Thread: Scientists: Mediterranean Sea “Not Warming”

Omnologos wrote:-

I guess when Clippo finds that a website with some content he disagrees with, is indicating today as Tuesday, he will immediately convince himself it must be Monday.

As for his unwillingness to investigate the source, I have put a link to the original and there's Google translate for all to use. Shouldn't be difficult. Anybody please challenge my translation. Be my guest.

You are incorrect on most of these opinions. Particularly, I was not unwilling to investigate the source – in fact that is the FIRST thing I do with postings by mpkdavies.

As for the omniclimate website, aka "The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE", well, if you don't get what it is about from that title, please make the effort of reading the About page.

Well I did !! so you are wrong again – and that is what made me suspect it was another anti-AGW nutter site.
(But see later for more on that)
………………………
For the benefit of those who can’t read here, or don’t want to, shall we just revisit your site and list the previous articles you have blogged. Working backwards:-

1. Harbingers Of A Climate Dictatorship
2. Scientists: Mediterranean Sea “Not Warming”
3. Somebody Please Help Me Find BBC Non-Warmist Biases And Errors
4. Close-Minded Environmental AGW Lawyer Plays The Bait
5. Extracting ‘Climate Refugees’ Out Of Thin Air
6. Text Of Complaint To The BBC About Prepackaged Militant AGW “News”
7. Sustainable Energy Is The Way Forward (To Oblivion)
8. Is It Christian To Worry About Climate Change?
9. Richard S Courtney: Temperatures, Climate Models…And The Human Brain
10. Greenpeace, Poorpeace
11. BBC And Climate: News Before Things Happen?
etc etc

I don’t see much open-mindedness in these titles, or in the ‘detail’ of the few I have read more closely. Furthermore, any responses to these blogs are from usual anti-AGW nutters, complaining about things like fat AL GORE, Socialist conspiracies, the data is flawed, read Andrew Bolt, etc etc etc.

I was particularly interested in a later title (15/16 I think) – although it was a posted cartoon, I think, by somebody else, you obviously agree with the criticisms within it :-

Why Mooney, Steig And Other Average AGWers Will Never Read Skeptical Blogs

Have you actually read Mooney’s book ? Scared to probably

I stand to be corrected but also I have not seen you refer to a climate science “peer-reviewed” publication/paper, (either supporting or denigrating AGW)

I challenge you to link me to an Anti-AGW one :-
That has stood the test of verification by other independent scientists
(you do understand the important inplications in that sentence I hope).

………………….

In your ‘about’ section, which actually was almost the first thing I did read, and made me extremely suspicious of your supposed evenhandedness, I see the following quote from somebody else but which you subscribe to:-

I do not “believe” in the IPCC, in the AGU, in the Hadley Centre, in 2,500 scientists and experts, in Svensmark, in Lindzen, in Crichton, in yourself, in SciAm, in American Scientist, in any skeptic or AGW believer.

I take everybody’s remarks as a step forward in the discussion and in the understanding of this or any other issue.

From that, I extract, polish, and sometimes destroy my own opinion.

(following text is by Willis Eschenbach. Republished with the author’s consent)

& (your personal opinions I presume)

I also think that increasing GHGs [greenhous gases] will warm the earth … but that is not the real question to me. The real question is, how much it will warm the earth. To date, I have not seen any “useful quantitative results” regarding that question [...] …
Once those quantitative results are in, we can proceed to the next question: is a warmer earth better or worse on balance?

The globe has warmed quite a bit since the 1600s, and in general this has been of benefit to humans. The sea level rise from the historical warming has not been a significant problem. In addition, a warmer world is predicted to be a wetter world, which overall can only be a good thing.

So, will warming be a problem, or a benefit? This is a very open question, and one which will be difficult to answer as some areas will win and some will lose. To date, however, recent warming seems to be occurring outside the tropics, in the night-time, in the winter … this does not seem like a bad thing.

And at some future date when those questions are answered, we can proceed to the final question, viz: If GHGs are determined to be a major cause of the warming (as opposed to land-use changes, or black carbon on snow, or dark colored aerosols, etc) and if we determine that the warming will be on balance a negative occurrence, is there a cost-effective way to reduce the GHGs, or are we better off putting our money into adaptation?
Until we can answer all of those questions, we should restrict ourselves to actions which will be of value whether or not there is future warming.

