Comments Ian Forrester has made

  • Noone can take Spencer seriously anymore

    Spencer: "I'm particularly interested to see whether anyone can respond to this challenge without using phrases like 'this issue is settled', 'the cloud claim is bogus', or without ad hominem attacks".

    Spencer (one line later): "Comments are closed".

    What a joke.On Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 18 Responses

  • I'm not pro-organic

    I'm not pro-organic but I am anti-GMO. The reason for my anti-GMO stance is related to the predatory practices of the GM companies.

    Initially when GMO's were discussed I was against them for two reasons.

    Firstly, I never believed their comments regarding use of less chemicals. I could foresee that resistance would build up thus causing the use of more and more chemicals. This has been verified by numerous US Dept of Ag reports.

    Secondly, I did not think that farmers would benefit since they would become more and more reliant on the GMO companies and that their choice of seeds would be severely curtailed.

    I was not concerned about health effects, after all how could the addition of one new gene and gene product have any health effects.

    However, after doing much more reading and the fact that the companies had to be a bit more open  on what they were doing I discovered that it was not just one gene that was added but several, most of which have big question marks as to their safety.

    Then we started to get reports of health effects in animals. The companies kept all their animal tests confidential until Monsanto's report on MON 863 maize was released in Germany. This report, according to scientists who were asked to review it, showed that there were indeed problems, even though Monsanto claimed that the differences between control and experimental groups were just "biological variation".

    Thus there is enough information in the peer reviewed scientific literature to make me completely doubt the safety of at least some of the products produced by genetic engineering.

    As far as organic farming. I'm neither for or against it. If farmers see a niche that they can fill and make some money doing it let them.

    I have always been a proponent of adequate testing of pesticides, whether natural or man made. Some of the most potent toxins are natural in origin.

    Canola was extensively tested before getting its GRAS approval in 1985 (I think).

    GMO's got immediate approval since US Dept of Ag considered them "substantially equivalent" which is utter nonsense.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • We agree at last

    wiscidea said: "You will not see me defending this awful behavior... broad patent rights and covering up where our food comes from".

    I have been a critic of patenting laws for over 25 years. A long time ago I was having lunch with my old PhD supervisor when he asked me (I had moved away from academia had had become an independent  "science entrepreneur") what could be done to enhance innovation, especially in "biotechnology" (this was when the term covered a much broader field than it does now).

    My immediate response was "get rid of the patent system, it does far more to discourage and prevent innovation that enhance it".

    He was shocked by my response since he was of the belief that the patent system protected small innovative companies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    I also agree that GMO's should be labeled as such.

    I have found our discussion to be enlightening. I hope that you have not found be too overbearing but the way large multi-national companies have abused science and the regulatory sytem gets me very angry.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses

  • Here are some articles on horizontal gene transfer

    wiscidea seems to have a problem with consulting the scientific literature and finding any papers which contradict the PR put out by the Biotech industry.

    He claims that there are no results showing transfer into human cells.

    Well here is a paper showing that Agrobacterium tumefaciens can transform Hela cells via the tumor-inducing plasmid. This plasmid is the same one used when AT is used as a vector for inserting genes during genetic engineering of a number of crops.

    http://www.pnas.org/content/98/4/1871

    There are a number of other papers and articles discussing the potential problems with horizontal gene transfer.

    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/6h6nsu
    http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php
    http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/DNA-Transfer-To-Gut1jul0 ...

    Just remember that the Biotech industry has claimed over and over again that horizontal gene transfer will either not occur or will occur at such a low rate that it will not be harmful.

    Perhaps the reason that "foreign" genes have not been found in human tumours is that no one has looked for them.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses

  • Please provide a quote and citation for this

    wiscedia said: "But where did the low glucosinolate and zero erucic acid line come from? Well... After attempts to take advantage of natual mutations, two Canadian scientists -- Keith Downey and Baldur Stefansson -- resorted to using chemicals or radiation to induce random mutations in rapeseed and then screened the seedlings for those low in the toxic chemicals. (By the way, this is considered conventional breeding!)"

