It has been suggested at this blog that it is too risky for mainstream politicians, for example the leader of the Coalition, Tony Abbott, to admit to being sceptical of anthropogenic global warming. It has been suggested journalists at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) would simply poke fun at him.
I disagree.
Indeed using Bob Carter's new book Taxing Air as a reference, he could start educating ABC journalists on some of the basics. A good starting point is the longest established ground temperature record, termed the Central England Temperature Index (CETI).
This record starts in 1659, which was soon after the invention of the thermoscope but before the Fahrenheit scale came into use.
It is a 353 year-long data set, archived by the British Meteorological Office, and it shows that the average summer temperature in Central England in the eighteenth century was 15.46ºC while that for the twentieth century was 15.35ºC.
Yes.
Far from being warmer due to assumed global warming, comparison of actual temperature data shows that UK summers in the twentieth century were cooler than those of two centuries previously.
This is the sort of very useful information that Mr Abbott could share with ABC journalists.
He could then conclude, as Professor Carter does, that our longest available thermometer records, like our shorter and more accurate modern measures of temperature, offer little by way of evidence for the occurrence of dangerous human-caused global warming.
***
To order your copy of Taxing Air and an extra copy to send to Mr Abbott, visit http://www.taxingair.com. The book has great charts like the one embedded into this post of the CETI.
Bob Carter is the author of more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers in professional scientific journals. The great majority of these concern interpretations of ancient environments, including paleo-climatic studies. Link to full of list of publications here http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
'Taxing Air' reviewed by Paul Monk here http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/books/one-side-of-a-hot-issue-20130802-2r4ey.html
Professor Manley(decd) looked after the CET up until the mid 1970's plotting temp against time for all seasons.
Nothing to cause concern but when the boys from CRU got their dirty mitts on the data what did they do use anomalies on a distorted scale and what do we get a hockey stick. Care of the fragrant Professor Phil Jones?
Thank you NIK.
Ahem ... seems
ter this serf
that the A-B-C
is jest another
coterie
in the style
ofthe I-P-C-C,
the B-O-M &
Climategate-hockey
-team,
not so sure
they're gonna'
listen ter
the oppos-ishun.
Beth- the- serf
cohenite wrote: "You are such a nuisance luke; tammy’s CET analysis is not with CET data or the data which your mate Parker used...."
Please disregard that very early version of my Tamino CET debunking since it spotted the deception but it took me about three tries to duplicate it properly, here being the final version:
http://s1.postimg.org/9luuxrqm7/TAMINO_FINAL_FINAL_FINAL_FINAL.gif
Also, early on, when I posted the CET far and wide on blogs and news stories I found it had little effect since it was just viewed as eccentrically local climate by whole armies of online activists, so I found it lots of friends, namely the other multi-century records that exist, the vast majority of which are boringly linear right up to our high CO2 era:
http://s24.postimg.org/498mmzb6d/2agnous.gif
Gee John logarithmic eh ? We never knew that. Really?
El Gordo - only if you believe stats bullshit artistes
'Amidst all the agitprop, there is a nugget of science: no 15-year period of global temperature yields a statistically significant trend. But then, to its embarrassment, neither could the Met Office demonstrate a statistically significant trend in global temperature for the last 130 years.
'That doesn't mean observed temperatures did not rise - they did - or that global warming, whether man-made or not, did not happen. Rather it illustrates the sheer difficulty in demonstrating whether the rise is outside a range of random natural variation and of moving from the physics of the test tube to the immense complexity of the atmosphere.'
Rupert Darwell / Huffpo
I read John Spooner's first chapter last night and it's a good summary of the story from the Al Gore movie to this day and it sets it out plainly for jo punter.
One factor that he didn't mention was the reason I first became sceptical. The CO2 effect is Logarithmic. The more CO2 we put into the atmosphere the less effect it has and that is being demonstrated in the current temperature record.
So after all the debate on met station siting - Wattsup - Surface stations.org - Spangled now wants to argue that siting of instruments doesn't matter? Not that's denial on steroids ! No hypocrisy here folks - move on ,,,,
"Recovery" is an anthropomorphic concept - recovery ? again more hypocrisy - the old sceptic meme "oh but climate always changes" - so now we're "recovering" back to "normal" ? Think about what you're saying....
Incidentally the IPCC has already argued that some of rise in temperature is "natural". Just not the 2nd half of the 20th century.