Climate change

Quite large climate change ( patterns of seasonal weather ) occurs and the most we can say is that the many known strong  causes like changes in the tilt of the earth  ( due in part to changing magnetic field)  , sun activity, atmospheric and reflective absorption dynamics ,ash clouds  come from more reliable indicators ( geological record , the fossil record eg dinosaurs , volcanology ,atmospheric and radiation physics )   than our meagre records of accurate daily  rainfall and  temperature over  less than several hundred years .
As  an example,  a major drop in temperature occurred across the world for several years  with recent ash clouds.  ( Mt Pinatubo in the 1980's and there are hundreds of these cones on the edge of earth plates) 
In the early 2000's, I published many responses to the fears of long term global warming by the media and politicians but gave up about 10 years ago when the fearmongers changed the goal posts to Climate change. 
If these people were genuine about science led problem solving they would have stuck with one problem and the maybe then  some solution/s . By expanding their concerns to any number of problems ( instead of sticking with global warming ) they have completely confused the grounds for solution development  .Why the people still fall for fearmongers is a mystery to me . 
I am still very interested in discussing what alternatives we have when fossil fuels become uneconomic ; and whether  we can realistically reduce the profligate use of such resources   
Maybe they think , with the advance of multi each way betting in the house of cards , it may still be year s before polys and wannabes  realize that its no longer safe to create a fear and not deal with it .
Some leaders only survive by predicting the change of public opinion before it happens. 


The name change  decision  gave them great scope for fearmongering,   but made any reasonable scientific discussion nearly  as big as the internet screed  itself  . God help the party who even mentions it again .   Some of my posts are now buried in blogs such as these   http://quickfiz.blogspot.com

Rather than trust me , however because I merely use climatic data and study it in a small way 
Here is a list of some scientists who,  I think are better qualified to say why,  we the people should not be worried about the connection between Co2 /CH4 levels and some sort of immanent and unchangeable atmospheric disaster ( The scenarios have yet to be convincingly stated as well what it would be and what could be done  about it -- other matters of course )   
.
Dr Robert Balling:
"The IPCC notes that "NO significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected."
This did not appear in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Dr Lucka Bogataj:
"Rising levels of airborne carbon dioxide DON’T cause global temperatures to rise.... temperature changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed."
Dr John Christy:
"Little known to the public is the fact that most of the scientists involved with the IPCC do NOT agree that global warming is occurring. Its findings have been consistently misrepresented and/or politicised with each succeeding report."
Dr Rosa Compagnucci: "Humans have only contributed a few tenths of a degree to warming on Earth. Solar activity is a key driver of climate."
Dr Richard Courtney:
"The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is WRONG."
Dr Judith Curry:
"I'm not going to just spout off and endorse the IPCC because I don't have confidence in the process."
Dr Robert Davis:
"Global temperatures have NOT been changing as state of the art climate models predicted they would.
Not a single mention of satellite temperature observations appears in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers."
Dr Willem de Lange:
"In 1996 the IPCC listed me as one of approximately 3000 "scientists" who agreed that there was a discernible human influence on climate. I DID NOT. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that runaway catastrophic climate change is due to human activities."
Dr Chris de Freitas: "Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned; along with it the hitherto assumed need for costly measures to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. If they have not heard, it is because of the din of global warming hysteria that relies on the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance' and predictions of computer models."

Professor Ian Plimer ( Australian author of Heaven an Earth a broadrangeing well cited tomme on this huge subject )
Dr Oliver Frauenfeld:
"Much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it."
Dr Peter Dietze:
"Using a FLAWED eddy diffusion model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic carbon dioxide uptake."
Dr John Everett:
"It is time for a reality check. The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change.
I have reviewed the IPCC and more recent scientific literature and believe that there is NOT a problem with increased acidification, even up to the unlikely levels in the most-used IPCC scenarios."
Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen: "The IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation.
The IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change."
Dr Lee Gerhard:
"I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming concept until the furore started after NASA's James Hansen's wild claims in the late 1980s.
I went to the [scientific] literature to study the basis of the claim, starting with first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were FALSE."
Dr Indur Goklany:
"Climate change is unlikely to be the world's most important environmental problem of the 21st century. There is NO signal in the mortality data to indicate increases in the overall frequencies or severities of extreme weather events, despite large increases in the population at risk.

In my view those who promote CC as urgent will face great historical  criticism for ignoring the real threats to life on the planet
Dr Vincent Gray:
"The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of LIES."
Dr Mike Hulme:
"Claims such as '2500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are DISINGENUOUS ...
The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh:
"There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is NONSENSE and harmful."
Dr Yuri Izrael:
"There is NO proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally UNJUSTIFIED.
There is NO serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is NON-EXISTANT.
This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser:
"This number [of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC] is not just a little bit wrong, it is far out by any order of magnitude ... It is so WRONG that it is not even worth discussing."
Dr Aynsley Kellow:
"I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how FLAWED it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar:
"I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have DISCOUNTED these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm:
"The alarmist passages in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of SPIN-DOCTORING."
Dr Andrew Lacis:
"There is NO scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary.
The presentation reads like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea:
"I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically UNSOUND."
Dr Richard Lindzen:
"The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.
It uses summaries to MISREPRESENT what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins:
"Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been NO net global warming for over a decade now.
The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."


Don' t ever stop asking questions , especially about something as complex as the interaction of invisible gases in the atmosphere .
I personally have no time to again do the same old same old world tour of the wannabes sites of  great significance :  the great  barrier reef,  icebergs , Antarctica  , coastal cities , Kiribati and ....you name it