# Global Warming in 5 Minutes



## JohnG

I was astonished to find the following in an stock market advisory email from Jeremy Grantham, a well-known market guru (and not a left-wing, academic one; a real life Wall Street denizen):

*Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in 5 Minutes*

1) The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, after at least several hundred thousand years of remaining within a constant range, started to rise with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. It has increased by almost 40% and is rising each year. This is certain and straightforward.

2) One of the properties of CO2 is that it creates a greenhouse effect and, all other things being equal, an increase in its concentration in the atmosphere causes the Earth’s temperature to rise. This is just physics. (The amount of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as methane, has also risen steeply since industrialization, which
has added to the impact of higher CO2 levels.)

3) Several other factors, like changes in solar output, have major influences on climate over millennia, but these effects have been observed and measured. They alone cannot explain the rise in the global temperature over the past 50 years.

4) The uncertainties arise when it comes to the interaction between greenhouse gases and other factors in the complicated climate system. It is impossible to be sure exactly how quickly or how much the temperature will rise. But, the past can be measured. The temperature has indeed steadily risen over the past century while greenhouse gas levels have increased. But the forecasts still range very widely for what will happen in the future, ranging from a small but still potentially harmful rise of 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit to a potentially disastrous level of +6 to +10 degrees Fahrenheit within this century. A warmer atmosphere melts glaciers and ice sheets, and causes global sea levels to rise. A warmer atmosphere also contains more energy and holds more water, changing the global occurrences of storms, floods, and other extreme weather events.

5) Skeptics argue that this wide range of uncertainty about future temperature changes lowers the need to act: “Why spend money when you’re not certain?” But since the penalties can rise at an accelerating rate at the tail, a wider range implies a greater risk (and a greater expected value of the costs.) This is logically and mathematically rigorous and yet is still argued.

6) Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an infinite loss? And, he answers, “Infinite.” In this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth –- 2% to 4% or less. 

The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal-fired power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important. Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious: costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war. And, to Pascal’s real point, what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: definitely life changing, possibly life threatening.

_-- Jeremy Grantham_

https://www.gmo.com/America/CMSAttachmentDownload.aspx?target=JUBRxi51IIDcqoAT4ld7GKOHZUG9JWP9W5DQj1S%2fKmc5I%2bGUtYqbld%2bgoxFi%2bzMxD26ZaIg3t8LA9GnUQ2h6TnK80Pma%2fQVLgB%2bZrymgy9rhjCUhG6OY3w%3d%3d (https://www.gmo.com/America/CMSAttachme ... OY3w%3d%3d)


----------



## Animus

The financial elite love the idea of cap and trade. Another bubble to inflate and line their pockets with money. Ultimately the middle class will pay for it all.


----------



## chimuelo

That's the most common sense statement on Climate Change I have heard.
We seem to get stuck with wealthy morons and liars from the IPCC using scare tactics instead of common sense business minded conclusions.
If we had 200 people like him in DC watching the purse strings, and another 100 Politicians to unite us instead of using divisive racial, and class warfare tactics, we would have a powerfully tuned economic machine again.
I sure would like to see my son have the same oppurtunities I had, that's why I am voting pro business from now on.
Maybe then we can tax these corporations and instead of raising consumers rates, have one of the many thousand of useless regulatory commisssions freeze our rates.
Otherwise, I view Cap & Trade as another tax on the middle class, nothing more.
It sure is nice to see a common sense combination of liberal and conseravtive ideas. As long as the elite and their media whores push this left/right, black/white nonsense, the longer it will be before we see real men in our Capital again.
All I see are little children that can't play ball together.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Great summary, John, and it's hard to fathom how people can still be arguing with it. The only thing I question is #6. How 

Animus, in my opinion you're about 20% right - people will profit from cap and trade, and the shrinking middle class always gets squeezed. But just because people will take advantage of it doesn't make the whole baby worth throwing out with the bathwater.

Setting a price on pollution makes sense as a first step, otherwise there's no incentive not to pollute.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Chimuelo, one of the concepts in the act that passed the House - and that will probably be trashed by the f-ing Senate - is that pollution permits are given to power utilities. Their profits are regulated, so the extra profits should get passed on to the energy-buying public (edit: in the form of rate reductions), hence it offsets the "tax" while providing an economic incentive for companies not to pollute. Money is getting moved around, in other words.


----------



## José Herring

I looked at the stats. America uses 3x's more oil a day than China and if you remove China from the list America uses more oil per day than all other countries in the world combined.

That's scary. :shock: 

The need for solar, wind and other forms of new energy are long over due. Like about 40 years over due. I remember when I was kid in the 80's I thought by the time I was an adult that we'd have all sorts of wind and solar power houses and safe electric cars. It's a pity that this country is so far behind and that we still rely on oil and natural gas for 99.9% of our energy.

I hate disasters like the BP oil spill to remind everybody that we need to move on from the stone ages of burning oil for energy. But, these oil companies are like one big conglomerate that are all connected up and run under cleverly setup Foundations, and if you do your research you'll find that they are owned by people that also own the New York Fed and the Bank of England. Which also control the World Bank and the IMF. So in fact these people control the world economy.

If we want any true positive change we need to take it to these people. My hope with Obama was that he would take on these entities and actually effect some really change. But he just went lock and step with this crowd and basically did the Bush thing which was to hand them an additional trillion dollars. I'll never forgive him for that. I honesty think that he thought he was doing the right thing. But in all honesty he was snowed. I think that he's figured out that he was conned, but at this point you can't really say that. Though if he wanted to save face imo he would just admit that he was snookered and move on instead of constantly having to defend the bailouts as necessary. I followed the money trail and believe me it wasn't necessary. Why do we care if the Bank of England, Duetche Banque or Goldman Sachs or AIG or even the New York fed get their money back. It's not like they shared it with anybody. Now he's got no money left or no moral justification to spend money where it's really needed-- paying back China and investing in cleaner forms of energy.

So it will be a long while yet before anything really gets moving in alternative forms of energy. So I hope that the guys are over exaggerating the effects of global warming. There is indication that the world is warming up but at a slower rate than is being publicized. When I looked at the raw data untouched by NASA or other government run agencies I concluded that the temp was rising about 1.5 degrees per century. Which is totally enough to shrink glaciers but not so alarming that we're all going die in the next 40 years. I say this not to discredit global warming. I say this because I know the way the world is set up now it's gonna be about another 100 years before we really do anything meaningful about it.


----------



## chimuelo

I welcome it the idea if the laws are actually applied.
In Nevada the public was given a choice of conserving water, or having it regulated.
The public actually did its part, and even now rocking yards has an incentive program where the SNWD chips in 1.40 for rocking your yard, and the rest which is usually 1.60-75 per square foot is out of pocket.
Since more people ride bikes and take morning walks any water run offs from someones yard can be tracked which leads to an embarrassing notice.
But I am proud of Nevadans making the correct choices.
Government needs to operate truthfully and the people will support it.
Economic incentives must be applied for these technologies to take affect.


----------



## germancomponist

It is all the result from the oil lobbyists. Very sadly!

The money-grubbing will at least kill us all..... .


----------



## MacQ

Well ...

I'm not super keen on listening to a stock-market analyst for my "science". I'm all for the energy independence and better air quality, but I hate the fact that it takes junk science (read: anthropogenic global warming is total bullshit) to get it done.

The earth warmed up based on solar output, nothing more, nothing less. This whole "global warming" thing is a red herring for other political machinations. We should be more concerned about clean water than about our CO2 output. In the 1970's we were heading for an ice-age ... and now it's all about warming.

This so-called "climate science" is a $2 billion+ a year industry (probably more now), so there are a lot of hype-men out there trying to make it even bigger. Including this guy.

~Stu


----------



## Hannes_F

People that don't care for air pollution don't care for water, too.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Terrific concise summary, John.

I find myself really very depressed about it all these days. 2 years ago I was so enthused to do something. The science was extremely robust, the world's politicians all seemed to broadly agree about that even. But I hadn't factored in the harsh reality that human beings simply believe whatever they want to believe. And the realities of doing anything remotely serious about climate change are essentially unpalatable to modern western society. The ultimately require a move from continual growth to steady state economics.

Witness MacQ's post above. There are millions just like them across the internet. An otherwise intelligent friend of mine believes precisely the same thing. After many conversations I eventually asked him "purely hypothetically, what evidence could convince you that anthropogenic global warming might be real"? His instant answer - none. He "knew".

And that says it all. The flat denial (certainly not scepticism, which is an abuse of the word) of AGW is a belief system. I believe AGW is real based on scientific evidence. If that evidence changes (however unlikely that seems to me), I will absolutely change my views. Simple as that. However, those of us with this view of science are in the minority. Most people don't understand the scientific method and care less anyway. Most people would rather bitch about Cap and Trade, the horror of China, the supposed multi-billion dollar green industry, the global conspiracy of academia... ANYTHING that means they won't have to do anything except trade ever-more-ludicrous conspiracy theories that involve a sizeable percentage of the world's population. Building a robust faith-based belief system is a very effective way of doing this, since it puts you beyond evidence and thus persuasion.

So I'm depressed. The time has passed. Copenhagen was a long shot, but it was all we had. All the momentum has gone - people just want the world economies to grow, they want cheap oil and cheap flights. And the whole subject got kinda old anyway. Shame that this year is the hottest on record or, more tellingly, this month is the 304th in a row above the 20th Century average, but hey. What you gonna do?

I'd love for someone to point out a realistic way forward - I just don't see one any more.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> But I hadn't factored in the harsh reality that human beings simply believe whatever they want to believe



Case in point: MacQ's post.


----------



## Hannes_F

noiseboyuk @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> All the momentum has gone - people just want the world economies to grow, they want cheap oil and cheap flights. And the whole subject got kinda old anyway.



But the good thing is that everybody can at least draw conclusions for himself. That will not be sufficient but can not be skipped either. There are things that you can do already today:

- I am driving a natural gas (CNG) car since ten years. It is a bit laborious because you need to find gas stations ... but it is available since years. None of my friends has one, I don't understand why. No need to wait for the hydrogen car, this works _now._

- Europeans, especially Germans: No need to wait for a legitimate tempo limit, just individually don't drive faster than 120 km/h.

- Use standby for your DAW and switch the monitors off whenever possible. Turn the lights off more often, use halogen light (not crazy for fluorescent energy saving lamps that actually cost more resources than they save ... but have one or two of them, too).

- Try to buy food locally, if possible even bio-organical. Try to spare bags, packaging.

I am in no way perfect but can honestly say I wrap my mind around what I can do several times a week. Tiny things, in order to to keep your ecological footprint low on an individal base. Yes ... worldwide actions are needed ... but for me it starts in my own life.

If you ask people whether governement should aid alternative engergies then 90 % are for it. But only 5 % are actually ordering the green energy tariff ... make sure you are one of them.


----------



## chimuelo

The Cap & Trade Bill will pass, even though they might use a colorful metaphor and call it something that pleases us peasants.
I only hope that creating Marine Sanctuaries and preventing future catastrophies we can already predict get some attention while the worlds elite feast on their ROI at CME, GE and other government controlled entities.

If you follow the UN, Brits and American troop placements around the Globe you can see where our economies are committed.
Iraq was the way to keep security for the Saudi Royal Family and OPEC.
Sure we were told weapons of Mass destruction but it is now apparent why we are really there.
Same goes for Afghanistan. I assumed there was a reason we never found Bin Laden, and I believe we will never find him. If we do we would have to leave Afghanistan and its 1.4 Trillion worth of Lithium we are after.
I actually thought we were there to make sure our friends got the Poppy trade instead of the wife beaters, but after reading about our SOF troops training with the Chinese and Pakistani Army in China and Pakistan, the picture is pretty clear, even if our bought and paid for media won't discuss it.
The powers that be are carving up the territory as we speak so to think that Cap & Trade won't pass, just give it a few more months and some stimulus money to keep the Republicans and Blue Dogs happy.
Bolivia also has a huge Lithium deposit. 
So we wont be bringing the troops home anytime soon.

My point is, why not lay the truth out to the public. Americans despise war, but if you let them know we are killing 1000's in a politically correct way and we really need the Lithium for future Green markets, even the guys with Black Light posters of Arianna Huffington would probably agree as one end is the means to another.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Hannes_F @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All the momentum has gone - people just want the world economies to grow, they want cheap oil and cheap flights. And the whole subject got kinda old anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the good thing is that everybody can at least draw conclusions for himself. That will not be sufficient but can not be skipped either. There are things that you can do already today:
> 
> - I am driving a natural gas (CNG) car since ten years. It is a bit laborious because you need to find gas stations ... but it is available since years. None of my friends has one, I don't understand why. No need to wait for the hydrogen car, this works _now._
> 
> - Europeans, especially Germans: No need to wait for a legitimate tempo limit, just individually don't drive faster than 120 km/h.
> 
> - Use standby for your DAW and switch the monitors off whenever possible. Turn the lights off more often, use halogen light (not crazy for fluorescent energy saving lamps that actually cost more resources than they save ... but have one or two of them, too).
> 
> - Try to buy food locally, if possible even bio-organical. Try to spare bags, packaging.
> 
> I am in no way perfect but can honestly say I wrap my mind around what I can do several times a week. Tiny things, in order to to keep your ecological footprint low on an individal base. Yes ... worldwide actions are needed ... but for me it starts in my own life.
> 
> If you ask people whether governement should aid alternative engergies then 90 % are for it. But only 5 % are actually ordering the green energy tariff ... make sure you are one of them.
Click to expand...


All good things. I do my bit I guess - we sold the second car, only travel to work by car when there is no alternative, cycle everywhere round town.... my biggest thing I guess is that I make myself massively unpopular in the family by limiting flying on holidays to one trip every few years. Fortunately we live near the Eurostar and then on to the TGV network....

However, I've seen the maths... none of this barely scratches the surface in truth. An excellent resource - and very much in the spirit of the OP - as a book which just lays it all out in simple no-axe-to-grind mathematical terms is Without Hot Air, made available for free download here http://www.withouthotair.com. Hugely sobering reading. Action has to be governmental, global and colossol... which unfortunately increases the feeling of impotence I guess.


----------



## bdr

I was recently in LA. Huge cars abound, cheap gas. 10 minutes on the freeway there showed me that Australia could stop producing ANY greenhouse gas and it wouldn't make any difference.


----------



## José Herring

bdr @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> I was recently in LA. Huge cars abound, cheap gas. 10 minutes on the freeway there showed me that Australia could stop producing ANY greenhouse gas and it wouldn't make any difference.



Yes the burden is 100% on America. I always laugh at these "global" summits to address climate change. Anybody who's taken two steps out of America will plainly see that we are the cause of it. I blame the suburban middle class. Maybe a law could be passed banning soccer moms from driving SUV's? Laughable but there's so much talk about the dying middle class in America. No talk about maybe it should die. Not really about money. I want people to make as much money as possible. But the culture needs to die. I know somebody that has two brand new gas sucking machines that cost over $100 bucks a week to drive and yet he's 3 months behind on his mortgage. Gross. I feel like telling him to sell the cars get some little rice burners and use the saving to pay your house before the bank forecloses. But everybody in LA has to have a tricked out ride. I've never seen a place with so many Benzs parked at crappy apartment buildings as I have driving the streets in this town.


----------



## Ashermusic

josejherring @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> bdr @ Wed Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a law could be passed banning soccer moms from driving SUV's? Laughable but there's so much talk about the dying middle class in America. No talk about maybe it should die. Not really about money. I want people to make as much money as possible. But the culture needs to die. I know somebody that has two brand new gas sucking machines that cost over $100 bucks a week to drive and yet he's 3 months behind on his mortgage. Gross. I feel like telling him to sell the cars get some little rice burners and use the saving to pay your house before the bank forecloses. But everybody in LA has to have a tricked out ride. I've never seen a place with so many Benzs parked at crappy apartment buildings as I have driving the streets in this town.
Click to expand...


I don't want to ban the soccer moms driving the SUVs but I sure do want to luxury tax the living crap out of them if they do so and use the taxes for alternative energy source development and subsidies.


----------



## José Herring

Ashermusic @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> josejherring @ Wed Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bdr @ Wed Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe a law could be passed banning soccer moms from driving SUV's? Laughable but there's so much talk about the dying middle class in America. No talk about maybe it should die. Not really about money. I want people to make as much money as possible. But the culture needs to die. I know somebody that has two brand new gas sucking machines that cost over $100 bucks a week to drive and yet he's 3 months behind on his mortgage. Gross. I feel like telling him to sell the cars get some little rice burners and use the saving to pay your house before the bank forecloses. But everybody in LA has to have a tricked out ride. I've never seen a place with so many Benzs parked at crappy apartment buildings as I have driving the streets in this town.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to ban the soccer moms driving the SUVs but I sure do want to luxury tax the living crap out of them if they do so and use the taxes for alternative energy source development and subsidies.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That would be a great idea. But it won't get many of these politicians elected. Too sad. 

The BP oil spill is the worst environmental disaster in American history and yet the entire output of that spill only represents about a week's worth of our oil consumption. We're polluting our air by burning 20,000,000 barrels of oil a day yet too few of us see that as an environmental disaster. Shameful.

Luxury tax. Good idea.


----------



## MacQ

Having my intelligence impugned because I refuse to take a popular stance is a little narrow minded though, right? 

There are plenty of things I'd like to see in this whole debate. I'd like to see one of these "computer models of prediction" make an ACCURATE prediction of global average temperature even 6 months out. This current IPCC AGW theory (still just a theory, remember) has more political motivation than environmental.

I take a pragmatic approach: the world has been much warmer, even in our common era. They used to have vineyards in the north of England. Polar bears survived the Holocene Thermal Maximum ... life adapts. And this would be with several degrees of temperature increase, a trend not even the climate models predict. They're talking more in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years. Bearing in mind that these same scientists with this same data were predicting global cooling (or even an impending ice age), and having it reported by the mainstream news media as recently as 1975.

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

If you read that article, you'll see where it talks about a drop in global temperatures, starting in 1945. Wait ... starting immediately after the war, when CO2 production was going full-blast and people were buying all kinds of consumer goods (cars, appliances) ... that's when the temperature went down. (That was also - coincidentally I'm sure - when there was a marked decline in solar sunspot activity.)

Temperature up, temperature down ... it's nothing we can fix. The sun that provides all of our heat in the first place will dictate our global temperature. We aren't at a level of technological advancement where we can control complex systems (no matter how hard we might try, and how much hubris we have). There was an excellent speech delivered by the late Michael Crichton that pertains specifically to that, using Yellowstone National Park as his anecdotal evidence. (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/video-sp ... onian.html)

Anyway, I don't have a problem with people getting depressed about the future. I just realize that there's nothing we can do to stop it, because I don't believe we're actually causing it.

There's an excellent documentary floating around called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It looks at both the science and politics surrounding the whole issue. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 369613647#)

As always, analyze the information and form your own opinion. I certainly have. And I'm quite intelligent, thanks. 

~Stu


----------



## rgames

Hannes_F @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> I am driving a natural gas (CNG) car since ten years. It is a bit laborious because you need to find gas stations ... but it is available since years. None of my friends has one, I don't understand why. No need to wait for the hydrogen car, this works _now._



Ahhh but that would deny the autmobile lobbies their marketing campaigns! When all the hype about the Prius began there were already many vehicles available that matched or beat its fuel efficiency. But they were old and not sexy and not part of celebrity-endorsed marketing campaigns.

Do the math... problem is too many people make decisions based on marketing blitzes without stopping to think.

I drove an SUV for years and proved again and again that I produced about 1/4 of the pollutants of my "environmentally conscious friends" with the Prius. How? I lived close to where I worked. Shocking idea! And, even though it is the single most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, there's no tax break for it. No celebrity-endorsed campaigns. And no lobbyists.

Again - nobody thinks.



> Having my intelligence impugned because I refuse to take a popular stance is a little narrow minded though, right?



There are a few "though shalts" on VI-Control. One is "Though shalt not deny that global warming is man-made". Facts be damned!

*I'm still waiting for the answer to this question: how did the SUV's get to Venus? *Scientists seem to be in general agreement that Venus' atmosphere is an example of the doomsday greenhouse effect.

Could it be a natural phemenon? No! Of course not! Ergo there must have been SUV's on Venus. QED

rgames


----------



## José Herring

rgames @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> Hannes_F @ Wed Jul 28 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am driving a natural gas (CNG) car since ten years. It is a bit laborious because you need to find gas stations ... but it is available since years. None of my friends has one, I don't understand why. No need to wait for the hydrogen car, this works _now._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh but that would deny the autmobile lobbies their marketing campaigns! When all the hype about the Prius began there were already many vehicles available that matched or beat its fuel efficiency. But they were old and not sexy and not part of celebrity-endorsed marketing campaigns.
> 
> Do the math... problem is too many people make decisions based on marketing blitzes without stopping to think.
> 
> I drove an SUV for years and proved again and again that I produced about 1/4 of the pollutants of my "environmentally conscious friends" with the Prius. How? I lived close to where I worked. Shocking idea! And, even though it is the single most effective way to reduce CO2 emissions, there's no tax break for it. No celebrity-endorsed campaigns. And no lobbyists.
> 
> Again - nobody thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having my intelligence impugned because I refuse to take a popular stance is a little narrow minded though, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are a few "though shalts" on VI-Control. One is "Though shalt not deny that global warming is man-made". Facts be damned!
> 
> *I'm still waiting for the answer to this question: how did the SUV's get to Venus? *Scientists seem to be in general agreement that Venus' atmosphere is an example of the doomsday greenhouse effect.
> 
> Could it be a natural phemenon? No! Of course not! Ergo there must have been SUV's on Venus. QED
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


Dude. Your logic is so flawed that I can't even begin to "refudiate" it. You voted for Paliò÷l   ÞEú÷l   ÞEû÷l   ÞEü÷l   ÞEý÷l   ÞEþ÷l   ÞEÿ÷l   ÞF ÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF	÷l   ÞF
÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF ÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷l   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF÷m   ÞF ÷m   ÞF!÷m   ÞF"÷m   ÞF#÷m   ÞF$÷m   ÞF%÷m   ÞF&÷m   ÞF'÷m   ÞF(÷m   ÞF)÷m   ÞF*÷m   ÞF+÷n   ÞF,÷n   ÞF-÷n   ÞF.÷n   ÞF/÷n   ÞF0÷n   ÞF1÷o   ÞF2÷o   ÞF3÷o   Þ


----------



## rgames

josejherring @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> And as far as Venus having oceans. That's pure speculation at this point.



And so we arrive at the crux of the debate!

Which science do you want to believe? The science that says Venus used to have oceans and they NATURALLY evaporated away? Or the science that says global warming can be halted or reversed by changing man-made CO2 emissions?

If you choose your science based on faith (of which speculation is a form), can it really be science?

Here's the only way to logically resolve that issue: *we just aren't sure on either one.*

Atmospheric science is plagued with huge uncertainties. Of course humans have an effect on global warming. Nobody denies that. Is it enough to be the dominant factor? Would things naturally happen that way regardless of fossil fuel combustion?

If you believe the science about Venus, then there's precedent that it can happen naturally. So you're back to the issue of whether or not the earth would be warming up without human CO2 emissions.

And regardless of what the world-reknown climatologist Al Gore says, there is no conrete evidence either way on that one. Yes, there are some indications, but nothing that really seals the deal.

Here's another thought:

There used to be glaciers in Yosemite. What happened to them? Did we send SUV's back in time, also? I guess if we can put them on Venus then sending them back in time is not that far a stretch...

Another hint: natural phenomena!

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Having my intelligence impugned because I refuse to take a popular stance is a little narrow minded though, right?



It's not your intelligence I'm impugning, it's the conclusion you've come to. And please don't hide under that inversion - the same one Richard is trying to hide under: you're not a bold maverick daring to acknowledge that the emperor has no clothing.

The real "facts," Richard, are the opposite of everything in this universe that you believe. You're welcome to hang out in a herd of fools who believe the PR crap that global warming isn't man-made, but puhleeze - don't try and sell the guana that everyone on this forum who chooses not to be a total idiot is closed-minded.


----------



## rgames

OK, Nick, - you lost me.

Humans can cause global warming. I agree. But it can also happen naturally.

If there were no humans, would the earth still be getting warmer? That's the part where the jury's out. The science is not strong enough to say it's mostly human-caused or mostly natural.

In other words, there's no concrete science that can say, unequivocally, that it's not natural. Humans certainly have an impact but it's not clear that halting human CO2 emissions will halt global warming. There are some indicators that human involvement might have a significant impact. Note the word "might" in there.

The national academy of sciences report concluded just that. Trouble is nobody looks to the NAS because that's just scientists talking, and they're not very fun. They'd rather hear it from Al Gore. Or some celebrity.

The reason people are so polarized on this issue is precisely because it's a grey area. People who take a firm stand on one side argue endlessly because nobody can come up with strong evidence.

I've always said go green: do your part to reduce greenhouse gas emission (check my history of posts on this board, for example). My objection is simply to the notion that there's airtight science that says it *will* have an effect on global warming. That science does not exist. Again, see the word "might" in the statement above.

Gotta rag on my climatologist, nobel-prize-winning buddy Al Gore a bit more though. If we are to take him as a proponent of science, then he needs to be beholden to all of the practices that modern science embraces. One of those practices is the errata review. When a scientific paper is published and an error is found, an errata statement is made in a subsequent journal which identifies the mistake and discusses the implications. Well, it turns out that NASA corrected the data our buddy Al used when he clamied, in his award-winning documentary, that the 90's were the hottest decade on record. After the corrected data, that statement was no longer true - it shifted to the 1930's, long before SUV's...

Where's Al's follow-up documentary with the errata review?

More importantly, what do we learn from that?

How about this: let scientists do the science. The National Academies is a good place to start - that's where the thoughts of scientists are collected and presented vis-a-vis national interests. Your tax dollars are paying for those reports. Go read them!

Of course, they're not as enteratining as an Al Gore documentary 

rgames


----------



## Narval

The reason for going environmental friendly is not that it prevents global warming. The reason is: it's the right thing to do. Better save than waste. Better healthy than ill. Better lean than fat. Better clean than dirty. No argument here, I guess. Politics and science may do their talking in circles, as always. But in the end what this is all about is: a personal moral attitude based on principled values.

Of course, there are people who care and people who don't care. The sun rises, the sun sets. Ice age, global warming, this, that. The world keeps turning, round and round. 

Having a clear conscience - nothing beats that.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Experience has taught me never to start the scientific back and forth on the internet. Why? Because in most cases it's phoney - people aren't looking for real answers, they just want to believe what they want to believe. So my question(s) to you, Richard are - if you were to understand why Venus is Venus, and why our current situation on Earth is different (because the science of this bit isn't actually that hard), would you accept AGW? And assuming the answer begins with a "welllll.....", the follow up question is "what evidence WOULD convince you?" I don't want to pre-judge - your questions might be absolutely genuine, but I've found in the past that for most people, they are not. There is an underlying ideology that does not want to accept the reality of AGW, regardless of evidence.

One of the many classic arguments used to try to puncture a hole in the science is that "there's always been climate change, and it's natural". What makes me laugh about this is the notion that people who have spent their lives studying the science HAVEN'T NOTICED. As if, after 6 years of intensive research, someone will go... "oh yeah! There used to be ice ages BEFORE SUVs!!!" What scientists are saying now - and let's be absolutely clear about this - is that they have concluded that what is currently occurring is (with a >90% probability attached to this conclusion) anomalous. This is not part of natural processes, it is man made.

I should perhaps own up and say I don't work even part time in the field of climate science. I have no qualifications. Should my opinion on matters of complex science matter, therefore? Nope. My scientific pronouncements are utterly worthless. I'm not qualified, I don't understand even 1% of the nitty gritty. Which, I'd be so bold as to suggest, is the position of all of us at VI Control (but if there are people who are qualified, please do make yourselves known!). So I can do one of two things - see what the people who DO understand it say, or conclude that "well, you know, how can we know? Could be anything, huh?"

Every major scientific institute in the world supports the consensus for the reality of AGW. 97% of climate scientists do also (in a recent NAS paper here - http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107). Even all world governments - from the Bush administration's America to North Korea - accept the basic science (through the IPCC). Yet in the bars and round water coolers of the western world, people know better. You end up with some truly breathtaking logical arguments - which seem to have been awfully close to being presented here on this thread - such as "because Al Gore has separated from his wife, maybe Anthropogenic Global Warming isn't real after all". Huh?!

The argument that "well, we can't be sure of anything" is much used and abused today. It's exactly the same argument that caused Bush to want to "teach the controversy" of Intelligent Design versus Evolution - despite there being no scientific case to be made for the former. But it SOUNDS terribly progressive and reasonable - "hey, we're not telling people what to think, let them make up their own minds". And of course people are free to think the moon is made of cheese, but personally I'd rather it wasn't taught in science class.

Likewise, people can believe whatever they want about AGW, but very rarely it's anything to do with science. These threads usually wind up the same way, with long explanations of conspiracies and "scientific" reports that are usually linked to some lobbyists with names like The Idaho Scientific Institute For Climate Research, never actual respected peer-reviewed journals. And many people - understandably - can't be bothered to look into the reality, what the real scientific community are saying and just conclude - because it is much more convenient - "you can't believe anything you read, can you?". Most people don't understand the scientific method anyway, so arguments about peer review are moot.

In summary (and forgive the repetition, cos it really does come down to this) - in the main, people just believe whatever they want to believe - end of story.


----------



## George Caplan

josejherring @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> America uses 3x's more oil a day than China and if you remove China from the list America uses more oil per day than all other countries in the world combined.
> 
> That's scary. :shock:



thats all anyone needs to understand. thats the most intelligent bit in this topic.



josejherring @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> I hate disasters like the BP oil spill to remind everybody that we need to move on from the stone ages of burning oil for energy. Which also control the World Bank and the IMF. So in fact these people control the world economy.



whats just great about the stance the US takes on the BP oil spill is in fact hilarious to people in the business. the nigerian delta has been polluted 10 times worse that the gulf by the US oil companies and has been known about for years. no one says a damn thing. years ago, an american owned/backed oil tanker called the Torrey Canyon had to be detonated by aircraft and bombs off the uk coast and the oil spill devastated the coastline. the us government and the us oil company said nothing and no reparation was made to the uk. we, the americans didn't give a hoot and still dont give a hoot unless it happens in our back yard. these are just a couple of many examples from all over the world. thats what happens when you become so oil dependent in fact sooner or later it was bound to happen in the gulf and will probably happen again. it has happened before actually but not to this extent.



josejherring @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> Why do we care if the Bank of England, Duetche Banque or Goldman Sachs or AIG or even the New York fed get their money back. It's not like they shared it with anybody. Now he's got no money left or no moral justification to spend money where it's really needed-- paying back China and investing in cleaner forms of energy.



you need to understand that china owns our ass. not Goldman Sachs or any bank. whenever i see some tv program over here where they start on about economies with a studio audience, the first thing anyone in an expert panel should do is stand up and ask the audience as loudly as possible DO YOU KNOW WHAT A BOND TRADER IS AND DOES? they would not be able to tell you and thats part of the problem. they talk about this stuff without any basic fundamental knowledge.



Animus @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> The financial elite love the idea of cap and trade. Another bubble to inflate and line their pockets with money. Ultimately the middle class will pay for it all.


 
:lol: :lol: :lol: 


see what i mean?


----------



## chimuelo

The volcanic eruptions caused by the ELF arrays in Alaska have helped stave off Global Warming for 2 years. Pinatubo was a success.
Bush was the first President to use the ELF Briefcase for causing Volcanic Eruptions.
Even though Scientists have begged Obama to hit Krakatoa since its on the verge again, he wanted to strike a non Muslim Volcano.
So the Icelandic atheiest Volcano was used with a fair amount of success.
So we can expect Obama to strike a Roman Catholic Volcano like Vesuvius next.
Bush had great success with Pinatubo, but when he tried to veer off Katrina towards Cuba he failed though.
So far this year the array chased off 2 storms that were headed for the BP site in the Gulf.
Obama deserves credit here, but if news of the ELF briefcase ever got out, it would cause more markets to collapse.
This year will be a record low with Hurricanes though and I applaud the WHite House for these brave and daring decisions.
I was really worried that he wanted to ruin the primaries in Colorado by hitting Yellowstone. Thankfully the Joint Chiefs talked him out of that one since NORAD hasn't been prepped fully.


----------



## JohnG

Chimuelo -- sometimes I can't tell when you are yanking our chains and when you are serious. Hope this is the former, as I was chuckling reading your post!

guy -- nice post. 

Guy's cogent post points up the reason I was so surprised by the source of the summary -- a true Wall Street guy. In my experience, it's an article of faith among most on Wall Street that conservatism is the True Religion, that global warming is a concoction of the lefties and, therefore, that global warming must be a fabrication.

Put differently, the global warming debate has taken on aspects of a religious one in which many ignore information that contradicts their preconceptions, and seize on information or simple rhetoric -- however tenuous -- that purports to support them. 

In the case of denyers, as long as a single guy with a masters degree in science will raise any question at all, it's "unproven." In the case of Prius-driving, solar powering folk, it seems self-evident that humans are at least contributing significantly to GW.

Would be interested to see any data sets that contradict human-caused global warming, from a source besides, say, Glenn Beck or Wikipedia.


----------



## Mike Connelly

rgames @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> Humans certainly have an impact but it's not clear that halting human CO2 emissions will halt global warming.



But that's not the point. Whether or not there is some natural global warming going on, humans are contributing to global warming (you even admit that) and making it happen to a larger degree than it would otherwise.

If reducing human CO2 emissions slows global warming, that's still a better outcome than not doing it.

And even if climate change wasn't a factor at all, being more energy efficient and moving to more renewable energy sources is a good idea anyway.

Just look at the BP spill. Part of the reason it happened is because drilling in that kind of location is much riskier than previous locations - many of the places that were easier to reach are out of oil so while there's still oil down there, it's going to be harder and harder to get to.


----------



## chimuelo

Glad you thought it was the former.
I need humor in the midst of such serious discussions.
The fury here has motivated me to compose.
But I feel guily for some reason turning on my DAW and Otari deck now........ :cry:


----------



## Ashermusic

I think Tom Friedman frames the argument best in his book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded."

If we reject the possibility that it is at least partly man made and do nothing or little, the consequences are potentially devastating.

If we deal with it by getting cleaner and more efficient, even if it turns out that the man made aspect was overstated and not significant, we have a cleaner and more energy efficient planet with more resources available for other things and we stop giving money to those who hate our values and wish to violently destroy our way of life.


----------



## Narval

Ashermusic @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> If we deal with it by getting cleaner and more efficient, even if it turns out that the man made aspect was overstated and not significant, we have a cleaner and more energy efficient planet with more resources available for other things and we stop giving money to those who hate our values and wish to violently destroy our way of life.


Exactly. It is primarily a moral decision.

I have to admit, - considering some recent disagreements, I am happy to see that we agree on this important matter.

o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

What Jay/Tom F. say is of course completely true. And even the oil companies know that we're going to run out of cheap oil at some point, whether that happens in one or several decades from now.

But I just can't help it - my blood still boils when I read these incredibly frustrating comments about how this hasn't been proven, that it's all for Al Gore (who invented the internet) speaking engagements, that an equal number of scientists predicted global cooling in the '70s therefore this is bogus, that doing anything about it is job-killing and will ruin "the recovery," that the earth's temperature rises and falls anyway (and only liberals find it relevant that these cycles occur over thousands rather tens of years, because they have a socialist agenda), that it's snowing...

Look. You don't have to be a freaking climate scientist to understand the basic point: the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has been rising steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution; the average global temperature has been rising in total lockstep with it.

That is all.

Therefore we need - as NBUK says - massive, global, governmental intervention. Individual efforts to conserve are good, but this is a problem that only top-down leadership can solve.


----------



## chimuelo

I'd like to build the world a home
And furnish it with love
Grow apple trees and honey bees
And snow-white turtle doves

Chorus:
I'd like to teach the world to sing
In perfect harmony
I'd like to hold it in my arms
And keep it company
(That's the song I hear)
I'd like to see the world for once
(Let the world sing today)
All standing hand in hand
And hear them echo through the hills
For peace throughout the land
That's the song I hear
(That's the song I hear)
Let the world sing today
(Let the whole wide world keep singing)
A song of peace that echoes on
And never goes away


----------



## Ashermusic

chimuelo @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> I'd like to build the world a home
> And furnish it with love
> Grow apple trees and honey bees
> And snow-white turtle doves
> 
> Chorus:
> I'd like to teach the world to sing
> In perfect harmony
> I'd like to hold it in my arms
> And keep it company
> (That's the song I hear)
> I'd like to see the world for once
> (Let the world sing today)
> All standing hand in hand
> And hear them echo through the hills
> For peace throughout the land
> That's the song I hear
> (That's the song I hear)
> Let the world sing today
> (Let the whole wide world keep singing)
> A song of peace that echoes on
> And never goes away



Jimmy are you trying to steal the title of forum court jester away from Chocotrax?