    Please provide a quote and citation for these comments.

    I cannot find any information that D&S used mutagenesis during their early work on LEAR.

    Here is a quote from a thesis from the University of Manitoba:

    "In 1959. researchers identified a line. Liho, in oilseed rape that contained low levels of erucic acid. A program of backcrossing and selection was initiated to transfer the low erucic trait into agronomically suitable cultivars for western Canada. Further selection for low erucic acid levels led to the development of zero erucic acid varieties and allowed Canada to set a maximum level of 5% erucic acid in the edible oil. Rapeseed meal was considered an excellent source of protein, with a favourable balance of amino acids, but high glucosinolate levels lead to palatability and nutritional problems. The variety Bronowski from Poland was found to be low in glucosinolates and the trait was incorporated into new varieties (Downey and Rakow, 1987).

    In order to distinguish the new "double-low" varieties. with their altered oil and meal properties, from common oilseed rape, the term "canola" was trademarked in 1978".

    http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/1993/813/1/nq236 ...

    No mention of anything but traditional plant breeding.

    Mutagensis has been used in later development to introduce various resistance factors into canola but the original canola appears not to have used that technique, if you have cites that contradict that please let me know.

    Downey produced his first low erucic acid variety as early as 1964.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • Neither irradiation nor mutagenesis were used

    wiscedia, it seems that for someone claiming to work in developing novel agricultural crops you know very little about how canola was created.

    "The three canola-quality B. juncea lines were developed through interspecific crosses between an Indian B. juncea line and low glucosinolate, zero erucic acid B. rapa line. The novel phenotype (canola-quality) has been stably incorporated into the plant by repeated backcrossing with the Indian B. juncea. Breeding history was presented to demonstrate how these three lines were selected. No novel DNA or novel proteins were introduced into the plant to achieve the low erucic acid and low glucosinolate phenotype. This Novel Food Information document has been prepared to summarize the opinion regarding the subject product provided by the Food Directorate, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada. This opinion is based upon the comprehensive review of information submitted by the petitioner according to the Guidelines for the Safety Assessment of Novel Foods."

    From: http://preview.tinyurl.com/6xof2v

    You also claim: "Genetic engineering by inserting single genes and identifying precisely where there are in the genome is far more precise and safer than the technology used for creating Canola, tricale, and other accepted plant varieties."

    If GE was this simple it would not be so worrying. Unfortunately, the companies producing GM varieties are very reluctant to tell us what they are including in their genetic constructs. It is these additional pieces, often unknown outside their own labs which present most of the problems. Of course there are also the problems I mentioned in my previous comment. In addition insertion occurs at random and has an effect on the phenotype of the resultant variety

    Maybe GMO's will turn out to be harmless but the underhand tricks used by their promoters should make us all very concerned. I for one will never play Russian Roulette with either my health or my family's health.

    I suggest you do a check on Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek, this will give you a good idea of the nasty tricks played by Monsanto.

    And remember, Google (Scholar) is your friend. GMwatch's archives used to be the best searchable archive until some nasty person broke into their web site and destroyed their site. Hopefully they will be able to recover the archives.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • The very method of making GMO's is of concern

    Wiscedia, how much do you know about the science behind GMO production?

    I assume not very much.

    There are a number of concerns about the basic mechanism and its potential negative effects.

    Firstly, are you aware of what promoter genes do? These are genes which, when placed in close proximity to a gene allows for much higher production of these genes. They are involved in virus infection and cancer initiation. Can you argue that you are 100% certain that every time they are used they will not affect other, silent genes, or may be horizontally transferred into another organism? The makers of these products are playing Russian roulette.

    Secondly, every time a new strain is made it includes an antibiotic resistance gene. You are aware that antibiotic resistance is a major problem to our health care systems?

