosis, including schizophrenia and manic states."
http://www.mentalhealth.com/drug/p30-h02.html
You may wish to increase your dosage.
http://media.fairfax.com.au/?sy=age&category=Breaking%20News&rid=29647
Australian B. of Meteorology involved in Global warming conspiracy.
Schiller,
"Nasty denialists continue their anti-EcoMarxist, counterrevolutionary, "factualist" agenda. They must be denialisted!"
Take a pill...
Thanks 4 billion,
I have skim through the "methane catastrophe" document, and will go over it in more detail when I have a chance. I found the Storegga mudlides and tsunamis off Norway, all within the last 12,00 years, very interesting. Carbon released as methane was 263 billion tonnes - about a third of the total carbon in the atmosphere. I assume such mudlides can occur anyplace, anytime. Oooerr!
"Willerslev used four measures (traces of last exposure to sunlight in minerals, how long ago the amino acids were part of a living creature, the relative levels of beryllium and chlorine isotopes, and the "clocks" contained in the DNA) to date the forest to at least 400,000—and possibly as much as 800,000—years ago, the team reports in Science. That means this area of southern Greenland has been continuously coated in ice for at least that long.
The ice sheet on Greenland, therefore, is more stable than some scientists previously believed and "has not contributed to global sea level rise during the last interglacial," Willerslev says. "Importantly, it does not mean that we should not be worried about future global warming as the sea level rise of five to six meters during the last interglacial must have come from somewhere."
Glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study, agrees: "Something else," possibly Antarctica, must have provided the water for global sea level rise "because this observation does not at all affect [that] estimate … only the estimate of where the water came from."
For gods sake Schiller, do you even read your own links?
Nasty denialists continue their anti-EcoMarxist, counterrevolutionary, "factualist" agenda. They must be denialisted!
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=9860B8B0-E7F2-99DF-32AE7FF8D8922266&chanID=sa007
July 05, 2007
Proof on Ice: Southern Greenland Was Once Green; Earth Warmer
"Biologist Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen and an international team of colleagues discovered DNA from alder, spruce, pine and yew trees at the glacier's base as well as insects ranging from butterflies to spiders. This is the "first evidence for a forested southern Greenland," Willerslev says. And based on the tree species found, Greenland must have been warmer than 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) in summer and never colder than one degree F (–17 degrees C) in winter, much warmer than present conditions."
I have seen proposed that increased Tectonic shifting has caused the rise in CO2 due to Methane being released from sea floor due to heating melting Methane Clathrates. Problem is we have not had a dramatic increase in Earthquakes. As for actually warming the sea, I don't understand how that would happen significantly, and again there is the problem that there has been no significant rise of activity in the last 20 years.
I find it telling that nobody has a problem when Paleontologists propose that Global Warming due to increase of CO2, amusingly, denialists only have a problem with it in the present.
An example of uncontroversial CO2 caused Global warming>>Article about PETM>>The continental margin methane proposal presented here and previously (Vermeij and Dorritie, 1996; Dorritie, 2002) incorporates some of the undisputed facts about the end-Permian world. It accepts that Siberian Traps volcanism had a powerful effect on Permian world climate. But rather than the Traps eruptions being the sole cause of the extinctions, it sees the Traps as having had an important role, though largely as a trigger for the release of hydrate methane and the free methane below. Traps eruptions facilitated this release in two ways: first, directly, by heating terrestrial permafrost and northern continental margin sediments. This direct heating would have been by lava flows, pyroclastic eruptions (superheated, ground-hugging, volcanic dust clouds), and ash falls, and would have led to the immediate release of methane from the affected areas. Traps volcanism would also have directly heated the seawater of the PaleoArctic Ocean (the northernmost part of Panthalassa; sometimes referred to as the Boreal Ocean), and that warmed water would have heated seafloor sediments and released methane from the continental margins across which it flowed. ####In addition, by injecting vast quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby warming the planet and the ocean#####, Traps volcanism would have indirectly heated continental margin hydrate and released much of its methane."
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/dorritie/methane%20catastrophe.html
Blink and you will miss the reference to CO2 caused Global warming, that is because there really is no question of it occurring.
Sorry to be pedantic 4 billion,
Penguins live in the Antarctic. What do you think of recent work on tectonics and earthquakes? Any connection with occasional ocean warming?