----------



## Narval

chimuelo @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> (Let the whole wide world keep singing)


You mean the world wide web, right?

Awesome dude, AWESOME!

:D


----------



## noiseboyuk

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> Therefore we need - as NBUK says - massive, global, governmental intervention. Individual efforts to conserve are good, but this is a problem that only top-down leadership can solve.



I like this NBUK...

With you all way, obviously, but any ideas though, Nick? We seem to be further away than 12 months ago - considerably so, I'd say. I need to see a plausible way forward, and I'm really struggling...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

The plausible way forward is to start with cap and trade in the US, followed by increased government investment. We had some with our stimulus package, but we need much more.

That's plausible. Unfortunately it's very easy politically to oppose everything good, and the Republicans are making a career of it (partly because that's their strategy, partly because they have nothing to offer the country other than lower taxes at the top). What's more, they couldn't care less what they say and have no inhibition against lying like crazy. And since people would rather hear that global warming is a scam than have to worry...

I'm not optimistic. And it's going to get worse if the Republicans take over the Senate in November.

Yes, they really do suck.


----------



## rgames

Mike Connelly @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> And even if climate change wasn't a factor at all, being more energy efficient and moving to more renewable energy sources is a good idea anyway.



Exactly - reducing man-made CO2 emissions is a good idea for a number of reasons. The part I have a problem with is the continuing commentary coming from talking heads that says the science backs it 100%. There is no science, anywhere, that says that. As I mentioned, the National Academy of Sciences report makes that fact very clear:

"the exact magnitude of future climate change and the nature of its impacts will always remain somewhat uncertain."

So, as I've repeated here I think 100 times, go green. It's the right thing to do. But not because there's "irrefutable science" to prove it's the right thing to do.

The reason scientists back reductions in CO2 emissions is not necessarily because they believe man-made global warming is a fact, most back it because it's the logical thing to do. There are good indications that humans have an impact, and the downsides of CO2 reduction are not so severe in their eyes (not true around the world, by the way), so the logical thing to do is to support CO2 reduction. Might not have an effect, but odds are it will.

Again, though: note "odds" in that statement, and in the statement from the NAS report. The odds associated with global warming are not sufficiently high to warrant "science" status., regardless of what Al Gore says.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

The key word is "somewhat" - somewhat uncertain. That doesn't mean it may be all good, it means that it may be even worse than expected due to feedback.

So you're wrong, dammit! The reason all credible scientists believe it's a fact is that it's a fact!

You want to be reasonable, I know, but what you're saying is bullshit. And it has nothing to do with Al Gore.


----------



## Mike Connelly

rgames @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> The part I have a problem with is the continuing commentary coming from talking heads that says the science backs it 100%.



Since when does science have to be 100% certain about something for that position to be valid? While there's a small chance that ANY bit of science can be wrong, that's not a reason to completely toss it out.

Same with the "exact" degree of it not being known. Of course they don't know exactly to what degree it causes it or exactly what will happen, but there are a range of predictions and even the more conservative end of that range is alarming.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

I'm getting too annoyed and rude. Sorry, I'll try not to let Richard's posts get under my skin anymore.


----------



## rgames

Mike Connelly @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> Since when does science have to be 100% certain about something for that position to be valid?



It doesn't - uncertainty is always present. The question is to what degree. Climate change is associated with uncertainties that take it out of the realm of true science. The uncertainty arises from approximations made when those scientific principles are applied to the massively complex system called global climate. You wind up with huge numbers of approximations applied across a huge system, so it is inherently uncertain to a larger degree than actual science.

Again, though, that doesn't mean we shouldn't use it as guidance for public policy, which is your point, and one that I agree with. However, it is *not* sufficiently precise to be called a science!

rgames


----------



## Animus

MacQ @ Wed Jul 28 said:


> Having my intelligence impugned because I refuse to take a popular stance is a little narrow minded though, right?
> 
> There are plenty of things I'd like to see in this whole debate. I'd like to see one of these "computer models of prediction" make an ACCURATE prediction of global average temperature even 6 months out. This current IPCC AGW theory (still just a theory, remember) has more political motivation than environmental.
> 
> I take a pragmatic approach: the world has been much warmer, even in our common era. They used to have vineyards in the north of England. Polar bears survived the Holocene Thermal Maximum ... life adapts. And this would be with several degrees of temperature increase, a trend not even the climate models predict. They're talking more in the range of 1.5 to 3.0 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years. Bearing in mind that these same scientists with this same data were predicting global cooling (or even an impending ice age), and having it reported by the mainstream news media as recently as 1975.
> 
> http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
> 
> If you read that article, you'll see where it talks about a drop in global temperatures, starting in 1945. Wait ... starting immediately after the war, when CO2 production was going full-blast and people were buying all kinds of consumer goods (cars, appliances) ... that's when the temperature went down. (That was also - coincidentally I'm sure - when there was a marked decline in solar sunspot activity.)
> 
> Temperature up, temperature down ... it's nothing we can fix. The sun that provides all of our heat in the first place will dictate our global temperature. We aren't at a level of technological advancement where we can control complex systems (no matter how hard we might try, and how much hubris we have). There was an excellent speech delivered by the late Michael Crichton that pertains specifically to that, using Yellowstone National Park as his anecdotal evidence. (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/video-sp ... onian.html)
> 
> Anyway, I don't have a problem with people getting depressed about the future. I just realize that there's nothing we can do to stop it, because I don't believe we're actually causing it.
> 
> There's an excellent documentary floating around called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". It looks at both the science and politics surrounding the whole issue. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 369613647#)
> 
> As always, analyze the information and form your own opinion. I certainly have. And I'm quite intelligent, thanks.
> 
> ~Stu



I agree with everything you have said. Also, their computer models can't even predicts climate in the past accurately.


----------



## rgames

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> So you're wrong, dammit! The reason all credible scientists believe it's a fact is that it's a fact!



So you're saying the scientists who wrote the NAS report are not credible?

No need to get angry - I'm just providing insight into what the actual scientific community is thinking. That tends not to come through in the media.

Thank me later 

rgames


----------



## Animus

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> The key word is "somewhat" - somewhat uncertain. That doesn't mean it may be all good, it means that it may be even worse than expected due to feedback.
> 
> So you're wrong, dammit! The reason all credible scientists believe it's a fact is that it's a fact!
> 
> You want to be reasonable, I know, but what you're saying is bullshit. And it has nothing to do with Al Gore.



ah yes The Climategate emails certainly shed a new light on these scientists credibility. All I can say is that there is big money in climate change science, a lot of government funding. If I want to study treefrogs in Boliva if I can swing it to the "affects of climate change on the treefrog of Boliva" I would have a much better chance of receiving funding.


----------



## Animus

Animus @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jul 29 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The key word is "somewhat" - somewhat uncertain. That doesn't mean it may be all good, it means that it may be even worse than expected due to feedback.
> 
> So you're wrong, dammit! The reason all credible scientists believe it's a fact is that it's a fact!
> 
> You want to be reasonable, I know, but what you're saying is bullshit. And it has nothing to do with Al Gore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ah yes The Climategate emails certainly shed a new light on these scientists credibility. All I can say is that there is big money in climate change science, a lot of government funding. If I want to study treefrogs in Boliva if I can swing it to the "affects of climate change on the treefrog of Boliva" I would have a much better chance of receiving funding.
Click to expand...


I really appreciate your pragmatism you have displayed in this thread. It's good to have skepticism both way.

Personally, I think we have more to fear from another ice age as we are about due for one. When the ice sheets come down over north america again it will really be game over.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Richard, it is 100% a science. The fact that global climate is highly chaotic and can't be predicted precisely only means that the exact extent of it is unknown.

If you fill a balloon with helium and release it, scientists can't predict exactly how long it will float before popping either. But it's still within the realm of science to predict with certainty that it is surely going to pop.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Richard - you seem to be employing the technique of endlessly repeating a statement, and assuming it will be taken as fact by doing so. This may sound patronising for which I apologise, but I'm not sure it's possible to frame it in any other way - you simply don't understand what science is, or how it works.

I'll try and explain very simply. Science is a method, a process. Scientists make observations and take measurements. They analyse data and come up with theories. These theories are then tested by the community, refined or rejected when refuted. In many parts of science, there are few "certainties". For example, evolution is still technically a theory - it has not been "proven", but it is accepted as - essentially - fact by all serious scientists. Some areas of science, such as theoretical physics, deal almost exclusively in theory. Does Dark Matter even exist? However, it still is open to testing, hence the current Large Hadron Collider project at CERN, and therefore still science. Science also routinely makes predictions on the future based on past observations and scientific understanding... for example, prediction of whether or not a meteor might strike the Earth, or indeed what the weather will be like at 4pm today.

So you are - as a matter of fact - 100% absolutely dead wrong that climate science (hint - look at the name) isn't a science. Do you think ALL the world's major academic scientific institutions - NASA, NAS, NOAA, The Royal Society, The Meteorological Office etc - would issue statements accepting it if it wasn't? There is nothing unique about climate science - it uses the same methods as all other branches of science. Helpfully, the community has actually been able to quantify the confidence in its predictions, through the IPCC process. So, for example, their confidence in current global warming being a) real and b) anthropogenic in origin is >90%. It's not proven. It is not a fact. But through observation and study (the scientific method), we know it currently has a >90% of being accurate. Of course, that means that there is a <10% chance that scientists have got it wrong and there's nothing to worry about. To which one has to employ a very simple thought experiment - if you knew there was a >90% your car would explode on the way home with your kids on board, would you let them get in it?

So to save all our sanities, Richard, please stop with the endless repetition of "climate science isn't a science" nonsense. It makes about as much sense as saying "oranges aren't food", "rocks don't exist" or "horses are actually fish". It is both factually wrong and (please forgive the harshess of tone) it makes you look kinda stupid, which possibly makes people reject everything else you say as well. Clearly much of what you say is perfectly fair and reasonable - why the anomaly here, I wonder?

In other matters - Nick, your post on Cap and Trade above illustrates my point exactly. You look at any plausible way forward, and before 3 logical steps, it falls apart under the weight of reality. That's why I'm so depressed about it these days, I just can't believe in a forward path any more. I need to see a plan that is believable in manageable pragmatic steps, and not reliant on "if all just pull together...."


----------



## George Caplan

Animus @ Thu Jul 29 said:


> Personally, I think we have more to fear from another ice age as we are about due for one. When the ice sheets come down over north america again it will really be game over.



i think thats about right and would certainly help nevada with its water crisis. i was wondering when the us was due to be covered in marsh mallow. then it would really be game over.

i agree with you on the funding issue. its all about funding and always will be. go talk to the science faculty at east anglia university and ask them how their emails are panning out.

warming or cooling is all about bs. its more to do with immigration from poor countries to wealthy ones and over population and thus dwindling resources.


----------



## rgames

noiseboyuk @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> This may sound patronising for which I apologise, but I'm not sure it's possible to frame it in any other way - you simply don't understand what science is, or how it works.



Ok - let's play it that way. I have a Ph.D. in fluid mechanics and I've spent most of my life dealing with science and scientists. I have more than 40 publications in scientific journals, several of which have received peer-selected awards. I have briefed the National Academies of Science and worked with them while working for the federal government. I am familar with their processes and, contrary to what you say, those employed in the broader scientific community.

What qualifications would you say I lack? More importantly, what qualifications do you have that allow you to decide?

Here's the bottom line: we have some indication that human intervention has an effect on the global climate but it's such a complicated system that we can't say with near-certainty (which true science requires) whether changes in human behavior will make temperatures rise or fall.

How does that benchmark compare to that which we place on other branches of science? Take gravitation, for example:

If I hold a ball above the earth and release it, is there uncertainty about whether it will rise or fall?

Of course not. It's science- we can predict with very high precision and accuracy what will happen.

Again, climate science is based on scientific principles but it does not, at present, make predictions that are sufficiently precise to be compared to the predictions from other branches of science.

Therefore, there is no way to back the claim that we know with 100% certainty, or even near-certainty, that human intervention will have any impact on global climate phenomena. *Odds* are it will, but there is no "irrefutable" science that backs that claim.

rgames


----------



## Hannes_F

rgames @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> Ok - let's play it that way. I have a Ph.D. in fluid mechanics



That explains a lot. You are looking at the world with an industry-sympathetic mechanical-materialistic engineering approach. In itself, such an approach can be rather coherent, and due to its positivistic nature from there it usually is not easy to understand that there might be validity in other POVs.

EDIT I should add that positivism is a school of thought that neglects everything, except it was fully proved and explained. As useful as it is for example for engineering or in justice it can be very misleading when dealing with risks. 

A mechanical-materialistic point of view is still typical for sciences that had their peak before 1900, with other words before quantum mechanics taught us a new view on the connectivity of all things.


----------



## wst3

noiseboyuk @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> Science is a method, a process. Scientists make observations and take measurements. They analyse data and come up with theories. These theories are then tested by the community, refined or rejected when refuted. In many parts of science, there are few "certainties".



That is a wonderful, and succinct description of the ideal of science. Sadly, and I'm not agreeing with either party here, science (like so many things) has both evolved and devolved, and the practice of science does not always match the theory (funny how that works<G>!)

About the original post, which we should all be thinking about... the global climate changes over some period of time, we don't really know what that period is yet, and we do not know how much we contribute to the change. We do know there is a change, and that's a pretty good start.

Some of the best and the brightest are working on identifying the period of change, and both natural and man-made influences on the change.

Some of the most corrupt and greedy corporations and governments are also working on it.

There is a popular 'message' going around the internet (though it pre-dates the internet) that there is this sinister group of governments and corporations that wants to control the world. Let's accept that for a moment, even if just for grins...

In an open marketplace (which exists nowhere that I am aware of) everything is governed by supply and demand. In a less-than-open marketplace there are ways to 'manage' supply, and to some extent demand as well, to control prices and profits. And we live in a somewhat less-than-open marketplace here in the US, and really, pretty much everywhere.

Still, there are certain market forces that no one can control.

I get very frustrated when my friends complain about the fossil fuel industry, or the nuclear power industry, and then jump in their humongous SUVs and drive to their McMansions, which are of course climate controlled and well lit. It smacks of either hypocrisy or ignorance, and I"m not sure which.

Fossil fuels are popular because they are relatively inexpensive to procure and to convert to other forms of energy. They are dangerous to procure, but for some odd reason everyone overlooks that fact. And the industry has become a victim of it's own remarkable safety record. They've become over confident, and started to cut corners, partly because it improves profits, and partly because there have been so few big - or even small - accidents.

I spent a little over two weeks on an exploration rig in the North Sea many years ago (cool adventure if nothing else), and there were at least half a dozen minor accidents on the 'my' rig and the sister rig in that short period. These were, at the time, quite new, and the crews were still figuring out how to survive their tours. Fortunately (and that's a relative term too) there were only a couple of fatalities during that period. But it drove home the fact that drilling for oil is dangerous work!

A lot of folks want to dismiss drilling for oil, and coal, oil, and natural gas fired power plants, and nuclear power plants. Fine, but are these people really willing to give up their big homes, big cars, computers<G>, and all the other luxuries that are powered by fossil fuels and nuclear reactions?

At this point someone will suggest that we need to focus on wind and solar power, and maybe hydro-electric power (though it has it opponents too). Fine again, but are they willing to wait till these technologies are capable of replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power? Or are they willing to build damns to harness water power?

Which brings us to the popular conspiracy theory that big oil companies are buying up all the inventions that would make solar or wind power practical.

I can only speak for my experience as a U.S. citizen, but around here people are pretty darned greedy. And I say that as a descriptor, not an insult.

Case A: You invent a technology that would eliminate the need for fossil fuels, even on a small scale. An evil corporation offers you millions of dollars for your invention. More than likely you are going to recognize that if they are willing to offer you that much, you can make even more bringing the concept to market. Which would you choose?

Yes, maybe they try to convince you that your idea is worthless (then why are they paying you?) or that they'll be able to bring the idea to market more quickly (which could even be true, but why would you care?), or maybe they threaten you. Sorry, that last part might work once, even twice, but a massive conspiracy? I don't know.

AND, what are the odds that if one evil, greedy corporation is offering you money that you can't at least create a bidding war? At which point the cat will escape from the bag, and it's game over for the big evil corporations.

Case B: A big evil corporation succeeds in buying your idea. Now they have a way to make even more money. Do they stick by their old standby? No, they are going to bring the idea to market so that they can maximize their profits.

Feel free to offer counter-cases, but thus far the only logical reason that adequately explains why we don't have cheap, renewable energy is that we haven't figured out how to do it yet.

Are we expending enough resources (time, money, minds) to solve the problem? Probably not, and that's where we need to start.

And it wouldn't hurt any of us to reduce our own energy consumption at least a little.

How does one tell the difference?


----------



## rgames

Didn't explicitly address this above but it's important:

The reason the "science vs. not science" issue is so important is because it's being used as the basis of VERY far-reaching public policy decisions.

When you tell people "it's scientific fact" it carries a weight that is not appropriate for our understanding of global climate change. Therefore, the public is being misinformed when that happens and their decisions are summarily misguided.

The whole debate has become highly politicized. But we need to make the decision based on the actual information, not the politicized information.

Remember Bush/Iraq/WMD?

rgames


----------



## Ashermusic

Once again, when there is at least SOME division amongst the scientists, regardless of the degree, you must look at the upside and downside of pursuing a public policy.

Even if man turns out to be a tiny factor in the issue of climate change, reducing the causes of our pollution and dependency on fossil fuels has such a strong upside in our health and security and so little downside as to be clearly the right path.

The problem is getting the votes in Congress to fund it with so many lobbyists trying to prevent it.


----------



## JohnG

Bush/Iraq/WMD indeed is a cautionary tale.

I can't help asking, though, to those who question whether global warming is a serious issue.

1. What data have you seen, or which scientific experts have persuaded you that this is not an issue, when actually even W agreed that it is?

2. Just because scientists can't predict with certainty whether temperatures threaten to rise x degrees or up to 5x degrees, doesn't that still mean that the consensus is that it's "real bad?"

3. Are you persuaded that there's enough money in "promoting" global warming (and some secret, organised, enormously well-funded group that is doing so), sufficient to offset the stupendous effort that the oil industry's furious efforts to muddy the waters over the science of global warming? The energy lobby is staggeringly well-funded and well organised. It has been able to wring tax breaks that dwarf even those enjoyed by the defense and banking industries. By contrast, the green lobby is fragmented and barely profitable.

4. What is the rebuttal to the Pascal point from Mr. Grantham (quoted below)? 

"Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an infinite loss? And, he answers, 'Infinite.' In this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth –- 2% to 4% or less."

I am genuinely mystified about what is so controversial, given that the uncertainty is only about the degree of global warming, not whether or not it's happening. Even Dick Cheney said, in 2007 (which is a long time ago as far as this debate is concerned):

"I think there's an emerging consensus that we do have global warming. You can look at the data on that, and I think clearly we're in a period of warming. Where there does not appear to be a consensus, where it begins to break down, is the extent to which that's part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man, greenhouse gases, et cetera."

-- Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview, February 2007

This is from the guy accused of quashing scientists' conclusions on health effects of global warming ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/washi ... nviro.html ) so his acknowledgement that at least GW exists and the main question is "the extent" to which it's caused by humans, not whether or not human activity contributes to it would, I think, remove an important part of the debate.


----------



## noiseboyuk

rgames @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Fri Jul 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may sound patronising for which I apologise, but I'm not sure it's possible to frame it in any other way - you simply don't understand what science is, or how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok - let's play it that way. I have a Ph.D. in fluid mechanics and I've spent most of my life dealing with science and scientists. I have more than 40 publications in scientific journals, several of which have received peer-selected awards. I have briefed the National Academies of Science and worked with them while working for the federal government. I am familar with their processes and, contrary to what you say, those employed in the broader scientific community.
> 
> What qualifications would you say I lack? More importantly, what qualifications do you have that allow you to decide?
> 
> Here's the bottom line: we have some indication that human intervention has an effect on the global climate but it's such a complicated system that we can't say with near-certainty (which true science requires) whether changes in human behavior will make temperatures rise or fall.
> 
> How does that benchmark compare to that which we place on other branches of science? Take gravitation, for example:
> 
> If I hold a ball above the earth and release it, is there uncertainty about whether it will rise or fall?
> 
> Of course not. It's science- we can predict with very high precision and accuracy what will happen.
> 
> Again, climate science is based on scientific principles but it does not, at present, make predictions that are sufficiently precise to be compared to the predictions from other branches of science.
> 
> Therefore, there is no way to back the claim that we know with 100% certainty, or even near-certainty, that human intervention will have any impact on global climate phenomena. *Odds* are it will, but there is no "irrefutable" science that backs that claim.
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


It gets ever more extraordinary! Like others who replied, I'm totally baffled at your own personal definition of science, which seems to mean the same thing as the word "facts". So gravity is science, and evolution isn't. String theory - certainly not science. In fact, by this logic no theory can be science. Is this really what you think? Is any scientific theory a contradiction in terms? Unless something is proven beyond any doubt whatsoever, is it all folklore? I'm genuinely fascinated to know the answers to these questions...

And tell me - what's the difference in your eyes between climate science and, say, theoretical physics? Is the latter a valid science? If so, why?

Could you point us to somewhere - anywhere - which is a reputable organsiation or even dictionary that equates the word "science" with the word "fact"? Is the so-called scientific METHOD merely useless folklore until actually proven, at which point it magically gains scientific status?

No point in repeating all my previous post with regards to certainties and probabilities (>90% in the case of climate change), but it all still very much applies...


----------



## ChrisAxia

I have skimmed through this interesting thread and while the evidence for man made global warming is not as strong as some would have us believe, of course we should try to live 'greener' lives. Someone mentioned a documentary "the great global warming swindle". I found it an extremely compelling argument with many reputable scientists speaking against the man made global warming camp. 

The most fascinating evidence was the fact that when Al Gore showed the graph with temperature and CO2 and how closely one followed the other, what he did not say was that the CO2 level lagged behind the earth's temperature by several hundred years!

I have not seen this evidence refuted and if correct this clearly implies that the CO2 level increases as a result of the earth warming up, not the other way round. Again, I agree we cannot afford not to act, but sometimes I almost feel that by convincing us that CO2 is 'the devil' we forget other truly toxic chemicals that are in our food chain and our water and I think many companies are using this to their advantage. 

Just my 2 pence worth. 

Chris


----------



## noiseboyuk

ChrisAxia @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> I have skimmed through this interesting thread and while the evidence for man made global warming is not as strong as some would have us believe, of course we should try to live 'greener' lives. Someone mentioned a documentary "the great global warming swindle". I found it an extremely compelling argument with many reputable scientists speaking against the man made global warming camp.
> 
> The most fascinating evidence was the fact that when Al Gore showed the graph with temperature and CO2 and how closely one followed the other, what he did not say was that the CO2 level lagged behind the earth's temperature by several hundred years!
> 
> I have not seen this evidence refuted and if correct this clearly implies that the CO2 level increases as a result of the earth warming up, not the other way round. Again, I agree we cannot afford not to act, but sometimes I almost feel that by convincing us that CO2 is 'the devil' we forget other truly toxic chemicals that are in our food chain and our water and I think many companies are using this to their advantage.
> 
> Just my 2 pence worth.
> 
> Chris



Oh my Lord, that documentary was an absolute shocker. Contributors went on the public record to say they were misrepresented - graphs were literally invented (and attributed to NASA), other graphs were adjusted and cherry picked (especially the Solar forcing one).

As for the CO2 lag - what the documentary (strangely) didn't tell you was that this has been known and understood for years, and is 100% uncontroversial. CO2 acts as a feeback agent. The planet warms, so more CO2 is generated which warms further. If we put more CO2 there ourselves, it warms. Whether or not CO2 leads, it warms further. Gore was spot on - unlike Martin Durkin.

Wikipedia has a decent summary of the many fundamental errors in the doc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Swindle. The director, Durkin, has a bizarre and fascinating history of making things up and breaching broadcasting codes in documentaries - well worth a read too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dur ... n_director)). It's sad but inevitable that opnions are based on ludicrous TV shows like this and the notorious Loose Change, but that's inevitable I guess.


----------



## Ashermusic

This is the problem we face today. With CGI and digital editing it is now possible to make any scenario and theory appear plausible. Given some time and money, I could probably have a documentary made that would seem to conclusively prove that the WTC was blown up by a rouge group of Icelanders and a lot of people would accept it as fact.

You have to weigh the sources of your information carefully and decide how much credibility they really deserve to have. Sadly, most will choose to assign the most credibility to those who re-enforce what they already believe.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Especially if you're a scientist, Richard, I really don't understand how you can possibly have your heart in that absurd argument.

What's political about digging up freaking ice cores and making a 1:1 comparison to average global temperatures over time?


----------



## Narval

rgames @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> The reason the "science vs. not science" issue is so important is because it's being used as the basis of VERY far-reaching public policy decisions.
> 
> When you tell people "it's scientific fact" it carries a weight that is not appropriate for our understanding of global climate change. Therefore, the public is being misinformed when that happens and their decisions are summarily misguided.
> 
> The whole debate has become highly politicized. But we need to make the decision based on the actual information, not the politicized information.


And this is the crux of the problem. When the information doesn't come already politicized, "the public" will politicize it. People understand whatever they understand, then they form beliefs out of their understanding, then those beliefs become political pressures. And then the political leaders come out and say one of these two: 

A - "You guys don't know shit, you're so stupid and uneducated you don't even know what science is, so you better do what we say for we know better. Now go back to your work and beer and tv and shopping."
or
B - "Our mission and political mandate is to serve the public and go along with their beliefs, so there you have it. Love and kisses."



> Remember Bush/Iraq/WMD?


That's case A, isn't it? Scary. Yet, imho, case B is a bit less scary. In politics, "the public" is always right. If they (by "they" I mean the majority) want legalized pot, let them have it. If they want free music downloads, let them have it. If they want daytime tv porn, let them have it. Give the masses what they want. They will vote for you again. :wink: 

Fwiw, I think Richard's point is valid. But then again, downright honesty, when it goes against the main stream, is not very popular.


----------



## rgames

Need to summarize a few points here because they seem to have been lost in the dicsussion:

1. The earth is getting warmer. I agree. Let's call that a fact.
2. Humans are making the earth warmer. I agree. Let's also call that a fact.
3. The earth can also get warmer due to natural phenomena. Fact #3.

Unfortunately, that's where the facts end. My comments take those facts and add these warnings:

4. There are many branches of science where we have a deep understanding and can predict, with high precision and accuracy, how a physical system will behave. Gravity, quantum mechanics, and relativity are good examlpes.

5. There are many branches of science where our understanding is much less deep. Climate science is an example - it is subject to huge uncertainties as compared to the "hard" sciences mentioned in #4.

6. Even though #2 is true, our understanding of climate science indicates that human-generated CO2 emissions are probably responsible for global warming (not factually, but probably - important distinction).

7. HOWEVER, since the implications of #6 are so huge, and since it is a conclusion that will guide so many public policy decisions, we need to make certain that people understand that it is a conclusion not based on hard science. Therefore, it is subject to a much higher defree of uncertainty.

8. Repeat of #7 said a different way to drive home the point: there is still significant uncertainty, the fact that the result is guiding public policy must take that into account.

The bottom line is that people use science as a justification for a lot of things. They need to understand what that means. Climate science IS NOT a science like gravity, quantum mechanics, or relativity. Its conclusions are not so well validated.

As such, public policy decisions need to consider that fact.

Again, the national academies made exactly that point in their latest report. This is not just me making this comment: there is a huge collection of scientists who have made a point to explain the same fact. Unfortunately, the media seem to miss that fact.

Again: GO GREEN. It's the right thing to do, but, again, not because there's hard science to prove it. It's an odds game.

Just be aware that your public policy is being decided based on those odds.

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Unpopular downright honesty that goes against the mainstream can also be totally invalid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> there is still significant uncertainty



And that right there is the problem: you are attempting to build a high-rise building on a foundation left behind by goats. There is zero chance that human activities are not to blame.*

And please don't bother saying what I expect you to say: that anyone who says that is closed-minded. No. It's closed-minded not to believe the blatant, overwhelming evidence that we are causing the earth to overheat.

*What is uncertain is how bad it's going to get - knowing that it's going to get bad - and whether we've reached the tipping point.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Now to advance the discussion (now that everyone agrees with me): what is the right thing to do?

Given that the biggest obstacle is political conservatives - and by the way Richard suffers from a raging case of that, despite his feeble pretense that he's actually reasonable- we have to make the right moves toward the next energy economy. If we make the wrong moves then it will open the way for bumper sticker brains to say that no change was necessary in the first place.

(It's exactly the same as these horrible asses who are trying to say that since the unemployment rate is over the predicted 8%, the stimulus wasn't needed and therefore we need more Republicans. Why are people so freaking stupid?)

Anyway, that's why I say cap and trade is a good first step. We still need massive government funding for research (because the "free market" has a lot of blind spots), but at least there's an economic incentive for companies to develop cleaner technologies.


----------



## Narval

rgames @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> Again: GO GREEN. It's the right thing to do, but


No but. "It's the right thing to do" period.  

The difficulty starts when setting the border: how much dirt is acceptable? Where does the unacceptable begin and why? And here is the point where different worldviews do clash, both swearing on science. It's all political bullshit and we know it. However, no matter what, clean is better than dirty - even at the price of less wealth. Now, how clean is clean enough? I would leave that to common sense. Fortunately Canada is a pretty clean place, like many other countries.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Well Richard, I'm glad that climate science is a science again, albeit not "hard" (proper) science. IMHO you're still attempting to draw a rather specious distinction between different fields of science which feel like you might alternately label them "good" and "bad" science, which perhaps seems to be dependent on the ratio of proven facts to theories.

Your numbers 6 and 7 are pretty tricksy. Number 6 I have no problem with, seems factually accurate. But then you seem to want to change the rules with number 7. I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it. Climate science IS science. It has used the scientific method, and come to a conclusion with a greater than 90% certainty. But you can't then denigrate that with a footnote that says "yeah, but its not hard science". That's what the 90% already means, otherwise it's intellectual double counting. 90% is 90% - period.

Final observation - the IPCC's reports for policymakers were very explicit in terms of quantifying probabilities to their own projections. So nothing new about NAS or anyone else pointing this out - the whole scientific community understands this very basic and obvious point.


----------



## chimuelo

Political Conservatives have zero power and can't stop a bill without the Democrats that are pretending to be Conservative.
Its like a composer whining he can't finish a project without 64bit apps. Much easier blaming your lack of progress on a piece of software instead of your compostional skills, or in this case lack of poiltical leadership.

Sadly the people of the World will never unite to clean the enviroment.
However there is a way........

Al Gore and the IPCC were on a roll for a while, but sadly the all knowing geniuses at the IPCC forgot about the free firewall, and trusted a cheap crappy ISP.
Get a skillful liar like Obama and various leaders and scientists from every country in the world, and wait for the next near Earth Asteroid.
Then claim that we have 3 years to prepare a counter measure so the world can for once in its history unite. Then after 3 years of Global unification and a staged/fake rescue by supposedly changing the trajectory, the vast taxation over a 3 year period can be used to start a new global partnership.
I can see it now.
Obama in a Space Suit with the SEIU Logo on it and various corporate sponsors providing the patches. Videos of the daring Spacewalk adjusting instruments on the fake Death Ray satellite...etc.
Obama can return a world hero.
Its the only way.
And if it all goes wrong we can blame it on Bush, and other evil Conservatives.


----------



## Animus

noiseboyuk @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> ChrisAxia @ Fri Jul 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have skimmed through this interesting thread and while the evidence for man made global warming is not as strong as some would have us believe, of course we should try to live 'greener' lives. Someone mentioned a documentary "the great global warming swindle". I found it an extremely compelling argument with many reputable scientists speaking against the man made global warming camp.
> 
> The most fascinating evidence was the fact that when Al Gore showed the graph with temperature and CO2 and how closely one followed the other, what he did not say was that the CO2 level lagged behind the earth's temperature by several hundred years!
> 
> I have not seen this evidence refuted and if correct this clearly implies that the CO2 level increases as a result of the earth warming up, not the other way round. Again, I agree we cannot afford not to act, but sometimes I almost feel that by convincing us that CO2 is 'the devil' we forget other truly toxic chemicals that are in our food chain and our water and I think many companies are using this to their advantage.
> 
> Just my 2 pence worth.
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my Lord, that documentary was an absolute shocker. Contributors went on the public record to say they were misrepresented - graphs were literally invented (and attributed to NASA), other graphs were adjusted and cherry picked (especially the Solar forcing one).
> 
> As for the CO2 lag - what the documentary (strangely) didn't tell you was that this has been known and understood for years, and is 100% uncontroversial. CO2 acts as a feeback agent. The planet warms, so more CO2 is generated which warms further. If we put more CO2 there ourselves, it warms. Whether or not CO2 leads, it warms further. Gore was spot on - unlike Martin Durkin.
> 
> Wikipedia has a decent summary of the many fundamental errors in the doc - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Swindle. The director, Durkin, has a bizarre and fascinating history of making things up and breaching broadcasting codes in documentaries - well worth a read too - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Durkin_(television_director (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dur ... n_director)). It's sad but inevitable that opnions are based on ludicrous TV shows like this and the notorious Loose Change, but that's inevitable I guess.
Click to expand...


Funny that you are holding the anti-global warming documentary to such a high standard yet you treat Al Gore's travesty as dogma even despite it's incredible flaws.


----------



## JohnG

which are?

by the way it's "its" in that context, not "it's."


----------



## Animus

JohnG @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> which are?
> 
> by the way it's "its" in that context, not "it's."




Next time I am in a spelling be or erudition contest I will be sure to call JohnG from the vi control internet forum as one of my lifelines. You have done me a great service by setting me straight on a internet forum post errata. I will get that corrected right away. Good work! If you smart guys keep this up I am confident you will get this global warming thing licked. Making the world better, one grammar mistake at a time. o-[][]-o


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Political Conservatives have zero power and can't stop a bill without the Democrats that are pretending to be Conservative.



I see the world as being like that only inside out. Political conservatives can easily stop everything, since they can filibuster in the Senate and shriek about death camps (and that ilk) all over the Faux News empire. And the Democrats for the most part really are conservative; the Republicans are totally insane. Meanwhile every politician has to kiss the ass of the holy memory of Saint Reagan.

Plus they have the political advantages that a) their ridiculous arguments are much easier to fit on a bumper sticker than reality is, b) their idiotic arguments - such as "tax cuts pay for themselves but non-military spending is a drain" - are appealing to people who don't like to pay taxes and will donate generously, c) it's much easier to oppose than it is to pass constructive legislation, d) etc. etc. etc.


----------



## rgames

JohnG @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> which are?



... many

Look - I agree with the recommendations that Gore promotes in his documentary but it is, overall, a piece of politically motivated trash.

Here are the two failings I find most egregious:

1. In his documentary, Gore states that the 1990's are the hottest decade on record. Not true - someone caught that error and NASA issued a correction to the data that Gore used. Now the hottest decade on record is the 1930's. Where's Gore with his mia culpa?

2. In his documentary, Gore shows a plot of temperature variation that only includes the last 100 - 200 years or something like that. If you believe the science, the earth has been as warm or warmer in the past but in the range outside of the data that Gore presented. If he had included those data in his plot, it would have been less dramatic and shown that we're basically in line with historical maxima. That begs the question: what was his motivation in presenting the data?

Climate change is a problem. It needs to be addressed. Using Gore's documentary as a basis for that change is unjustifiable. It's mostly crap.

If someone had produced a legitimate documentary, we would be much further along in getting climate change addressed because the right wouldn't have as much fodder to use against the left. Gore did more to set us back than to move us forward.

rgames


----------



## Animus

rgames @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> JohnG @ Fri Jul 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> which are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... many
> 
> Look - I agree with the recommendations that Gore promotes in his documentary but it is, overall, a piece of politically motivated trash.
> 
> Here are the two failings I find most egregious:
> 
> 1. In his documentary, Gore states that the 1990's are the hottest decade on record. Not true - someone caught that error and NASA issued a correction to the data that Gore used. Now the hottest decade on record is the 1930's. Where's Gore with his mia culpa?
> 
> 2. In his documentary, Gore shows a plot of temperature variation that only includes the last 100 - 200 years or something like that. If you believe the science, the earth has been as warm or warmer in the past but in the range outside of the data that Gore presented. If he had included those data in his plot, it would have been less dramatic and shown that we're basically in line with historical maxima. That begs the question: what was his motivation in presenting the data?
> 
> Climate change is a problem. It needs to be addressed. Using Gore's documentary as a basis for that change is unjustifiable. It's mostly crap.
> 
> If someone had produced a legitimate documentary, we would be much further along in getting climate change addressed because the right wouldn't have as much fodder to use against the left. Gore did more to set us back than to move us forward.
> 
> rgames
Click to expand...


