John Sayers

It sounds like tape phasing to me which was available to the leading studios of the day. The song these days is a commercial for one of our leading homewares stores.

congrats Ken

For 6,000 years we preserved food with salt. 100 years ago someone thought of refrigeration, the first refrigerator cost twice as much as a car. Now we all have refrigerators. Hopefully one day oil wells and coal mines will be as much of the past as salt mines are. That's one story - the other is whether we are contributing to the change in climate. Let's not confuse the two.

remember the pollution in LA? we fixed that - London smog? fixed that. Beijing needs to do the same. To call CO2 a pollutant is ridiculous!! The whole plant kingdom thrives on it and we thrive on the plant kingdom.

Dean - the Little Ice Age occured in the late 17th century, when people ice skated on the Thames - the glaciers have been retreating since then as we have warmed to our present temp. They started retreating well before man had any CO2 influence.

[YOUTUBE]l-9WsKlKXJI[/YOUTUBE]

The glaciers have been retreating for 100s of years, we are in an interglacial period- that's what glaciers do in these periods. The glaciers that covered most of the US during the last ice age have since receded.

well that's why I moved inland Ken

I liked what he said at the end of the presentation - that this is good news!!! yet it was met with silence and indifference. It's amazing that everyone seems to want a warming planet with catastrophe and rising sea levels.

But the point is 'more facts'. If he has more facts and can prove them and prove that they discredit the existing consensus, then he should present them within a scientific forum and get them accepted there. . As he said - he intends to publish his NEW research with NEW evidence. He makes the point that his new evidence is important as it will affect the new EPA regulations dealing with CO2 and his new research shows that CO2 doesn't have the influence on climate we have previously imagined it to have. His frustration is that MSM will not print his new research, despite his impressive credentials so he has turned to Bloggs to get it out to other scientists and the public in general. It can take months - years to get a paper accepted and published in science journals.

Dean - you are missing the point - If Roy Spencer was some lowly research scientist in some small university I would agree with you - but Dr Spencer has the following Wiki entry: Roy W. Spencer Ph.D. is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA

Dean - Roy Spencer has just released more research. Here is his conclusion: The evidence continues to mount that the IPCC models are too sensitive (produce too much global warming). If climate sensitivity is indeed considerably less than the IPCC claims it to be, then increasing CO2 alone can not explain recent global warming. The evidence presented here suggests that most of that warming might well have been caused by cloud changes associated with a natural mode of climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I am posting this information in advance of publication because of its potential importance to pending EPA regulations or congressional legislation which assume that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change. Since the news media now refuses to report on peer-reviewed scientific articles which contradict the views of the IPCC, Al Gore, and James Hansen, I am forced to bypass them entirely. We need to consider the very real possibility that atmospheric carbon dioxide - which is necessary for life on Earth and of which there is precious little - might well be like the innocent bystander who has been unjustly accused of a crime based upon little more than circumstantial evidence. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/19/new-paper-from-roy-spencer-pdo-and-clouds/#more-3721

Ok Dean - here's Monckton's answer to your question in his reply to John McCain I posted previously in this thread. You have said: "We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great." Sir, the implication of your quoted remark is that the "serious and credible scientists" who are warning us that "time is short and the dangers are great" outnumber the equally "serious and credible scientists" who are not warning us of anything of the kind. The reverse is the case. A recent survey (Schulte, 2008) of 539 peer-reviewed scientific papers published since January 2004 and selected at random using the search term "global climate change" reveals that not a single paper provides any evidence whatsoever that "time is short" or that "the dangers are great". The notion of imminent, catastrophic climate change is a fiction that is almost wholly absent in the scientific literature. Indeed, the only papers that predict catastrophe are written by a tiny clique of closely-connected, extravagantly-funded, politically-biased scientists with unhealthily close political and financial connections to certain alarmist politicians in the party that you nominally oppose. Suppose, ad argumentum, that the UN's exaggerated climate-sensitivity estimates, proven in the peer-reviewed literature and in the unfolding temperature record to be fantasies wholly unrelated either to scientific theory or to observed reality, are true. Even then, the disasters imagined by the UN's climate panel and by certain politicians are unlikely to occur. Since the UN's estimates are indeed exaggerations, and are known to be so, the only potentially-"credible" basis for the alarmism reflected in your speech falls away. In the scientific literature, there is no "consensus" whatsoever to the effect that anthropogenic "global warming" will be "catastrophic". It is vital that you should understand the extent to which the UN's case for panic action is founded not upon theoretical proofs in climatological physics, nor upon real-world experimentation (for nearly all of the parameters necessary to the evaluation of climate sensitivity are not directly measurable, and their values can only be guessed) but upon computer models - in short, upon expensive guesswork. However, using computer models to predict the climate, even if the input data were known rather than guessed, cannot ever be effective or accurate: for the climate, in the formal, mathematical sense, is chaotic. The late Edward Lorenz (1963), in the landmark paper that founded the branch of mathematics known as chaos theory, proved that long-run climate prediction is impossible unless we can know the initial state of the millions of variables that define the climate object, and know that state to a degree of precision that is and will always be in practice unattainable. Why is such very great precision necessary? Because it is the common characteristic of any chaotic object, such as the climate, that the slightest perturbation, however minuscule, in the initial value of even one of that object's variables can induce substantial and unpredictable "phase transitions" - sudden changes of state - in the future evolution of the object. Unless the initial state of the object is known to an unattainably high degree of precision, neither the timing of the onset, nor the duration, nor the magnitude of these phase transitions can be predicted at all. Accordingly, the predictions go off track very suddenly and dramatically, but ineluctably. The UN [iPCC, 2001], accepts that the climate is "a complex, non-linear, chaotic object", and, consequently, that "long-term prediction of climate states is impossible". Yet it then attempts the impossible by making predictions of climate sensitivity that are already being proven exaggerated by the failure of temperatures to rise as the computer models had predicted (or, recently, at all). All of the climate models relied upon by the UN predict that the distinguishing characteristic or "fingerprint" of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing as opposed to any other forcings is that in the tropical mid-troposphere, about 6 miles up, temperature over the decades should rise at two or even three times the rate of increase observed at the tropical surface. However, this predicted "hot-spot" over the tropics is not observed in any of the tropospheric temperature datasets since reliable measurements were first taken by balloon-borne radiosondes 50 years ago. Douglass & Knox (2006) and Douglass et al. (2008) have established that the absence of the "hot spot" predicted by the UN's models is real, and is not (as was suggested by Thorne et al., 2007) a measurement error or artifact within the estimated uncertainty interval of the observed record. Lindzen (2008) estimates that in the absence of the "hot-spot" the UN's estimate of climate sensitivity must be divided by at least three. Thus, making this adjustment alone, a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration would raise global temperature not by 6

Dean - Dr Roy Spencer is one of our leading climate scientists. He heads the NASA Aqua satellite project which is the latest and most sophisticated climate satellite we have. It is the result of his research and the data gained from the satellite that he used to draw his conclusions regarding climate change. http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm I suggest you read his views.

What is a feedback cycle? when your PA takes off it's a positive feedback. i.e it increases upon itself and is triggered by a tipping point.