Denis Hocking takes me to task for “cherry picking to fit an existing belief”. Not only is this insulting, but I suggest Denis look in the mirror.

Contrary to Hocking’s assertions, the agreement between four balloon data sets and three satellite data sets measuring atmospheric temperature, is very good indeed, and substantially below both the IPCC modelling predictions.

These data are in the diagram below…
In fact we presented these data in our NZIPIM Paper

Further, the land-based surface temperature data sets are consistently “tortured” by constant adjustment consistently lowering the early records which tip the slope of the temperature curve upwards, thus accentuating the apparent warming.

A good example of this is the NASA adjustment of the surface temperature record.

Hocking then takes me to task for asserting that higher levels of carbon dioxide are good for the world, based on information “borrowed from the Huntsville team”. This of course a patently false, the “Huntsville team are not involved in this area at all.

Perhaps Hocking should read the comprehensive information, new information being added all the time at, which will bring him up to date with a burgeoning literature on CO2 the gas of life, and the benefits of higher atmospheric levels.

He has implored me to follow good scientific practice and not just cherry pick to suit an existing belief. He should follow his own advice.

With an increase in atmospheric CO2 from about 280ppm to 410ppm since the industrial revolution plant growth has increased by 25 to 30% including trees. All good.

When we get the press acting as Stuff has…

“Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy” it is a sad day for science.