    Thirdly, during the selection process for producing safe food that we eat today one of the processes which is important is the elimination of toxins from the parent plant. An example is the creation of canola from rape. Two metabolites were removed during this transformation. We do not know how they were eliminated. The genes could have been completely removed, or more likely, silenced because their induction gene was silenced. What do you think might happen if a powerful promoter gene is inserted next to the silenced toxin gene?

    Fourthly, every time a new strain, using the same gene inserts, is created the gene inserts go to a completely random position in the genome. Thus it is false to assume that the strain BTxyz which was created last week will be identical to BTxyz created this week.

    Fifthly, the Bt toxin created in Bt crops is not identical to the toxin produced by
    Bacillus thurigiensis. It is shorter. Could this be the reason that there are more allergic problems with Bt crops than with the BT product itself?

    Sixthly, post translational modification of GMO proteins will be different. Most gene products, if they have been tested at all, have been done on proteins produced by the natural host, not the new one. This can have huge allergic consequences.

    Considering all of these problems, any one of which can have a major consequence, is it any wonder that honest scientists are concerned by the introduction of essentailly non-tested products into our food chain?

    The producers of these products have done essentially no testing on them. Check out the report on one of Monsanto's Bt corn strains which was released in Germany, but not the US. It essentially reproduced the results of Dr Arpad Pusztai. The authors spun the results by saying that the effects were due to "natural variation", even though some results were 30-40% different from controls.

    Please go through my comments and tell me which of them are not "based on rational concerns".

    I don't know what scientific background you have in this area but I have spent 40 years working in areas closely related to some of the effects  I have mentioned.

    In regards to the GM sweet potato, the 10 tonne per hectare was the African average.

    The more you post the more I am convinced that you are a shill for Monsanto. Do you know Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek? Seems to me that you are all in the same business.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • The scientist is Florence Wambugu

    Wiscidea, have you done any reading on FW's GM sweet potato project? From a scientific point of view the project was a complete failure. However, it was a masterpiece of public relations spin. Monsanto used the project to convince people that GMO's would save Africa from starvation.

    She claimed to boost yields from 4 to 10 tonnes per hectare. Unfortunately, if you look at crop records you will find that 10 tonnes per hectare is the average. Thus her GM sweet potato was "just average".

    See here for details:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ovzlz

    You claim to be concerned about the environment and good crops, so why do you seem to be a shill for Monsanto? I do not find your comments convincing at all.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • Honesty over lies and dishonesty

    wiscidea said: "Please present one good reason for trusting Charles more than Monsanto".

    Well it does not matter to me whether Charles inherited his wealth or not. What is important to me, and should be important to you, unless you are one of Monsanto's PR flacks, is honesty.

    Charles is displaying far more honesty in what he does than Monsanto has shown in its dishonest campaign to gain a monopoly on our food and agricultural technology.

    You also say: "Real leadership carefully studies issues and presents an honest fact-based assessment of the problems and potential solutions. They do not try to hoodwink people and resort to fear tactics." It's funny that you should make that statement since it describes exactly the dishonesty shown by Monsanto.

    You also do not appear to know much about British history. The monarch has had no real power in the UK since the government, headed by Cromwell, beheaded the British king, also called Charles  360 years ago.

    It was the British Government and its big business backers (nothing changes) who sponsored the creation of the British Empire. On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • nor ownership

    Sorry, that should read "nor ownership".On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • Land ownership

    Jonas said: "A mild GMO-based local food industry could rapidly transform this situation."

    I doubt that that will work. For instance all the basic patents for GMO development are in the hands of the multi-national companies. They only allowed them to be used gratis for "golden rice" once it was established that GR was not going to work.

    The problem, particularly in Africa, is that most of the good agricultural land was used for cash crop production for colonial type farmers. The indigenous people were shunted off their land and were allowed to farm the poorest of the poor land. That is why they have trouble producing sufficient nutritionally adequate food.