Al Goreloni is a total charlatan. Doesn't seem to be to concerned about the environment and rising sea levels to have just bought "another" 9 million dollar mansion on the oceanfront that has 9 bathrooms, spa, fountains etc. He's setup to profit nicely from global warming so why not reap the rewards. Besides he needs the extra space to house his mistresses as he jets around the world spreading the gospel.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

The '30s was the warmest decade?!

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249

What the hell are you talking about, Richard?

Just look at the graphs on the NASA site. They're very simple and you have to be totally deluded to argue that there's the least possible doubt about what's going on.


http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


They also have a page about what actually is uncertain:

http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/


----------



## Animus

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> The '30s was the warmest decade?!
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?NewsID=249
> 
> What the hell are you talking about, Richard?
> 
> Just look at the graphs on the NASA site. They're very simple and you have to be totally deluded to argue that there's the least possible doubt about what's going on.
> 
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> 
> 
> They also have a page about what actually is uncertain:
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/



1934 (which was 1998) was the hottest year on record in the US only, and were the numbers NASA corrected. Not global. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt

Also take into account, temperature records were only reliably recorded since the 1880's.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Global temperatures are noisy signals. What's relevant is the trend.


----------



## Animus

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> Global temperatures are noisy signals. What's relevant is the trend.



Or the spin.


----------



## rgames

Animus @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> 1934 (which was 1998) was the hottest year on record in the US only, and were the numbers NASA corrected. Not global. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt



That's the part I forgot to include in my comment above - Gore's documentary made the claim on the basis of US temperature, not global temperature.

Those are the data that were corrected and made Gore's claim false.

However, it had almost no impact on the numbers for global climate - that's the part the far right misses and why Gore should have kept his mouth shut.

There are two bigger lessons here:

1. Politicians use science for political purposes.
2. The numbers that make the case for global warming are EXTREMELY sensitive to the manner in which they are analyzed and presented. So, small differences in analysis technique can lead to large differences in results.

Form your opinions accordingly 

rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

How sensitive are the numbers showing the unprecedented rise in CO2 concentration and corresponding rise in global temperature?

Look at the charts on the NASA site. There's nothing ambiguous there.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Animus @ Fri Jul 30 said:


> Funny that you are holding the anti-global warming documentary to such a high standard yet you treat Al Gore's travesty as dogma even despite it's incredible flaws.



And, my friends, that sort of pathetic, intellectually sub-zero comment is what happens on all internet debates on global warming.

I made 1 comment on this thead on the Gore film that his presentation of the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature was factually accurate. Now me making that one statement apparently means I worship Gore and am blind to the film's flaws. And here's the killer implication - all we have to judge climate change are two documentaries, one says one thing and one says another so the jury's out, huh?

That comment, Animus, speaks volumes about you, unfortunately.

It's the SCIENCE. What does the SCIENCE say? FWIW Gore clearly got some things wrong in An Inconvenient Truth... it's far from perfect. The biggest was the risk of the global conveyer stopping. Sure it's a theoretical risk, but current science puts this as extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. He made other errors, such as using Kilimanjiro as an example for receeding snow. But - and this is crucial - the basic science is presented accurately (and, imho, effectively) and is consistent with our current knowledge of climate science.

Unlike the basic science is GGWS. Totally made up statements are presented as fact, such as "volcanos emissions dwarf the CO2 output of humans". The correct number is, on average, 1% of anthropogenic emissions. Pretty much every scientific measurement and accusation within that documentary has been debunked by the people who are qualified to know.

Global temperatures - the trend is all. Currently, this year is considered the warmest of all time globally by 2 out of 3 organisations that are measuring it. That's pretty worrying considering that the sun is currently at low activity (as all the deniers reminded us in 2008, a RELATIVELY cool one, but still at that point the 9th warmest of all time) , so we should be experiencing cooler years. But it's far less important than all 304 of the previous months are warmer than the 20th Century average monthly equivalents. That's a trend, and it's trends that matter, not bickering over single freak years such as 1998 and 1934.

But - and I really should end every post on this subject with this - people believe whatever they want to believe. And people don't want to believe in AGW. As Animus shows, scientific evidence doesn't matter, cheap point scoring does. The basic tactic of the deniers is to throw enough shit out there, and hope some of it sticks. And you know what, it's very effective.... cos by and large people hear a lot of noise, can't be bothered to sift through all the crap, get bored and don't care any more.

And yet, strangely, the world keeps getting hotter. Oh well.


----------



## ChrisAxia

Seems many people here have done much research into this. I must admit that the GGWS swayed me in that direction but apparently much of it has been discredited. I accept this but there did appear to be several highly respected scientists talking against AGW. It's no wonder many people don't know what to believe!

I am not one of those who believes what he wants to believe. I like to be given the facts and then come to my own logical conclusion. It's unfortunate that in this case very few of us really have all the facts unless we really dig in to the research ourselves. 

Still as has been universally said, we have the incentive we need to 'clean up' our global act. 

Chris


----------



## noiseboyuk

ChrisAxia @ Sat Jul 31 said:


> Seems many people here have done much research into this. I must admit that the GGWS swayed me in that direction but apparently much of it has been discredited. I accept this but there did appear to be several highly respected scientists talking against AGW. It's no wonder many people don't know what to believe!
> 
> I am not one of those who believes what he wants to believe. I like to be given the facts and then come to my own logical conclusion. It's unfortunate that in this case very few of us really have all the facts unless we really dig in to the research ourselves.
> 
> Still as has been universally said, we have the incentive we need to 'clean up' our global act.
> 
> Chris



Fair comments Chris... believe it or not, I do absolutely sympathise with those who are genuinely trying to see what's what amid the noise. Like Nick, I guess, I can see red when I read stuff that's just stupid baiting or lazy.

I guess just as you can find a few scientists who don't accept evolutionary theory, there are a few who doubt AGW. There are a handful of prominent climate scientists who hold a more contrarian line - even here most accept the basics but largely quibble about the uncertainties. Perhaps the simplest thing for us laymen and women is that study last month, which showed that 97% of climate scientists accept AGW theory... it's a high enough percentage for me!


----------



## Animus

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Jul 31 said:


> How sensitive are the numbers showing the unprecedented rise in CO2 concentration and corresponding rise in global temperature?
> 
> Look at the charts on the NASA site. There's nothing ambiguous there.



Correlation is not causation.


----------



## Animus

noiseboyuk @ Sat Jul 31 said:


> Animus @ Fri Jul 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that you are holding the anti-global warming documentary to such a high standard yet you treat Al Gore's travesty as dogma even despite it's incredible flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, my friends, that sort of pathetic, intellectually sub-zero comment is what happens on all internet debates on global warming.
> 
> I made 1 comment on this thead on the Gore film that his presentation of the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature was factually accurate. Now me making that one statement apparently means I worship Gore and am blind to the film's flaws. And here's the killer implication - all we have to judge climate change are two documentaries, one says one thing and one says another so the jury's out, huh?
> 
> That comment, Animus, speaks volumes about you, unfortunately.
> 
> It's the SCIENCE. What does the SCIENCE say? FWIW Gore clearly got some things wrong in An Inconvenient Truth... it's far from perfect. The biggest was the risk of the global conveyer stopping. Sure it's a theoretical risk, but current science puts this as extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. He made other errors, such as using Kilimanjiro as an example for receeding snow. But - and this is crucial - the basic science is presented accurately (and, imho, effectively) and is consistent with our current knowledge of climate science.
> 
> Unlike the basic science is GGWS. Totally made up statements are presented as fact, such as "volcanos emissions dwarf the CO2 output of humans". The correct number is, on average, 1% of anthropogenic emissions. Pretty much every scientific measurement and accusation within that documentary has been debunked by the people who are qualified to know.
> 
> Global temperatures - the trend is all. Currently, this year is considered the warmest of all time globally by 2 out of 3 organisations that are measuring it. That's pretty worrying considering that the sun is currently at low activity (as all the deniers reminded us in 2008, a RELATIVELY cool one, but still at that point the 9th warmest of all time) , so we should be experiencing cooler years. But it's far less important than all 304 of the previous months are warmer than the 20th Century average monthly equivalents. That's a trend, and it's trends that matter, not bickering over single freak years such as 1998 and 1934.
> 
> But - and I really should end every post on this subject with this - people believe whatever they want to believe. And people don't want to believe in AGW. As Animus shows, scientific evidence doesn't matter, cheap point scoring does. The basic tactic of the deniers is to throw enough shit out there, and hope some of it sticks. And you know what, it's very effective.... cos by and large people hear a lot of noise, can't be bothered to sift through all the crap, get bored and don't care any more.
> 
> And yet, strangely, the world keeps getting hotter. Oh well.
Click to expand...




Way to make it personal dude.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html)


----------



## noiseboyuk

Animus @ Sat Jul 31 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Sat Jul 31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Animus @ Fri Jul 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that you are holding the anti-global warming documentary to such a high standard yet you treat Al Gore's travesty as dogma even despite it's incredible flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, my friends, that sort of pathetic, intellectually sub-zero comment is what happens on all internet debates on global warming.
> 
> I made 1 comment on this thead on the Gore film that his presentation of the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature was factually accurate. Now me making that one statement apparently means I worship Gore and am blind to the film's flaws. And here's the killer implication - all we have to judge climate change are two documentaries, one says one thing and one says another so the jury's out, huh?
> 
> That comment, Animus, speaks volumes about you, unfortunately.
> 
> It's the SCIENCE. What does the SCIENCE say? FWIW Gore clearly got some things wrong in An Inconvenient Truth... it's far from perfect. The biggest was the risk of the global conveyer stopping. Sure it's a theoretical risk, but current science puts this as extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. He made other errors, such as using Kilimanjiro as an example for receeding snow. But - and this is crucial - the basic science is presented accurately (and, imho, effectively) and is consistent with our current knowledge of climate science.
> 
> Unlike the basic science is GGWS. Totally made up statements are presented as fact, such as "volcanos emissions dwarf the CO2 output of humans". The correct number is, on average, 1% of anthropogenic emissions. Pretty much every scientific measurement and accusation within that documentary has been debunked by the people who are qualified to know.
> 
> Global temperatures - the trend is all. Currently, this year is considered the warmest of all time globally by 2 out of 3 organisations that are measuring it. That's pretty worrying considering that the sun is currently at low activity (as all the deniers reminded us in 2008, a RELATIVELY cool one, but still at that point the 9th warmest of all time) , so we should be experiencing cooler years. But it's far less important than all 304 of the previous months are warmer than the 20th Century average monthly equivalents. That's a trend, and it's trends that matter, not bickering over single freak years such as 1998 and 1934.
> 
> But - and I really should end every post on this subject with this - people believe whatever they want to believe. And people don't want to believe in AGW. As Animus shows, scientific evidence doesn't matter, cheap point scoring does. The basic tactic of the deniers is to throw enough shit out there, and hope some of it sticks. And you know what, it's very effective.... cos by and large people hear a lot of noise, can't be bothered to sift through all the crap, get bored and don't care any more.
> 
> And yet, strangely, the world keeps getting hotter. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to make it personal dude.
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html)
Click to expand...


Well yeah - I took it personally that you assume I blindly accept anything.

And sorry to say - here go the website links from lobby groups featuring notorious cranks like Monckton.


----------



## chimuelo

You are stupid..........I am smart. 
I am right...............you are wrong. 
You are Black......I am white. 
You are left.......I am right.. 

Can you guys see how effective the bought and paid for media has done its job...? 
Forcing one to make a choice. And of course they set the stage and options of choice not you, you are helpless and stupid without their various proffessors wagging their fingers saying head my way. 

Instead of Parroting graphs and links of someone elses ideas ask yourself if you can remember how bad tha air was somewhere. 
Most of my family was born in California and half of La Familia is still there. but when I last visited Deep Creek over looking Rialto up by Big Bear and Arrowhead I could see the city at sunrise, it was beautiful. 
In the late 60's aòùT   Þ¹8ùT   Þ¹9ùT   Þ¹:ùT   Þ¹;ùT   Þ¹<ùT   Þ¹=ùT   Þ¹>ùT   Þ¹?ùT   Þ¹@ùT   Þ¹AùT   Þ¹BùT   Þ¹CùU   Þ¹zùU   Þ¹{ùU   Þ¹|ùU   Þ¹}ùU   Þ¹~ùU   Þ¹ùU   Þ¹€ùU   Þ¹ùU   Þ¹‚ùU   Þ¹ƒùU   Þ¹„ùU   Þ¹…ùU   Þ¹†ùU   Þ¹‡ùU   Þ¹ˆùU   Þ¹‰ùU   Þ¹ŠùU   Þ¹‹ùU   Þ¹ŒùU   Þ¹ùU   Þ¹ŽùU   Þ¹ùU   Þ¹ùU   Þ¹‘ùU   Þ¹’ùU   Þ¹“ùU   Þ¹”ùU   Þ¹•ùU   Þ¹–ùU   Þ¹—ùV   Þ¹˜ùV   Þ¹™ùV   Þ¹šùV   Þ¹›ùV   Þ¹œùV   Þ¹ùV   Þ¹žùV   Þ¹ŸùW   Þ¹ ùW   Þ¹¡ùW   Þ¹¢ùW   Þ¹£ùW   Þ¹¤ùW   Þ¹¥ùW   Þ¹¦ùW   Þ¹§ùW   Þ¹¨ùW   Þ¹©ùX   Þ¹ªùX   Þ¹«ùX   Þ¹¬ùX   Þ¹­ùX   Þ¹®ùX   Þ¹¯ùX   Þ¹ÔùX   Þ¹ÕùX   Þ¹ÖùX   Þ¹×ùX   Þ¹ØùX   Þ¹ÙùY   Þ¹°ùY   Þ¹±ùY   Þ¹²ùY   Þ¹³ùY   Þ¹´ùY   Þ¹µùY   Þ¹¶ùY   Þ¹·ùY   Þ¹¸ùY   Þ¹¹ùY   Þ¹ºùY   Þ¹»ùY   Þ¹¼ùY   Þ¹½ùY   Þ¹¾ùY   Þ¹¿ùY   Þ¹ÀùY   Þ¹ÁùY   Þ¹ÂùY   Þ¹ÃùY   Þ¹ÄùY   Þ¹ÅùY   Þ¹ÆùY   Þ¹ÇùY   Þ¹ÈùY   Þ¹ÉùY   Þ¹ÊùY   Þ¹ËùY   Þ¹Ì


----------



## Evan Gamble

chimuelo @ Sat Jul 31 said:


> You are stupid..........I am smart.
> I am right...............you are wrong.
> You are Black......I am white.
> You are left.......I am right..
> 
> Can you guys see how effective the bought and paid for media has done its job...?
> Forcing one to make a choice. And of course they set the stage and options of choice not you, you are helpless and stupid without their various proffessors wagging their fingers saying head my way.
> 
> Instead of Parroting graphs and links of someone elses ideas ask yourself if you can remember how bad tha air was somewhere.
> Most of my family was born in California and half of La Familia is still there. but when I last visited Deep Creek over looking Rialto up by Big Bear and Arrowhead I could see the city at sunrise, it was beautiful.
> In the late 60's and early 70's the view broke my mothers heart as she grew up hunting there during the depression.
> While this will never change the Earths tempurature or cause Goose Stepping North Koreans to hold hands and sing around the campfire with us, its a positive change.
> This took 30 years.............Wouldn't you like to see the scenery instead of a pink and gray noxious cloud,,?
> It disturbs me to see nobody talking about what we have achieved, but rather rely on a computer to predict our future and hold our hands.
> I can drink the water out of Lake Tahoe streams and eat the fish I catch that night.
> Same goes down in Nashville when I go every year. These things take a while so instead of insulting each other and Parroting others quotes find an example of something that is already working and ask yourself what if we did nothing.
> Sure beats the never ending, never winning arguments of the internet.



+1


----------



## rgames

Here's another important point in this debate:

A lot of people have a lot to gain by pushing the "go green" agenda. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, but it is a consideration.

Haven't you noticed that most of the government-backed plans involve you going out and BUYING something new? BUY new windows. BUY a hybrid car. BUY new appliances. BUY new light bulbs. BUY solar panels.

Why don't we instead focus on reduction in consumption? Shut off lights. Move closer to work. Raise/lower the thermostat. Carpool.

Consumption reduction is MUCH more effective than any of the tax-incentivized programs we currently have.

Why would that be? Hmmm... Oh yeah - the lobbies!

Nobody is lining his pockets when you shut off the lights...

rgames


----------



## Narval

rgames @ Sat Jul 31 said:


> Haven't you noticed that most of the government-backed plans involve you going out and BUYING something new? BUY new windows. BUY a hybrid car. BUY new appliances. BUY new light bulbs. BUY solar panels.
> 
> Why don't we instead focus on reduction in consumption? Shut off lights. Move closer to work. Raise/lower the thermostat. Carpool.


A true conservative! Conserving is good. Progressing is good too. 

Buying. It's sad, I know, they should give those new things away, instead of selling them. :D But then again, _old_ things cost money too, right? So, yes, I agree, whenever possible, reduce the waste, recycle, go for the least expensive, cleaner solution. But when one needs to buy, _new_ things are generally better than _old_ things.

The world of Edison and Ford is finally coming to an end. It was nice, but sort of getting old lately. What is happening right now is a long due paradigm shift. I kind of like it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Correlation is not causation.



Causation always leads to correlation.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Richard, it will cost a huge amount of money to switch to the next energy economy, but it has to happen - for two reasons, regardless of your scantily clad ideology: 1. the planet is headed toward catastrophe because of human activities; and 2. we are going to run out of oil that's affordably easy to get to, and therefore we can't continue on the present path.

The fact that it will cost money is a good thing. We're facing an unemployment crisis, and this is the most likely way out.

Doing nothing and relying on conservation is not an option. Conservation is good, but it's not going to solve the problem.


----------



## Animus

noiseboyuk @ Sat Jul 31 said:


> Animus @ Sat Jul 31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> noiseboyuk @ Sat Jul 31 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Animus @ Fri Jul 30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny that you are holding the anti-global warming documentary to such a high standard yet you treat Al Gore's travesty as dogma even despite it's incredible flaws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, my friends, that sort of pathetic, intellectually sub-zero comment is what happens on all internet debates on global warming.
> 
> I made 1 comment on this thead on the Gore film that his presentation of the historical relationship between CO2 and temperature was factually accurate. Now me making that one statement apparently means I worship Gore and am blind to the film's flaws. And here's the killer implication - all we have to judge climate change are two documentaries, one says one thing and one says another so the jury's out, huh?
> 
> That comment, Animus, speaks volumes about you, unfortunately.
> 
> It's the SCIENCE. What does the SCIENCE say? FWIW Gore clearly got some things wrong in An Inconvenient Truth... it's far from perfect. The biggest was the risk of the global conveyer stopping. Sure it's a theoretical risk, but current science puts this as extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future. He made other errors, such as using Kilimanjiro as an example for receeding snow. But - and this is crucial - the basic science is presented accurately (and, imho, effectively) and is consistent with our current knowledge of climate science.
> 
> Unlike the basic science is GGWS. Totally made up statements are presented as fact, such as "volcanos emissions dwarf the CO2 output of humans". The correct number is, on average, 1% of anthropogenic emissions. Pretty much every scientific measurement and accusation within that documentary has been debunked by the people who are qualified to know.
> 
> Global temperatures - the trend is all. Currently, this year is considered the warmest of all time globally by 2 out of 3 organisations that are measuring it. That's pretty worrying considering that the sun is currently at low activity (as all the deniers reminded us in 2008, a RELATIVELY cool one, but still at that point the 9th warmest of all time) , so we should be experiencing cooler years. But it's far less important than all 304 of the previous months are warmer than the 20th Century average monthly equivalents. That's a trend, and it's trends that matter, not bickering over single freak years such as 1998 and 1934.
> 
> But - and I really should end every post on this subject with this - people believe whatever they want to believe. And people don't want to believe in AGW. As Animus shows, scientific evidence doesn't matter, cheap point scoring does. The basic tactic of the deniers is to throw enough shit out there, and hope some of it sticks. And you know what, it's very effective.... cos by and large people hear a lot of noise, can't be bothered to sift through all the crap, get bored and don't care any more.
> 
> And yet, strangely, the world keeps getting hotter. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to make it personal dude.
> 
> http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monck ... rrors.html)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well yeah - I took it personally that you assume I blindly accept anything.
> 
> And sorry to say - here go the website links from lobby groups featuring notorious cranks like Monckton.
Click to expand...


There you go again with what I was talking about. You dismiss the points (if you even read them) in the link because they were written by Mockton yet Al Gore is not a crank, who is a politician and not a climatologist, and is apparently qualified to speak and we should trust what he says.

Interesting you mention lobby groups as some nefarious thing.... You do know corporations like BP (an oil company) supports cap and trade? Ever wonder why?

Also interesting to note is that one of the main architects of cap and trade is a lady that works for Goldman Sacks. 

Also wanna talk about the Chicago Carbon Exchange?


----------



## noiseboyuk

Animus @ Sun Aug 01 said:


> There you go again with what I was talking about. You dismiss the points (if you even read them) in the link because they were written by Mockton yet Al Gore is not a crank, who is a politician and not a climatologist, and is apparently qualified to speak and we should trust what he says.



Yup, this is trolling, plain and simple now. For a detailed response to this and to save screen-space, just re-read my previous posts (hint... I follow SCIENTISTS, not documentary makers or random nutcases like Monckton.

Well, I'd say that this Global Warming thread turned out pretty much like.... well, every other one on the internet.


----------



## chimuelo

Sometimes it's better to yeild to the courageously brave internet warriors.
Most were publicly beaten by women and small mammals in their younger years, so here is the vestige they seek in hopes of winning a fight for once.
Give them their " Virtual Victory. "


----------



## Narval

chimuelo @ Sun Aug 01 said:


> Sometimes it's better to yeild to the courageously brave internet warriors.
> Most were publicly beaten by women and small mammals in their younger years, so here is the vestige they seek in hopes of winning a fight for once.
> Give them their " Virtual Victory. "


I've been bitten by women on several occasions (never publicly tho). Whenever happens I consider it as a very concrete victory.

I shy away from small mammals' teeth though...


----------



## chimuelo

Battle scars are a great way to attract fine trim.
I once had a gal who clawed the shit out of my back.
The next day at the Pool a girl I knew said my God JV you sure look you had fun last night, and her girlfriends pointed out that the girl I was with had more fun. They actually thought I had sexual powers beyond the normal male and appeared to get exicted.
They didn't know I was attacked from behind when the front door was locked that I was trying to escape through.
So now when I want some really fine lookin' trim that's out fishing for men at the Palms Pool, I take my handheld Yard rake, and claw in a vertical manner up and down each side of my back until I can't stand the pain. By the time I get to the Pool it appears to strangers that I gave some guy/gal a serious Orgasm.
This usually leads to a conversation where I pretend I know nothing of it and also pretend to be shy.
I need an edge with all of these steroid weight lifting youngsters so that's my edge.
Then I make sure to exit with her and walk by the Grand Piano that's conveniently located by the Ladies Room, and after they hear me bang a few tunes, it's all over for them.
I know it's cheating but life can be fun for a guy in his early 50's in Vegas w/o having to have a Mercedes and a Rolex. I need gear, not garnishments..........

Ankyu.........Try The Veal.


----------



## Narval

Now that's something hotter than global warming. Btw love your new avatar chimuelo :D


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Okay, you win Animus. People were wrong about global cooling in the '70s, therefore this is all a hoax and your position is totally reasonable.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Just to reply to a few things in Stevensen-Again's post in the "what can be done" thread:

Climategate. Three independent enquires have all concluded that the science of climate change is unaffected by anything in those emails, which wound up as a storm in a teacup. Most of the screaming headlines are pretty easily seen for the hysteria-making that they are (such as the "trick" or "hide the decline" comments, which are obviously innocuous in context).

I do share some concern over the integrity of the peer-review process, but it's a huge (and false) leap to claim that they are fatally compromised, nor indeed WILDLY different from other branches of science.

Scepticism. This word has become so abused, I feel it's sadly lost its meaning. Any good science is sceptical. By its very nature, that's what science is. Of course this is true of climate science (not of pressure groups or politicians, mind).

The Media. It's the most extraordinary fallacy that is often suggested that "the media" feed endless unquestioning stories about the reality of climate change. I'd say the opposite was more true - almost every newspaper seems to enjoy nothing more than the latest empty "final nail in the coffin" story, which documentaries like the Global Warming Swindle find a ready audience delighted to have their prejudices confirmed. What we end up with is the opposite of true scepticism - either confused people just saying "you don't know who to believe" or - more common - just believing whatever op ed piece that talllies with their own beliefs. The media is EXTREMELY bad at presenting or explaining science. Though he's rarely touched on Climate Change (he focuses mainly on medicine), I can't recommend Ben Goldacre's Bad Science book highly enough as an expose of just how poor the media's grasp of the subject is. FWIW, like almost all good scientists, he does of course agree with the consensus on climate change however.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Guy's cogent post points up the reason I was so surprised by the source of the summary -- a true Wall Street guy. In my experience, it's an article of faith among most on Wall Street that conservatism is the True Religion, that global warming is a concoction of the lefties and, therefore, that global warming must be a fabrication.



actually, i have a tongue-in-cheek theory that global warming is a right-wing conspiracy. ***disclaimer***i don't really believe this but - the car industry has been in decline over the last decade as the market has become saturated. people just don't buy as many new cars as they used to that fed growth. so the car industry needs everyone to think their current cars are causing global warming so they will go out and buy new more environmentally friendly cars.



> Put differently, the global warming debate has taken on aspects of a religious one in which many ignore information that contradicts their preconceptions, and seize on information or simple rhetoric -- however tenuous -- that purports to support them.



this is absolutely at the heart of my gripe with climate change science. it is no longer science, it is a religion with believers and non-believers. i hate the way science is used in a political way and taken on a quasi-religious form.



> In the case of denyers, as long as a single guy with a masters degree in science will raise any question at all, it's "unproven." In the case of Prius-driving, solar powering folk, it seems self-evident that humans are at least contributing significantly to GW


.

but in the case of the believers, the reluctance of climate scientists to have their work properly peer reviewed, or properly peer review others works, even to the extent where they manipulate data to fit their conclusions, or to show due diligence as to the perspicacity of their data, fuels mistrust and hardens positions. just as well these bozo's aren't making new medicines for us.

your summary of climate change is excellent john, but there are a couple of problems. however everyone can agree on this:

fact = we emit 'greenhouse' gasses CO2 etc.
fact = these retain heat in the atmosphere.

ergo = we warm the climate.

after that, its up for grabs.

by how much?
is the data accurate?
when we talk about climate we only have records going back in climate terms a brief instant. how do we know that the majority of what we see is not natural variability?
how do you account for models being unable to predict current trends without fudging the data?
i could go on and on with my own questions...but check out:

http://climateaudit.org/

this guy has been trying to examine data from climate change scientists for years. he was one of the guys mentioned in the emails as someone they did not want to show their data to. read his stuff - it is very interesting.

also this guy:

http://www.lomborg.com/

sorry about the rubbish website. he still has some interesting things to say.



> Climategate. Three independent enquires have all concluded that the science of climate change is unaffected by anything in those emails, which wound up as a storm in a teacup. Most of the screaming headlines are pretty easily seen for the hysteria-making that they are (such as the "trick" or "hide the decline" comments, which are obviously innocuous in context)



you need to read exactly what the remit and scope of those inquiries were. they were absolute rubbish. they refused to take submissions from interested parties until after their findings were published! and those comments were not innoucous in context. absolutely what is at the heart of it is the refusal to allow their data their conclusions were based on to be scrutinised. they fundementally behaved in a way that was counter to proper scientific advancement.

please distinguish in all my comments between whether i believe climate change is occurring and my view on the science being used to investigate it. they are two different things. in fact, my concern is that what we are actually seeing is a peak and over the next 30 years there will be significant cooling - particularly in europe. and this at a time when energy is going to cost more and more.

these guys have been extremely accurate in their long range weather forecasting - far beating the met office. check out what they have to say:

http://www.positiveweathersolutions.co. ... Change.php


----------



## chimuelo

Interesting Page worthy of a jpeg.


----------



## Narval

Cosmically true. The common enemy of Humanity is Man. The real enemy of Man is Humanity. Looks like a very promising match to watch. Got myself a front row seat, just besides Fred Nietzsche. Fun's ahead.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Cosmically true



it sure is - if a little negative. but fear is the enemy of truth.

excellent quote chimuelo.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Thing is, Rohan, that despite all the pouring over the climategate emails and everything Steven Mckintyre has done, NONE of the basic science has been successfully challenged. 97% of climate scientists agree with this. Yes, 3% don't and maybe they are right - but I'm certainly in no way qualified to assess that scientifically so the only rational response for me is to go with the 97%.

I strongly disagree with your claim that all climate science isn't properly peer reviewed. That seems, frankly, a wild over-inflation of the issue. 

Of course, the issue of natural cycles has been studied to death. No-one has any explanation for the current warming that is part of anything known, other than being of anthropogenic in origin (which also fits perfectly with what you'd expect given CO2 concentration). So you have to find a totally new theory - sun spots, cosmic rays, cloud etc don't cover it - AND explain away what you'd expect given the observed data. Which, to my mind, is another way of saying "wishful thinking".


----------



## stevenson-again

the basic science is sound, noiseboy, the data is not. there are basic things that pretty much all climate scientists agree on. where they disagree is on how they measure and evaluate the data. global climate is exceedingly complex and poorly understood and the debate you see in this thread is reflected amongst them. but it is not rational or scientific, yet it is fundementally impacting global politics. instead of the cold dispassionate search for truth you get this heated bickering.



> I strongly disagree with your claim that all climate science isn't properly peer reviewed. That seems, frankly, a wild over-inflation of the issue.



then i strongly recomend you read this thread:

http://climateaudit.org/about/

particularly this part from one of the 'climategate emails'.



> I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific
> discourse. He deals in the currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to
> *conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an “audit”* by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues In my opinion, Steven McIntyre is the self-appointed Joe McCarthy of climate science. I am unwilling to submit to this McCarthy-style investigation of my scientific research. As you know, I have refused to send McIntyre the “derived” model data he requests, since all of the primary model data necessary to replicate our results are freely available to him. I will continue to refuse such data requests in the future. Nor will I provide McIntyre with computer programs, email correspondence, etc. I feel very strongly about these issues. We should not be coerced by the scientific equivalent of a playground bully.



in bold is what gets me. can you even believe it? the whole nature of scientific enquiry is that it should transparent and open to be challenged. what actually happens is that the scientists submit their papers to the scientific journals and they read by a group of peers. but their data is not tested and scrutinized by them - they just look at it and if it makes sense pass it. there are serious serious difficulties with the data that has been collected and that is fed into an extremely incomplete understanding of how climate works.

you will find a lot of climatologists who will just simply say they do not know. they know there is some effect, but not how much, and they absolutely do not pretend that they fully understand it.



> Of course, the issue of natural cycles has been studied to death.



err...has it? and should it therefore be disregarded?



> No-one has any explanation for the current warming that is part of anything known, other than being of anthropogenic in origin (which also fits perfectly with what you'd expect given CO2 concentration).



that's just not true. firstly, and i can't stress this enough, the big big issue between sceptical climatogists and 'believers' is that the data is corrupt, or not reliable. there are many ways of taking measurements and they are all as open to interpretation as each other. one way they try to 'correct' for this interpretation is to analyse how measurements against other measurements they are confident are right. but even those other 'control' measurements are extremely sensitive to corruption. i can find you details about this problem, because it is extremely interesting - but not today.



> So you have to find a totally new theory - sun spots, cosmic rays, cloud etc don't cover it - AND explain away what you'd expect given the observed data. Which, to my mind, is another way of saying "wishful thinking".



i'm sorry but that is NOT wishful thinking, that is proper rigorous science. you wouldn't stick your family on a rocket ship on the basis of science that had not had all other possibilities of the functioning technology rigorously explored would you? furthermore, and as i mentioned above, the big problem is the 'observed data'. i really can find you a lot of information about how inconsistent and unreliable that data is, but over time - a long time - consistency will probably emerge. we certainly aren't there yet, but look how strongly you and many like you already hold your views! 

i agree that 'something should be done', but i do not agree that we draw our conclusions from faulty or incomplete science and it saddens me to see science being misappropriated in the way that it has. i think global warming as we know it is a distraction from a much much bigger and far more important issue and one that does not suffer from the vagaries and doubts that plague climate-science.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

The problem with all that, S-A, is that you make it sound like both sides of the bickering are equally valid.

We are causing the earth to heat because we're burning too much oil (mainly), and all the links in the world don't change that.


----------



## stevenson-again

i hope i make it sound like both sides are equally *invalid.*

take al gores documentary and put it up against the martin durkin documentary. both pretty much as rubbish as each other. 

i was just talking to someone i know who is very knowledgable on this subject. on its way to you soon should be some information that might surprise you. our CO2 levels currently are historically low. in previous eras there was considerably more CO2 in the atmosphere. if there were much less than there is now plants would have a hard time 'breathing'.

another thing you should bear in mind, is that whether or not the anthropegenic effect is large or small, we are heading for a period of cooling. even the met office acknowledge this. the extent to which this occurs is unknown because it's hard to fully understand, but it's complicated by the question of the effect we have on climate. if it gets too cold, then we will burn more fossil fuels keeping warm, but we are running out of fossil fuels and as it gets more expensive it will significantly affect the economy.

if the athropogenic affect is large, will the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere then have more of a bearing on warming after the cooling period? does that mean the cooling period will be less severe and we won't need to burn as much, limiting the affect we have after the cooling?

mate, i tell you, global warming or climate change as a motivating factor for changing our behaviour is deeply flawed because the science behind it is so contentious. its shifting sands means that impossible to know what is credible. it also drives us to make the wrong choices that will impact us later down the line. doing nothing is not an option either, but don't act based on such deeply faulty knowledge.


----------



## chimuelo

Here's my problem with the whole concept.
We know we can help, SoCal in the late 70's was foul, now it's much cleaner with twice the people residing there. We will never control the Earths Tempurature as the Solar Tsunami heading our way will demonstrate very soon. But we need to lead by example.
Just look at this from my point of view.
Copenhagen 2010..............Thousands of Limos each with a driver and a ruling class member.
Hundreds of multi million dollar Jets with a pilot/co-pilot, stewardess, an elite leader and and assistants with their assistants.
Bought and paid for Scientists too stupid to use a Firewall.
Elites buying Beachfront property, Yachts and larger Jets.
These people now all have vested interests in Big Oil and also the CME.

We really need some role models. I have seen first hand thousands of Nevadans support our local leaders because they actually rocked their yards and led by example.
Until the ruling class starts treating the commoners like idiots, people will continue to cut back and conserve, but never support their profitable commitments.
For example. Most of the ruling class in DC has invested in these markets so it's obvious these laws will pass as they have corrupted and politicized the process. Of course they will push the EPA to bypass Congress and accept lobbyists' campaign contributions, while pursuing their investments.
This corrupts the process.
Maybe when Madame Speaker and others can take a single Jet from DC that makes 5 stops back to the West Coast every week instead of each ruling class elitist using their own Miltary Jet w/ escorts, the people might conceed.
Until then this concept of " Do as I say, not as I do " will never gain support.
But wait, I already know the reply...............It's in the interest of National Security.
3-4000 dollar a month to leave the lights on in their multi million dollar mansion, etc.
I could go on, but my stomach is already churning from coffee with no breakfast and thinking about our ever caring ruling class. 
Can you imagine the effect these Tea Party folks would have if they drove around in Hybrids this Fall..? Now that would be an effective campaign tactic. 
It would make the current class of wealthy elitists look really out of touch.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Rohan – I'm afraid you're dead wrong. What you're describing is not the view of the scientific community at large. I can say this as a fact, and the reason is (and you really can't avoid this one) the public statements of ALL the world's major scientific institutions – every single one backs the view that warming is occurring, and we are to blame. Climate science papers are published in Science et al, all the major scientific papers. If a major scandal had been uncovered about the peer review process, all of science would be up in arms about it, and the journals involved would be in serious trouble, there would be resignations etc. I don't believe that all climate science papers and their peer review have been subject to best practice, but it IS a gross inflation to say none of the science counts any more. I think what has been going on with the denialist movement is not an attack on climate science, but nothing less than an attack on science itself (usually by right wing and / or religious and / or industry elements who are opposed to scientific progress).

