intelligent voter's guide to global warming, page-30

For me the article starts out OK...

"Man-made emissions are likely to cause a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide during this century and this increase will continue to have a warming effect on global temperatures."

Agreed. Take note sceptics who quote this article - you are agreeing that man-made greenhouse emissions are having a warming effect on the globe.

"The critical issue in the global warming debate is climate sensitivity."

Agreed.

"There is general agreement that acting by itself there would be a weak AGW of about 1 degree from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide above pre-industrial levels."

I'm not so sure about that so called "general agreement".

"If there are positive feedbacks which amplify that effect above 1 degree, the climate is more sensitive, and if there are negative feedbacks that would reduce that warming below 1 degree, the climate is less sensitive."

In principle yes, but I dispute the 1 degree claim. We have already seen a global average temperature rise of about 1 degree C and CO2 has not doubled yet. It started at 280 ppm or so and is at about 390 ppm or so now (see my signature). A doubling would mean 560 ppm. Most climate scientists would freak if such a target was proposed. I dispute the claim of the "general agreement" for a 1 degree C rise with a doubling of CO2. That is wrong. See these quotes beow...

"Climate sensitivity is a term used for the expected atmospheric temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. Combining all the relevant atmospheric research published up to the end of 2004, the IPCC in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (WG1, chapter 2) reached the conclusion climate sensitivity would be between 2 and 4.5 degrees Centigrade, with a 3C rise as �best estimate�. World leading climate researchers of NASA (James Hansen) and for instance the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (Hans Joachim Schellnhuber) have since argued true sensitivity could be twice as high when including slow climate feedbacks, like Arctic methane, deep-sea methane or increased biodegradation of ecosystems, leading to further CO2 emissions, all following an initial (industrial) CO2 induced temperature rise. These slow feedbacks lead to the runaway warming scenarios with exponential damage."

http://www.bitsofscience.org/temperature-co2-climate-sensitivity-305/

"Climate sensitivity is a measure of how responsive the temperature of the climate system is to a change in the radiative forcing. It is usually expressed as the temperature change associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere.

The equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration ((delta)Tx2). This value is estimated, by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) as likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5�C with a best estimate of about 3�C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5�C. Values substantially higher than 4.5�C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[1] This is a slight change from the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), which said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5�C".[2] More recent work continues to support a best-guess value around 3�C.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

1 degree would not necessarily be so bad, but a best stimate of 3 degrees is potentially catastrophic.

"The 1980s were warmer than the 1970s, the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s have been warmer than the 1990s. However, the rise in temperatures starting in 1976 stopped in about 2000. Since then temperatures have flattened out and may have reduced."

Agreed until the noughties (2001 to 2010). The noughties have been the warmest decade on record. This means the line "Since then temperatures have flattened out and may havereduced" is clearly false. You have to worry when a commentator says the words "may have" - what it means is "we do not know", so when they say "may have reduced" it means "we do not know if it has reduced" rather than the interpretations "it has reduced" or "we believe it has reduced".

"Although the decade to 2009 has on average been warmer than the average of the previous decade, it has not become warmer than the final years of the last decade, as strong AGW models predicted."

More spin. How then do you explain 2010 being the equal warmest year on record? It must have "become warmer than the final years of the last decade" otherwise 2010 would not have been the equal warmest year on record!

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide has been steadily rising from 1950 to the present, but there has been a significant increase in temperature for only twenty-five of those sixty years."

This is totally misleading. Temperatures go up and they go down on a year to year basis. However, since 2010 is the hottest year on record it is misleading to say that "there has been a significant increase in temperature for only twenty-five of those sixty years" because 60 years ago it was cooler than now, so what it did in individual years in between is more or less meaningless. More lapping-up fodder for the gullible and easily misled. Are you getting the picture here? The devil speaks with a silver tongue.

Its like saying the ORE share price went up 45% of the time and down 55% of the time. Well it started at 20c and it is now at $2.50. Do your own research. Tell me what side of the temperature trade you would be on if temperature were a stock price?

"This increase has been about 0.4 degrees and is broadly equal to the increase from 1860 to 1940, when changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide could not have been an influence. All of this suggests there is not a clear correlation between the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the last sixty years and the recent increase in temperatures."

Hang on, the authors said this in the very first line:

"Man-made emissions are likely to cause a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide during this century and this increase will continue to have a warming effect on global temperatures."

If that is not a "clear correlation" then what is? Do I detect a hint of 1984 style double-speak here?

To say CO2 had no effect from 1860 to 1940 is a bold claim. The industrial revolution started in the late 1700's (18th century) and coal was being burnt on an industrial scale since back then. Cars entered the stage at, say, the turn of the century and oil was being burnt, not very efficiently either.

"The ocean is where any excess heat must theoretically end up, since dry land eventually gives up any received heat while the oceans absorb it; however, recent evidence shows that this is just not happening."

The first statement does not make sense to me. The laws of thermodynamics, as far as I am aware, state that, all else being equal, the temperature will equalise between the earth and the oceans. It is simply not possible for the oceans to warm up more than the land, if as the author states the heat is coming from the land. (Read my lips - not possible! Who wrote this?) As for the "recent evidence" - what is it? Where is it? Surely if the recent evidence does not support your erroneous assertion in the first place then you need to have another look at the assertion.

I get the impression the article tries to start out with accepted science and lulls the reader into a false sense of security, but then goes on to make its false claims while trying not to attract undue controversy. Sneaky, very sneaky. But it does not work on anyone with half a brain.

One last thing, why are all the temperature declines recent? Like that garbage about the noughties? Or that there has been "a small, very recent, decline during this time observed in ocean temperatures". Its like saying the ORE share price dropped 12% yesterday to $2.50, but I started buying over two years ago at 20c - it is a ridiculous claim! Do they honestly think global cooling is about to start as soon as the article is hot off the press and they want to be the first to announce it to the world, Steve Fielding / Bob Carter style!?? What a joke. Thes people are total shysters. Anyone who can't see through this utter garbage needs to go back to high school science.

Here are details of the authors, by the way:

"Geoffrey Lehmann is a poet. He was formerly a partner of a major international accounting firm and Chairman of the Australian Tax Research Foundation.

Peter Farrell is Founder and Executive Chairman of Resmed Inc, foundation Director and former Professor of the Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering at the University of New South Wales, Chair of the Executive Council, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Member Visiting Committee, Whitaker College of Life Sciences MIT.

Dick Warburton is Chairman of Westfield Retail Trust, Magellan Flagship Fund Ltd and the Board of Taxation and a Director of Citigroup Pty Ltd and of the Smith Family of which he is also Chairman-elect. He is a former Chairman and CEO of Du Pont Australia and New Zealand."

An accountant turned poet, a biomedical engineer and a company director. I rest my case your honour. Clearly they could not get any qualified individuals to write this trumped up tripe, so they had to settle for second best. Even I have better climate credentials than these guys (physics honours degree) and that is not saying much!

I don't even know why I wasted my time on this misleading and deceptive material. Anyone who is taken in by this is a very sad case.

Caveat emptor, the devil speaks with a silver tongue.