    The best solution is to give the indigenous people their land back and allow them to revert back to their traditional form of agriculture which they used before the colonials drove them off their land.

    If the indigenous people have neither ownership of their land not ownership of their seeds they will not prosper.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • Agricultural subsidies

    A large percentage of agricultural subsidies in the US end up in the pockets of the multi-nationals. If there were no subsidies it is unlikely that US farmers would have embraced GMO's as they have done.

    Another factor which has not been mentioned is that pre-GMO days soybeans produced their own nitrogen fertilizer because of the symbiotic rhizobacteria which colonized their roots and supplied nitrogen directly to the plants.

    Round up is toxic to the rhizobia so that the farmers are not only having to face lower yields, yes yields (i.e. per acre yields, not total yields) have decreased since the introduction of GMO's but they are having to use more expensive nitrogen fertilizer.

    GMO's are designed to increase chemical profits and ensure that the chemical companies have more of a monopoly in this area. They do nothing for food supply or nutritional content.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 3 months ago 53 Responses

  • I'm not stupid but I'm not sure about you

    I'm not stupid but you have certainly chosen a fitting "nome de internet".

    Your assertion that up to a billion people will die as a direct result of lowering CO2 emissions is fantasy. Talk about a strawman, you have just released one billion strawmen.

    There is no doubt that there are problems with mal-nutrition in Africa and increasingly now in South America.

    However these problems are not related to lower CO2. The main problems are that the best of the agricultural land has been producing cash crops rather than food for local consumption for the past 100 years in Africa, 20 to 30 years in South America.

    The high agricultural subsidies given to farmers in the US and Europe are also a problem for poor subsistence farmers in Africa and South America.

    There is now an even bigger problem and that is the control of the food chain by large multi-national companies who are using  monopoly status to try and control food production on a global basis.

    It is time that the rich countries invested in appropriate technology so that these subsistence farmers can once again control the land in which they live and not be serfs to the developed world.

    Only then will we see famine and malnutrition vanish from Africa and South America.

    BAU in terms of carbon dioxide emission will only hurt them since it will most likely result in a poorer climate for their agricultural needs. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions can only help them.

    I just don't understand why anyone can come up with the ridiculous position posited in your posts, perhaps you are involved with the carbon dioxide emitting industries? On Did I say darndest? I meant stupidest posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

  • What makes you think this will happen?

    MAD MAC said: "They lie because of the stakes. The problem is, to significantly reduce our CO2 emissions rapidly basically means the death of hundreds of millions, perhaps a billion people".

    Which people are going to die if carbon dioxide emissions are reduced? The people at the top of the economic ladder who emit the most or those at the bottom who hardly emit any?

    Surly it is the other way around, these people will die if we don't curtail our CO2 emissions. And they will be the ones at the poor end of the economic ladder, even though they are not responsible.

    So please tell me which billion people you are referring to and just what will cause their deaths.On Did I say darndest? I meant stupidest posted 1 year, 4 months ago 26 Responses

  • You are dishonest

    How can anyone have a civil debate with you when you are guilty of dishonesty and scientific malfeasance?

    You are pathetic.On Climate skeptics blame the sun for global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 45 Responses

  • Why don't you do some real reading?

    manacker you are pathetic. All you have done is cherry picked any data which supports your biased knowledge of the science of climate change. Are you a real scientist? If so you are guilty of gross misconduct since cherry picking of data is considered to be one of the worst examples of scientific misconduct.

    If anyone is serious about finding out the truth behind what this apologist for a scientist (manacker) is saying try here:

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=OISM

    and here;

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/ore ...

    The reason these authors of the JAPS paper are not considered to be scientists is because they are guilty of the same offenses as manacker. If you do not know what real science is about then stop pretending to be one. A quick read of these links will show how badly manacker is distorting the truth.On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

  • How can you have a sensible debate with idiots

    Black Wallaby, Max, BenP I don't care if you are three people or a hundred and three.