The supposedly controversial points you mention are pretty well understood. For example – sure, CO2 has been higher in the past. And either – as in 15 million years ago – the Earth was massively hotter than now – or as in 400 million years ago, the sun's energy was 4% less. These are basic points, and I'm surprised you mention them... have to say this is fairly routine denialist fodder. It is simply uncontroversial in mainstream science that CO2 is historically high in recent history, is extremely sudden and anomolous, and it is at the very least IN LINE with the colossal increase in the burning of fossil fuels (though not proven by being so). Of course there is much much much more to learn, but we have enough evidence to have a workable theory with a high percentage confidence (>90%).

Macintyre, by contrast, is an extremely controversial figure of course. He's a colossal PITA to full time academics, who could easily spend their entire careers just dealing with all FOI requests they get. I'm not in the least surprised they say what they do in private, even though it's “wrong”. Of course science should be open, data should be open, but it currently isn't sadly. Yet, as has been proven time and again with regard to the climategate hoo-ha, the same results can be obtained using open data as with the closed data sets used (a point overlooked by denialists, of course). That said, I'm hugely in favour of all the data being open (and the UK met office has made a start I believe), and I'm sure this will be an increasing trend in the coming years. Also scientists – SOMEHOW – should respond to all these requests, usually from people who are totally disinterested in genuine science, but are just looking for anything that looks vaguely fishy, no matter how bogus their claims are.

But my main beef lies in the accusation that those of us who accept the position of mainstream science are adopting a faith-based position. This is false, period. If the science is wrong, the science is wrong – but it's not based on faith, it's on evidence. If new evidence comes to light that contradicts the prevailing view, then science will very quickly accept this (look at the stomach ulcer evidence in the 1980s).

The moment any major institution changes its policy, then I'll absolutely change my views. I'm not saying I'm right in all these scientific matters, I'm simply siding with the mainstream scientific view, and that itself is a matter of fact, not opinion. You're clearly a smart bloke Rohan (and a staggeringly talented composer!) but your views on this subject are not the overwhelmingly prevailing scientific views, based on evidence we have in 2010. Of course it's fine to hold a non-mainstream view, but I suggest it would at least be better seen as such.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> our CO2 levels currently are historically low



http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I believe that over internet spoo.


----------



## stevenson-again

> I strongly disagree with your claim that all climate science isn't properly peer reviewed. That seems, frankly, a wild over-inflation of the issue.



http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research ... x?id=12933

download and read it all the way through.

this one is a bit longer, but if you are interested it's extremely informative.

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/research ... x?id=12950

here is an example that comes from the issue of due diligence:



> Did you know that the 2008 financial crisis started with a seriously flawed study in 1994 conducted by the Boston Federal Bank in the USA? No one checked the validity of the report which is well known in economics circles as the Boston Fed Study. This study had the effect of changing Federal law in respect to US banks’ lending practices. That led to the meltdown of the money industry due to the market being flooded with toxic loans. Recent re-examination of the Boston Fed Study shows that some of the data was made up (an invention) and the analysis of it was invalid. Look where lack of Due Diligence got us.


 

it is 100% relevant to the climate debate.

also from the same source:



> Due diligence of a complex proposal as used in the resource industries means handing over to an independent auditing contractor, everything you have – original unadjusted data, all your computer codes, details of all the assumptions made, adjustments or corrections made, all correspondence relating to the proposal, all related studies and opinions sought during the proposal preparation, estimates of error ranges, statistical analyses and verification tests – everything. The best the academics seem to be able to do is what they call ‘peer review’ of their papers. Peer reviewers are unpaid academics who just read the papers – often mates of the researcher and they almost never ask for the original data or do their own thorough checks on the mathematical treatment. Often this doesn’t matter that much – science tends to be self correcting. If you get it wrong, sooner or later you’ll be found out.



i got loads but i am trying to not overload....


----------



## stevenson-again

> http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> 
> I believe that over internet spoo.



have a look at my due diligence posts. i am afraid a lot of the assertions made that resemble fact in the link you gave are not without considerable controversy - not because there is anything wrong with the assertions but because the data they were made on is too open to interpretation and too sensitive to distortion.

this is not the same as them being wrong, but it does lower the chance of them being right. yet, it all looks like hard fact doesn't? now, no one knows what to believe.

edit - btw page 15 of the article 'case for due diligence' discusses the 'hockey stick' described in the nasa graph. very interesting reading.


----------



## George Caplan

take away funding and see what scientists come up with then.


----------



## Narval

stevenson-again @ Thu Aug 05 said:


> now, no one knows what to believe.


Oh if only that were true for everyone. Unfortunately, some believe they know. Some are simply blind. Some believe what they're told. Some believe what is in their own interest to believe. Belief is a very profitable industry. Buying it, not buying it. Dismissing it, enforcing it. Advertising this. Subverting that. - You got the drill.

I never _know_ what to believe. I simply decide what I want to belief. But then I know it's just my personal belief, which I don't impose to anyone, and I take full responsibility of its outcome. Anything else is just dirty politics to me.


----------



## stevenson-again

> take away funding and see what scientists come up with then.



make them submit to proper scrutiny! seriously read that paper about due diligence - it also mentions arctic climate impact assessment. and it's not just about climate change either - it affects other scientific disciplines.


----------



## George Caplan

stevenson-again @ Thu Aug 05 said:


> it also mentions arctic climate impact assessment. and it's not just about climate change either - it affects other scientific disciplines.



british scientific teams found out that in the fifties. i guess you could say whats new. my concern is the emails intercepted from east anglia universitys scientific faculty. its about funding and their funding is going to be cut severely quite soon.


----------



## stevenson-again

> The Fraser Institute, or any other political lobby group, is not a reliable source. That's kinda my point. Yes, all the things you mention are hot topics in political and industry lobby groups, but they're not among scientists.



noiseboy - the fraser institute is NOT a political lobby group.



> Always check the sources....



this is actually what i would encourage you to do. in fact, the article i strongly urge you to read which is about the case for due diligence, is about exactly that. but don't just check the sources, you have to try to replicate the findings and test the assumptions. even if the fraser institute were a political lobby group it doesn't negate the case calling for proper peer review and scrutiny, especially on issues that affect government policy (the fraser institutes actual function).

the paper is interesting in its entirety but the bit that is most relevant to this debate starts on page 15. it complete debunks the 'hocky stick' graph represented in the graph on the site nick posted as completely bogus, and in a way that you can verify for yourself independently. even climatologists who are enthusiastic supporters of anthropogenic climate change agree that the hocky stick graph as it is popularly understood was based on completely flawed science.

this is not to say that there is not evidence or other cases made in support of anthropogenic global warming that are better supported, but these tend to be a lot less extreme. the hocky stick graph is not the smoking gun everyone supposes it is.

do check out the paper noiseboy. you are clearly passionate and interested in this subject - as am i - but surely you want to be sure your passion is directed at the truth, not popular perceptions? and if you are concerned that the paper is reliable, there is plenty of corroborating material. let me know if you are interested in checking them out - there is quite a lot out there. i have some acquaintances who are very knowedgeable in this area and they can help filter out the most relevant and easiest (for the layman) to understand stuff.


----------



## noiseboyuk

The Fraser Institute is a libertarian think tank based in Vancouver, British Columbia:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... _Institute

Just look at the list of senior fellows and research staff. Not a genuine scientist among them (revealingly, the closest is someone from political science). Most are economists.

Like a hundred other similar groups on the internet, they fool people into thinking that they are an academic institution - they are not. This is why debates such as these last for 40 pages and end up nowhere... people can't tell the difference between real science and lookalike science. Indeed, this is a major part of the strategy of the denialist movement, producing "papers" that exactly resemble the style and form of genuine journals, yet with none of the real science.

Of course there are plenty of lobby groups from the other side too. It's worth looking at what happened when the world of real science actually mistakenly used a source from a lobby group. The 2007 IPCC FAR erroneously quoted from a WWF report, saying that Himalayan Glaciers might vanish by 2035. It wasn't from peer review, and the "science" was false. Of course - and rightly - people on all sides were up in arms (I know I was). However, after some extremely ill-advised bluster from the IPCC chief, what happened next was revealing. A correction was issued, and a public declaration that this mustn't happen again. Why? Simply because it's not science.

The IPCC mistake was one line in a 1,000 page report, was in no summary, and yet it was seen (again) as "the final nail in the coffin" for the global warming movement. It affected none of the conclusions, and was realised for what it was - a mistake. This is what science does. Indeed, the mistake came to light due to work by a scientific researcher, so this is part of the self-correction and improvement process.

Rgames - there is a small degree of truth in what you say (peer review certainly ain't perfect to be sure), but somewhere along the line you elevate the imperfections into wild conspiracy. Climate science is published across many many papers, but these include the major institutions such as Science, Nature etc which wouldn't stand for ongoing processes that are politically motivated. You create the impression that peer review journals are now ten-a-penny and worthless, and this isn't the case. Also - and this is the kicker for me - people love to build a giant global conspiracy whereby all academia is some enormous left-wing plot to suppress the truth. Yet, according to the same conspiracy, this is government funded.... and science the world over has produced one unshakable conclusion despite being funded by governments of ALL political persuasions. Indeed, despite the Bush administration is on record as having doctored scientific reports to tone down the conclusions, it funded these same reports too? It makes absolutely no sense... it's the kind of thing that is a good yarn for a novel or movie, but has nothing to do with real life.

That's why I say this is an attack on all science. Hundreds - thousands? - of economic / religious / political "institutes" are pretending to be scientific and subverting public understanding extremely successfully (as as they did with tobacco in the 70s-90s... indeed many of the groups are the same, famously declaring their motto as "doubt is our product"). As part of that process, a new meta-narrative is being pushed, where academia itself is now regarded as somehow sinister and corrupt (with the invention of new loaded terminology such as "junk science" by the academic community, and "sound science" which is that funded by industry"). This bit is my own pet theory, but personally I think that conspiracy is filling the void left by religion as it declines in popularity in the western world. People like to believe that someone or something is in charge, and there is some overarching logic to events, whether benign or not. So people like to believe that 9/11 is a fantastically elaborate Bush plot rather than some religious extremists who easily overcame lapses in poor airport security; that tens of thousands keep quiet about the fact that we never landed on the moon, and the world's entire academic community are secretly conspiring to suppress the truth that there is no global warming.

Yuo. Science itself is under attack.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Rohan – I'm afraid you're dead wrong. What you're describing is not the view of the scientific community at large. I can say this as a fact, and the reason is (and you really can't avoid this one) the public statements of ALL the world's major scientific institutions – every single one backs the view that warming is occurring, and we are to blame. Climate science papers are published in Science et al, all the major scientificpapers.



noiseboy - that is just not the case. i understand that that is the popular perception but it just isn't so. there are plenty of scientific institutions that caution against the current presentation of climate science. there is tons of info out there, all from reputable sources; fermilab, CSIRO et al that do not agree with the current understanding. i am absolutely happy to show you them if you don't want to look for yourself. but please start with the 2 fraser institute papers. if nothing else, it shows you that you really do need to be a lot more sceptical of what you hear, until it can be properly confirmed.

one thing they will all agree on; there has been a warming trend recently, and we emit 'greenhouse' gases. but they can't even agree on whether those 'greenhouse' gases have a greenhouse effect, let alone an effect big enough to alter climate. the problem is while the physics of the absorbtion and release of CO2 is understood, how its radiative effect warms climate is poorly understood. the theory is that where we have seen large CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the past, it is as a response to global warming not a cause of it. i could go into this in a great deal of detail - but lets not get sidetracked.



> If a major scandal had been uncovered about the peer review pòý[   ß´“ý[   ß´”ý[   ß´•ý[   ß´–ý[   ß´—ý[   ß´˜ý[   ß´™ý[   ß´šý[   ß´›ý[   ß´œý[   ß´ý[   ß´žý[   ß´Ÿý[   ß´ ý[   ß´¡ý[   ß´¢ý[   ß´£ý[   ß´¤ý[   ß´¥ý[   ß´¦ý[   ß´§ý[   ß´¨ý[   ß´©ý[   ß´ªý[   ß´«ý[   ß´¬ý[   ß´­ý[   ß´®ý[   ß´¯ý[   ß´°ý[   ß´±ý[   ß´²ý[   ß´³ý[   ß´´ý[   ß´µý[   ß´¶ý[   ß´·ý[   ß´¸ý[   ß´¹ý[   ß´ºý[   ß´»ý\   ß´¼ý\   ß´½ý\   ß´¾ý\   ß´¿ý\   ß´Àý\   ß´Áý\   ß´Âý\   ß´Ãý\   ß´Äý\   ß´Åý\   ß´Æý\   ß´Çý\   ß´Èý\   ß´Éý\   ß´Êý\   ß´Ëý\   ß´Ìý\   ß´Íý\   ß´Îý\   ß´Ïý\   ß´Ðý\   ß´Ñý\   ß´Òý\   ß´Óý\   ß´Ôý\   ß´Õý\   ß´Öý\   ß´×ý\   ß´Øý\   ß´Ùý\   ß´Úý\   ß´Ûý\   ß´Üý\   ß´Ýý\   ß´Þý\   ß´ßý\   ß´àý\   ß´áý\   ß´âý\   ß´ãý\   ß´äý\   ß´åý\   ß´æý\   ß´çý\   ß´èý\   ß´éý\   ß´êý\   ß´ëý\   ß´ìý\   ß´íý\   ß´îý\   ß´ïý\   ß´ðý\   ß´ñý\   ß´òý\   ß´óý\   ß´ôý\   ß´õý\   ß´öý\   ß´÷ý\   ß´øý\   ß´ùý\   ß´úý\   ß´ûý\   ß´üý\   ß´ýý\   ß´þý\   ß´ÿý\   ßµ ý\   ßµý\   ßµ              òý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµ	ý\   ßµ
> ý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµ ý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµý\   ßµ ý\   ßµ!ý\   ßµ"ý\   ßµ#ý\   ßµ$ý\   ßµ%ý\   ßµ&ý\   ßµ'ý\   ßµ(ý\   ßµ)ý\   ßµ*ý\   ßµ+ý\   ßµ,ý\   ßµ-ý\   ßµ.ý\   ßµ/ý\   ßµ0ý\   ßµ1ý\   ßµ2ý\   ßµ3ý\   ßµ4ý\   ßµ5ý\   ßµ6ý\   ßµ7ý\   ßµ8ý\   ßµ9ý\   ßµ:ý\   ßµ;ý\   ßµ<ý\   ßµ=ý\   ßµ>ý\   ßµ?ý\   ßµ@ý\   ßµAý\   ßµBý\   ßµCý\   ßµDý\   ßµEý\   ßµFý\   ßµGý\   ßµHý\   ßµIý\   ßµJý\   ßµKý\   ßµLý\   ßµMý\   ßµNý\   ßµOý\   ßµPý\   ßµQý\   ßµRý\   ßµSý\   ßµTý\   ßµUý\   ßµVý\   ßµWý\   ßµXý\   ßµYý\   ßµZý\   ßµ[ý\   ßµ\ý\   ßµ]ý]   ßµ^ý]   ßµ_ý]   ßµ`ý]   ßµaý]   ßµbý]   ßµcý]   ßµdý]   ßµeý]   ßµfý]   ßµgý]   ßµhý]   ßµiý]   ßµjý]   ßµký]   ßµlý]   ßµmý]   ßµný]   ßµoý]   ßµpý]   ßµqý]   ßµrý]   ßµs              òý]   ßµuý]   ßµvý]   ßµwý]   ßµxý]   ßµyý]   ßµzý]   ßµ{ý]   ßµ|ý]   ßµ}ý]   ßµ~ý]   ßµý]   ßµ€ý]   ßµý]   ßµ‚ý]   ßµƒý]   ßµ„ý]   ßµ…ý]   ßµ†ý]   ßµ‡ý]   ßµˆý]   ßµ‰ý]   ßµŠý]   ßµ‹ý]   ßµŒý]   ßµý]   ßµŽý]   ßµý]   ßµý]   ßµ‘ý]   ßµ’ý]   ßµ“ý]   ßµ”ý]   ßµ•ý]   ßµ–ý]   ßµ—ý]   ßµ˜ý]   ßµ™ý]   ßµšý]   ßµ›ý]   ßµœý]   ßµý]   ßµžý]   ßµŸý]   ßµ ý]   ßµ¡ý]   ßµ¢ý]   ßµ£ý]   ßµ¤ý]   ßµ¥ý]   ßµ¦ý]   ßµ§ý]   ßµ¨ý]   ßµ©ý]   ßµªý]   ßµ«ý]   ßµ¬ý]   ßµ­ý^   ßµ®ý^   ßµ¯ý^   ßµ°ý^   ßµ±ý^   ßµ²ý^   ßµ³ý^   ßµ´ý^   ßµµý^   ßµ¶ý^   ßµ·ý^   ßµ¸ý^   ßµ¹ý_   ßµºý_   ßµ»ý_   ßµ¼ý_   ßµ½ý_   ßµ¾ý_   ßµ¿ý_   ßµÀý_   ßµÁý_   ßµÂý_   ßµÃý_   ßµÄý_   ßµÅý_   ßµÆý_   ßµÇý_   ßµÈý_   ßµÉý_   ßµÊý_   ßµËý_   ßµÌý_   ßµÍý`   ßµÎý`   ßµÏý`   ßµÐý`   ßµÑý`   ßµÒý`   ßµÓý`   ßµÔý`   ßµÕý`   ßµÖý`   ßµ×ý`   ßµØý`   ßµÙý`   ßµÚý`   ßµÛý`   ßµÜý`   ßµÝý`   ßµÞý`   ßµßý`   ßµàý`   ßµáýa   ßµâýa   ßµãýa   ßµä              òýa   ßµæýa   ßµçýa   ßµèýa   ßµéýa   ßµêýa   ßµëýa   ßµìýa   ßµíýa   ßµîýa   ßµïýa   ßµðýa   ßµñýa   ßµòýa   ßµóýa   ßµôýa   ßµõýa   ßµöýa   ßµ÷ýa   ßµøýa   ßµùýa   ßµúýa   ßµûýa   ßµüýa   ßµýýa   ßµþýa   ßµÿýa   ß¶ ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶	ýa   ß¶
> ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ ýa   ß¶!ýa   ß¶"ýa   ß¶#ýa   ß¶$ýa   ß¶%ýa   ß¶&ýa   ß¶'ýa   ß¶(ýa   ß¶)ýa   ß¶*ýa   ß¶+ýa   ß¶,ýa   ß¶-ýa   ß¶.ýa   ß¶/ýa   ß¶0ýa   ß¶1ýa   ß¶2ýa   ß¶3ýa   ß¶4ýa   ß¶5ýa   ß¶6ýa   ß¶7ýa   ß¶8ýa   ß¶9ýa   ß¶:ýa   ß¶;ýa   ß¶<ýa   ß¶=ýa   ß¶>ýa   ß¶?ýa   ß¶@ýa   ß¶Aýa   ß¶Býa   ß¶Cýa   ß¶Dýa   ß¶Eýa   ß¶Fýa   ß¶Gýa   ß¶Hýa   ß¶Iýa   ß¶Jýa   ß¶Kýa   ß¶Lýa   ß¶Mýa   ß¶Nýa   ß¶Oýa   ß¶Pýa   ß¶Qýa   ß¶Rýa   ß¶Sýa   ß¶Týa   ß¶U              òýa   ß¶Wýa   ß¶Xýa   ß¶Yýa   ß¶Zýa   ß¶[ýa   ß¶\ýa   ß¶]ýa   ß¶^ýa   ß¶_ýa   ß¶`ýa   ß¶aýa   ß¶býa   ß¶cýa   ß¶dýa   ß¶eýa   ß¶fýa   ß¶gýa   ß¶hýa   ß¶iýa   ß¶jýa   ß¶kýa   ß¶lýa   ß¶mýa   ß¶nýa   ß¶oýa   ß¶pýa   ß¶qýa   ß¶rýa   ß¶sýa   ß¶týa   ß¶uýa   ß¶výa   ß¶wýa   ß¶xýa   ß¶yýa   ß¶zýa   ß¶{ýa   ß¶|ýa   ß¶}ýa   ß¶~ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶€ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶‚ýa   ß¶ƒýa   ß¶„ýa   ß¶…ýa   ß¶†ýa   ß¶‡ýa   ß¶ˆýa   ß¶‰ýa   ß¶Šýa   ß¶‹ýa   ß¶Œýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶Žýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶‘ýa   ß¶’ýa   ß¶“ýa   ß¶”ýa   ß¶•ýa   ß¶–ýa   ß¶—ýa   ß¶˜ýa   ß¶™ýa   ß¶šýa   ß¶›ýa   ß¶œýa   ß¶ýa   ß¶žýa   ß¶Ÿýa   ß¶ ýa   ß¶¡ýa   ß¶¢ýa   ß¶£ýa   ß¶¤ýa   ß¶¥ýa   ß¶¦ýa   ß¶§ýa   ß¶¨ýa   ß¶©ýa   ß¶ªýa   ß¶«ýa   ß¶¬ýa   ß¶­ýa   ß¶®ýa   ß¶¯ýa   ß¶°ýa   ß¶±ýa   ß¶²ýa   ß¶³ýa   ß¶´ýa   ß¶µýa   ß¶¶ýa   ß¶·ýa   ß¶¸ýa   ß¶¹ýa   ß¶ºýa   ß¶»ýa   ß¶¼ýa   ß¶½ýa   ß¶¾ýa   ß¶¿ýa   ß¶Àýa   ß¶Áýa   ß¶Âýa   ß¶Ãýa   ß¶Äýa   ß¶Åýa   ß¶Æ              òýa   ß¶Èýa   ß¶Éýa   ß¶Êýa   ß¶Ëýa   ß¶Ìýa   ß¶Íýa   ß¶Îýa   ß¶Ïýa   ß¶Ðýa   ß¶Ñýa   ß¶Òýa   ß¶Óýa   ß¶Ôýa   ß¶Õýa   ß¶Öýa   ß¶×ýa   ß¶Øýa   ß¶Ùýa   ß¶Úýa   ß¶Ûýa   ß¶Üýa   ß¶Ýýa   ß¶Þýa   ß¶ßýa   ß¶àýa   ß¶áýa   ß¶âýa   ß¶ãýa   ß¶äýa   ß¶åýa   ß¶æýa   ß¶çýa   ß¶èýa   ß¶éýa   ß¶êýa   ß¶ëýa   ß¶ìýa   ß¶íýa   ß¶îýa   ß¶ïýa   ß¶ðýa   ß¶ñýa   ß¶òýa   ß¶óýa   ß¶ôýa   ß¶õýa   ß¶öýa   ß¶÷ýa   ß¶øýa   ß¶ùýa   ß¶úýa   ß¶ûýa   ß¶üýa   ß¶ýýa   ß¶þýa   ß¶ÿýa   ß· ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·	ýa   ß·
> ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß· ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß·ýa   ß· ýa   ß·!ýa   ß·"ýa   ß·#ýa   ß·$ýa   ß·%ýa   ß·&ýa   ß·'ýa   ß·(ýa   ß·)ýa   ß·*ýa   ß·+ýa   ß·,ýa   ß·-ýa   ß·.ýa   ß·/ýa   ß·0ýa   ß·1ýa   ß·2ýa   ß·3ýa   ß·4ýa   ß·5ýa   ß·6ýa   ß·7              òýa   ß·9ýa   ß·:ýa   ß·;ýa   ß·<ýa   ß·=ýa   ß·>ýa   ß·?ýa   ß·@ýa   ß·Aýa   ß·Býa   ß·Cýa   ß·Dýa   ß·Eýa   ß·Fýa   ß·Gýa   ß·Hýa   ß·Iýa   ß·Jýa   ß·Kýa   ß·Lýa   ß·Mýa   ß·Nýa   ß·Oýa   ß·Pýa   ß·Qýa   ß·Rýa   ß·Sýa   ß·Týa   ß·Uýa   ß·Výa   ß·Wýa   ß·Xýa   ß·Yýa   ß·Zýa   ß·[ýa   ß·\ýa   ß·]ýa   ß·^ýa   ß·_ýa   ß·`ýa   ß·aýa   ß·býa   ß·cýa   ß·dýa   ß·eýa   ß·fýa   ß·gýa   ß·hýa   ß·iýa   ß·jýa   ß·kýa   ß·lýa   ß·mýa   ß·nýa   ß·oýb   ß·pýb   ß·qýb   ß·rýb   ß·sýc   ß·týc   ß·uýc   ß·výc   ß·wýc   ß·xýc   ß·yýc   ß·zýc   ß·{ýc   ß·|ýc   ß·}ýc   ß·~ýc   ß·ýc   ß·€ýc   ß·ýc   ß·‚ýc   ß·ƒýc   ß·„ýc   ß·…ýc   ß·†ýc   ß·‡ýc   ß·ˆýc   ß·‰ýc   ß·Šýc   ß·‹ýc   ß·Œýc   ß·ýc   ß·Žýc   ß·ýc   ß·ýc   ß·‘ýc   ß·’ýc   ß·“ýc   ß·”ýc   ß·•ýd   ß·–ýd   ß·—ýd   ß·˜ýd   ß·™ýd   ß·šýd   ß·›ýd   ß·œýd   ß·ýd   ß·žýd   ß·Ÿýd   ß· ýd   ß·¡ýd   ß·¢ýd   ß·£ýd   ß·¤ýd   ß·¥ýd   ß·¦ýd   ß·§ýd   ß·¨              òýe   ß·ªýe   ß·«ýe   ß·¬ýe   ß·­ýe   ß·®ýe   ß·¯ýe   ß·°ýe   ß·±ýe   ß·²ýe   ß·³ýe   ß·´ýe   ß·µýe   ß·¶ýe   ß··ýe   ß·¸ýe   ß·¹ýe   ß·ºýe   ß·»ýe   ß·¼ýe   ß·½ýe   ß·¾ýe   ß·¿ýe   ß·Àýe   ß·Áýe   ß·Âýe   ß·Ãýe   ß·Äýe   ß·Åýe   ß·Æýe   ß·Çýe   ß·Èýe   ß·Éýe   ß·Êýe   ß·Ëýe   ß·Ìýe   ß·Íýe   ß·Îýe   ß·Ïýe   ß·Ðýe   ß·Ñýe   ß·Òýe   ß·Óýe   ß·Ôýe   ß·Õýe   ß·Öýe   ß·×ýe   ß·Øýe   ß·Ùýe   ß·Úýe   ß·Ûýe   ß·Üýe   ß·Ýýe   ß·Þýe   ß·ßýe   ß·àýe


----------



## ChrisAxia

Well, I just wanted to say thank you to Rohan, Guy, Richard and others for all your research into such an important issue. I wish I had the time to delve more deeply myself, so I'm grateful for your postings. It has been very enlightening although now it appears that maybe no one really knows what the future holds for the planet. I guess we just have to try to do what's right and hope for the best. 

~Chris


----------



## noiseboyuk

An all-too-brief reply to Rohan's last... gotta work!

Please do forward any links that cast serious doubt on the causation issue... but only from peer-reviewed journals or at the very least qualified climate scientists please (and there may be one or two, I'm not sure). Sorry, for the reasons stated I'm not going down the Fraser Institute route - I don't share your faith (!) in them. They are a) absolutely not qualified; b) biased and c) politically motivated. Both their stated facts and analysis will therefore be worthless to me. And in return, there will be no links from Greenpeace or WWF from me!

As far as my (admittedly limited) understanding goes on the CO2 issue, it is essentially proven beyond reasonable doubt as far as actual scientists go (see here for a researcher with the British Antartic Survey's explanation - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ctivities/). All the debate you read isn't among practicing scientists - its in the so-called "institutes" and blogsphere. Ditto the supposed peer review scandal. If it were a real scandal, we'd see it reflected among scientists and in the top journals, rather than the blogsphere. To be clear, the UEA emails reveal not-best-practice in some cases, but that's about it. And ditto the Hockey Stick - people keep constantly denigrating it in the hope that enough noise will make it go away. It hasn't.... among scientists. 

Again - and I know I keep coming back to this - all the major academic institutions support this position. To return briefly to the stomach ulcer case - sure mainstream science can be conservative, and it's certainly POSSIBLE that this is true with climate change. But the ulcer case absolutely proves the point - good science and good evidence will always win. To date, despite all the hoopla, the AGW theory is almost universally accepted despite near-constant "evidence" presented the contrary. Am I certainly not qualifed to assess the raw detailed science on my own, so I go with the overwhelmingly pervasive view among those who are both neutral and qualified (and to me that's the shame of Chris Axia's post... whenever these debates happen, people conclude that it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, even though within the scientific community the confidence is now extremely high. Again, more proof that the lobbyists are winning and the scientists are losing).

One other element I find fascinating about deniars is that they can hold any number of contrary positions inconsistent with one another - they jump from one to the next without batting an eyelid. There is no warming - it was warmer before! Ok, there is warming but it's natural! It's not CO2! OK, it IS CO2, but it's not us! This tell-tale leapfrogging from one argument to the next isn't scepticism at all - it's ideology.


----------



## stevenson-again

likwise gotta be brief....



> I guess we just have to try to do what's right and hope for the best.



not sure i want to hope for the best. i want reclaim science and get us focussing on what really matters.



> Sorry, for the reasons stated I'm not going down the Fraser Institute route - I don't share your faith (!) in them. They are a) absolutely not qualified; b) biased and c) politically motivated. Both their stated facts and analysis will therefore be worthless to me. And in return, there will be no links from Greenpeace or WWF from me!



it is not a question of faith. it a question of verifiable fact. the fraser institute docs are just the most concise examples that are most easily understood. they are not a lobby group and they are not funded by private interests. and even if they were - i urge you - read the due diligence document. it isn't talking about whether or not global warming exists, just the behaviour of certain scientists - and not all of them climatologists. please read the article and then check to see whether the story (especially regarding michael mann's hockey stick) is true. there are lots of references for you to follow.



> it is essentially proven beyond reasonable doubt as far as actual scientists go (see here for a researcher with the British Antartic Survey's explanation - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... recent-cos ub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/). All the debate you read isn't among practicing scientists - its in the so-called "institutes" and blogsphere.



this just isn't true! the debate is certainly amongst practising and experimenting climatologists all over the world. the big debate is about the voracity of the evidence, about assumptions being made based on them. about theories presented as fact that need a great deal more substantiation.



> And ditto the Hockey Stick - people keep constantly denigrating it in the hope that enough noise will make it go away. It hasn't.... among scientists.



it absolutely has. even climatologists who are enthusiastic supporters of AGW no regard that as a red herring and bogus. and as i said - it is not to say that there isn't better supported evidence to which they can point, but that it tends to be much less extreme. at the very least it should be a cautionary story about checking to see if what is stated as fact really actually holds up. 

because think about the consequences of acting based on conjecture and false assumptions. just the principle of it. and about something as serious as this too. my worry is that the whole debate clouds a more serious issue - we (ie mankind) spend so much time arguing over it that we are missing the real issue looming like a thunder cloud over us.

please read the article - i promise you want feel that it is anyway biased against or toward global warning. it just makes the case that people should make their findings completely transparent so that they can be replicated by others.


----------



## stevenson-again

btw - realclimate science is an excellent site (though prodominantly pro-ACC) and is linked to on the climateaudit site.

have a read of this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... key-stick/

and then read the comments as one of the readers is trying to get a handle on what is discussed by trying to confirm assertions made about previous papers used as support for the article.

this is also very interesting:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... ent-183722

and kicked off a big debate. i haven't read everything from there but their latest stuff seems to be much more balanced than previous articles.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Sorry, sorry, sorry.... I now see this paper is co-authored by the same McKitrick whose (non scientifically peer-reviewed) paper on... oooh look... the Hockey Stick was debunked numerous times in scientifically peer reviewed literature and proven to be fatally flawed.

For a full discussion on the Hockey Stick and McKitrick, start here on the Climate Scientist blog Real Climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... key-stick/

a 2005 follow up

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... mckitrick/

and a further 2007òýÇ   ßÏòýÇ   ßÏóýÇ   ßÏôýÇ   ßÏõýÇ   ßÏöýÇ   ßÏ÷ýÇ   ßÏøýÇ   ßÏùýÇ   ßÏúýÇ   ßÏûýÇ   ßÏüýÇ   ßÏýýÇ   ßÏþýÇ   ßÏÿýÈ   ßÐ ýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐ	ýÈ   ßÐ
ýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐ ýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÈ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐýÉ   ßÐ ýÉ   ßÐ!ýÉ   ßÐ"ýÉ   ßÐ#ýÉ   ßÐ$ýÉ   ßÐ%ýÉ   ßÐ&ýÉ   ßÐ'ýÉ   ßÐ(ýÉ   ßÐ)ýÉ   ßÐ*ýÉ   ßÐ+ýÊ   ßÐ,ýÊ   ßÐ-ýÊ   ßÐ.ýÊ   ßÐ/ýÊ   ßÐ0ýÊ   ßÐ1ýÊ   ßÐ2ýÊ   ßÐ3ýÊ   ßÐ4ýÊ   ßÐ5ýÊ   ßÐ6ýÊ   ßÐ7ýÊ   ßÐ8ýÊ   ßÐ9ýÊ   ßÐ:ýÊ   ßÐ;ýÊ   ßÐ<ýÊ   ßÐ=ýÊ   ßÐ


----------



## stevenson-again

yes i have seen most of these. but take the same pinch of salt with their criticisms of macintyre as you should and clearly do his criticisms of them. check this out:

http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/30/make ... more-11591

he might be a pain but it needs answering. at the end of the day, between the 2 sites (and their many more like them on both sides of the debate) you can see how incredibly complex and murky this whole area is.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Load of wank. Really, it's just silly.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> Load of wank. Really, it's just silly.



What specifically, Nick?

Good lord, just tried reading the Stephen Macyntyre post... WAY over my head, can't possibly tell if it makes any sense. I'll keep watching the to and fro... in the past nothing has stuck on the hockey stick in terms of peer-review, and that's what I'm sticking with (enough stick references....)


----------



## stevenson-again

just to add - the hockey stick as mann proposed in his fatal study is flawed. other studies that show the trend are not so easy to dismiss - they are far more robust. they areòýâ   ßÕ>ýâ   ßÕ?ýâ   ßÕ@ýâ   ßÕAýâ   ßÕBýâ   ßÕCýâ   ßÕDýâ   ß


----------



## stevenson-again

> WAY over my head, can't possibly tell if it makes any sense.



yeah i know what you mean. that's why i thought the fraser institute material would be a good place to start as it relatively easy to understand and easy to check up on yourself.

i have a scientist friend i like to discuss these things with and even he has a hard time keeping up with the complexities. what we agree is that the current model as we understand it from the media just doesn't tally with the intricacies of the issue. what i personally think that the manner in which some sceptics have handled the issue is absolutely deplorable (and i can show you some of these too although i doubt you need convincing) - whether they are right in what they say or not.

but the pro-ACC scientists have to accept some culpability too. their lack of transparency and unwillingness to present their evidence and research to proper scrutiny is what entrenches the sceptical position. you only have to look at the responses to enquiries on the real climate website. perfectly reasonable and valid questions trying confirm assertions made in some of their articles from sources they list are met with obfuscation. it's unbelievable considering what it is they are asserting.


----------



## stevenson-again

> What thunder cloud?



sustainability = can we keep doing what we do indefinitely? if the answer is no....


----------



## Narval

stevenson-again @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> can we keep doing what we do indefinitely?


Yes we can. 
:D 

No you can't. 
:( 


Seriously, that's not even a question, just a worry.


----------



## noiseboyuk

stevenson-again @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> Seriously, that's not even a question, just a worry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's actually a very very complex question. at the heart of it is looking at the entire issue, not one small subset (global warming), because if we do that, the things we put in place may inadvertently have adverse affects on the entirety of the problem. before we even get to whether sea-levels will rise in 50 years we have to ask, is there even enough arable land to support the worlds population in 50 years?
> 
> (this is a massive subject and i really have to work, but just to illustrate how i think global warming debate is a side show of the real issue hear me out in this one narrow line of thinking...)
> 
> it is extremely easy to measure how much arable land there is, and it is just as easy to work out what the maximum amount of food can be grown on them. not so easy to work out is whether the worlds population will continue to grow at the rate that it is, and in fact there is a great deal of concern on how we deal with _declining_ population. but that is far enough into the future to set to one side briefly. however, it is also easy to work out how much land and resources go into supporting the current population and possible future populations. this is not just food but other resources as well, trees, metals, energy.
> 
> it is complex but not as complex as climate change. and to be honest we probably have more to fear from global cooling than we do global warming - but i digress. it is at least much less scientifically controversial since we can deal in relative absolutes.
> 
> as 3rd world countries develop, their consumption will grow. we have just passed the point where our consumption is greater than the planets ability to replace resources. rjames had the right of it earlier in the thread when he talked about reducing our consumption, and changing our life styles. we would be better off for example, not replacing your SUV you already have for a prius, because the energy and resources to build your prius is far more than you would gain savings between the 2 vehicles in their lifetimes. or hang on to your old banger. it may produce slightly more emissions than a newer car, but by in the length of time you would change a car normally, you would have saved in comparison to emissions needed to build it. but you are not just saving emissions, you are saving resources as well (not-withstanding recycling).
> 
> this is what i mean by a bigger picture than just global warming alone. fossil fuels are actually very safe and efficient (if you consider the whole picture). replacing them with hydrogen fuel cells could increase greenhouse gasses - by emitting water vapour, which is a far more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. but without a doubt we will have to move over to electrical based mechanical energy powered by nuclear fission for the near term, and fusion in the longer term. because eventually we will run out of oil - or it will become uneconomic and too dangerous to recover. forget terrestrial based solar or wind or wave. they can supplement but they won't come near to what our requirements are growing to be by the time the worlds population stabilises.
> 
> the thing to bear in mind always, sometimes the thing that seems like the right thing to do may actually have unintended consequences.
Click to expand...


