The poster who claimed that CO2 fertilization ('greening') had fed an additional billion people, but was unable to substantiate the number when challenged and now concedes that nobody knows the actual number.

What research I've seen indicates that the increase in leaf area cannot be crudely extrapolated into increased crop yield.

Nothing wrong with posting hunches or estimates but stating them as facts is disrespectful to readers, you might even call it insulting.

No evidence has yet been produced to justify why anything produced by 97% of climate scientists can be trusted, particularly those bits suffering from contamination by Green activists.

Obervational evidence confirms the climate may have warmed, just as it has before, before cooling again. Warm phases are far better for life on the planet. Human civilization thrives in warm temperatures, humans starve and die in cooler temperatures.

When any culture or community has the technology to turn a light on at night, birth rates decline, and life expectancies increase. Malthusians would do better to spend money on reliable power supplies to prevent overpopulation, not keep people cold and in the dark.

PC at 9.29am:

"As we now are pretty certain the high values were wrong, what we are looking at here is quality control, not cherry-picking."

PC at 1.18pm:

"Nothing wrong with posting hunches or estimates but stating them as facts is disrespectful to readers, you might even call it insulting."

Hmm (yes, I know you qualified it with "pretty certain" but the rapid move to the conclusion looks like a statement of fact).

By the way, I'm not remotely as bothered as gc about it (though transparency is nice, so we all know where we stand), but still no answer from Phil to this:

""Phil Clarke, are you paid to promote climate science?
One is used to absurdities from you, GC, but that takes the cake."

Phil, if the answer is "no" why not just say "no". Failure to say no leaves a suspicion that the answer may be "yes.""

PC kim wrote
"Granted, I'm reasonably convinced that much of the recent rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. What you don't get, Phil, is that to the extent man can warm the earth it is beneficial, and the greening is miraculous."

Following this it was you that resuscitated the discussion about a billion bellies in the following post.

And we are supposed to immediately to recognize that your latest insults related to that topic.

Seems like a ploy to shift topics to me.

For 'pretty certain', read 99.9% sure, as nothing is ever 100%, however if the readings of 500ppm for example were a correct measure of average concentration back in the day, then textbooks would need rewriting …

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

Yes or no answers are so dull. Ask yourself, is it remotely plausible that someone is willing to pay me (or anyone else) to post responses on the discussion pages of a fairly obscure (no offence) and what seems to be pretty moribund blog?

Of course I am not paid.

Heh, it's fair, Alan; I've been regularly insulting Phil. AGW is a boon, the greening extra topping. Catastrophism is the catastrophe and we are well into its development.
==========================

Yes or no answers are so dull. Ask yourself, is it remotely plausible that someone is willing to pay me (or anyone else) to post responses on the discussion pages of a fairly obscure (no offence) and what seems to be pretty moribund blog?

Of course I am not paid.

Sep 28, 2016 at 2:37 PM | Phil Clarke

So incredible, I can't believe it is not official Green Party Policy on Climate Science.

I give him the benefit of the doubt, gc. He may well be even more obsessed with raising alarm than I am in quelling it.

Look at his sources; it is disinformation alarmists, through and through.
==============

PC. Yes indeed, and textbooks have to be rewritten constantly. It is commonly said that textbooks are out of date the moment they are published.

How do.you know that during warm periods (Minoan, Roman and Medieval) atmospheric CO2 values were not 300 or 350ppm? Why did Callender remove low values from the early 20th century - development of super efficient underarm deodorants?

Ice cores

You sure there has not been any smoothing? Contamination of the interior of ice cores by heavy metals during drilling fairly convincingly demonstated by Jarorowski. If ice cores are not closed systems......

26 July 2016
22:01

I would imagine the curators of the data are aware of these issues and factor them into their uncertainty figures.

It would take a helluva lot of smoothing or contamination to get you to 300-350ppm during Medieval times

I suggest people make up their own minds after reading Jaworowski's paper, to be found here

www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/IceCoreSprg97.pdf · PDF file

ACK, the problem with "Ice Cores" is "Lonnie Thompson".

So much has been written, based on data that has never been archived. Climate Audit has a lot of posts if you care to Google, but for "Your Starter For Ten" ......

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/06/mannhandled-from-data-to-demonization/

As I presume that layers of rock, and layers of ice have some similarities, you may have some queries that match those of Steve McIntyre. Expect the same level of abusive comments from Phil Clarke, as Climate Science repeats it's Denial.

Calculate what a modest 10% leakage loss would do to CO2 values around 1500 using the Law Dome data set. Recall that CO2 diffuses much more easily than other atmospheric gases.

I notice the CO2 curve starts its rise around 1750. Strange that if its real and anthropogenic.

Heck, why stop there? The paper is reprinted from 21st Century Science and Technology which has a whole load of Jaworowski woo in its Global Warming section, including the mandatory prediction of an imminent Ice Age. Knock yourselves out.

Nice to see Lyndon Larouche still has an outlet for his scientific views, and has put that nasty mail fraud business behind him.

It's a good thing CO2 diffuses so easily, else we couldn't exhale it.
=============

I'm not at all sure that pre-industrial CO2 showed much elevation. For one thing, the atmospheric temperature wobbles of the MWP and the LIA would not affect the deep ocean much. For another, if the latter history of the Holocene is a cooling ocean then it is miraculous if we've impacted that with anthropogenic CO2.

I don't think we've changed the direction of the ocean's temperature, yet, but I can hope, can't I?
============

I'm an alarmist, too, you know. I cry havoc at the social destruction already caused by the climate catastrophism, and I use decidedly alarmist rhetoric to warn of cooling. People are dying now from the alarmism, and cooling will increase the toll dramatically.

Cooling is the danger facing mankind. Our pitiful, and temporary, aliquot of anthropogenic CO2 can only do good in the long run.
==========

lapogus, it is very unsporting of the Icelanders to keep records that can't be adjusted by Climate Scientists. How is any self-destructive Climate Scientist supposed to make stuff up, if someone has cheated and kept accurate records of what actually happened?

Fully adjustable climate science data is one of the most profitable innovations of a very imaginative science.

Thanks, Iopagus. We'll soon find out if there is a cycle to Arctic Ice. I've long considered ice volume to be a leading indicator of recovery, but every time I think about it I come up with a different reason for why it leads.

I also think that a relatively ice free summer Arctic is a boon, and in a warming world we'll enjoy that benefit. There is, however, no death spiral for ice at either pole.
================

Phil touts yesterday's false news; I read tomorrow's speculative news.
========

Heh, clowns to the right of us, dictators to the left of us; here I am, stuck in today with you.
==============