    You are all obviously lacking in science skills and knowledge that it is impossible to have any sort of serious discussion at all.

    The limit of your "scientific" ability is to quote from junk science sites like E&E, JAPS, JunkScience, CO2Science, and other pseudo-science sites.

    I don't know why Andrew puts up with all the dishonest nonsense you post on this site and others.

    Start reading and understanding real science and people will treat you with more respect.On Climate skeptics blame the sun for global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 45 Responses

  • Drivel, drivel and yet more drivel

    Max, you are a pathetic person who can only repeat drivel that he reads on pseudo-science junk sites.
    Enough is enough. Go away, everyone who has any knowledge of climate science is completely fed up of you, Blckwallaby, BenP and other spreaders of junk science (are you really separate people or are you playing games?).On Climate skeptics blame the sun for global warming posted 1 year, 9 months ago 45 Responses

  • Of course it's not going to the skeptics

    Max said: "Follow the money trail, Andrew.  It's not going to the skeptics".

    Tax payers would be up in arms if the government gave money to lying, fraudulent hacks. Max that is why they are not getting money, there is no way that government money is being spent on the junk that you have been spouting on about on this blog for far too long now. Go and read some science papers, not the rubbish that you spend all day on.

    Good grief, enough is enough of your persistent drivel.On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

  • Here is why Wegman is discredited.

    He signed a letter that stated that global warming ended in 1998.

    From a statistical point that was utter nonsense. Thus he is either a very poor statistician (simple linear regression shows that what he signed was not true) or he is one of the lyin' denyin' band of people who have no regard for the effects of their lies on countless millions of people around the Earth.

    Such behaviour is despicable.On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

  • It is Wegman who has been discredited not Mann

    manakcer said: "In discrediting Mann's hockeystick, Dr. Edward Wegman testified."
    Just shows you do not know what you are talking about. The truth is the exact reverse of what you are saying, not your muddled version.

    Wegman has been totally discredited as a reliable and unbiased critic of anything having to do with AGW.

    You should know this. The fact that you go on supporting this biased and in correct information shows that you are not interested in gaining knowledge but are only interested in distributing malicious nonsense.

    You should be ashamed of such behaviour.
    On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

  • Bacteria will not turn coal into methane

    Both coal and tar sands bitumen are seriously lacking in hydrogen. Assuming you could find bacteria to do this is, where do you get the hydrogen from? If it works, which I very much doubt, why do it underground, surely it would be much more efficient (optimize conditions) on the surface?

    I think people are forgetting that coal contains a lot of methane adsorbed into its pore structure which gets released after mining and put into test tubes.

    As for the bitumen, there was a report recently that reseachers at the University of Calgary have found bacteria which turn bitumen into methane. Sadly, very little experimental details were released but I very much doubt that such processes are viable.

    There may be very low levels of microbially metabolizable compounds in the bitumen which could explain the low levels of methane observed. However, to expect large amounts of methane from such a process is dreaming in technicolour, IMO.On One-hundred-dollar oil posted 1 year, 10 months ago 17 Responses

  • I am in complete agreement with what you have said

    Steve, what you have said in your earlier post is completely correct. Someone (I can't remember where I read it) has defined the type of government in the US (and it applies to others) as corporate statism.

    Large corporations have way too much influence over politicians and the regulatory processes. One of the other areas which concerns me is the fraud and deceit which is going on in the promotion of genetically modified organisms for food.

    My background is in biochemistry so I have a much more intimate knowledge of the GMO scene than climate change. However, the same techniques are being used and the same fraudulent "think tanks" are active in both areas as well as many others where large corporations feel that science will have a negative influence on their bottom lines.

    It is a sad reflection of our population that people such as Manacker and the many others who post on these blogs are willing to do the dirty work for these corporations. It is saving them a lot of money.

    Such people should be ashamed to take part in the misinformation campaign put forward by big business and their political allies.

    Regards.