Hey, there was a good 50% of that I completely agree with! Especially holding on to old bangers vs replacing with Priuses (is that the correct plural?)

However, I'm very dubious about a few of your points - the one about water vapour especially. I'm of course aware that this is a greenhouse gas, but it's putting 2 and 2 together and making 651 to deduce that this will make global warming worse! For one thing fossil fuels engines already emit water vapour along with CO2; for another the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is absolutely colossol, vs a relatively small amount of CO2 which has a greater proportional effect; for another water vapour hangs around for about a week vs CO2 which hangs around for 1,000 years; the planet's own temperature determines the amount of vapour in the atmosphere etc. AFAIK, the old "hydrogen cars are worse for global warming" meme is yet another put about by the fossil fuel industry to stop any sustainable progress. There's some good layman's stuff on this at the New Scientist website - http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... e-gas.html (caveat - not peer-reviewed of course!)

One other point - of course the arable land available will change as the climate changes, so the two areas are closely intertwined.

Of course Climate Change is hardly the only pressing issue facing mankind. Population growth and especially economic growth are massively important also. The rate of temperature increase is still pretty uncertain (mostly cos of when the feebacks will kick in) - we might have another 100 years before things begin to get really serious, we might have 20... it's all a bit Las Vegas when it comes to timeframes (not when it comes to the overall direction, mind). I do think that the short term problems have been possibly overhyped, actually cos it's the only thing we really respond to. It's interesting to me that as humans we are only programmed to care about our children's generation, and MAYBE their children's... after that we simply don't care. Almost all the projections of future temperature increase etc stop at 2099, as if that's the end of the problem!


----------



## NYC Composer

:::merrily fiddling as Rome burns, quoting Alfred. E. Neuman, consuming large steak:::


----------



## chimuelo

Here's some large steak consumers. 
Again no conspiracy here, they just belong to the same Country Club and play Golf together.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... zOkf-Wy7bw

Conjurring up such policies in far away places as Rockefeller city known as Bellagio, Italy, tends to cause an appetite. Gazing down form the hill top mansion in the sky also gives such a beautiful view of the commoners they rule over.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Narval @ Sat Aug 07 said:


> stevenson-again @ Sat Aug 07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thing to bear in mind always, sometimes the thing that seems like the right thing to do may actually have unintended consequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Which goes along with what I meant when I said it's just a worry. Continuously worrying about the _possible_ consequences of one's well-meant actions, that could easily lead to complete non-action or to the madhouse. Imo, you only need to make your best bet based on what you believe to be reliable info. And then, come what may, as you are not responsible for nature's actions (which includes other people's actions). Why worry for things that are out of your control? You are only responsible in front of your own conscience, and for your own "world." Improve that - whatever "to improve" might mean to you - and the world, "your own world," will change. Hopefully, for the better.
> 
> Climate change? Let it change. We have our part in it? Yeah, so what? Mushrooms have their part too. To sum up my position:
> 
> Of course, it is moral to live your life while improving your surroundings, or at least do as little harm as possible. And yet, no one has assigned to you (me, etc.) any global task. Just keep an open mind, have a clear conscience, and practice goodwill. The nature will take care of its future, as always. "There is order in the universe." Even if we manage to upset it a little, the universe will restore its order in a split second. Materially speaking we are little more than viruses. Our main concern should be spiritual and intellectual improvement. That's the lot of man, that's what makes us unique in this complex universe.
Click to expand...


Much as I disagree with most of this thinking (this philosophy is actually anarchy, isn't it... I know anarchy has a bad reputation and there's a credible case for it, but it ain't for me) I find myself reluctantly agreeing with the conclusion. We just can't do anything, whether we want to or not, beyond tiny globally virtually insignificant actions. Even if "we all pull together" in terms of lots of us trying a bit harder, it won't be nearly enough. I've had a stab myself at trying to get something bigger off the ground, and it ended up nowhere. Without a massive coordinated global response and a transition to a steady-state economy, it's the proverbial pissing in the wind, sadly.


----------



## Narval

The answer, my friend...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgDzCDSLxOg


----------



## stevenson-again

> However, I'm very dubious about a few of your points - the one about water vapour especially. I'm of course aware that this is a greenhouse gas, but it's putting 2 and 2 together and making 651 to deduce that this will make global warming worse! For one thing fossil fuels engines already emit water vapour along with CO2; for another the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is absolutely colossol, vs a relatively small amount of CO2 which has a greater proportional effect; for another water vapour hangs around for about a week vs CO2 which hangs around for 1,000 years;



well, actually you are quite right - the water vapour from hydrogen fuel cells are not a real problem - that is actually true. but that's not because water vapour does not have a more 'greenhouse' effect - it does. it's because it is extremely easy to collect. it would tecnologically trivial to condense the water vapour to liquid where it would not enter the atmosphere. 

so not the greatest illustration for sure, but i was trying to point out that without really fully understanding a problem in its broadest sense we may end up mitigating for something that has an inadvertent and deleterious effects on something else.

further more, carbon does not hang around for 1000 years, it is absorbed by biota. and another furthermore - greenhouse gasses are a good thing! without them, tenerife would resemble lapland in winter on a bad day! we need greenhouse gasses. what we don't want to do is affect our climate so quickly that we cannot adapt. the climate will change with or without us. and the evidence just doesn't support our effect being so dramatic that we couldn't. there maybe some effect perhaps - but not seriously dramatic.

it is also without argument that the climate is cyclic. we are in fact over due for an ice age, but more immediately we are likely to be heading into a period of global cooling. that is of more concern because it could reduce rainfall and damage crops just when we near our most populous point. perhaps if athropogenic warming does have an affect it might mitigate the natural drop. i am of course aware that if that were the case when the cooling period is over - in about 30 years is the prediction, the climate will warm much more rapidly than it should. would it be faster than we could adapt? well it probably wouldn't be too serious until another 30 years after that.

warming in general coincides with periods of plenty. during the roman warming the climate was generally warmer than it is now and probably allowed people to travel and spread throughout europe. 

i tell you, there is more to concern yourself than just global warming. it's a possibility that it will continue to continue, but it's not likely. we should be prepared for all eventualities and consider the bigger picture.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Oops, I did get the length of CO2 in the atmosphere wrong - apparently the length is thought to be between 200-500 years, not 1,000. Still the point applies though! Water is only a week...

As for cooling... this is yet another of those memes that does the rounds interminably, it seems with no evidence. But it depends what you mean... if you're saying over the next few thousand / ten thousands years, with no human effect then yes AFAIK we're heading into a cooling period. However, that's kinda the whole point... in reality we're not. We're warming quite dramatically cos of the human component. Last week the NOAA published some work bringing together 10 separate measurable ways to demonstrate the current warming (note - as opposed to supposedly one closed temperature record) - http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... imate.html). It won't stop all the arguments of course, though it should, because all those contrarian arguments (remember how Global Warming stopped two years ago?!) will just move to something else. In the light of increased data and certainty, those motivated by ideology simply look elsewhere and launch a new, and ulitmately frutiless, line of attack. But however fruitless in terms of truth, it is spectacularly effective at spreading disinformation among the public. I guarantee anyone with enough patience to read this thread who was unfamiliar with the issues will be concluding "well, we don't really know", which proves the point.

Of course the natural climate is cyclic - and there are many cycles too. Every 11 years the sun's activity changes slightly (2007 was the most recent minimum I think). Over long timescales we have ice ages and deserts. Plenty of other factors affect climate from year-to-year too, such as large volcanic eruptions (Piantubo in 1993) or extreme El Nino / La Nina events (1998). What's kinda frustrating is that this isn't an argument to show that climate science is wrong... climate scientists discovered them in the first place! They are more than aware, and by the nature of their jobs are always looking for new ones. They test the data and the theories to destruction - that's what the scientific method does. And ALLOWING FOR ALL OF THIS, 97% say a) it's warming and b) we're chiefly to blame.

There's a nice op-ed article today on The Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... denial-app - from the man who brought the world the Sceptical Science iPhone app, which collates denialist arguments and puts them against peer-reviewed research. Of course, this week the denialists launch their own app... and as I pointed out a few posts ago, the statements contradict each other, because they are led by ideology, not science. A genuine scientific theory which arrives at consensus - as AGW is - will be coherant. This is just a bunch of wishful thinking and cherry picking amid a huge weight of solid science. 

One final point on our actions having inadvertant consequences - I totally agree. Here's a good example... I wonder what the unintended consequences would be if we spend 250 years burning colossal quantities of fossil fuels? Ah....


----------



## stevenson-again

> Still the point applies though! Water is only a week...



noiseboy, you are missing the fact that water never-the-less has a much greater greenhouse effect. if cloud cover increases more heat is trapped in and even if it precipitates out if the water is being replaced in the atmosphere as fast as it precipitates you will have a net warming effect. i have never seen any evidence that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for as long as 200-500 years. that seems to me to be a huge margin of error. sounds like someone (not you) is making stuff up...again.



> s for cooling... this is yet another of those memes that does the rounds interminably, it seems with no evidence.



what on earth are you talking about? there is tons of evidence! it is not even remotely controversial. even the uk met office, known to be distinctly pro-AGW agrees this is likely. it's one of the issues that pretty much unites most climatologists. those that are are pro-AGW argue that while the cooling may occur, when warming returns (as it will, no argument) it will be greatly exacerbated by the anthropogenic effect. furthermore, they argue, because the climate will cool, there will be a much lowered sense of urgency about curbing emissions. the cooling effect could lull us into a false sense of security.



> t won't stop all the arguments of course, though it should, because all those contrarian arguments (remember how Global Warming stopped two years ago?!) will just move to something else. In the light of increased data and certainty, those motivated by ideology simply look elsewhere and launch a new, and ulitmately frutiless, line of attack.



the point i have been trying to make all along noiseboy, is that this holds true for BOTH sides of the argument. there simply isn't the certainty in the science that you assert, nor would any pro-AGW climatologist worth their salt say different. there are more than 2 camps;

- there are the full on sceptics - idiots who just pick holes.
- there are the genuine sceptics - those who want to replicate results from climatologists, and generally confirm their findings.
- there are climatologists who are reasonably neutral, who refuse to sign up to anything that cannot be reasonably confirmed, or who refuse to accept some of the assumptions made because they don't feel the data is good enough - yet.
- there are climatologists who are quite certain of their results and have the sense of urgency you do. they are willing to allow exaggerationsòÿ‰   à.7ÿ‰   à.8ÿ‰   à.9ÿ‰   à.:ÿ‰   à.;ÿ‰   à.<ÿ‰   à.=ÿ‰   à.>ÿ‰   à.?ÿ‰   à[email protected]ÿ‰   à.Aÿ‰   à.Bÿ‰   à.Cÿ‰   à.Dÿ‰   à.Eÿ‰   à.Fÿ‰   à.Gÿ‰   à.Hÿ‰   à.Iÿ‰   à.Jÿ‰   à.Kÿ‰   à.Lÿ‰   à.Mÿ‰   à.Nÿ‰   à.Oÿ‰   à.Pÿ‰   à.Qÿ‰   à.Rÿ‰   à.Sÿ‰   à.Tÿ‰   à.Uÿ‰   à.Vÿ‰   à.Wÿ‰   à.Xÿ‰   à.Yÿ‰   à.Zÿ‰   à.[ÿŠ   à.\ÿŠ   à.]ÿŠ   à.^ÿŠ   à._ÿŠ   à.`ÿŠ   à.aÿŠ   à.bÿŠ   à.cÿŠ   à.dÿŠ   à.eÿŠ   à.fÿŠ   à.gÿŠ   à.hÿŠ   à.iÿŠ   à.jÿŠ   à.kÿŠ   à.lÿŠ   à.mÿŠ   à.nÿŠ   à.oÿŠ   à.pÿŠ   à.qÿ‹   à.rÿ‹   à.sÿ‹   à.tÿ‹   à.uÿ‹   à.vÿ‹   à.wÿ‹   à.xÿ‹   à.yÿ‹   à.zÿ‹   à.{ÿ‹   à.|ÿ‹   à.}ÿ‹   à.~ÿ‹   à.ÿ‹   à.€ÿ‹   à.ÿ‹   à.‚ÿ‹   à.ƒÿ‹   à.„ÿ‹   à.…ÿ‹   à.†ÿ‹   à.‡ÿ‹   à.ˆÿ‹   à.‰ÿ‹   à.Šÿ‹   à.‹ÿ‹   à.Œÿ‹   à.ÿ‹   à.Žÿ‹   à.ÿ‹   à.ÿ‹   à.‘ÿ‹   à.’ÿ‹   à.“ÿ‹   à.”ÿ‹   à.•ÿ‹   à.–ÿ‹   à.—ÿ‹   à.˜ÿ‹   à.™ÿ‹   à.šÿ‹   à.›ÿ‹   à.œÿ‹   à.ÿ‹   à.Îÿ‹   à.Ïÿ‹   à.Ðÿ‹   à.Ñÿ‹   à.Òÿ‹   à.Óÿ‹   à.Ôÿ‹   à.Õÿ‹   à.Ö              òÿ‹   à.Øÿ‹   à.Ùÿ‹   à.Úÿ‹   à.Ûÿ‹   à.Üÿ‹   à.Ýÿ‹   à.Þÿ‹   à.ßÿ‹   à.àÿ‹   à.áÿ‹   à.âÿ‹   à.ãÿ‹   à.äÿ‹   à.åÿ‹   à.æÿ‹   à.çÿ‹   à.èÿ‹   à.éÿ‹   à.êÿ‹   à.ëÿ‹   à.ìÿ‹   à.íÿ‹   à.îÿ‹   à.ïÿ‹   à.ðÿ‹   à.ñÿ‹   à.òÿ‹   à.óÿ‹   à.ôÿ‹   à.õÿ‹   à.öÿ‹   à.÷ÿ‹   à.øÿ‹   à.ùÿ‹   à.úÿ‹   à.ûÿ‹   à.üÿ‹   à.ýÿ‹   à.þÿ‹   à.ÿÿŒ   à.žÿŒ   à.ŸÿŒ   à. ÿŒ   à.¡ÿŒ   à.¢ÿŒ   à.£ÿŒ   à.¤ÿŒ   à.¥ÿŒ   à.¦ÿŒ   à.§ÿŒ   à.¨ÿŒ   à.©ÿŒ   à.ªÿŒ   à.«ÿŒ   à.¬ÿŒ   à.­ÿŒ   à.®ÿŒ   à.¯ÿ   à.°ÿ   à.±ÿ   à.²ÿ   à.³ÿ   à.´ÿ   à.µÿ   à.¶ÿ   à.·ÿ   à.¸ÿ   à.¹ÿ   à.ºÿ   à.»ÿ   à.¼ÿ   à.½ÿ   à.¾ÿ   à.¿ÿ   à.Àÿ   à.Áÿ   à.Âÿ   à.Ãÿ   à.Äÿ   à.Åÿ   à.Æÿ   à.Çÿ   à.Èÿ   à.Éÿ   à.Êÿ   à.Ëÿ   à.Ìÿ   à.ÍÿŽ   à'ÜÿŽ   à'ÝÿŽ   à'ÞÿŽ   à'ßÿŽ   à'àÿŽ   à'áÿŽ   à'âÿŽ   à'ãÿŽ   à'äÿŽ   à'åÿŽ   à'æÿŽ   à'çÿŽ   à'èÿŽ   à'éÿŽ   à'êÿŽ   à'ëÿŽ   à/ ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/              òÿŽ   à/	ÿŽ   à/
ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ÿŽ   à/ ÿŽ   à/!ÿŽ   à/"ÿŽ   à/#ÿŽ   à/$ÿŽ   à/%ÿŽ   à/&ÿŽ   à/'ÿŽ   à/(ÿŽ   à/)ÿŽ   à/*ÿŽ   à/+ÿŽ   à/,ÿŽ   à/-ÿŽ   à/.ÿŽ   à//ÿŽ   à/0ÿŽ   à/1ÿŽ   à/2ÿŽ   à/3ÿŽ   à/4ÿŽ   à/5ÿŽ   à/6ÿŽ   à/7ÿŽ   à/8ÿŽ   à/9ÿŽ   à/:ÿŽ   à/;ÿŽ   à/<ÿŽ   à/=ÿŽ   à/>ÿŽ   à/?ÿŽ   à/@ÿŽ


----------



## noiseboyuk

OK, to a rousing cheer from the stalls, this will be my last post on this thread! I keep just wanting to repeat what I've said before, cos all the points still absolutely stand, but there really is no point. So I'll take a few specifics from Rohan's last posts, but once again try and just establish the basics here - cos this is what perpetually seems to get lost. I'll put in a few references for anyone remotely interested enough to pursue anything further.

WARMING

It is. It is the opposite of cooling. 10 separate indicators all point to the same thing, as shown last week by the NOAA:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100728_stateoftheclimate.html (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... imate.html)

There are short term cooling cycles every 11 years or so (we are moving out of a miniumum phase there), and there are long term glacial phases (I believe we are moving into one there). This year is - so far - the hottest on record of all time, so we don't appear to be cooling right now, and no need to wait for any future warming (though correct, in the future we are likely to get much warmer years when El Nino combines with sun maximum activity etc). The long term trends are most important though, and we're currently 305 straight months above the 20th century average for each month.

THE CONSENSUS

There is a consensus among all scientists, and especially climate scientists, that not only is the world getting warmer, that we are chiefly responsible. There are those that disagree, but they are in a minority. 97% of climate scientists, according to a recent paper in NAS, concur. You can find the paper here:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract)

Their abstract reads:



> Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.



The paper's authors further discuss this here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -comments/

Despite any protestations to the contrary, the current sceptical position (ie that of the working scientists) is that, with overwhelming probability, we are warming the planet. This is further endorsed by the following academic institutions in public policy statements:

_American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences_

The combined expertise of these institutions, and the views of the most qualified researchers in the field, I can humbly say exceeds my own. That's why rather than reading a few blogs and "making up my own mind", I'd rather simply side with those who are far, far, far more qualified than I can ever be. If the issue was more divisive, I'd have more inclination to decide these matters myself, but it's massively, overwhelmingly one-sided. It might be wrong, but there's no rational reason not to throw my hat in with academia here. The groups that adopt a denialst tone are all political / religious / industry, not scientific, so I duly weight their views far lower in importance accordingly.

As for the IPCC, their own certainty in the basic conclusions of Anthropogenic Climate Change are >90% (up from >67% in the previous report).

DENIALISTS

There is a huge difference in the approach of a website (v useful) such as Sceptical Science

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Which simply and coherantly summarises peer reviewed literature, and a denialist site which throws any random theory together, which themselves contradict one another. The point made by the sites's founder that "that sceptics focus on small pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the full body of evidence" is absolutely spot on. Any one piece of data, and one study, can introduce an anomalous result. Is it repeatable? Is it verifiable? That's what the scientific method is. Denialists cherry pick any graph (or plain invent them) to serve a cause, ignoring any wider body of evidence which contradicts it.

Resident contrarian lunatic Mockton is a good example of someone who does preciesly this. There's a good and thorough debunking of his "science" and his methods here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... kes-it-up/

OK, that'll do - enough repetition already! Thanks to anyone who made it this far, and thanks to Rohan for his patience!


----------



## ChrisAxia

Thanks for those links Rohan. Had a quick look. What's becoming clearer is that there are more variables than I realised and this obviously has serious implications for climate models that ignore these factors. Like many here, I have an engineering background and still remember the words of one of my lecturers "The maths is never wrong but if your model is wrong..."

Looks like the debate is far from over. 

Chris


----------



## NYC Composer

What seems obvious to me is the links I clicked on from Rohan's post were such obvious political, stealth funded screeds that I was truly amazed. Are these really credible sources in your view, Rohan? You seem like an exceptionally bright fellow, but I think you've made up your mind about this issue already and look to disparate and uncertain sources to bolster your p.o.v.

'The Petition Project'?? Really? Please look a little more deeply into Fredrick Weitz, a former 'head of research' for RJ Reynolds. Cushy job. Not only a AGW denier, but apparently didn't believe in tobacco/lung cancer causality either.

All of this right/left bickering is sort of specious anyway. The pollution clouds over L.A and Denver (and industrial China) would indicate that we really ought to clean up our act anyway, and here in the U.S, we need much more energy independence anyway: might as well be cleaner energy as long as we're at it. And then there's the what if you're wrong/what if you're right scenario. The consequences from AGW being real are far worse than the effect on your pocketbook if they're not-for logical beings, shouldn't that cut through the chaff of politics and closely held beliefs? Even if it's all a shuck it has benefits, cleaning things up, no?


----------



## stevenson-again

> All of this right/left bickering is sort of specious anyway. The pollution clouds over L.A and Denver (and industrial China) would indicate that we really ought to clean up our act anyway, and here in the U.S, we need much more energy independence anyway: might as well beò ð   àsÝ ð   àsÞ ð   àsß ð   àsà ð   àsá ð   àsâ ñ   àsã ñ   àsä ñ   àså ñ   àsæ ñ   àsç ñ   àsè ñ   àsé ñ   àsê ñ   àsë ñ   àsì ñ   àsí ñ   àsî ñ   àsï ñ   àsð ñ   àsñ ñ   àsò ñ   àsó ñ   àsô ñ   àsõ ñ   àsö ñ   às÷ ñ   àsø ñ   àsù ñ   àsú ñ   àsû ñ   àsü ñ   àsý ñ   àsþ ñ   àsÿ ñ   àt  ñ   àt ñ   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt	 ò   àt
>  ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt  ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt ò   àt  ò   àt! ò   àt" ò   àt# ò   àt$ ò   àt% ò   àt& ò   àt' ò   àt( ò   àt) ò   àt* ò   àt+ ò   àt, ò   àt- ò   àt. ò   àt/ ò   àt0 ò   àt1 ò   àt2 ò   àt3 ò   àt4 ò   àt5 ò   àt6 ò   àt7 ò   àt8 ò   àt9 ò   àt: ò   àt; ò   àt< ò   àt= ò   àt> ò   àt? ò   à[email protected] ò   àtA ò   àtB ò   àtC ò   àtD ò   àtE ò   àtF ò   àtG ò   àtH ò   àtI ò   àtJ ò   àtK ò   àtL              ò ò   àtN ò   àtO ò   àtP ò   àtQ ò   àtR ò   àtS ò   àtT ò   àtU ò   àtV ò   àtW ò   àtX ò   àtY ò   àtZ ò   àt[ ò   àt\ ò   àt] ò   àt^ ò   àt_ ò   àt` ò   àta ò   àtb ò   àtc ò   àtd ó   àte ó   àtf ó   àtg ó   àth ó   àti ó   àtj ó   àtk ó   àtl ó   àtm ó   àtn ó   àto ó   àtp ó   àtq ó   àtr ó   àts ó   àtt ó   àtu ó   àtv ó   àtw ó   àtx ó   àty ó   àtz ó   àt{ ó   àt| ó   àt} ó   àt~ ó   àt ó   àt€ ó   àt ó   àt‚ ó   àtƒ ó   àt„ ó   àt… ó   àt† ó   àt‡ ó   àtˆ ó   àt‰ ó   àtŠ ó   àt‹ ó   àtŒ ó   àt ó   àtŽ ó   àt ó   àt ó   àt‘ ó   àt’ ó   àt“ ó   àt” ó   àt• ó   àt– ó   àt— ó   àt˜ ó   àt™ ó   àtš ó   àt› ó   àtœ ó   àt ó   àtž ó   àtŸ ó   àt  ó   àt¡ ó   àt¢ ó   àt£ ó   àt¤ ó   àt¥ ó   àt¦ ó   àt§ ó   àt¨ ó   àt© ó   àtª ó   àt« ó   àt¬ ó   àt­ ó   àt® ó   àt¯ ó   àt° ó   àt± ó   àt² ó   àt³ ó   àt´ ó   àtµ ó   àt¶ ó   àt· ó   àt¸ ó   àt¹ ó   àtº ó   àt» ó   àt¼ ó   àt½              ò ó   àt¿ ó   àtÀ ó   àtÁ ó   àtÂ ó   àtÃ ó   àtÄ ó   àtÅ ó   àtÆ ô   àtÇ ô   àtÈ ô   àtÉ ô   àtÊ ô   àtË ô   àtÌ ô   àtÍ ô   àtÎ ô   àtÏ ô   àtÐ ô   àtÑ ô   àtÒ ô   àtÓ ô   àtÔ ô   àtÕ ô   àtÖ ô   àt× ô   àtØ ô   àtÙ ô   àtÚ ô   àtÛ ô   àtÜ ô   àtÝ ô   àtÞ ô   àtß ô   àtà ô   àtá ô   àtâ ô   àtã ô   àtä ô   àtå ô   àtæ ô   àtç ô   àtè ô   àté ô   àtê ô   àtë ô   àtì ô   àtí ô   àtî ô   àtï ô   àtð ô   àtñ ô   àtò ô   àtó ô   àtô ô   àtõ ô   àtö ô   àt÷ ô   àtø ô   àtù ô   àtú ô   àtû ô   àtü ô   àtý ô   àtþ ô   àtÿ ô   àu  ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu	 ô   àu
>  ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu  ô   àu ô   àu ô   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu õ   àu  õ   àu! õ   àu" õ   àu# õ   àu$ õ   àu% õ   àu& õ   àu' õ   àu( õ   àu) õ   àu* ö   àu+ ö   àu, ö   àu- ö   àu.              ò ö   àu0 ö   àu1 ö   àu2 ö   àu3 ö   àu4 ö   àu5 ö   àu6 ö   àu7 ö   àu8 ö   àu9 ö   àu: ö   àu; ö   àu< ö   àu= ö   àu> ö   àu? ö   à[email protected] ö   àuA ö   àuB ö   àuC ö   àuD ö   àuE ö   àuF ö   àuG ö   àuH ö   àuI ö   àuJ ö   àuK ö   àuL ö   àuM ö   àuN ö   àuO ö   àuP ö   àuQ ö   àuR ö   àuS ö   àuT ö   àuU ö   àuV ö   àuW ö   àuX ö   àuY ö   àuZ ö   àu[ ö   àu\ ö   àu] ö   àu^ ö   àu_ ö   àu` ö   àua ö   àub ö   àuc ö   àud ö   àue ö   àuf ÷   àug ÷   àuh ÷   àui ÷   àuj ÷   àuk ÷   àul ÷   àum ÷   àun ÷   àuo ÷   àup ÷   àuq ÷   àur ÷   àus ÷   àut ÷   àuu


----------



## NYC Composer

Thanks for your very reasonable response, Rohan.

It's rare that I accept any consensus view as gospel. When there is one, some portion of my intellect eventually asks "cui bono"? In this situation, however, no matter who has politicized what, my conclusion to the cui bono question is simply 'everyone'.

That has become my present stance on the matter, that whoever is paying scientists to support their own closely held position matters less than the inevitable conclusion that one solution (i.e.accepting this might be a dire issue and moving forward, reaping side benefits as we go) vastly trumps the other solution (i.e. insisting that it's all a ruse and a shuck and refusing to give it credence or deal with it except to fight any spending, thereby possibly endangering us all and offering no side benefits.)

So to me, moving ahead to combat_ possible_ AGW is a win-win.


----------



## Narval

Global warming? Bring it on!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP8C0q5- ... re=related


----------



## stevenson-again

> So to me, moving ahead to combat possible AGW is a win-win.



the problem is mate, combatting it is as complex an issue as the issue itself. that was exactly the argument i used to profess - the things we do to mitigate it are good things anyway. to which the response was - don't be so sure about that.

again i was invited to look at the what actually transpires when only that issue is dealt with without taking a view of the whole. i mentioned earlier as an example, people are out replacing perfectly serviceable cars with prius's on the assumption they are saving the planet when in actual fact the energy and resources used to create the new car far out strip any savings had they hung on to their original car. (btw i think prius's are great - really technologically fascinating). that is just an illustration mind - its the broad principle that i want to express.

focussing solely on mitigating global warming is dangerous because it neglects other more important environmental concerns - or i should say; the real concerns are not in focus even though there is intersection with the interests of mitigating global warming. the thing is the broader view of sustainability is utterly empirical. the margins for doubt are so small as to be insignificant. global warming is based on a lot of very poorly understood science, that is relatively primitive and highly contentious. it just doesn't seem to me to be a terribly strong basis for completely restructuring the social and economic order of the entire planet. it's very uncertainty - and man, just look into it! read realclimate.com which really pro-AGW and read the threads on the articles. have a look at how easy it is to re-interpret the same set of data to make it say something different! at least consider the sceptic arguments as possibly being right, just as much as you might the 'alarmist' or 'believer' camps.

why use global warming as the basis when you have far stronger and more robust issues to motivate change?


----------



## NYC Composer

stevenson-again @ Mon Aug 09 said:


> So to me, moving ahead to combat possible AGW is a win-win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is mate, combatting it is as complex an issue as the issue itself. that was exactly the argument i used to profess - the things we do to mitigate it are good things anyway. to which the response was - don't be so sure about that.
> 
> again i was invited to look at the what actually transpires when only that issue is dealt with without taking a view of the whole. i mentioned earlier as an example, people are out replacing perfectly serviceable cars with prius's on the assumption they are saving the planet when in actual fact the energy and resources used to create the new car far out strip any savings had they hung on to their original car. (btw i think prius's are great - really technologically fascinating). that is just an illustration mind - its the broad principle that i want to express.
> 
> focussing solely on mitigating global warming is dangerous because it neglects other more important environmental concerns - or i should say; the real concerns are not in focus even though there is intersection with the interests of mitigating global warming. the thing is the broader view of sustainability is utterly empirical. the margins for doubt are so small as to be insignificant. global warming is based on a lot of very poorly understood science, that is relatively primitive and highly contentious. it just doesn't seem to me to be a terribly strong basis for completely restructuring the social and economic order of the entire planet. it's very uncertainty - and man, just look into it! read realclimate.com which really pro-AGW and read the threads on the articles. have a look at how easy it is to re-interpret the same set of data to make it say something different! at least consider the sceptic arguments as possibly being right, just as much as you might the 'alarmist' or 'believer' camps.
> 
> why use global warming as the basis when you have far stronger and more robust issues to motivate change?
Click to expand...


Overall, very good points. My response would be-okay, so let's begin to argue about the ways to mitigate!  

IMO, stasis is often the enemy,and much like political gridlock, is the course that most are comfortable with. Me, not so much.


----------



## stevenson-again

> IMO, stasis is often the enemy,and much like political gridlock, is the course that most are comfortable with. Me, not so much.



nor me! nor me!

gridlock, mess, bickering, stupendous amounts of misinformation and misinterpretation are what you get if you really on a primitive science that takes it's unit of measurements in decades. it's the wrong thing to be up in arms about.

it should be used as part of a broader argument where you say; '(persuasive argument based on uncontroversial easy to understand and calculate facts such as population vs arable land)...and not only that, but there is a distinct possibility that our emissions could be affecting our climate faster than we can adapt!'

relying on the science behind global warming is like building your house on quick sand.



> so let's begin to argue about the ways to mitigate



first, start by educating women in the third world.


----------



## Narval

stevenson-again @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> first, start by educating women in the third world.


By educating them, you mean convincing them to give up sexual control over men? And to give birth to less children? If so, good luck with that! Overpopulation is warfare, today more than ever. It is their game not yours, you know. And education has nothing to do with this game. It's not a matter of less or more education but a matter of culture. And cultures are under women's control - it has always been this way, in spite of the appearances. You think third world women are uneducated? You want to educate them?? To convince them that they are wrong in their ways and purposes??? You stand no chance, friendo. They know all that you know multiplied one thousand times. Go play ball with the other boys. :mrgreen:


----------



## stevenson-again

absolutely wrong on pretty much all counts there narval.

in any case this is already beginning to happen. world birth rates are dropping like a stone. that might sound great and it certainly needs to happen, but it will bring its own problems which might be pretty surprising to us from our particular point in history.


----------



## Narval

So you think I'm wrong, eh? But of course I am! Precisely my point. When it comes to saying anything about women, I am wrong. But you know what you're missing? That you are wrong too. We're all wrong. And they are right. Now, go try to educate them. :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAe_w9a_IN8

You know, all in all, you're just another brick in the wall.


----------



## noiseboyuk

AAAARGGGGGH!!!!!! I'm so sorry... I said I wouldn't come back and I HAVE! I'm so weak!!!!

And it's just to make this observation. Take a look at this wee site:

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

And tell me if you don't find the arguments presented awfully familiar....

Rohan, you're a top bloke but what you present here just isn't the reality of the scientific community. Read back on my last (supposedly final) post - 97% of climate scientists concur. Yup, you can quote the 3% all you like, but to me it's just like the creationist site linked above. Both disagreeing with AGW and Creationism have huge support among the general public who want or need to believe it, but very little among scientists. The more qualified the scientists in their own specialist areas, the less likely they are to disagree with the consensus in their field. And sure, there are a few Life Earth scientists who are creationists. They will even show you the science as to why all their colleagues are wrong (look at those quotes on the website above...

_There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution. What little evidence they have is highly questionable._

Familiar?

I couldn't tell you exactly why intelligent scientists do this, except that belief systems are very powerful, religious or otherwise. As a tangent, it's fascinating to me how much blame gets apportioned to religion, when people seem perfectly capable of being irrational without it (Robert Pape's brilliant book Dying To Win points out that suicide terrorism has very little to do with religion, for example). And, I might add, some seem perfectly rational WITH religion, but that's another matter...

One more point... if the science were REALLY as flaky as you suggest, do you honestly think that colossol list of world institutions would all - unambiguously - throw their hat in the AGW ring? This doesn't give you pause for thought, at least? This is why I describe it as an attack on science. In the form of these institutions (and by other measures), the scientific community at large has embraced AGW as a theory with near-universal support. It doesn't do this without reason. It COULD be wrong... but so could evolution. I guess. Rohan, I guess you'd say that the difference between Creationism and rejection of AGW is that the science with AGW is flaky, but here we're in a circular argument... if it was, why the near-universal acceptace (with figures almost identical to evolution?)

Now, that said, again we do agree on much. Focusing on sustainability is a no brainer from other perspectives also - totally agree.

Ok... sorry for being weak... sorry...


----------



## George Caplan

world birth rates are rising at an exponential rate. where did you get that dropping like a stone from? population rise is the major problem for the world. the world cannot sustain ignorant people forever.


----------



## stevenson-again

> what you present here just isn't the reality of the scientific community.



noiseboy - what i have been at absolute pains to do, and my whole reason for participating in this thread is to illuminate the realities of the scientific community on this subject.

you can say that 97% agree with AGW but that is incredibly misleading.

this wikedpia article, is as good at as a summation as any:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sc ... al_warming)

there are a small minority reject AGW completely, and they ARE in a small minority. but there is such a complex range of views you simply cannot divide the issue into for and against.

i beseech you noiseboy, look beyond surface of this issue, as i was made to do, and you will see it vastly more complex than the rather final and absolute position you have adopted. listen to what the sceptics have to say, then listen to the counters from the believers. then listen to the counters of the counters. don't just believe the primae facae you are spoon fed from the media - either way!

to give you an idea at just how convoluted this subject can get, follow this;

there is dispute as to how much greenhouse affect our emissions have. some say a lot some say a little, even within the same research institution. since 1998 the warming trend has virtually stopped. some say it simply slowed, some say it has reversed slightly. in both cases it depends on the resolution with which you look at the figures. some say that the net effect is the earth has warmed if you look at sea temperatures (water stores vastly more energy than air), but sea temperatures have cooled. the counter to that is that that is because of heat transfer with lower parts of the ocean. surface temperatures have indeed cooled but the net effect is for slight increase and a warming trend. then the counter is that those processes take longer than accounted for in the studies, and that increased vulcanism recently could account for at least some of this net heating affect particularly in the arctic. and furthermore, the relative lack of vulcanic activity in the last century is not accounted for in most studies, which is important because particulates thrown into the atmosphere reduce the amount of energy reaching the earths surface whilst also emitting huge amounts of greenhouse gasses. the little ice age is thought to be at least partly caused by vulcanism. it's thought that the medieval warming has been understated (by sceptics of course) countered with 'evidence for warming during this period is limited primarily to the northern hemisphere', cross-countered, 'evidence suggests that southern hemisphere may have been just as warm', cross-cross-countered with 'so what? we have no viable explanation for all of the current warming trend', countered with 'we have many, and even if we didn't it doesn't mean there isn't one' and countered with 'yes but the consensus of opinion is....'

i mean i could go on. and on. and on.

read the realclimate site since you are fond pointing to it. but read it thoroughly. read what some of the people writing on its blogs are asking and whether you get satisfactory answers. some times yes sometimes i feel that gnawing of suspicion.

you are absolutely deluding yourself if you think there is scientific consensus on this issue. i mean real consensus not some PR statement to get governments and newspapers off their backs.


