Jim Barry, a deep-sea biologist with the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California, is impressed by the volcano find.

“This is a new habitat,” he said.

And it’s potentially important for future study, he added, because by trapping carbon dioxide in the moat, this habitat provides scientists with a way to study what the oceans of the not-so-distant future may be like.

As levels of carbon dioxide continue to rise, due to the combustion of fossil fuels, deforestation, and other causes, much of the gas will inevitably wind up in the sea, he explained.

“We’re going to see big changes in the chemistry of the ocean in the next 200 years,” Barry said.

“Systems like this will give us a great deal of information about what we might expect in the future.”

It appears to be the standard pitch for more money to research it based on the climate catastrophe fad-of-the-moment. The only bit missing was that it might be “worse then previously thought”

Undersea Volcano

“John A” (who runs this site) recently (20 March) wrote the following to the Yahoo group climatesceptics:

> I might add that worldclimatereport has no comments allowed and
> therefore no feedback, making it less informative and more declarative.

> I think it would be better to have some form of feedback in order to
> involve an audience and clarify issues.

> I think that the feedback we have on climateaudit (other than two
> trolls, easily dealt with) is a positive contribution to the weblog,
> and stimulates new lines of inquiry, and new articles.

> If worldclimatereport merged with climateaudit, then we’d have a real
> winner…

Firstly I suspect that I am one of the “two trolls” and I am sure that I am “easily dealt with”, but that is immaterial.

More importantly, worldclimatereport has recently morphed from:

http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate/overview/overview.htm

to

http://www.worldclimatereport.com

These sites clearly have the same origin as they have the same name and almost identical “about us” descriptions. However, while the background of the “reincarnation” is rather vague (naming only Patrick J. Michaels as the Editor and Paul C. Knappenberger as the Administrator), the original site is clearly run by the Greening Earth Society. And what is the Greening Earth Society? Let’s look at the 2000 Annual Report of Western Fuels Association, which states “since Earth Day 1998, Western Fuels Association’s climate change advocacy has been rooted in the Greening Earth Society”. And what is “Western Fuels Association”? According to their web site: “Western Fuels Association, Inc., operates on a not-for-profit basis to provide coal for the generation of electricity by consumer-owned utilities …..”. Also, according to their 1998 Annual Report: “We lost $583,000 in 1997 ….. Our half-million dollar shortfall is due entirely to our advocacy in the area of climate change.”

So, Steve McIntyre, would you really want to become linked with worldclimatereport?

http://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/Mann/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm
http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/cf/visualhoffert.pdf
http://healthandenergy.com/global_warming.htm
http://geography.berkeley.edu/ProgramCourses/CoursePagesFA2004/Geog142/geog142_14-2.ppt
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar%5Cglobalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateAtmosphericChangeVariability.html

“Last, and hopefully always least” http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

Well, heck, five or six websites, sounds like a concensus to me. How could you heretics possibly question the Hockey Stick Inquisition and their secret weapon of alarm; alarm and dodgy statistics. TWO secret weapons etc.

PS. The aip link includes mentions of the criticisms of the hockey stick by von Storch (04) and McIntyre and McKitrick (05) in the references! That is dangerously close to balanced reporting. They’ll get some nasty letters over that, I’ve no doubt, although they include a link to the “professional” blog at realclimate.org to try and appease the HSI.

Must be another IPCC somewhere in existance that I don’t know about, because that doesn’t describe the UN IPCC I know of well at all…

John writes: The skeptics’ reach in causing people to cite the hockey stick is truly global!