    IanOn More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 10 months ago 227 Responses

  • You have a rock for a mind

    You will never be convinced by anything since you have proved that you have a rock for a mind.

    If you do not like being called to task then start acting in a responsible manner. You are just out to confuse people just like the oil companies planned 10 years ago. I hope that the cheques you get from them are not wasted but spent on some thing useful like shoring up your beach front property or putting gas in your gas guzzling Humnmer.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • You also lack debating skills

    Manacker, your debating skills are as poor as your science skills. You seem to have problems in understanding some simple English expressions. Perhaps English is not your first language?

    You are only on this blog to spread confusion and lies and to support the big business right wing political alliance. I'm sure every educated person knows where your are coming from and will give you the respect (or lack of same) that you deserve.

    You still have not admitted to your original lie concerning CO2 sensitivity which is not the figure you gave but is very much higher. Feedbacks must be included since we live in a real world (not your dream world) where everything is connected.

    The fact that you disregard the feedbacks is blatantly dishonest and you should know it. Shame on you.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Probe and expose by legitimate means

    Manacker said: "And as rational skeptics, we have to probe for and expose any weak spots in the science that supports these proposed policy changes".

    Two comments on this statement. Firstly, you and the other deniers are not being rational. Secondly, probing by legitimate means is acceptable; lying, distorting and misrepresentation is not. The deniers have never yet used the former but their only means of trying to move ahead their twisted  agenda is by lying, distortion and misrepresentation. You are a fully fledged member of this band of junk scientists and liars.

    Picking a paper (by the same author, no less) is not "cherry picking" but is a normal part of the refutation of data and findings. Something any scientist would be aware of. There is a big difference between being a real scientist and some one like you who is playing at being a scientist and is failing miserably.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Chylek's 2005 paper

    Cherry picker Manacker quotes Petr Chylek',s 2004 paper as evidence that there is no global warming. However, cherry picker Manacker either is ignorant of, or is ignoring Chylek's 2005 paper ("Ratio of the Greenland to global temperature change: Comparison of observations and climate modeling results": Geophysical Research Letters, vol 32, L14705) in which he states the following:

    "Using double correlations between the Greenland temperature records, North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index and global temperature change we find a region of Greenland that is not affected by the NAO. Using this region as an indicator of Greenland's temperature change that is related to global warming, we find that the ratio of the Greenland to global temperature change due to global warming is 2.2 in broad agreement with GCM predictions".

    Eating too many cherries is bad for your digestion.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • You are a pathological liar

    Do you deny making this comment (repeated ad nauseum on many blogs):

    "Is there a scientifically proven link between increased CO2 and higher temperatures?

    No. Just model scenarios that have been programmed in by the IPCC to demonstrate this link. Certainly the warming actually experienced from 1800 to 1900 and from 1900 to 1940 had little to do with man-made CO2 emissions".

    The adsorption of specific IR radiation by CO2 is a well documented observation and scientific fact.

    Also your knowledge about CO2 sensitivity is away off, by a factor of approximately 5 to 6.

    People reading this blog should be made aware of the lies you are promulgating, I will challenge every lie you tell.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • You do not know what science is

    Why do you not get someone to explain to you how carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas? I seem to have read someplace that you dispute that fact.

    Good byeOn More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Check out the facts yourself, Max

    Firstly, I'd like to know what your agenda is in this discussion. Are you seriously interested in understanding what is going on with world climate, Antarctic ice in particular, or are you only interested in trying to discredit the IPCC?

    From the limited time (thank goodness) I have spent reading what you have to say I can only conclude that it is the latter. There are two reasons for my conclusions.

    Firstly, if you were seriously interested in understanding world climate you would be enthusiastic on the reports using new technologies which offer refinement to the measurements, Antarctic ice for example. As I mentioned previously, it is mass of ice that is important, not volume. The paper you quote seems to give a rather arbitrary density figures for the packed snow/ice. I suspect that there are much larger errors in these data than in GRACE.