----------



## stevenson-again

oh and just to add - there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning evolution. even though it has been proved to occur because it can be replicated in a laboratory and verified.

it's very unscientific in my view to dismiss challenging ideas out of hand.

but whatever you put in its place better pretty robust....


----------



## noiseboyuk

stevenson-again @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> you can say that 97% agree with AGW but that is incredibly misleading.



Is it?

Do you reject the findings of that study I linked? If so, on what grounds?

If there is widespread disagreement or debate about whether or not warming has stopped, this would be reflected in the public statements of the institutions and those of the scientists. It isn't. It's in the blogsphere, and there it stays. As the NOAA report a couple of weeks ago pointed out, 10 different measurable and verifiable indicators all agree it IS warming. You only get alternate results by cherry picking - which doesn't make it through peer-review, rightly.

My challenge to you, Rohan, is to deal with the points I have repeatedly made. What is wrong with the study that shows that 97% of climate scientists agree? What is the flaw in their methodology and where is a peer-reviewed alternate study of climate scientists' views with a different conclusion? Where are the major institutions which disagree of the pedigree of NAS, NASA or the Royal Society? What is your answer to The Royal Society et al's unambiguous support of the AGW theory, given their reputation and credentials?

With regard to scientific questions, quoting an individual, lobby group or blog just doesn't cut it for me, neither will any single paper. The whole point is the huge volume of evidence that has been accepted as the consensus view. The reason you find lots of contrarian comments on blogs like Real Climate is that they are decent enough to publish them (nearly always from lay people). You don't find them nearly so much in the scientific papers, funnily enough.

I have no problem with you taking the stand you are, it's certainly not unreasonable - I only have an issue when it's portrayed as the mainstream scientific view (which may be wrong, but I'm backing it). Because of the facts that I have repeatedly quoted, I say it very much isn't, and its misleading to say it is. It's not 50/50... currently the scientific confidence is greater than 90/10. Personally I'm happy for policy to be guided by 90% confidence - though its a shame that it isn't, and looks like it never will be.


----------



## Jimbo 88

About global warming...all I can add is this. I've scored a hundred+ hours of shows for the Weather Channel and all the predictions made years ago about global warming have been pretty accurate. We have colder winters with snow in places it never snowed before, hotter summers with more intense droughts. You can argue the little points all day long, but look out your window and things are changing.


----------



## stevenson-again

> We have colder winters with snow in places it never snowed before, hotter summers with more intense droughts. You can argue the little points all day long, but look out your window and things are changing.



well no doubts climate changes. climate always changes. the debate is over to what extent man is responsible for any of the changes we are seeing. some of the most sceptical climatologists run long range weather forecasting that are incredibly accurate. what makes them argue against AGW is the process they use to predict the weather into the future.

my own feeling on that is that their forecasts might be accurate, but that is still just weather - not climate. just because those forces have a greater bearing on short term climate does not mean other forces such as manmade greenhouse gasses cannot or do not have bearing on a general trend if one exists.


i'll come back to noiseboy's post in a little while.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Is it?



yes.



> Do you reject the findings of that study I linked? If so, on what grounds?



i'll do my best but i really don't have much time. firstly just to say that the noaa and the met office have a long record on making spurious assumptions on little or poor evidence. 

firslty it was not peer-reviewed. it was simply published as a supplement to the "Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society"

1. NEAR SURFACE AIR TEMPERATURE, (TROPOSPHERE), IS RISING.

Satellite measurements began in 1978, at the start of a period of warming following a cold period from around 1940 to 1977, so we are only at the end of a first 30 year period. We have no satellite data from known cold periods for comparison and it is stretching science to claim that long- term warming will continue from such a short record.

2. LAND SURFACE TEMPERATURE IS RISING.

The whole question of the land surface temperature record was the main issue with the de-bunked Mann Hockey Stick and the recent Climategate affair.
There are serious flaws in the surface temperature record, as identified by meteorologist Anthony Watts at WUWT in his Surface Stations Project and further described here

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 87we24.htm

by Dr Don Keiller, of Anglia Ruskin University, in evidence to the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons.

3. SEA ICE IS DISAPPEARING AT AN ACCELERATING RATE.

In 2004, K R Wood of the Arctic Research office and J Wood of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory examined explorer's logs from large naval expeditions from 1818 to 1859 and found that ice thickness	and	navigation channels were surprisingly like today. Explorers encountered both warm and cool conditions and came within about 90 miles of completing the North West passage. The passage was navigated by Amundsen in 1905.

A 2004Norwegian study covering 100 years in the Arctic, showed the temperature was generally increasing up to the 1930s, decreasing from the 1930s to the 1960s, and increasing from the 1960s to 2000. The temperature level in the 1990s was still lower than it was during the 1930s.

4. OCEAN HEAT CONTENT IS INCREASING.

Dr Robert E Stevenson, an eminent Scripps Institute and NASA oceanographer who died in 2001, wrote in 2000 that, “the entire heat in the overlying atmosphere can be contained in the top two meters of the oceans. This enormous storage capacity enables the oceans to "buffer" any major deviations in temperature, moderating both heat and cold waves alike. Anomalous heat associated with changing solar irradiance is stored in the upper 100 meters. The heat balance is maintained by heat loss to the atmosphere, not to the deep ocean.”

The problem as I see it is that the process of conduction of heat to the lower ocean depths with the rate of heat exchange with the surface air is going to be too slow for it to affect short or near term climate. we would be talking in the many 10's of decades or 100's of years. That is my understanding and I am quite happy to admit that i have no proof - just a basic understanding of physics and of convection and conduction. Still you can see this for yourself if you go swimming or diving in australia. The heat differential beyond 10 metres is enormous. 

In 2007, Dr Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at NCAR and a major figure in the IPCC, expressed his dissatisfaction with climate models in a Nature Science Blog posting:

“None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond.”

In a paper from last year, (Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for adapting to climate change: Tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability), he commented:

“The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000. Given that
there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating
increases of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isn’t
the temperature continuing to go up?”

Trenberth is baffled that warming hasn’t been happening when his models told him it should have been, yet he still says anthropogenic warming is unequivocal. With so many unknowns and outright assumptions, how can long term modelling results drawn from them have any credence?

if you want to see actual proof of how noaa has gotten it wrong, you can compare their forecasting here:

http://www.accuweather.com/video/490903135001/monday-morning-global-sea-ice-polar-temp-report.asp?channel=vbbastaj (http://www.accuweather.com/video/490903 ... l=vbbastaj)

which essentially shows how as arctic sea ice decreased, antarctic sea ice increased. these guys claim they predicted this and i really don't have time to verify if they did, but it should be possible.

it does not matter if noaa have 30 indicators - if the same bumpkins are the ones doing the measuring and making interpretations to fit their assumptions then it could say the earth is flat it rains when god cries for all i care.


----------



## noiseboyuk

stevenson-again @ Tue Aug 10 said:


> i'll do my best but i really don't have much time. firstly just to say that the noaa and the met office have a long record on making spurious assumptions on little or poor evidence.



Examples? (other than weather forecasts.... let's not commit sin no1 by confusing weather and climate...) The accuweather "unbiased just the facts" report was unintentionally hilarious. I lost count of the times he effectively said "look, not as low as 2007 ergo the decline has stopped". It's yet another tell-tale straw man. "just the facts", my ass.... in the same way that Fox News is unbiased!

For a few years the ice extent dropped like a stone. To a layman, it would have seemed as if we'd be ice free in 5 years, but no expert said so - it was still 20-40 years. As my increasingly reliable Sceptical Science points out - http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic- ... n-made.htm - 2007 was freak low because of freak weather (just as 1998 was a freak high). I lose count of the times that people ignore these basic, basic points. If (IF) 2010 turns out to be the hottest year on record, it doesn't mean global warming has started again. It never stopped. 

Rohan, you do seem to favour the news sources and scientists which adopt a contrarian tone. Again I say - they may be right. You're a smart bloke... it all probably makes more sense to you than me. But it's not really my point. Again I say - look at the body of scientific evidence, the views of the climate scientists and academic institutions and at least see that this is a MINORITY POSITIION. Call me conservative if you like, but I'm just siding with the WHOPPING majority (and I'm not taking too many chances with evolution, either...)

You must have worked out by now that I'm pretty unimpressed with single sources... time and again I keep banging on about 97% this and "all the major institutions" that... those are the big questions that need answering....


----------



## stevenson-again

> As my increasingly reliable Sceptical Science points out



how is sceptical science any more reliable than the sources i am quoting?



> Rohan, you do seem to favour the news sources and scientists which adopt a contrarian tone.




only to show that they exist, they make a persuasive case and you would do well to seriously examine what you are hearing from mainstream sources. only to show that the debate is complex, and far from over. only to show that this is such a complex and uncertain area of science to base policy that effectively remodels the entire socio-economic structure of the planet.



> Again I say - they may be right. You're a smart bloke... it all probably makes more sense to you than me. But it's not really my point. Again I say - look at the body of scientific evidence



arggh! that's what i am trying to do. i just look at certain things held be unequivocal adn examine to see if they are! turns out that they are not. arctic sea-ice just for one example, was at least as reduced as it has been recently as far back as 1909 and then recovered. i object to it being pointed to as evidence for man made global warming when clearly on the basis of that evidence you cannot say that as it may be returning naturally. but it MAY be affected by AGW, you just simply can't use it as evidence of it.

don't you see? i don't mind when evidence is shown that has caveats and balances, looks for other explanations other than ones being sought (ie AGW). i just can't stand the crooked thinking that contends that that constitutes robust proof.

you keep insisting that scientific institutions around the world are completely convinced of the science of global warming and that it is happening. 

what are they completely convinced of noiseboy?

show me where they will state unequivocally that man made emissions are certainly and without doubt responsible for most recent global warming. none of them will because they can't. they will say something like; 'it is likely' - but actually i can't find official positions from institutions anywhere even the CRU. what you get is individual researches who take positions and those positions vary wildly. a large proportion *would* probably sign up to some sort of man made effect on the climate. if someone waved a piece of paper in my face i probably would. but there is such a spectrum of opinion within that it is simply too simplistic to say that you are for or against.

check this out btw:

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/yamal2009/

you can't say i am biased - i do really take on board everything but i have long since come to the conclusion for every claim there is a counter-claim that can in turn be countered. macintyre is a pain because he keeps finding faults in peoples research. ie he is like stuffy maths professor checking peoples assignments to see if their maths is right. i have to say it does rather undermine the position that the science is somehow settled.

look at the contrarian arguments. you might say if you cherry pick one argument you can find fault with it but when you take the body of sceptical arguments together, it all paints a most doubtful picture. sound familiar?


----------



## stevenson-again

> We're both arrrrging. I've said it >90 times, that there is NO CERTAINTY - but there is >90% probability


. 

sorry mate, but most scientists will give you are range of views on that. form those will say >90% probability that there is some effect but it is not serious - no cause for alarm. some who say the probability is nowhere near that but the effect could be of serious concern. right the way through to through to those who say the effect is going to be catastrophic.

why do you insist that the opinion is uniform? there is no evidence that that is the consensus and i have shown you repeatedly that it is not.

i have shown that of those whose results lead them to consider the result to be chiefly man made or that the warming is far in excess of natural forces, that there are contrary views, and that those views of those scientists can't simply be ignored.



> I must have said this 10 times now... please, for both of our sanities why do you keep ignoring it?



that's the problem - i am not ignoring, i keep answering it. but i am getting the feeling that it is not the answer you want to here. what i am trying to point out is that such a rigidly held view and simplistic view of the issue is not reality. it is deeply complex and fraught with margins for error. the scientists themselves are constantly making mistakes with their results and having to correct, with the inevitable hit to the credibility of any one position, for or against.




> That's by the experts that factor in EVERY piece of data available to them, doing their jobs.



but the experts cannot agree, within the various camps. and the data is so often shown to be flawed in someway or not take account of this or not taking account of that.




> There is no warming!



most sceptics do NOT think that, they are simply critical of a lot of interpretation of data that supports the warming hypothesis. a lot data pointing to warming on closer analysis isn't. you know - don't make stuff up!



> OK there is warming but it's not us!



some sceptics think that there is virtually insignificant anthropogenic effect. some think that there is some but it has been overstated. some non-sceptics think that too. you want to see everything in black and white but it just isn't like that especially with this issue.



> OK it is us, but it's good for us!



actually these guys have a very good case. with very little in the way of contrary evidence (counter-claims) except from the real alarmist camp. i personally don't go with it, i am much more conservative. if it is the case that we affect climate then it has to be sustainable - ie not so fast we can't adapt, but i would much rather not affect climate at all and adapt that way.



> And so on. The "sceptics" arguments do not form any whole... they're just what they are, pot shots


. 

they are no less or more coherent than the believer camp. a lot of so called sceptical scientists just want to make sure the assertions are based on verifiable peer reviewed data, freely available to everyone. they also want to make sure that all factors pertaining to one narrow area of research is considered.

this lack of coherence is quite a typical of the alarmist camp propaganda, but it doesn't make it true. as soon as a sceptic takes a look at one area of research and finds the many holes it inevitably has, he/she is accused of cherry-picking. but they don't just stop at one narrow area of research. there is a whole body of work that is sceptical of the mainstream view and i gotta say - some of it is pretty hard to get past. i REALLY recommend you have a look at the fermilab lecture i posted a while back. i should warn you - this guy doesn't tolerate much challenge to his views from what i gathered from the public lecture, but there are some things he points out that are really hard to refute.



> note the distinction - of course ALL science is sceptical, and if any evidence that runs contrary to the AGW theory that stands up is discovered, sooner or later it will become mainstream. Thus far, this hasn't happened with AGW as I keep pointing out



unfortunately for climate science, it will take many years and decades for it to be self correcting. other disciplines when they make mistakes, it isn't a problem it'll get found out eventually. but the policy is being devised surrounding a narrow set of extremely controversial and primitive hypotheses and its not good. most of all, what inspires me to campaign like i have is against the way science has been co-opted. from my perspective, your own views confirm the dangers of this.

and again as i have said repeatedly, the mainstream establishment has been wrong many times in the past. remember darwin?



> Humans burn fossil fuels


yep


> Some of the CO2 released ends up in the atmosphere


yep


> CO2 atmospheric content has dramatically increased to the highest levels for over 400,000 years, which appears not to be part of the natural cycle


nope


> CO2 is an important greenhouse gas (not the only one), which warms the Earth (as experimentally proven in the 19th century)


eee...careful now. it's effect in the atmosphere is not proven. very different circumstances between laboratory and atmosphere. most agree the is likely some but the crux of the debate revolves around how much. no one really knows for sure.


> Warming in the last 20-30 years is consistent with these observations and calculations for relevant radiative forcing.


can of worms. what observations? how accurate are those observations - yadda yadda.


----------



## stevenson-again

good post noiseboy - and let me say for the record that i have nothing but respect for you - your music - AND your views. i have enjoyed the exchange and used it as an opportunity to revisit more intensely something i had been following more casually for a long time. and as i say, my position was pretty identical to yours only a few short years ago. but the reason my position changed is the reason why i am posting so passionately and why i am responding to your last post.



> Yet this submission is asking us to believe that, in fact, the data is TOTALLY wrong, that it needs adjusting by nearly 0.2 degrees. Strangely, this appears to be completely ignored in academia. All those learned professional people, embarrassed, just keeping schtum over this dirty little secret.



i have the feeling that sometimes we think of people taking on the mantle of 'scientist' become some kind of super human, rising above their egos and searching only for truth. the reality is not like that, and because climate science cannot be experimentally proved (by virtue of its nature) the only way to test our hypotheses is to wait a few decades to see what transpires. so if a scientist makes a claim based on the evidence they have gathered, their ego is the only thing they have to support it until the decades have passed, because it cannot be experimentally tested. this leaves them open to having their data scrutinized and as you can easily tell from all manner of sites non-sceptic and scpetic aliòð\0\0\0àç8ð\0\0\0àç9ð\0\0\0àç:ð\0\0\0àç;ð\0\0\0àç<ð\0\0\0àç=ð\0\0\0àç>ð\0\0\0àç?ð\0\0\0àç@ð\0\0\0àçAð\0\0\0àçBð\0\0\0àçCð\0\0\0àçDð\0\0\0àçEð\0\0\0àçFð\0\0\0àçGð\0\0\0àçHñ\0\0\0àçIñ\0\0\0àçJñ\0\0\0àçKñ\0\0\0àçLò\0\0\0àçMò\0\0\0àçNò\0\0\0àçOò\0\0\0àçPò\0\0\0àçQò\0\0\0àçRò\0\0\0àçSò\0\0\0àçTò\0\0\0àçUò\0\0\0àçVò\0\0\0àçWò\0\0\0àçXò\0\0\0àçYò\0\0\0àçZò\0\0\0àç[ò\0\0\0àç\ò\0\0\0àç]ò\0\0\0àç^ò\0\0\0àç_ò\0\0\0àç`ò\0\0\0àçaò\0\0\0àçbò\0\0\0àçcò\0\0\0àçdò\0\0\0àçeò\0\0\0àçfò\0\0\0àçgò\0\0\0àçhó\0\0\0àçió\0\0\0àçjó\0\0\0àçkó\0\0\0àçló\0\0\0àçmó\0\0\0àçnó\0\0\0àçoó\0\0\0àçpó\0\0\0àçqó\0\0\0àçró\0\0\0àçsó\0\0\0àçtó\0\0\0àçuó\0\0\0àçvó\0\0\0àçwó\0\0\0àçxó\0\0\0àçyó\0\0\0àçzó\0\0\0àç{ó\0\0\0àç|ó\0\0\0àç}ó\0\0\0àç~ó\0\0\0àçó\0\0\0àç€ó\0\0\0àçó\0\0\0àç‚ó\0\0\0àçƒó\0\0\0àç„ó\0\0\0àç…ó\0\0\0àç†ó\0\0\0àç‡ó\0\0\0àçˆô\0\0\0àç‰ô\0\0\0àçŠô\0\0\0àç‹ô\0\0\0àçŒô\0\0\0àçô\0\0\0àçŽô\0\0\0àçô\0\0\0àçô\0\0\0àç‘ô\0\0\0àç’ô\0\0\0àç“ô\0\0\0àç”ô\0\0\0àç•ô\0\0\0àç–ô\0\0\0àç—ô\0\0\0àç˜ô\0\0\0àç™ô\0\0\0àçšô\0\0\0àç›ô\0\0\0àçœô\0\0\0àçô\0\0\0àçžô\0\0\0àçŸô\0\0\0àç ô\0\0\0àç¡ô\0\0\0àç¢ô\0\0\0àç£ô\0\0\0àç¤ô\0\0\0àç¥ô\0\0\0àç¦ô\0\0\0àç§\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0òô\0\0\0àç©ô\0\0\0àçªô\0\0\0àç«ô\0\0\0àç¬ô\0\0\0àç­ô\0\0\0àç®ô\0\0\0àç¯ô\0\0\0àç°ô\0\0\0àç±ô\0\0\0àç²ô\0\0\0àç³ô\0\0\0àç´ô\0\0\0àçµô\0\0\0àç¶ô\0\0\0àç·ô\0\0\0àç¸ô\0\0\0àç¹ô\0\0\0àçºô\0\0\0àç»ô\0\0\0àç¼ô\0\0\0àç½ô\0\0\0àç¾ô\0\0\0àç¿ô\0\0\0àçÀô\0\0\0àçÁô\0\0\0àçÂô\0\0\0àçÃô\0\0\0àçÄô\0\0\0àçÅô\0\0\0àçÆô\0\0\0àçÇô\0\0\0àçÈô\0\0\0àçÉô\0\0\0àçÊô\0\0\0àçËô\0\0\0àçÌô\0\0\0àçÍô\0\0\0àçÎô\0\0\0àçÏô\0\0\0àçÐô\0\0\0àçÑô\0\0\0àçÒô\0\0\0àçÓô\0\0\0àçÔô\0\0\0àçÕô\0\0\0àçÖô\0\0\0àç×ô\0\0\0àçØô\0\0\0àçÙô\0\0\0àçÚô\0\0\0àçÛô\0\0\0àçÜô\0\0\0àçÝô\0\0\0àçÞô\0\0\0àçßô\0\0\0àçàô\0\0\0àçáô\0\0\0àçâô\0\0\0àçãô\0\0\0àçäô\0\0\0àçåô\0\0\0àçæô\0\0\0àççô\0\0\0àçèô\0\0\0àçéô\0\0\0àçêô\0\0\0àçëô\0\0\0àçìô\0\0\0àçíô\0\0\0àçîô\0\0\0àçïô\0\0\0àçðô\0\0\0àçñô\0\0\0àçòô\0\0\0àçóô\0\0\0àçôô\0\0\0àçõô\0\0\0àçöô\0\0\0àç÷ô\0\0\0àçøô\0\0\0àçùô\0\0\0àçúô\0\0\0àçûô\0\0\0àçüô\0\0\0àçýô\0\0\0àçþô\0\0\0àçÿô\0\0\0àè\0ô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àè	ô\0\0\0àè
ô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àè ô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àè\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0òô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àèô\0\0\0àè ô\0\0\0àè!ô\0\0\0àè"ô\0\0\0àè#ô\0\0\0àè$ô\0\0\0àè%ô\0\0\0àè&ô\0\0\0àè'ô\0\0\0àè(ô\0\0\0àè)ô\0\0\0àè*ô\0\0\0àè+ô\0\0\0àè,ô\0\0\0àè-ô\0\0\0àè.ô\0\0\0àè/ô\0\0\0àè0ô\0\0\0àè1ô\0\0\0àè2ô\0\0\0àè3ô\0\0\0àè4ô\0\0\0àè5ô\0\0\0àè6ô\0\0\0àè7ô\0\0\0àè8õ\0\0\0àè9õ\0\0\0àè:õ\0\0\0àè;õ\0\0\0àè<õ\0\0\0àè=õ\0\0\0àè>õ\0\0\0àè?õ\0\0\0àè@õ\0\0\0àèAõ\0\0\0àèBõ\0\0\0àèCõ\0\0\0àèDõ\0\0\0àèEõ\0\0\0àèFõ\0\0\0àèGõ\0\0\0àèHõ\0\0\0àèIõ\0\0\0àèJõ\0\0\0àèKõ\0\0\0àèLõ\0\0\0àèMõ\0\0\0àèNõ\0\0\0àèOõ\0\0\0àèPõ\0\0\0àèQõ\0\0\0àèRõ\0\0\0àèSõ\0\0\0àèTõ\0\0\0àèUõ\0\0\0àèVõ\0\0\0àèWõ\0\0\0àèXõ\0\0\0àèYõ\0\0\0àèZõ\0\0\0àè[õ\0\0\0àè\õ\0\0\0àè]õ\0\0\0àè^õ\0\0\0àè_õ\0\0\0àè`õ\0\0\0àèaõ\0\0\0àèbõ\0\0\0àècõ\0\0\0àèdõ\0\0\0àèeõ\0\0\0àèfõ\0\0\0àègõ\0\0\0àèhõ\0\0\0àèiõ\0\0\0àèjõ\0\0\0àèkõ\0\0\0àèlö\0\0\0àèmö\0\0\0àènö\0\0\0àèoö\0\0\0àèpö\0\0\0àèqö\0\0\0àèrö\0\0\0àèsö\0\0\0àètö\0\0\0àèuö\0\0\0àèvö\0\0\0àèwö\0\0\0àèxö\0\0\0àèyö\0\0\0àèzö\0\0\0àè{ö\0\0\0àè|ö\0\0\0àè}ö\0\0\0àè~ö\0\0\0àèö\0\0\0àè€ö\0\0\0àèö\0\0\0àè‚ö\0\0\0àèƒö\0\0\0àè„ö\0\0\0àè…ö\0\0\0àè†ö\0\0\0àè‡ö\0\0\0àèˆö\0\0\0àè‰\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0òö\0\0\0àè‹ö\0\0\0àèŒö\0\0\0àèö\0\0\0àèŽö\0\0\0àèö\0\0\0àèö\0\0\0àè‘ö\0\0\0àè’÷\0\0\0àè“÷\0\0\0àè”÷\0\0\0àè•÷\0\0\0àè–÷\0\0\0àè—÷\0\0\0àè˜÷\0\0\0àè™÷\0\0\0àèš÷\0\0\0àè›÷\0\0\0àèœ÷\0\0\0àè÷\0\0\0àèž÷\0\0\0àèŸ÷\0\0\0àè ÷\0\0\0àè¡÷\0\0\0àè¢÷\0\0\0àè£÷\0\0\0àè¤÷\0\0\0àè¥÷\0\0\0àè¦÷\0\0\0àè§÷\0\0\0àè¨÷\0\0\0àè©÷\0\0\0àèª÷\0\0\0àè«÷\0\0\0àè¬÷\0\0\0àè­÷\0\0\0àè®÷\0\0\0àè¯÷\0\0\0àè°÷\0\0\0àè±÷\0\0\0àè²÷\0\0\0àè³÷\0\0\0àè´÷\0\0\0àèµ÷\0\0\0àè¶÷\0\0\0àè·÷\0\0\0àè¸÷\0\0\0àè¹÷\0\0\0àèº÷\0\0\0àè»÷\0\0\0àè¼÷\0\0\0àè½÷\0\0\0àè¾÷\0\0\0àè¿÷\0\0\0àèÀ÷\0\0\0àèÁ÷\0\0\0àèÂ÷\0\0\0àèÃ÷\0\0\0àèÄ÷\0\0\0àèÅ÷\0\0\0àèÆ÷\0\0\0àèÇ÷\0\0\0àèÈ÷\0\0\0àèÉ÷\0\0\0àèÊ÷\0\0\0àèË÷\0\0\0àèÌ÷\0\0\0àèÍ÷\0\0\0àèÎ÷\0\0\0àèÏ÷\0\0\0àèÐ÷\0\0\0àèÑ÷\0\0\0àèÒ÷\0\0\0àèÓ÷\0\0\0àèÔ÷\0\0\0àèÕ÷\0\0\0àèÖ÷\0\0\0àè×÷\0\0\0àèØ÷\0\0\0àèÙ÷\0\0\0àèÚ÷\0\0\0àèÛ÷\0\0\0àèÜ÷\0\0\0àèÝ÷\0\0\0àèÞ÷\0\0\0àèß÷\0\0\0àèà÷\0\0\0àèá÷\0\0\0àèâ÷\0\0\0àèã÷\0\0\0àèä÷\0\0\0àèå÷\0\0\0àèæ÷\0\0\0àèç÷\0\0\0àèè÷\0\0\0àèé÷\0\0\0àèê÷\0\0\0àèë÷\0\0\0àèì÷\0\0\0àèí÷\0\0\0àèî÷\0\0\0àèï÷\0\0\0àèð÷\0\0\0àèñ÷\0\0\0àèò÷\0\0\0àèó÷\0\0\0àèô÷\0\0\0àèõ÷\0\0\0àèöø\0\0\0àè÷ø\0\0\0àèøø\0\0\0àèùø\0\0\0àèú\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0unter assumptions they have all made on faulty data?



> So all I'm asking, Rohan, is for you to say "ok, that's a reasonable, not-gullible position to hold". From my side, I think your position is perfectly reasonable too - it's just not mainstream, and requires a higher level of professional mistrust than I have... which itself is perfectly reasonable.



well i honestly would like to the say that because i am nice guy and i have the deepest respect for you. unfortunately i can't agree that a) 97% are saying what you think they are saying (for all the reasons i have pointed out) and b) that in the light of some of the difficult questions that undermine the position you think they are holding, that it is logical to side with them.

sorry man. not being a wanker - just being honest.

PS. phew... man this was easier when i was believer....


----------



## stevenson-again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10917611

i mean...come on...

climate change also threatens steal my sweeties and rape my dog. i don't even have a dog.


----------



## noiseboyuk

stevenson-again @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> you mean like the royal society endorsing creationism? i can't find public endorsements of the type you described and wasted a good couple of hours looking for them



Well, I could have saved you some time there! Start here:

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Let me know if you need more...

As for Creationism... HUH?!!! If you're referring to the Reiss incident, that was pretty scandalous, but only because he was forced to resign. All he ever said was "if students raise creationism in science class, teachers should engage in debate with them", with which I 100% agree. He was crystal clear that Creationism had no scientific basis and it should NOT be taught, but it's far better to engage with people who do believe it, to show they are wrong! And, of course, this was his own personal view, not the official position of the society.



> i don't know where you get that number from



Come now, don't make me quote it yet again!

This is so central to my argument. Stephen Schneider was one of the first scientists to raise the issue of Climate Change, and he died very recently. He was one of the authors of the recent 97% paper. One of his very last interviews is extremely readable and answers a lot of the points about the numbers and credibility of the climate science community:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/inde ... edibility/



> why should i, as fence sitter, not just toss everything your 97% say if i encounter assumptions they have all made on faulty data?



You can. But here we're in a circular argument. I don't see the faulty data you do. I see, as with the CRU committee submission, some highly dubious partisan claims that aren't substantiated. You clearly see things differently, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.

Obviously you've changed your views on this subject, and I guess like anyone who changes their views they can't see why everyone else doesn't do the same, faced with the same information. I just don't find it at all convincing - quite the opposite.

FWIW, I've spent a good 35 years being totally disinterested in any environmental issue, and was never convinced there was a case to answer. After a lot of reading, I figured I was wrong.... so I've changed my own mind too!



> sorry man. not being a wanker - just being honest.



Fair enough - we'll agree to disagree, but we must do so over a pint sometime!


----------



## chimuelo

As a child I was lied to about Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but even then I learned that trickery was my weapon..................Illusion ... a way of life.
If I tried to be smart and say that Santa was Uncle Tony, or Mom was the Tooth Fairy, I would recieve less gifts and Pell Grants.
To remain acting brainwashed meant that Santa gave gifts along with everyone else.
Cutting out Santa or the Tooth Fairy, that gave me a buck for a worthless tooth made no sense, so I played along. Very similar to our Scientists motivations.

Decades later nothing seems to have changed. We are told that a book, that even in its name says the " Theory " Of Evolution is the answer for all man to believe, even though 80% of the Planet believes in ancient scripts.
Its no wonder I stole money from the purses as the Choir sang, or broke into the school through the sewers to steal power amps and microphones. I knew what I believed in...........The School Of Sparta. Where success is based on achievements, and getting caught is the only crime.

Even now I still don't take any chances. When playing Black Jack I use card counting methods ( science ), when that seems to fail, I pray to Allah, Buddha, Jesus H. Christ and several Greek dieties. Odds are in my favor as surely one of them is bound to answer.

My point...............decades later I am no closer to the truth and still have " theories " being fed to me, and others telling me they know better, and that I should listen to them.

And this is the way to regulate the Planets tempurature........?

Well until the old Sun God Ra lands on Earth again and hands over the scrolls from under the Sphyinx...


----------



## noiseboyuk

Rohan... for the final time...

97% of climate scientists, think - WITH A GREATER THAN 90% PROBABILITY - that the basic tenets of AGW are sound. 97% comes from a peer reviewed study, 90% comes from the 2007 IPCC report. That's exactly what I've said from post 1, and is consistent with the academy's joint statement (note that their statement refers to the 2001 report when the probability >67%, since 2007 at has been >90%) .... and everything else.

And are you appear to not understand what Scheider says - he is exactly right, he (and no scientist) will be 100% convinced of AGW, but these 97% are convinced with 90% probability.

No-one has EVER said "proof" or "beyond all doubt" - please let that straw man go...


----------



## stevenson-again

> Rohan... for the final time...
> 
> 97% of climate scientists, think - WITH A GREATER THAN 90% PROBABILITY - that the basic tenets of AGW are sound. 97% comes from a peer reviewed study, 90% comes from the 2007 IPCC report



buddy - i am shaking my head. the report is NOT peer reviewed. and you are missing what the reports OWN author is saying regarding the qualifications to make his own sums. i pointed to you to:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

well you can talk about how this is a whole lot of baloney but gee, 30,000 scientists can't ALL be wrong can they?

but you keep taking about the 97% as if it were proof of ANYTHING. it is not! even i think the basic tenets of AGW are sound! that is not the same thing as being sure they are occurring. 97% is just utter bollocks - it does not prove anything at all.

so it is not a straw man it is crooked thinking!

ask the questions about how they arrive at the conclusions they do! you ask! or listen to the questions and then listen to the answers. you may eventually come to believe that AGW is going to run off with your sister, but don't waste your perfectly good intellect on nonsense spinned by alarmists that nearly all scientists think AGW is going to ruin us all, therefore it MUST be true.

find a suitable answer for these:



> — National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)'s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and CRU databases are not independent as they all rely on the same basic ground-station data. — Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically and unidirectionally altered that it cannot be credibly asserted what level of "global warming" has occurred in the 20th century.
> — All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them unfit for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
> — All of the problems have skewed the data to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
> — Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
> — There has been a bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude and rural stations, leading to a further overstatement of warming.
> — Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades, further overstates warming.
> — Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is between 30-50% from urban heat-island contamination alone.
> — Inappropriate selection of observing sites, combined with interpolation to adjacent stations and vacant data grids, may make heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
> — Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly diverging from the ground station-based temperature records in a manner consistent with evidence of a warm bias in the surface temperature record.
> — Global terrestrial climate databases are seriously flawed and can no longer be used to assess climate trends, or validate climate model forecasts.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> No-one has EVER said "proof" or "beyond all doubt" - please let that straw man go...



Well, I say it, so I'm a straw man.

Any attempt to deny this is either wishful thinking or ridiculous ideology. The only question is the extent of it, and it keeps looking worse and worse.


----------



## noiseboyuk

stevenson-again @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> buddy - i am shaking my head. the report is NOT peer reviewed.



Yes it is, and here's the link again:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract)

I really am done this time.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Yes it is, and here's the link again:
> 
> http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/22/1003187107.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract)
> 
> I really am done this time.



no its not - its the same guy. just another ego defending his rubbish science! you poit out where it says it was reviewed. i would like to know by whom.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Well, I say it, so I'm a straw man.
> 
> Any attempt to deny this is either wishful thinking or ridiculous ideology. The only question is the extent of it, and it keeps looking worse and worse.



with respect nick, at least noiseboy is having a crack at substantiating what he says from online resources. i despite the voracity of them, and the relevance, but at least he is trying. what IS ridiculous is simply ignoring the legitimate concerns of sufficiently large number of scientists who dispute not AGW but the assumptions made on it that is based on flawed data.

you would have believed that some dude in his cloud made the world in 7 days over darwin's natural selection hypotheses when it was first mooted?

i have already said to noiseboy that i at one time shared his views until further investigation lead to some awkward questions that are not satisfactorily resolved. that is not 'wishful' thinking. wishful thinking is basing your ideology on stuff that is just made up.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Most people who don't believe it are ideological. But there are no legitimate questions about the cause. Really, you can argue until you're blue in the face and say that people who don't question man's contribution are closed-minded or whatever it is all you want. It doesn't matter. The climate is rising by about .1 degree a year because the planet is on fire. If we want that to stop then we need to move on to the next energy economy.


----------



## Narval

chimuelo @ Wed Aug 11 said:


> I knew what I believed in...........The School Of Sparta. Where success is based on achievements, and getting caught is the only crime.


We're all bandits, true, getting caught is a crime, true, but there's yet another crime: admitting it in the open. :wink: 




> My point...............decades later I am no closer to the truth and still have " theories " being fed to me, and others telling me they know better, and that I should listen to them.
> 
> And this is the way to regulate the Planets tempurature........?