The key is to realize that all of the problems that Al Gore is so shrill about are here now with us today - floods, heat waves, famine, rising sea levels, droughts, cold spells, and all of the apocalyptic catalog are occurring as I write this.

Anything we can do to insulate the world’s population from these climate problems will be of use to everyone no matter what the future climate holds.

(note:- in the cut and paste, italicisation, and bolding of certain parts of these previous quotes has been lost - so I urge the reader to revist them in Omnologos' blog)

Response:-
These are all just your personal opinions and show you can’t accept the overwhelming evidence that real, politically independent experts basically all agree on.

You are one of those ‘fifth-columnist’ AGW deniers who hides behind the facade of ‘I’ve got an open mind’, yet is too afraid to admit that ALL the independent science, and the work of thousands of scientists (the massive consensus), and world governments, has accepted that burning fossil fuels needlessly has to stop and future energy requirements have to be renewable.
……………………….

My personal view, which I’ve stated until I’m blue in the face, is that when somebody I don’t know, or know of, makes a statement about any subject, I almost subconsciously go thro’ a process of verifying the ‘authority’ of that person making the statement.

With respect to Climate Science, (& and as an ex-scientist), I have always been biased to believing the work and pronouncements of the scientists who actually publish their results for all to see and comment upon – against those who publish ‘opinions’ descended from the ludicrous US big business Climate Coalition of the 1990s.

When I see some genuine anti-AGW science, published in the correct way, then I will change my mind and admit it in public.
Now, I have ‘wasted’ much much valuable time pandering to your own perceived self-importance that I’m off for a while to do something else – unless you come up with some FACTS.

.
.

Omnologos wrote:-

By the way...I am the author of one non-AGW climatological article that has "stood the test of verification by other independent scientists" (i.e. passed the peer-review) but was binned by the close-minded Editor of a major international scientific magazine nevertheless.

You'd better be careful with what you ask. Publication is in the hands of Editors, not of scientists.

Without knowing all the facts, I obviously can't comment accurately. However, I can speculate :-

Did the editor give a reason ? Did you try other publications - even Energy & Environment ?

Perhaps your facts weren't really up to scratch !!

(Or are you subscribing to the hoary old political censorship myth ?

Omnologos wrote:-

I'm sorry but you're having problems telling the information from the carrier.

&

You wrote earlier "this is a quote of what a scientist is supposed to have said from a ludicrously sceptic nutter website".

I think not to the first quote because when I simply clicked on mpkdavies’ link, I was directed to a website which had all sorts of ‘information’ to AGW skeptic other sites – try it & see what you get.
This immediately made me suspicious of the complete accuracy of the information about the Argo project. (This ‘cynicism’ is the result of years of investigating similar nutter websites).

I you read carefully what I wrote in post # 7 :-

My reference was to the Omniclimate website which may or may not be reporting the whole truth or context of what was said.

You will see that I didn’t make a direct accusation of falseness about this specific article.
I assume you are Italian, and without meaning to be condescending, your command of English Language is exceptional – better than most native posters here, (& I have to say not me or some of the berks here will imply it). However, I forgive you if you missed this indirect implication.

However, as I usually do, I followed up, as far as I could the Argo project. I concluded that it was a serious project, by sensible scientists and that is why I didn’t criticise them personally – it was your mistaken assumption that I did.

I still maintain that for ANY scientist to speculate on the results of a study BEFORE all the data is in is naïve in the least. And I still maintain that the ‘press’ will skew what was said, intentionally or otherwise.

I have investigated even further and am not clear of the neutrality of the IL Foglio.it website from which you translated to your account. Do you not suspect there is a ‘chain’ of quotations – in common English opinion, this is where ‘Chinese whispers’ occur, either deliberately or accidentally.

I ask you, can you quote, with unquestionable accuracy the exact statement of the MedArgo spokesman and can you quote with unquestionable accuracy that the MedArgo research’s primary purpose was to see if there was a link between Mediterranean sea warming and global warming ? (In fact, since it is probably in Italian, can you find the exact transalation of the exact purpose of the MedArgo project?