    However, what really lets me know that your primary goal is to discredit IPCC is that you accuse them of lying ("I know, it may be unpleasant to admit that IPCC did not tell the truth in its 2007 SPM report, but that is exactly what happened"). However, that statement is completely false, as I have mentioned already. If you had bothered to check up on the IPCC protocols you would see that there was a December 2005 cut off date for papers to be reviewed. Since the Wingham paper you quote was published in the middle of 2006 the IPCC would not have considered it. Thus they cannot be accused of lying about something that was not within their particular remit.

    You have nothing of consequence to offer this debate. I will not be responding to anymore of your lies and innuendo.
    On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • There is a big difference between volume and mass

    Max, you are confusing volume of ice with its mass. The various altimetry methods use the height of the ice/snow surface to measure volume of the ice. The GRACE satellites measure the mass of ice.

    Since new snow/ice on the surface is much less dense than the hard packed ice at the bottom, which is in fact melting much faster than previously thought, the volume may be increasing but the actual amount (mass) of water trapped in the ice is decreasing.

    The GRACE satellites are giving the best measurements so far to show that ice caps are melting and are adding to sea level rise.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Just not true

    Max said: "Do you not want to respond to my statement that IPCC ignored published scientific data that contradicted its false claim of ice loss in the Antarctic Ice Sheet?"

    This is a complete fabrication. The latest data from the GRACE satellites show that the AIS is in fact shrinking at the rate of approximately 150 cubic kilometers per year for the past few years.

    http://www.engr.utexas.edu/news/articles/200603031012/ind ...

    If you really have information to the contrary then provide it so we can discuss it in an intelligent way. Arguing with anyone who does not provide documentation is a waste of time.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Honesty is more important than credentials

    I have only one thing to say and that is that honesty is more important than credentials and the big problem with the denier lists is the dishonesty that most on the lists (not all) have shown.On More bogus climate skepticism posted 1 year, 11 months ago 227 Responses

  • Safety of genetically modified food

    I am a scientist who is sceptical of the safety of genetically modified food. I am a biochemist so probably am closer to what is going on with the technology than most. When the first research reports came out on the technology in the mid 80's I was against it for two reasons, unseen environmental effects and it didn't seem like a good idea for farmers to become reliant on one particular multi-national for all their needs (seeds, chemicals, technology etc).

    Safety after eating it didn't seem to be a problem to me at that time. After all, how could adding a single gene for a particular enzyme be bad for you? The companies producing these products were not too helpful or honest in describing what they were actually doing.

    After a while it began to leak out that there were numerous other genes added to the plants, some of which were of considerable concern as to what their effect could be (the Camv promoter gene is one of the most guilty in this regard). Very little testing was done in which the results were available for public scrutiny. The first results to become publicly available were the negative effects found by Dr. Arpad Pusztai who showed many deleterious effects in animals fed genetically modified potatoes. He was immediately vilified by the large corporate sponsored body that is pro GMO's (see any parallels with AGW yet?).

    It is interesting to note that a large report submitted by Monsanto to the US Dept of Ag. contained many of the same findings as were reported in Pusztai's paper but they were glossed over and the particular strain was approved for human consumption (the authors suggested that the effects they noted were due to "biological variation" even though some parameters were altered by 50%).

    As for effects noted in the real world, well look no further than what happened in the Philippines where a whole village had to be evacuated because of adverse health effects from a field of GM maize. Terje Traavik, the scientific director of the Norwegian Institute of Gene Ecology, who was asked to analyse blood samples from 39 of the 100 people who fell ill, has said that a link might exist between GM crops and human health.

    Also, soy allergies in the UK rose by 50% after the introduction of GM soy into the UK.

    There are now many examples where it is being shown that GM crops are not as safe as we were originally told.

    I see many similarities between AGW and GMO's and they way the truth is being hidden or muddied by large corporate interests and government complicity.
    On Eh, why bother posted 2 years, 10 months ago 15 Responses