This one cracked me up completely! Man you are jester of biblical caliber. :D 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEdoGsxE4lw


----------



## stevenson-again

> Most people who don't believe it are ideological.



rubbish. utter rubbish. most people who don't believe have looked *properly* at the evidence and found the data that constitutes it to be seriously flawed. they are just simply trying to reclaim science as being objective.



> But there are no legitimate questions about the cause.



again - rubbish. i have posted a whole host of them. if you don't believe me try to get satisfactory answers yourself. the parliamentary select committee paper is excellent because it very clearly summarizes the concerns over the assumptions drawn.



> Really, you can argue until you're blue in the face and say that people who don't question man's contribution are closed-minded or whatever it is all you want.



i will continue arguing until i am blue in the face that science should not be co-opted for political purposes. it should be an objective analyses of facts not this ridiculous bitch-fest.



> It doesn't matter.



it does matter. policy is being created around one narrow subset of a much broader issue, and without understanding the full extent of which we could and do implement policies that are deleterious.



> The climate isnrising by about .1 degree a year because the planet is on fire


. 
the climate changes all the time. but you don't want to get your hands dirty and try and find out the reasons why. sure AGW could be factor, but the question over whether it is the MOST significant factor absolutely is not resolved. therefore leave it as a prime motivator for change.



> If we want that to stop then we need to move on to the next energy economy.



stop what? you will get no argument from me that we need to move to the next energy economy. you will also get no argument if you say '...and there is a possibility our current energy economy could be affecting our climate adversely' as part of your overall argument. no argument at all. but i reject using it as the prime motivator for change, because the science behind it is by no means certain. but mostly i reject the manner in which the science of climate change has been presented to the world, with the impression of certainty. you do not need AGW to make a case for a lot of the change that is being called for, and in fact it's dubiousness *undermines* the case.


----------



## stevenson-again

> 3.3 This treaty and its protocol does not define "climate", and applies only to anthropogenic warming assumed to be dangerous. In persuading policy makers and the public of this danger, the "hockey stick" became a major tool of persuasion, giving CRU a major role in the policy process at the national, EU and international level. This led to the growing politicisation of science in the interest, allegedly, of protecting the "the environment" and the planet. I observed and documented this phenomenon as the UK Government, European Commission, and World Bank increasingly needed the climate threat to justify their anti-carbon (and pro-nuclear) policies. In return climate science was generously funded and required to support rather than to question these policy objectives. This policy was of course challenged by those unhappy with the proposed government-stimulated replacement of carbon fuels, but this need not concern this Committee beyond noting that it increased the anger of climate "sceptics" who saw science misused for policies they doubted. Others liked the policy and kept quiet. Opponents were gradually starved of research opportunities or persuaded into silence. The apparent "scientific consensus" thus generated became a major tool of public persuasion.



this is taken from this parlimentary submission:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 87we24.htm

it pretty much nails how i have come to view this subject.


----------



## ChrisAxia

Rohan. You have successfully 'pulled' me back to being a sceptic about the true impact of AGW on the planet. Nick, I think you are being very unfair by just saying 'this is rubbish' without trying to justify your stance in the way Guy has. This has been an enlightening banter between Guy and Rohan and I'm grateful to have been given more useful information. Anyone really seeking the truth has to do the type of in-depth research that Rohan has clearly done before just walking in and saying 'rubbish'. I certainly have not which is why I was prepared to 'switch sides' after I was told that the GGWS documentary was shown to be innacurate. However, Rohan has shown very convincingly that things are not as cut and dried as we have been led to believe. 

Chris


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Nick, I think you are being very unfair by just saying 'this is rubbish' without trying to justify your stance in the way Guy has.



And yet it is rubbish. My stance is based on everything saying it isn't real being peripheral. And I have justified it early on in the thread.


S-A, it is a fact that most people who don't think man is causing this have purely ideological reasons for that. 100%. I'm not calling you ideological, but you'll notice that it's all conservatives who say it's not real! Then this gets on Faux News and their disciples parrot whatever they say.

You have a reasoned argument (not that I buy it), but no way do most people. No way.


----------



## Narval

When X has a reasoned argument and Y doesn't buy it, who's logical and who's ideological?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Not enough information to answer the question in the abstract.

In the concrete, I didn't say X was ideological, just that most people who have come to the same conclusion do so for knee-jerk conservative idiot reasons, not because they have examined any evidence.

Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn't mean that they're both equally valid.


----------



## Narval

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Aug 12 said:


> Just because there are two sides to an issue doesn't mean that they're both equally valid.


Right, not necessarily, but it is possible that they're both valid. 

I don't understand why two arguments need to be "equally" valid. No such thing as "my valid is more valid than your valid." Valid is valid.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Maybe it's just me, but an argument that's false is less valid than one that's true, no?


----------



## Narval

No, an argument that's false is not "less valid" but simply invalid. Its falsity invalidates it.

More to the point, if you admit that stevenson has a reasoned argument, then you implicitly accept its validity. If you accept its validity, then you implicitly "buy it." But if you refuse to "buy it" in spite of it being reasoned, that means you don't accept that reason validates arguments. If you don't accept that, then what else validates an argument?


----------



## stevenson-again

> S-A, it is a fact that most people who don't think man is causing this have purely ideological reasons for that. 100%. I'm not calling you ideological, but you'll notice that it's all conservatives who say it's not real! Then this gets on Faux News and their disciples parrot whatever they say.




oh ho!

all conservatives are they? i myself am a bit of a lefty but this person:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 87we28.htm

is actually a member of the labour party.

my 'ideology' and the reason i am so persistent on this particular issue is because of my love of science (i studied astrophysics as my non-course subject at uni) and my deep anger that science has been politicised by this issue. my personal position on this subject is somewhat agnostic. i think the basic tenets for AGW is sound, and that from a common sense point of view any sustained force on a delicate eco system has the potential to have detrimental effects. a bit like a beer drinker...well how much beer is too much before the body can't cope and your found lying in a doorway in a pool of your own vomit?

that it IS having a bad effect has to be proved by the evidence, and the evidence when scrutinised carefully, is actually pretty poor, with lots of errors, contradictions, and uncertainties.

now my piece de resistance.

this guy:

Kevin E. Trenberth is head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. He was a lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change (see IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) and serves on the Scientific Steering Group for the Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) program. In addition, he serves on the Joint Scientific Committee of the World Climate Research Programme, and has made significant contributions to research into El Niño-Southern Oscillation.

wrote this paper last year:

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threa ... 9final.pdf

he is a fully paid up believer. read his paper - you do not have to understand it in depth just scan through. he believes AGW is unequivocal yet his own calculations show that there are serious problems with that position. he just can't make the sums add up. and i stress - i know that there may be factors that *would* make them add up - but there may also be factors that could make them *worse* (for his sums).

read it. go on. see if it doesn't leave you with a feeling of 'gee there is a lot more to this climate malarky than meets the eye'. just don't be a gullible drone swallowing everything fed to you by the media.




> You have a reasoned argument (not that I buy it), but no way do most people. No way.



loads of people thought the earth was flat. just because loads of people believe doesn't mean they are right - or if they are right, they have justification for their belief. if you want to know why there is an appearance of consensus, read Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen's memoranda i linked. reality has a habit of being more complex than you think or want.

PS btw chris, narval thanks for the support. not really trying to convince anyone of anything other than to try and make their own minds up.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

S-A, let me rephrase it: in the United States (which is where there is a divide between the rational people who are on the left and moronic idiots who are not on the left), doubting man as the cause of global warming is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon. 

The American right is a collection of the stupid, uninformed, gullible, knee-jerk, mean and callous, and/or greedy.


----------



## Narval

Man does influence the climate, the question is to what extent. Which is hard to evaluate because the system is extremely complex. Addressing that should have nothing to do with ideologies and politics, but strictly with science. And the scientists are clearly uncertain (or certainly unclear) in their evaluations. Political decisions made on uncertain data are unacceptable. The only acceptable political decision is: tax the polluters. Not for climate change reasons but simply for polluting.

Actually it seems to me that politicians, of all colors, have already made up their minds, and now use truncated scientific reports selectively, to advance their own agendas and interests. I'm not a big fan of that. Dirty and rich is worse than clean and moderately wealthy, that's just common sense. But then again, there are people who care for others and people who only care for themselves. Protecting the former from the latter should be the only political concern. Leave the climate change to scientists, especially when you're not qualified to judge their tenets.


----------



## stevenson-again

> S-A, let me rephrase it: in the United States (which is where there is a divide between the rational people who are on the left and moronic idiots who are not on the left), doubting man as the cause of global warming is exclusively a right-wing phenomenon.
> 
> The Amierican right is a collection of the stupid, uninformed, gullible, knee-jerk, mean and callous, and/or greedy.




i have to say, i do get that impression very strongly from where i am in the UK. which probably makes a little more understandable the entrenchment of views that could occur thanks to the political divisions in the US. hmm...it makes your views a little more understandable, if no more logical (to me). 

never-the-less it underlines my extreme unhappiness that science has been politicised in this way. because, and if you will humour me for a moment, if AGW were not the threat it has been portrayed to be, then science and truth are blood spattered victims in this whole ridiculous charade. the right wing in america find AGW politically inconvenient and argue from a point of principle that is wholly unjustified, even though the end result is that they are right. i can see that leaving a bitter taste in the mouth.

my anxiety is no less greater than anyone else's who is worried about AGW. but mine is firmly set on the greater issue of sustainability. why doesn't the left in america take the right on with that? the sums are easier, the science at elementary school boy level, and it is vastly vastly more serious. i mean, provided that AGW is not at the extreme levels of prediction, it probably isn't going to be anything we can't adapt to, but the broader issues of sustainability could bite us on the bottom before we realise it is the issue that it is.


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 13 said:


> The American right is a collection of the stupid, uninformed, gullible, knee-jerk, mean and callous, and/or greedy.



As is the American left.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

We have this argument all the time, and you're mistaken. These aren't two equal orientations that you select between for arbitrary reasons; conservatives are wrong about every last issue.

You really do have to be one or more of that list to be conservative. Or you could simply suck.

As I've said many times, there are positions that are a matter of opinion - abortion, for example - and there are positions that are simply wrong. Conservatives are on the wrong side of every one of the latter. Every single one!


----------



## Narval

Then it's simple: just support the opposite position in everything they say and you can't go wrong. Right? :mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Pretty much! And I'm serious!

I mean, name an issue:

- Iraq or any other war (they're in favor of it no matter what);
- all social programs (including healthcare reform, Social Security, unemployment benefits);
- economic stimulus (including the lie that FDR prolonged the Depression);
- defense spending (they want lots of it);
- global warming (including cap and trade);
- tax cuts for the rich;
- immigration;
- Affirmative Action;
- anything public;
- trade unions (automatically evil);
- there are too many regulations (what an idiotic position);
- gun control;
- capital punishment;
- etc.

And of course the general idea that "free markets" are sacrosanct and the government shouldn't do anything - privatized everything is next to Godliness.


----------



## stevenson-again

not to flog a dead horse, but this link was sent to me by my retired engineer relly. following the climate change debate has become something of a hobby for him and it was he who turned my head a few years ago. it took a while to bring to me to where i am, i long insisted (as others have here) that things we do to mitigate AGW are good things anyway. i also passionately argued that it was an issue that had the potential to unite the world to a common purpose. slowly, the weight of the argument that science should not be used for politic purposes, even if in this case it would appear be for a good cause. the nazi's tried to do a similar thing when eugenics was popular. in principle it is a *very bad thing*.



> It's true that many sceptics are not climatologists. But many of the
> sceptics seem to have a better handle on statistical methods than the
> climatologists do. Which is a pity because climatology is largely about
> collecting vast amounts of data and trying to find a message from the data
> (which is what mathematicians and statisticians do). So, often the
> climatologist get it wrong or at best, their results are open to other
> interpretations. Also, many climatologists won't freely release their data
> or their statistical methodology which means that others can't reproduce
> what they've done. And if it ain't reproducible then it ain't science. You
> don't need to make your data available to peer reviewrs.
> 
> The peer review process is now hugely suspect, especially following
> Climategate revelations. Here's an interesting little article about the
> peer review process written by someone who ought to know:



http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1963


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

By the way, this is why I say that everything you're posting about skepticism is a side show, S-A:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... stats.html)

You can argue about the peer review process and anything you want, but the data are totally sound and it doesn't matter what anyone says to doubt that.


----------



## rgames

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> The planet has been warming since the industrial revolution


From which we deduce... what?

Let's see where else that line of reasoning takes us: the planet also has been getting closer to the sun since early July. Oh no! We're going to fall into the sun!

Or maybe, JUST MAYBE, we're looking at a portion of the cycle that doesn't give the whole picture...

Trends, by themselves, mean nothing.

rgames


----------



## stevenson-again

nick i am sorry but the NOAA data is unreliable. i suggest you read this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/17/n ... pressions/

there are big problems with the way NOAA calculate their data.

firstly, in the early 90's a whole bunch meteorlogical stations were closed down particularly in the US. those stations tended to be in rural or elevated areas leading to a warming bias in the record.

secondly, the urban heat island affect is supposed to be accounted for by manipulating the data to reflect the extra heat retained by urban areas. the way they do this is by using a calculation that depends on the population of a particular area. unfortunately, a lot of the data about the population sizes is incorrect, and where cities have grown to be much larger than the cooling bias assumed in the calcualtions, it further distorts the data.

thirdly, instrument sitings of at least a third of the meteorological instruments (within the US) used to collect the data for NOAA do not comply with their own standards. 

this is not to suggest that june was NOT the warmest on record btw, just that i would take anything coming from NOAA with a very large grain of salt. there is enough alternative information out there for you to infer what is happening with the climate without just blindly accepting what you are told. if you care enough, inform yourself. it should have nothing to do with partisan politics.

but remember too, that as rgames said, you should bear in mind that records began roughly when the world emerged from a mini ice-age. it would be frankly surprising if temperatures were not going up. it is still hugely debatable the extent to which human emissions are contributing to the temperature rise if it all. the fact is no one really knows. if anyone tells you they do they are talking out their arse.


----------



## stevenson-again

here. this highlights some of the problems and why NOAA data is unreliable. bear in mind where most of the big red dots in the graph on the NOAA website comes from....all the places where they do NOT have weather stations. they effectively just made up the data based on thier assumptions of what it should be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvQKxWz3 ... r_embedded


----------



## ChrisAxia

Thanks for that link Rohan. The 'plot thickens' even more...

Chris


----------



## stevenson-again

hmm. it's thickening even more. my climate researcher has just sent me this:



> Well, what do you know! It looks like some serious statisticians have just
> had a peer reviewed paper accepted by the prestigious journal, Annals of
> Applied Statistics. Their paper appears to blow clean out of the water,
> just about all climate scientist reconstructions of the last 1000 years of
> surface temperatures. These reconstructions are all based on proxies (tree
> rings, ice cores, sediment varves, etc) and the paper says quite bluntly
> that they're all crap. You can find the link to it at the Climate Audit
> site here:
> http://climateaudit.org/2010/08/14/mcsh ... /#comments Just
> read the first three or four pages - it gets a bit heavy after that.
> 
> And another bit of 'breaking news' - the New Zealand Climate Science
> Coalition (whoever they are) have lodged papers with the NZ High Court
> asking it to invalidate the official NZ temperature record on the grounds
> that the data has been tampered with. See here:
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4026335/Niwas-data-accuracy-challenged (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/4 ... challenged)


----------



## Ashermusic

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri Aug 13 said:


> We have this argument all the time, and you're mistaken. These aren't two equal orientations that you select between for arbitrary reasons; conservatives are wrong about every last issue.
> 
> You really do have to be one or more of that list to be conservative. Or you could simply suck.
> 
> As I've said many times, there are positions that are a matter of opinion - abortion, for example - and there are positions that are simply wrong. Conservatives are on the wrong side of every one of the latter. Every single one!



I can list 5 issues right off the top of my head that IMHO the American Left is dead wrong about but I do not wish to derail the topic.


----------



## Narval

Nothing right on the left, nothing left on the right. :mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Do it, Jay. Make my day.

And note that I never said the left was always right, just that conservatives are always wrong.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> The planet has been warming since the industrial revolution
> 
> From which we deduce... what?



I'm reminded of the Fawlty Towers episode in wò2   áƒ2   áƒ2   áƒ 2   áƒ3   áƒ3   áƒ3   áƒ3   áƒ


----------



## chimuelo

Why be left or right..? Our politicians are Left, Right and Center. Hypocracy is what's important. The ability to adapt like the left will be doing this fall when they pretend to be conservative while campaigning for the good of the people......

I have studied our noble leaders and have learned a great deal. For example, at the monthly Union meetings I cheer on the Liberals ( in Espanol mostly ) as we get unlimited dental added, our pensions bailed out, and Heath Care premiums frozen. So being a conservative has no benefit there. I would be paying 15% more on my monthly premiums if I worked in the private sector. I am so glad Congress " read " the bill, or I might have been seeing these totally unregulated increases over the next 4 years like most hard worlking Americans are seeing.

At night I become an evil Conservative Contractor. I actually provide jobs for 5-8 people every week, pay their SIIS insurances fees, and even get a group rate from an accountant skillful at writing off taxes. Even though I never break 6 figures, I am considered rich by the rich ruling class because of the groups gross income. 

I tell these guys I am paying their insurance, when actually just like indusrty does when overtaxed, I pass the costs onto them and pay them less. I don't call it anything fancy like our magnanamous leaders do, like the Pay as you go bill that Congress never uses. I just fess up and say, things are costing more so you get less. In other words I am the evil CEO who tells them to go get their own show, or audition for another band, where you will have a girl singer as the boss who makes you play Girly Man music.

Then from watching Al Gore and other protectors of the Planet flying around the Globe and having private Limo service in hopes of regulating the Earths tempurature, I assume that excessive carbon emmissions is the answer. So of course I am a Liberal here too. My Jet Ski's are used in this noble endeavor in the foul waters of Lake Mead.

I then bow and pray when forced to go to church, even though I believe that ancient travellers dropped in and manipulated our DNA becasue they were too lazy to do thier own mining.

I even pretend to agree with Scientists who tell me that 4,568,243 years ago on a Sunday at 1341 Hours we crawled from the primordial soup as a reptile. 

It is wise to buy all of the horse manure we are fed. Its more beneficial. Why pick a side...? Just like the noble leaders do, I stay in the center and hold out as long as possible becasue the last one standing gets the most money. Brilliant..........I should have done this 20 years ago, I could have been a contender.

We should be proud of our role models. I would like to dodge taxes like they do, but at the end of the day, only those who write the tax laws and run our treasury can have those priveledges.

God Bless The USA....... o-[][]-o


----------



## ChrisAxia

Just wanted to say that I really enjoy reading your posts Chimuelo! Thanks.

~Chris


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> Why pick a side...?



Because one side is right and the other side is wrong about every single issue!

I'm not liberal because it's a fashion statement, I'm liberal because reality is liberal (to quote Paul Krugman).


----------



## chimuelo

On the surface these positions sound passionate and provide symbolism, but in the real world they always seem to become corrupt and wasteful.
I actually see both rich and wealthy politicians preaching their values, but nothing tells the trurh more than someones stock portfolio.
An example in case..........
Welfare........This was seen as a way to unite blacks and whites in a bad period of our history. Sadly the elitists never came within a mile of Black people so they could never understand the anger of black Americans.
But just give them money, this will make things right.
Unfortunately the unforseen pay to breed programs that tore apart the few stable Black families we had back then and was an incentive to breed w/o a father figure.
Now we have our prison for profit " Correctional " institutions over run.

But that's cool, just look at who owns those. Many retired politicians like Senator Jack Danforth Republican from Missouri. A church going conservative known for his " liberal " sympathies. Of course this compassionate man uses Ralston Purina which his family owns as the name on the corporation that house millions of Americans.

So you see I look at their actions in and out of office, not whats written on the campagin poster.
Where I come from this called playing ball together.
They seem to profit from these social programs that cost the taxpayers money, I dont see the brothas' doing very well. But guess what, Liberals wisely want convicted felons to be able to vote now...............Brilliant. It shows they are aware of things. But instead of giving them a job, give them food stamps and tell them to vote for you. How despicable can things get...?

I won't even try and convince anyone they are right or wrong.
I would rather track these bastards through their documented money trails, and then decide for myself, who benefits.
So naturally, we will most likely disagree. My father also disagrees with me, but I don't want agreements, just accountability from these temporary occupants of our Government.
We have none, and we never will.
They are beyond prosecution.
Just watch the Charley Rangle show unfold. You will see that a Republican vote will clear him of any wrong doing....................as that has any relevance. ^%&*&
Rodney King was beaten half to death on camera and then the police investigated themselves and found no wrong doing.................Imagine that.

The LAPD Crusiers use to have slogans that said " To Protect And Serve "....... :roll: 

Now they say " We'll Treat You Like A KIng."...............Ankyu.

To me I am to the point when someone say we have just caught an Arab hit squad at the Canadian border, I immediately look to the Southern border, since I am well orientated to the elitists distractions using their whores in the media.

Pretty sad, but thats what 50 years of lying, cheating and stealing has done to me.

God Bless The USA...... 0oD


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Corruption is another matter, but earlier in this thread I posted a list of issues about which the American right is 100% on the wrong side. That doesn't mean everyone on the left is good and everyone on the right is bad, nor does it mean that every liberal idea works; education doesn't solve all, and either does spending money (for example).

But my position isn't arbitrary, nor am I a puppet of The Man trying to divide and conquer. People don't think, and that leads them to become conservative.


----------



## stevenson-again

i certainly have a great deal of sympathy with your political views nick. but you do have to be careful that you do not mix politics and science. it is the most dangerous of paths to follow.

at the turn of the last century, the crisis of the day was eugenics. all sorts of creditable scientists and politicians became alarmed that the 'wrong' sort of people were breeding - that the underclasses of society were producing more children than the 'respectable' classes and that this would cause the dilution of the human gene pool. it was very popular and all sorts of eugenic policies were put in place all around the world - including the united states - such as sterilising mental patients. it fell out of favour as its most enthusiastic proponents were the nazi's.

this is an example of politicisation of a scientific issue. while i doubt that concerns over AGW will reach that level moral dubiousness, the broad principle remains - science and politics should be separated - like the state and religion. unfortunately the whole culture surrounding climate science is about as unhealthy as you can get within science. that is because of 2 things;

- firstly the time scales required for the science to be self-correcting are very large. pretty much as long as someones entire professional career.

- as a result, it is very ego driven, with entire teams dependent on supporting their theories to justify more funding. i have a scientist friend (bone cancer king's college) and half his time is taken with writing submissions for funding just to keep going. it's very very tough.

furthermore, in order to get funding you need to get published. in order to get published you need to submit your work to a noted scientific journal and have it peer reviewed. but the reviewers have their own agendas and if your view conflicts with theirs it stands a very good chance of being rejected. the problem is that when you submit your work, the reviewers do not even check your data. you do not have to submit it and you do not have to show your methodology. it just has to 'make sense'.

this is at the crux of the climate-gate crisis. the climate scientists were resisting FOI (freedom of information) requests from scientists who wanted to check their work. this was also the reason why Mann et al (and his famous hockey stick) were brought before US congress. they were claiming that the raw data was freely available, but the computer coding to do the modelling was under copyright.

the whole culture at the CRU at UEA was of refusing access to their methodology and data 'because they will just pick holes in it'. err....that would be what you are supposed to do in science don't you? and ò¨   áßL¨   áßM¨   áßN¨   áßO¨   áßP¨   áßQ¨   áßR¨   áßS¨   áßT¨   áßU¨   áßV¨   áßW¨   áßX¨   áßY¨   áßZ¨   áß[¨   áß\¨   áß]¨   áß^¨   áß_¨   áß`¨   áßa¨   áßb¨   áßc¨   áßd¨   áße¨   áßf¨   áßg¨   áßh¨   áßi¨   áßj¨   áßk¨   áßl¨   áßm¨   áßn¨   áßo¨   áßp¨   áßq¨   áßr¨   áßs¨   áßt¨   áßu¨   áßv¨   áßw¨   áßx¨   áßy¨   áßz¨   áß{¨   áß|¨   áß}¨   áß~¨   áß¨   áß€¨   áß¨   áß‚¨   áßƒ¨   áß„¨   áß…¨   áß†¨   áß‡¨   áßˆ¨   áß‰¨   áßŠ¨   áß‹¨   áßŒ¨   áß¨   áßŽ¨   áß¨   áß¨   áß‘¨   áß’¨   áß“¨   áß”¨   áß•¨   áß–¨   áß—¨   áß˜¨   áß™¨   áßš¨   áß›¨   áßœ¨   áß¨   áßž¨   áßŸ¨   áß ¨   áß¡¨   áß¢


----------



## stevenson-again

i agree. there have in fact been some very sensible proposals for the funding of research based science that have been around for some time. in fact they were proposed by the some from the same group sceptical of the science done on climate change. this would require setting up a special independent board to oversee fund allocation. it works for the arts albeit never brilliantly. it would be a much better step in ensuring political independence from the government of the day. i fear the issue of climate change is made more difficult by the now entrenched views of climate scientists.


----------



## chimuelo

Don't worry. NASA and NOAA are sure to pick up the slack.
When they're not auditoning Astronauts from Jordan and the UAE they will be taking tempuratures in Needles, Calfornia, and Laughlin, Nevada.
These temps will provide further models for us to be scared of. Instead of this fake crap and wasting of funding. Ban plastics, provide Marine Sanctuaries, fix the fixable now instread of these side shows from federally funded politically correct Mamby Pamby touchy feely programs.
Below was meant as noò°   áâc°   áâd°   áâe°   áâf°   áâg°   áâh°   áâi°   áâj°   áâk°   áâl°   áâm°   áân°


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> it was the same with nuclear disarmament. anything that has more to do with opinions and not hard facts is an easy sell.



Sorry George, I just lost a lot of respect for your opinions.


----------



## chimuelo

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

Here's some hard facts for anyone insterested in portfolios.
Check out the board members...
If those evil conservatives aren't the epitamy of hypocracy, just glance over the various members.

Now that the new laws that we never hear about or get to vote on have been passed, these corporations can buy more politicians than ever before w/o any disclosure of campaign contributions..

They get to start the problem, then the reaction, and then the solution...
Brilliant.
Nice to see where cash is involved the "left" and the "right" are in total agreement.
But for the cameras we still need the Dog and Pony shows.

God Bless THe USA.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It's been well known for a long time that there's going to be profiteering with cap and trade. But that's not a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> It's been well known for a long time that there's going to be profiteering with cap and trade. But that's not a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.




Profiteering is only the start of it Nick! The whole thing - MMGW, Cap and Trade, Carbon credits etc - is one big scam from start to finish. There are many facets to this scam: political, economic, scientific and good old fashioned redistribution of wealth to name but a few. But make no mistake it is a scam pure and simple. While the scientific basis for MMGW is in tatters, the political appetite for it is waning too - thankfully on both counts. 

On the cap and trade scam a recent example of such nonsense with regard to the fate of CORUS steelworkers in the UK illustrates the point nicely: *IF* you follow the money, you realise that Corus is owned by TATA (the Indian Conglomerate - which incidentally now owns Jaguar Cars). TATA has a 'research' wing called TERI. One of TERI's directors is none other than that illustrious railway engineer Pachauri (who is also head of the UN IPCC - the IPCC is the political advocacy body which brought you: Amazongate, glaciergate, Hockey Stick and indeed Pauchari gate). 

Now, here's the deal. Corus was shut down here a few months ago with a few thousand workers losing their livelihoods, but its carbon emissions are traded and sold to an Indian steel works which (obviously) has nothing to do with TATA no, definitely not. Indian steel works just carry on emitting the same amount of noxious gases (CO2 is plant food gas, not poison btw), and nothing changes except the fact that a few thousand ppl have lost their jobs and a couple of companies have made a huge amount of money by trading carbon credits. Has the earth miraculously cooled because CO2 is now emitted in India instead of the UK? The answer is patently obvious; was this deal anything to do with saving the planet or any other such nonsense? no. 

On the scientific front, even the head of the CRU - mired in the climategate scandal - was forced to admit that there has been no statistically significant warming in the past decade (that's in spite of the statistical witchcraft that he and others have subjected the data to). And that is in spite of CO2 concentrations rising and rising. But then, if one considers the Beer-Lambert Law, one will see that Al Gore et al have a problem with this line of argumentation. 

Can't spend any more time on this right now, but I'll leave you with a few things to ponder:

This summer has been the coldest on record in the arctic, and sea ice extent has recovered to recent maximal levels. 

BUT... read these two articles from the past, before SUVs, powerstations, Al Gore and the UN IPCC eco-hype:

on ice state in 1817: 

http://books.google.com/books?id=PO...greenland seas between the latitudes"&f=false


on ice state in 1922:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... review.png


Remember, there is no human signal in global climate change data. None whatever. 

Cheers

Stephen


----------



## stevenson-again

> t's been well known for a long time that there's going to be profiteering with cap and trade. But that's not a reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater.



i agree nick. in any case i see nothing fundamentally wrong with making profit out of forces driving environmental conservation. anyway it's how the world works for better or worse. never-the-less rosseau makes a good point that out of something things we do to try to mitigate a 'bad thing' can create other bad things.

i don't agree that AGW is a scam. i am also not completely convinced that it is not a factor in our climate - in fact very few informed climate sceptics discount AGW altogether. most of them think that it has some affect - just nothing like what has been (over)stated by mainstream climate science. what really gets up their noses is the blatantly bad science that constitutes the AGW position. the proxy data has pretty much been found to be completely unreliable, NOAA make use of the most unbelievably bad practise of making up 'assumed' warming for locations where they have no ò	Ü   âŸ‰	Ü   âŸŠ	Ü   âŸ‹	Ü   âŸŒ	Ü   âŸ	Ü   âŸŽ	Ü   âŸ	Ü   âŸ	Ü   âŸ‘	Ü   âŸ’	Ü   âŸ“	Ü   âŸ”	Ü   âŸ•	Ü   âŸ–	Ü   âŸ—	Ü   âŸ˜	Ü   âŸ™	Ü   âŸš	Ý   âŸ›	Ý   âŸœ	Ý   âŸ	Ý   âŸž	Ý   âŸŸ	Ý   âŸ 	Ý   âŸ¡	Ý   âŸ¢	Ý   âŸ£	Ý   âŸ¤	Ý   âŸ¥	Ý   âŸ¦	Ý   âŸ§	Ý   âŸ¨	Ý   âŸ©	Ý   âŸª	Ý   âŸ«	Ý   âŸ¬	Ý   âŸ­	Ý   âŸ®	Ý   âŸ¯	Ý   âŸ°	Ý   âŸ±	Ý   âŸ²	Ý   âŸ³	Ý   âŸ´	Ý   âŸµ	Ý   âŸ¶	Ý   âŸ·	Ý   âŸ¸	Ý   âŸ¹	Ý   âŸº	Ý   âŸ»	Ý   âŸ¼	Ý   âŸ½	Ý   âŸ¾	Ý   âŸ¿	Ý   âŸÀ	Ý   âŸÁ	Ý   âŸÂ	Ý   âŸÃ	Ý   âŸÄ	Ý   âŸÅ	Ý   âŸÆ	Ý   âŸÇ	Ý   âŸÈ	Ý   âŸÉ	Ý   âŸÊ	Ý   âŸË	Ý   âŸÌ	Þ   âŸÍ	Þ   âŸÎ	Þ   âŸÏ	Þ   âŸÐ	Þ   âŸÑ	Þ   âŸÒ	ß   âŸÓ	ß   âŸÔ	ß   âŸÕ	ß   âŸÖ	ß   âŸ×	ß   âŸØ	ß   âŸÙ	ß   âŸÚ	ß   âŸÛ	ß   âŸÜ	ß   âŸÝ	ß   âŸÞ	ß   âŸß	ß   âŸà	ß   âŸá	ß   âŸâ	ß   âŸã	ß   âŸä	ß   âŸå	ß   âŸæ	ß   âŸç	ß   âŸè	ß   âŸé	ß   âŸê	ß   âŸë	ß   âŸì	ß   âŸí	ß   âŸî	ß   âŸï	ß   âŸð	ß   âŸñ	ß   âŸò	ß   âŸó	ß   âŸô	ß   âŸõ	ß   âŸö	ß   âŸ÷	ß   âŸø              ò	ß   âŸú	ß   âŸû	ß   âŸü	ß   âŸý	ß   âŸþ	à   âŸÿ	à   â  	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 		à   â 
	à   â 	à   â 	à   â  	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	à   â 	á   â 	á   â 	á   â 	á   â 	á   â 	á   â 	á   â 	á   â  	á   â !	á   â "	á   â #	á   â $	á   â /	á   â 0	á   â 1	á   â 2	á   â 3	á   â 4	á   â 5	á   â 6	á


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Aug 23 said:


> If you are silly enough to believe that last sentence then you're simply beyond help, Stephen.
> 
> But if you were to believe that, then cap and trade is perfectly sensible a first step. Economically it makes total sense, since right now it costs nothing to pollute.
> 
> The Waxman bill the passed the House here last year has "border adjustments" to ensure exactly that the emissions don't get shipped overseas. Sarkozy proposed the same (I don't know whether it went through?).



Show me (and indeed the world) the data. There are evidently thousands of scientists that are 'beyond help' but then science has never worked by consensus. However, you'll find that the data doesn't exist Nick. And that's the killer issue for the MMGW establishment machine, hence their need to systematically 'hide the decline,' pervert the peer review process, and torture the already corrupted/massaged data to fabricate fictional graphics like Mann's discredited Hockey Stick. Coincidence that NOAA has finally admitted to one of their temperature monitoring satellites 'over-reading' temperatures by 10-15 degrees for the last decade? Possibly. 

Worth also pointing out that CO2 isn't a pollutant; it's plant food gas, a naturally occurring trace gas that is essential for life on this planet and one which has, of course, been present in far greater concentrations in the past. But, I suspect, those that are trying in their infinite wisdom, like King Canute, to 'prevent climate change', have little or no conception of the Beer-Lambert Law. Still, never let facts get in the way of a good scam. 

I guess time will tell, but I'd seriously think about wrapping up warm this winter; a deep La Nina is kicking in, the sun is still to do very much (cycle 25 hasn't started yet and there is seriously low sunspot activity) and the sea is cold right now (check out southern hemisphere for example) - all of this points to a drop in temps. We'll see. 

Cheers

Stephen


----------



## P.T.

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> Oh come on. The planet has been warming since the industrial revolution, while before that it warmed in cycles of thousands of years.
> 
> Really, it's just silly.



This is really a meaningless statement.

If the cycles prior to the Industrial Revolution were on the order of thousands of years and it has only been about 200 years since the beginning of the Ind Rev then we may just be in the early portion of one of those thousands of years cycles.

Also, if we recently had the warmest year in 400 years, that means that it was that warm 400 years ago.
What made it that warm 400 years ago?

The problem with Global Warming is that there is too little real data and far too many stories trying to pass themselves off as science. A fair bit of fraud from the science community as well.
Lets remember that these scientists get their money (income) from grants and they want that money to keep pouring in. Yes, I can be cynical.


----------



## P.T.

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat Aug 14 said:


> By the way, this is why I say that everything you're posting about skepticism is a side show, S-A:
> 
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100715_globalstats.html (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... stats.html)
> 
> You can argue about the peer review process and anything you want, but the data are totally sound and it doesn't matter what anyone says to doubt that.



http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/clima ... a-doubtful)

Notice that NOAA admits to the bad data.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Oh come on. The planet has been warming since the industrial revolution, while before that it warmed in cycles of thousands of years.
> 
> Really, it's just silly.
> 
> 
> This is really a meaningless statement.



no, it's just not 'fully' informed. in actual fact, the latest analysis of the proxy data show 0% statistical certainty that the planet could not have warmed or cooled at the rate described by what is certainly flawed interpretation of data of the modern instrumental record. basically, you cannot say with any evidence to back you up, that the current warming trend as described to us in hockey stick type graphs is unusual. 

but be warned: it does not mean that it is not happening - just that the evidence does not show it.

further more, it is not true that these cycles range for 1000's of years, which can be established by anecdotal evidence. the mini ice age was just that - very mini lasting less than 100 years. 

but those who are taking a very sceptical line, and to nick who is taking a very 'pro' line - you need to bear in mind that in the states, the climate change arguments are run down very political lines. right wingers are sceptical and left wingers are pro. over in europe (most especially the UK) this distinction is much fuzzier.



> But, I suspect, those that are trying in their infinite wisdom, like King Canute, to 'prevent climate change', have little or no conception of the Beer-Lambert Law. Still, never let facts get in the way of a good scam.



these are the sort of comments that advance the debate not one iota. you can bet your life that pro-warming scientists do understand the Beer-Lambert Law, that have this factored into their models, and have well considered and plausible and even tested arguments to show that the anthropengenic warming is something to be concerned about. comments like this are what warmers use to discredit 'denialists' as if they were trying to deny the holocaust or something. then everyone gets so entrenched in their position that they will find evidence to fit their theory.

the question is over anthorpogenic warming (of which then can be no question there is some - even if it is insignificant) versus natural variance. taking a proper honest look at the data, which i was forced to do about a year and half ago, showed that the very least, methods climate scientists were using to support the case for AGW were very deeply flawed. yes scandalously flawed - especially for science. whether or not there conclusions are never-the-less correct has been completely lost in the cloud of obfuscation that has surrounded this subject. that's why i say it has to be dropped as a motivator for change we desperately need.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Like I said S-A, there is no human signal in the Man Made-up Global Warming data; it just doesn't exist which is why the data has to be fudged, tortured and cajoled at every stage to produce some ficticious and statistically insignificant graph to keep the myth and the gravy train alive. Luckily, the wheels are beginning to fall off that train now. 

Nick, you mention warming since the industrial revolution, but you ignore the little ice age and indeed, more significantly, the medieval warm period during which temperatures were up to 4 degrees warmer than they are currently. 

Another question I'd like to ask you Nick is this: you mention cycles of warming and cooling (though your time scales are a little askew), and I assume you're aware that we are currently in an inter-glacial period, but what temperature do you consider to be 'normal', 'ideal' or indeed 'viable' for the planet? 

To suggest, as the high priest of warming Al Gore and the political advocacy group the UN IPCC do, that we can or even should limit warming to 2 degrees is absolutely preposterous; the hubris and illogical nature of their suggestion is astoundingly stupid and laughable. 

Cheers

Stephen


----------



## George Caplan

im sort of proud to be an american reading Nick stubbornly defending his side on this debate under more and more intense pressure. :lol: 

i dont like taking a lib or gop stance on anything but i got to tell one poster here that i came to the conclusion years ago that al gore is probably insane in a safe sort of way.

one of the big issues in world health and agriculture and indeed we did a study on this some years ago is Africa. i recall one of the brighter members of the team saying tongue in cheek that if you displaced the african continent with the population of the US and visa versa the african continent would be a productive place in 50 yrs and the US would be a toilet regardless of any temperature changes.

im not sure i can totally agree wò
z   â¾"
z   â¾#
z   â¾$
z   â¾%
z


----------



## stevenson-again

> many aspects to this issue - political, economic and scientific - but in reality the science is now just a sideshow; its usefulness has served its purpose.



i agree climate science is a sideshow to the *real* issue - which is *not* AGW. it's something i have been harping on and on about if you skim through the thread. but it's usefulness has most definitely not served its purpose. what needs to happen is its objectivity has to be reclaimed.

i understand your conclusions if you have followed the debate closely. most well informed people are tending to scepticism. but 10 years is a short period of time for climate and your tone suggests that AGW is not occurring to be unequivocal. well to my mind that is as sensible as pretending that the science is 'settled'.

i never-the-less fully agree that AGW in and of itself is too mired in controversy doubt and complexity to be reliable motivator for change. but change is vital if we are not to stave off catastrophe.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

stevenson-again @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> many aspects to this issue - political, economic and scientific - but in reality the science is now just a sideshow; its usefulness has served its purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree climate science is a sideshow to the *real* issue - which is *not* AGW. it's something i have been harping on and on about if you skim through the thread. but it's usefulness has most definitely not served its purpose. what needs to happen is its objectivity has to be reclaimed.
> 
> i understand your conclusions if you have followed the debate closely. most well informed people are tending to scepticism. but 10 years is a short period of time for climate and your tone suggests that AGW is not occurring to be unequivocal. well to my mind that is as sensible as pretending that the science is 'settled'.
> 
> i never-the-less fully agree that AGW in and of itself is too mired in controversy doubt and complexity to be reliable motivator for change. but change is vital if we are not to stave off catastrophe.
Click to expand...


What catastrophe would that be?


----------



## chimuelo

Why do they name Hurricanes after women.................??
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They Come in fast and wet.........And when they leave, they take your house and car.

Ankyu.


----------



## stevenson-again

ah ha!

not climate change anyway! in fact, if it IS the case that the world could be heading for a cooling phase, then AGW (if it is having any significant effect) could be coming along at a very good time. in general the earth can support more population during warm periods than cool. further more, as you rightly pointed out a little extra CO2 in the atmosphere may not be so bad either.

my concern is sustainability. under which of course AGW in its dangerous bad things sense falls as well.

it basically asks very simple questions that are relatively easy to work out. how long can we go on doing something until whatever we do runs out? how much food (ie how much arable land) can the earth produce to sustain the population as it is projected to be. not-withstanding population growth rate is dropping fast, we are still going to reach the peak of population roughly around the time the possible cooling phase will be at its most acute. that actually is something to worry about.

we can work out much raw materials we use, how much we are likely to need in the future, and then work out how long it will be before we run out of it. if we cannot replace what we use, we will ultimately run out - and then what? the rate at which we run out of things is a concern, because a lot of things may run out just as we need them the most.

ultimately, for example, we will run out of fossil fuels - probably not before population begins to decline, but it will get harder and harder and more and more expensive to obtain. other problems emerge then too. as any resource becomes scarce, there will be competition for it. if a country sees that its very survival is threatened it will take measures to try and protect itself. war is a very possible outcome. also, pressure to mine areas we would rather protect could increase as well. you have only to look at what has happened in the gulf of mexico to see that these forces are already exerting some pressure.

there ARE solutions, but focussing on AGW is a distraction from them. for example, i made the point earlier in the thread that in terms of cutting down emissions, you would be far better off hanging on to your old banger than buying a prius, when you consider the emission cost of building a prius against not changing your car. but more to the point you save additional resources by extending the life of the ones you have already mined.

with all this in mind, there is a real concern that we are living beyond our means. never mind wishy-washy climate science, we are running out on our credit card. if we deal with those problems, a great deal of mitigating AGW would be addressed as a matter of course.


----------



## George Caplan

chimuelo @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> Why do they name Hurricanes after women.................??
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> They Come in fast and wet.........And when they leave, they take your house and car.
> 
> Ankyu.



Yee Ha! I was wondering earlier today if you could see that 60 mile traffic jam in China from space.


----------



## chimuelo

Yes and I believe Al Gore was in a caravan of Limos and had to be choppered out to a private Lear Jet to fly off to Europe to discuss how peasants can decrease their carbon emmissions.


----------



## Narval

chimuelo @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> Why do they name Hurricanes after women.................??


I thought it's a sort of magical thinking, 
like casting a spell on them: "Lady Be Good" 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP0ogCn7 ... re=related


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

It's true that there's an ideological divide about this in the US, but that simply fits the pattern: the American right is wrong about every last issue.

People, you can argue about this until you're blue in the face and it won't go away. Get mad at Al Gore, shout at how all the scientists are lining their pockets, scream about bad research, attempt to discredit the messengers in other words...it really doesn't matter. The incredible tragedy in Pakistan is going to look like a trip to Disneyland if we continue on the present course.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> It's true that there's an ideological divide about this in the US, but that simply fits the pattern: the American right is wrong about every last issue.
> 
> People, you can argue about this until you're blue in the face and it won't go away. Get mad at Al Gore, shout at how all the scientists are lining their pockets, scream about bad research, attempt to discredit the messengers in other words...it really doesn't matter. The incredible tragedy in Pakistan is going to look like a trip to Disneyland if we continue on the present course.



And what course would that be Nick? Where is the data that supports your conclusion and indeed shows that all important human signal?


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> Please see the beginning of this thread!




Those are merely rhetorical statements from a money man... 

None of that constitutes any scientific evidence that the world is going to end in a big flood, or hurricane, or [insert disaster scenario to keep the populace scared, ready to be saved and pay more tax]. None of that shows any human signal in the climate change data (becuase there isn't one). None of that takes into account the Beer Lambert Law, or indeed the fact that the world has not warmed up in the last decade and is now entering a cooling phase. It's just the same old memes trotted out again. 

The only element of his argumentation that bears any scrutiny is the oblique reference to peak oil and indeed one of the bi-products of the search for alternative energies which may bring about some economic damage to 'our' enemies.


----------



## Animus

stevenson-again @ Tue Aug 24 said:


> many aspects to this issue - political, economic and scientific - but in reality the science is now just a sideshow; its usefulness has served its purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i agree climate science is a sideshow to the *real* issue - which is *not* AGW. it's something i have been harping on and on about if you skim through the thread. but it's usefulness has most definitely not served its purpose. what needs to happen is its objectivity has to be reclaimed.
> 
> i understand your conclusions if you have followed the debate closely. most well informed people are tending to scepticism. but 10 years is a short period of time for climate and your tone suggests that AGW is not occurring to be unequivocal. well to my mind that is as sensible as pretending that the science is 'settled'.
> 
> i never-the-less fully agree that AGW in and of itself is too mired in controversy doubt and complexity to be reliable motivator for change. but change is vital if we are not to stave off catastrophe.
Click to expand...


Well said sir!


----------



## chimuelo

http://www.noaa.gov/lubchenco.html

Not that anyone really cares about this person, but I do finally appluad that NOAA is addressing overfishing, and while liscensing is a typical big Government approach, I am relieved that NOAA is finally going to address something that can be fixed now, instead of pretending to be the Creators and controllers of the Earths weather.

Marine sanctuaries were needed long ago, but this is better late than never.
Being an enviromentalist, I realize my meger contributions only give me a sense of pride, and even if millions of Americans would help ban plastics, and take actual steps to help the enviroment, it's the new " green " corporations like DuPont, Alcoa and Monsanto who will lobby and bribe our fearless leaders to keep plastics alive.

As long as the whores greed to be re elected is the goal, no real changes can be made.
Seeing this kind of Government growing in size is something I find more alarming than anything.

NOAA has succeeded in getting my ears, at least for now.


----------



## Andrew Aversa

It's difficult to understand how people can still disbelieve that humans have contributed to climate change. When presented with study after study, consensus after consensus and paper after paper, these are all refuted because... I guess there's some kind of conspiracy in the scientific community? That's really the part I could never quite wrap my head around; what motive do so many scientists from so many countries have to mislead the public on the effects of human activity on global warming? If anything, a huge number of scientists have stated that they've been pressured by their employers (private organizations or the government) to deny or downplay such effects.

No one but actual lunatics can debate that global warming exists. The only "debate" (if you could call it that) is whether or not human activity has contributed to the warming, and if so, to what extent. Rigorous research from countless scientists and organizations around the world has resulted in an overwhelming consensus that humans do indeed have a measurable impact. I'm not sure how or why people find this difficult to accept - perhaps because it would require them to spend a little more time, effort or money?


----------



## Animus

zircon_st @ Thu Aug 26 said:


> It's difficult to understand how people can still disbelieve that humans have contributed to climate change. When presented with study after study, consensus after consensus and paper after paper, these are all refuted because... I guess there's some kind of conspiracy in the scientific community? That's really the part I could never quite wrap my head around; what motive do so many scientists from so many countries have to mislead the public on the effects of human activity on global warming? If anything, a huge number of scientists have stated that they've been pressured by their employers (private organizations or the government) to deny or downplay such effects.
> 
> No one but actual lunatics can debate that global warming exists. The only "debate" (if you could call it that) is whether or not human activity has contributed to the warming, and if so, to what extent. Rigorous research from countless scientists and organizations around the world has resulted in an overwhelming consensus that humans do indeed have a measurable impact. I'm not sure how or why people find this difficult to accept - perhaps because it would require them to spend a little more time, effort or money?



It's the same difference as if you only asked Christian theologists around the world if God existed and then you claimed you had a consensus that God does indeed exist since how could so many theologists be wrong. There isn't a consensus on AGW unless you only listen to those that are proponents of AGW.


----------



## Narval

100,000,000 Bon Jovi fans can't be wrong and here's the proof: 
http://www.amazon.com/100-Jovi-Fans-Cant-Wrong/dp/B00065JTBA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1282857311&sr=8-1 (http://www.amazon.com/100-Jovi-Fans-Can ... 311&amp;sr=8-1)


----------



## noiseboyuk

On a whim, just dipped into this on p8 having given up in pure frustration on p6. Not surprised to see exactly the same arguments repeated on all sides, with no discernible forward momentum whatsoever. Just like a million other forum threads across the globe, with identical debates ongoing ad nauseum.

I've said it before, I'll say it again (oh the irony) - people believe whatever they want to believe - and AGW is spectacularly inconvenient. Oh, and conspiracy theory IS the new religion, required to make a narrative out of randomness. Therefore the chances of a fix to all this I'd put at precisely zero, and therefore hereby declare the contrarians the winners - congratulations! And the human race - and much of the rest of life on Earth - the losers. Ahhhhh.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

zircon_st @ Thu Aug 26 said:


> It's difficult to understand how people can still disbelieve that humans have contributed to climate change. When presented with study after study, consensus after consensus and paper after paper, these are all refuted because... I guess there's some kind of conspiracy in the scientific community? That's really the part I could never quite wrap my head around; what motive do so many scientists from so many countries have to mislead the public on the effects of human activity on global warming? If anything, a huge number of scientists have stated that they've been pressured by their employers (private organizations or the government) to deny or downplay such effects.
> 
> No one but actual lunatics can debate that global warming exists. The only "debate" (if you could call it that) is whether or not human activity has contributed to the warming, and if so, to what extent. Rigorous research from countless scientists and organizations around the world has resulted in an overwhelming consensus that humans do indeed have a measurable impact. I'm not sure how or why people find this difficult to accept - perhaps because it would require them to spend a little more time, effort or money?



Science has never worked by consensus - ask Copernicus, Gallileo and indeed Einstein; in fact such an idea contravenes its principles and its raison d'être. Moreover the so-called consensus, much vaunted by Al Gore and Pachuari, is in itself the product of PR and is nowhere near as impressive as is always claimed. There is plenty of documentary evidence available if one looks for it.

Putting fatuous appeals to authority aside for one moment you should keep in mind that there is no human signal in climate change data. None whatever. 

Cheers


----------



## Stephen Baysted

noiseboyuk @ Thu Aug 26 said:


> On a whim, just dipped into this on p8 having given up in pure frustration on p6. Not surprised to see exactly the same arguments repeated on all sides, with no discernible forward momentum whatsoever. Just like a million other forum threads across the globe, with identical debates ongoing ad nauseum.
> 
> I've said it before, I'll say it again (oh the irony) - people believe whatever they want to believe - and AGW is spectacularly inconvenient. Oh, and conspiracy theory IS the new religion, required to make a narrative out of randomness. Therefore the chances of a fix to all this I'd put at precisely zero, and therefore hereby declare the contrarians the winners - congratulations! And the human race - and much of the rest of life on Earth - the losers. Ahhhhh.



Au contraire, CAGW is most convenient. It enables the scientifically illiterate like Gore to make millions out of the guilt of the gullible; it enables governments across the western world to harvest the tax dollars from its populace on the basis of a conceit; and all the while the impoverished 3rd world is prevented from developing and the middle east economy is being wilfully undermined. Nice work if you can get it.


----------



## Narval

Rousseau @ Thu Aug 26 said:


> there is no human signal in climate change data. None whatever.


There is one when I open my umbrella.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Narval @ Thu Aug 26 said:


> Rousseau @ Thu Aug 26 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no human signal in climate change data. None whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> There is one when I open my umbrella.
Click to expand...


No that's just weather. Unless of course there's an ulterior motive.


----------



## chimuelo

Well I thought wherever you stood on the issue, the news that NOAA was doing something outside of the politically correct agenda, was a sign that they are at least serious about protecting Marine life....something WE KNOW CAN BE FIXED.

Praise The Lord...


----------



## stevenson-again

> That's really the part I could never quite wrap my head around; what motive do so many scientists from so many countries have to mislead the public on the effects of human activity on global warming? If anything, a huge number of scientists have stated that they've been pressured by their employers (private organizations or the government) to deny or downplay such effects.



on the contrary - quite the reverse is true. the problem is that AGW has become part of the mainstream 'conventional wisdom' in climate science. unfortunately the nature of it is that it takes quite a long time for the problems that sceptics have pointed to in this conventional wisdom to become apparent beyond challenging the data as it has been collected and interpreted. therefore, from the point of view of climate scientists - especially in the field of climatology, it is severely career damaging to question it. this is why sceptics tend to come from obliquely related disciplines; meteorologists, geologists, astrophysicists, but above all statisticians.

statisticians can take data already collected and using very sophisticated mathematics determine the voracity of the collected data. unfortunately, the statistical work done by climate scientists has been well and truly below par. but fair enough - it is like a heart surgeon trying to understand neurology. they have a grasp but not full understanding. what has happened is they have made a lot of mistakes with very poor data and then tried to prevent anyone else from replicating their work. and if you can;t replicate it - it ain't science. it is actually pretty scandalous what has been going on in climate science from this point of view - never mind whether they are right or wrong.



> No one but actual lunatics can debate that global warming exists.



no one but a lunatic could debate that global cooling exists either. it would actually be extremely strange if cooling or heating did not occur. what you mean is that it should be indisputable that man should have an affect on climate. well no one, including the sceptics, do dispute that. the extent to which it is significant is the issue. any anthropogenic affect is one of many factors that influence our climate. the data presented supporting the case that it exceeds natural variability is flawed in so many ways it is quite breath-taking. what is it they say about lie? if you tell one, make sure it is a big one. well i am not saying (some would) that people are lying but extremely poor science is deluding a lot of people who should know better.



> The only "debate" (if you could call it that) is whether or not human activity has contributed to the warming, and if so, to what extent. Rigorous research from countless scientists and organizations around the world has resulted in an overwhelming consensus that humans do indeed have a measurable impact


. 

i have to take issue with a lot of that. the first thing that jumps out at me is the word 'rigourous'. i can assure you, if the same 'rigour' were applied to testing of pharmaceutical drugs we would all have 3 eyes, green and purple skin and answer to the name of 'Kkkkkkrrrrrrwwwwwwwffffftttttthhhh'.

second word that jumps out is 'countless' scientists. that is such an ironic thing to say. the problem with climatologists is pretty much that - they can't count. i am being flippant, but those that can count eg IPCC's dr trenberth are worried that things aren't adding up the way they should be.

be very careful with overwhelming consensus's. they have a historic habit of being wrong. and i have to say, the consensus as you read the literature on this subject is demonstrably not there.



> I'm not sure how or why people find this difficult to accept - perhaps because it would require them to spend a little more time, effort or money?



actually, if you would spend a little more effort you will find that what you are being asked to accept is complete nonsense. the data - the instrumental record as it has been presented to us is deeply flawed. i am happy to explain why - again - but i think the broad thrust of your point is right - but for the wrong reasons. the reality is that AGW is a side show to a much bigger problem. if you were to seriously tackle that problem, you would find that AGW by comparison works very nicely with the agenda of big industry. my friend, you are being duped.


----------



## stevenson-again

> I've said it before, I'll say it again (oh the irony) - people believe whatever they want to believe - and AGW is spectacularly inconvenient


. 

i have to say - it seems very convenient to me. buy a new prius and save the planet. free whale hug with every windmill bought. step right up....

i am perfectly willing to believe AGW is occurring. in fact i used to. but the evidence as it has been presented is just bullshit. really. i have pointed you to numerous sites that throw some serious questions on to your mainstream 97% consensus and the best you can do is say that they might have worked for mining company whose best friends uncle had a position on the board of an oil company....you can't believe a word they say....

if you make a big call like 'we are all going to die because we are superheating the planet' i would really like to see some pretty decent evidence. the evidence presented so far is so flawed as to be incredible....in the sense it is not credible.


----------



## noiseboyuk

stevenson-again @ Thu Aug 26 said:


> I've said it before, I'll say it again (oh the irony) - people believe whatever they want to believe - and AGW is spectacularly inconvenient
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> i have to say - it seems very convenient to me. buy a new prius and save the planet. free whale hug with every windmill bought. step right up....
> 
> i am perfectly willing to believe AGW is occurring. in fact i used to. but the evidence as it has been presented is just bullshit. really. i have pointed you to numerous sites that throw some serious questions on to your mainstream 97% consensus and the best you can do is say that they might have worked for mining company whose best friends uncle had a position on the board of an oil company....you can't believe a word they say....
> 
> if you make a big call like 'we are all going to die because we are superheating the planet' i would really like to see some pretty decent evidence. the evidence presented so far is so flawed as to be incredible....in the sense it is not credible.
Click to expand...


And so the endless circle goes on... and on... and on....

For whatever its worth (nothing) and for the record:

Buying a Prius and erecting a windmill will achieve less than nothing. There is NOTHING covenient about AGW. It's a colossal PITA to everyone, including me, who has zero interest and track record in environmentalism.

97% is 97%, it is the mainstream view of climate science, it is the consensus as endorsed by every single major independent scientific institution and - fraid to say - the endless blind exhortations (not from yourself, Rohan) that there is no human trend whatsoever is wishful thinking plain and simple.

The contrarian arguments are wildly varied and range from the reasonable if often pedantic like Mackintye to, yes indeed, the same industry funded bullshit from the same sources that told us all smoking had nothing to with cancer, but none of which has altered the opinions of the 97% who are most qualified to know.

I resent the implication that I am somehow gullible just because I don't swallow the same "nothing-to-worry-about" narrative as seemingly everyone else on this, and instead think that scientific academia is a worthwhile pursuit populated by individuals with intelligence, knowledge and integrity, with systems built in to prevent the same kind of wild speculation, folk myths and pedantry which perpetuate the internet. They're not perfect, there's a chance they are wrong but I'm absolutely siding with them and their conclusions, and those of the wider scientific community. The day a major institution like NASA, The Royal Society et al change their line, I'll change mine - and not a day before. About which, I see nothing gullible - or uninformed - whatsoever.

And I know it hardly bears repeating, but the same science tells us that we're almost certainly already passing the point where we can turn it around even with massive global action, that the positive feedbacks and system inertia will - ultimately - take over. Which - sorry to say - is why is pisses me off when people say fatuous things like "buy a Prius" especially when I think about the world my kids and their kids will inherit.


----------



## stevenson-again

> The day a major institution like NASA, The Royal Society et al change their line, I'll change mine - and not a day before. About which, I see nothing gullible - or uninformed - whatsoever.



if a major institution or the government told you that the breeding habits of humanity (poor people have more offspring than rich 'intelligent' people) was going to destroy us in a few generations would you believe them? because 100 years ago that was the vogue crisis - and the scientific consensus is that was what was happening.

you should agree with the consensus only if the proof - the evidence - is strong. so strong that it would be perverse to disagree.

you need to provide satisfactory rebuttals for these points:

- the temperature record as it has been presented to us is flawed. up to the 1980s there were 6000+ atmospheric recording stations. that was cut to just 1000. those that were cut were primarily from high altitude and high latitude areas and their instrumental record was not adjusted to take into account the warming bias. hey presto - instant global warming.

- the urban heat island effect is adjusted for in the models by a calculation that factors in the population of a city, the higher the population, the larger the city the greater the warming. but records of the populations of cities has not been updated and sometimes they are wildly wrong (always too low). one the figures were checked, at least a 3rd of the cities being adjusted for vie the UHIE were underestimated further contributing a warming bias.

- instrument sitings. at least a 3rd of the atmospheric instruments do not comply to NOAA own standards. if they exist at all...

- there is only 1 atmospheric station recording temperatures for the entire of the arctic area....over 1200 km2. it is located in a place whose microclimate is known to be warm anyway. the GISS data interpolates this one reading for the whole of the region. individual readings from independent temporary bouys show that the warming for this region is vastly overestimated.

- on to interpolation...NOAAs latest 'figures' show that 2009 was the warmest year on record. but they come to this interpretation because they interpolate data from areas that have no instrumental readings. ie they just made it up. you can actually see this for yourself by comparing their charts with the a map of where the instrumental stations (ie where they have taken actual readings) are located.

- the proxy record. this requires pretty heavy statistical processing in order to derive a signal. a new paper has just come out and using Mann et al 2008 (hockey-stick dude) showing that proxy data is too weak to derive any signal that would show a hockey stick at the start of the instrumental record. the uncertainties are so great, feeding in random numbers actually gives more accurate numbers when backcasting and comparing to the instrumental record. what this means is that the rate of change of temperature as seen over the last 2 decades (which probably isn't as sever as has been described anyway) cannot be shown to be unusual via the proxy record. it isn't sensitive enough.

- satellite record. NOAAs satellite readings have been thrown into complete doubt because the satellite seems to be malfunctioning - occasionally recording temperatures of over 600 fahrenheit. years of satellite data is now doubtful because of these anomalies that had not been noticed by them, but was actually picked up by a member of the public on sceptic forum. it turns out that the satellite readings can be thrown out by cloud cover....which is kind of well.... i dunno makes me wonder about its value...dunno 'bout you. this was quite a major embarrassment for them, and it leads to questions over other satellite readings.

- oceans are showing an overall a net cooling trend. what's not fully understood is whether that is because it is passing its heat to the atmosphere, or storing it further down in deep ocean where there are no records, or whether that energy is just escaping into space (infra-red).

there are a few more but i do have to work at some stage....


----------



## Narval

Breathing 
changes the climate. 
Heck, 
you just look at it 
and it changes 
(according to Heisenberg). 

So delicate and fragile, 
the climate.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Have been away on me hols so away from the internet (no, not flying!)

Rohan - every question you've raised is way beyond my ability to adequately respond to because I'm not qualified. And I dare to suggest that you're not best placed either - you're very bright, undoubtedly, but you don't have the specific training or experience. That's my whole point. I am siding with those BEST QUALIFIED TO KNOW. If there is anything in your arguments that is scientifically valid, my view is that it will become part of the ongoing scientific work - goodness knows there's no shortage of publicity for them. This, I think, is the major difference between us. I don't think the majority of climate scientists are either stupid or partisan - they deal with and evaluate the evidence, and they are the best qualified to do so. The support of the wider scientific community allays any fears that this is somehow a rogue branch of science. Your assumption is that climate scientists ignore all these armchair-scientist "final nail in the coffin" arguments cos they don't like them or it will (somehow, God knows how) upset their funding. I don't.

Rousseau - the climategate emails really have changed very little (incidentally, I recommend a 90 min mp3 available on The Guardian website of a recent scrupulously fair debate which features players on all sides, including Mackintyre whom I found pretty unimpressive, incidentally). It doesn't change 1% of that 97% figure. Sorry to say but I find your argument empty rhetoric, like a trillion internet words - the 97% is peer reviewed science, and that's where I'm laying my money.

I wanted to add an analogy from my own family life. My eldest son was born profoundly deaf, and we have no family history of deafness. We quickly discovered that the signing deaf community is anti cochlear implants, the technology which enables people like my son to hear, because it involves invasive surgery and - in their view - there is nothing "wrong" with him. Their argument is that he should grow up to be an adult, then he can make his own decision on whether to "hear".

It's a reasonable argument on the face of it, until you realise one thing - by the age of 16 he will have lost the ability to aquire a spoken language. The brain and the aural nerves will have passed the point long ago. So by doing nothing, we'd actually be making the decision for him.

And that's my analogy to mankind's response to global warming. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement, along with the world's major institutions. And yet people want us to do nothing collectively, cos it'll cost money. The suggestion is that those of us who care buy Priuses. Clearly this won't work on any level. By the time that 97% is 100% and even Republicans can't deny it any more, we will have long, long passed the point of no return.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

[quote:8c57480877="noiseboyuk @ Mon Aug 30, 2010 10:35 am"]Have been away on me hols so away from the internet (no, not flying!)

Rohan - every question you've raised is way beyond my ability to adequately respond to because I'm not qualified. And I dare to suggest that you're not best placed either - you're very bright, undoubtedly, but you don't have the specific training or experience. That's my whole point. I am siding with those BEST QUALIFIED TO KNOW. If there is anything in your arguments that is scientifically valid, my view is that it will become part of the ongoing scientific work - goodness knows there's no shortage of publicity for them. This, I think, is the major difference between us. I don't think the majority of climate scientists are either stupid or partisan - they deal with and evaluate the evidence, and they are the best qualified to do so. The support of the wider scientific community allays any fears that this is somehow a rogue branch of science. Your assumption is that climate scientists ignore all these armchair-scientist "final nail in the coffin" arguments cos they don't like them or it will (somehow, God knows how) upset their funding. I don't.

Rousseau - the climategate emails really have changed very little (incidentally, I recommend a 90 min mp3 available on The Guardian website of a recent scrupulously fair debate which features players on all sides, including Mackintyre whom I found pretty unimpressive, incidentally). It doesn't change 1% of that 97% figure. Sorry to say but I find your argument empty rhetoric, like a trillion internet words - the 97% is peer reviewed science, and that's where I'm laying my money.

I wanted to add an analogy from my own family life. My eldest son was born profoundly deaf, and we have no family history of deafness. We quickly discovered that the signing deaf community is anti cochlear implants, the technology which enables people like my son to hear, because it involves invasive surgery and - in their view - there is nothing "wrong" with him. Their argument is that he should grow up to be an adult, then he can make his own decision on whether to "hear".

It's a reasonable argument on the face of it, until you realise one thing - by the age of 16 he will have lost the ability to aquire a spoken language. The brain and the aural nerves will have passed the point long ago. So by dòX   ã²€X   ã²X   ã²‚X   ã²ƒX   ã²„X   ã²…X   ã²†X   ã²‡X   ã²ˆX   ã²‰X   ã²ŠX   ã²‹X   ã²ŒX   ã²X   ã²ŽX   ã²X   ã²X   ã²‘X   ã²’X   ã²“X   ã²”X   ã²•X   ã²–X   ã²—X   ã²˜X   ã²™X   ã²šX   ã²›X   ã²œX   ã²X   ã²žX   ã²ŸX   ã² X   ã²¡X   ã²¢X   ã²£X   ã²¤X   ã²¥X   ã²¦X   ã²§X   ã²¨X   ã²©X   ã²ªX   ã²«X   ã²¬X   ã²­X   ã²®X   ã²¯X   ã²°X   ã²±X   ã²²X   ã²³X   ã²´X   ã²µX   ã²¶X   ã²·X   ã²¸X   ã²¹X   ã²ºX   ã²»X   ã²¼X   ã²½X   ã²¾X   ã²¿X   ã²ÀX   ã²ÁX   ã²ÂX   ã²ÃX   ã²ÄX   ã²ÅX   ã²ÆX   ã²ÇX   ã²ÈX   ã²ÉX   ã²ÊX   ã²ËX   ã²ÌX   ã²ÍX   ã²ÎX   ã²ÏX   ã²ÐX   ã²ÑX   ã²ÒX   ã²ÓX   ã²ÔX   ã²ÕX   ã²ÖX   ã²×X   ã²ØX   ã²ÙX   ã²ÚX   ã²ÛX   ã²ÜX   ã²ÝX   ã²ÞX   ã²ßX   ã²àX   ã²áX   ã²âX   ã²ãX   ã²äX   ã²åX   ã²æX   ã²çX   ã²èX   ã²éX   ã²êX   ã²ëX   ã²ìX   ã²íX   ã²îX   ã²ï              òX   ã²ñX   ã²òX   ã²óX   ã²ôX   ã²õX   ã²öX   ã²÷X   ã²øX   ã²ùX   ã²úX   ã²ûX   ã²üX   ã²ýX   ã²þX   ã²ÿX   ã³ X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³	X   ã³
X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³ X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³X   ã³ X   ã³!X   ã³"X   ã³#X   ã³$X   ã³%X   ã³&X   ã³'X   ã³(X   ã³)X   ã³*X   ã³+X   ã³,X   ã³-X   ã³.X   ã³/X   ã³0X   ã³1X   ã³2X   ã³3X   ã³4X   ã³5X   ã³6X   ã³7X   ã³8X   ã³9X   ã³:X   ã³;X   ã³<X   ã³=X   ã³>X   ã³?X   ã³@X   ã³AX   ã³BX   ã³CX   ã³DX   ã³EX   ã³FX   ã³GX   ã³HX   ã³IX   ã³JX   ã³KX   ã³LX   ã³MX   ã³NX   ã³OX   ã³PX   ã³QX   ã³RX   ã³SX   ã³TX   ã³UX   ã³VX   ã³WX   ã³XX   ã³YX   ã³ZX   ã³[X   ã³\X   ã³]X   ã³^X   ã³_X   ã³`              òX   ã³bX   ã³cX   ã³dX   ã³eX   ã³fX   ã³gX   ã³hX   ã³iX   ã³jX   ã³kX   ã³lX   ã³mX   ã³nX   ã³oX   ã³pX   ã³qX   ã³rX   ã³sX   ã³tX   ã³uX   ã³vX   ã³wX


----------



## noiseboyuk

Roussau - again, this is all the usual tiresome blogsphere hype. 700 dissenting scientists? I'm not sure how many scientists there are in the world... dunno, let's say 100,000. Climate scientists - much fewer. Of the sample in the peer-reviewed study, 1,300. That makes 40 practising climate scientists who don't agree with AGW theory, and 40 people can make a big ol' highly qualified noise. Add in all the retired social scientists etc who make up the rest of the list, and I'm surprised they could only find 700 names. I'm more interested in the 1,260 most qualified names who DO agree. You'll probably find grand sounding lists of scientists who dispute evolution, if that floats your boat.

Of course, if you disregard all peer-review in the wake of all the absurd Gategate hype and believe every single internet allegation that is now flying around (and most of the Gates you mentioned have already been debunked as groundless, but I guess they are raised anyway due to the old laws that "throw enough muck at the wall and some of it sticks" / "no smoke without fire" / "doubt is our product"), it all must seem very sinister and that everything is "unravelling". The reality is far more mundane. Interesting that yesterday even Bjørn Lomborg, legendary for pouring cold water over global warming, came out and said this is one of the most critical problems facing mankind - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... nge-u-turn . It proves nothing of course (Lomborg is no climate scientist), except illustrate that this fantasy about the world turning against AGW is precisely that - a fantasy (except among the general public, sadly). Despite all the bluster and all the reports, the academic institutions and the overwhelming weight of peer-reviewed evidence continues to firm up the evidence, the temperature records keep getting broken, and we move inexorably into a world where Pakistan / Niger floods are more and more commonplace (and to save another post or two - no, those events cannot be proved as being linked to global warming, but they are exactly consistent with the expected consequences of our warming world, and I chose my wording carefully).


----------



## stevenson-again

> That makes 40 practising climate scientists who don't agree with AGW theory, and 40 people can make a big ol' highly qualified noise. Add in all the retired social scientists etc who make up the rest of the list, and I'm surprised they could only find 700 names. I'm more interested in the 1,260 most qualified names who DO agree.



consider what you have just written. if you want to consider yourself well enough informed to take a strong view on a subject like this then you really do need to consider, objectively and with a completely open mind dissenting views to the mainstream. science has worked like this successfully for 700 years. you should seriously consider the actual circumstances and the complex nature of the 1,260 of the most qualified names. if you want to make a career out of climatology, then it is subject to the same vagaries of professional advancement as any other kind of career path. it's in fact the retired scientists who have made a hobby out of investigating and reviewing the science on climate change that you should really pay attention to, since they ostensibly have a much less vested interest.

at the very least, consider that 'big ol' qualified noise'. read their claims, the rebuttals of those claims and the rebuttals of the rebuttals. at some point you can tell who is case is weaker....but not if you go in having your mind made up already.



> You'll probably find grand sounding lists of scientists who dispute evolution, if that floats your boat.



well sure. the whole point is there is nothing wrong with challenging evolution either. the theory of evolution is changing all the time. you could say it was 'evolving'. if you are attempting to completely replace it then you better have something extremely good in its stead, with lots of reproducible experimental data to back it up, and expect a long hard tough road for it to gain acceptance. just like what the theory of evolution had to go through when it first appeared.


----------



## noiseboyuk

But again Rohan we fall at the first hurdle. Your assumption is that you are able to decide - based on the science itself - who is right here. That's the difference between us - I don't. I'm equally unable to settle particle physics arguments... in my view it would be arrogant and / or delusional of me to do so. But that's not the same as being uninformed about the subject. It's just recognising that these people have spent many, many years and built their careers on knowledge and expertese that I don't have, and I wouldn't dare to presume unless I similarly put in years of true academic study.

It's not a case of me having "made up my mind" - it's just a simple numbers game. If the split were 60/40 for and against, that's easily within a margin of error that makes two options possible. When the split is 97/3, it isn't. I just don't - and never will - take the view that as an armchair watcher of science, my judgement is sounder than those who live it and breathe it in academia.

TBH I find the argument about retired scientists having more objectivity very weak... again it suggest to me that you consider the entire scientific method far more flawed than I do. I've never argued that it is perfect, but I think it's a) essentially sound and b) the best and only gauge we've got. Without this, anyone can and will believe absolutely anything, and forming any policy on anything will be impossible.


----------



## Waywyn

Please forgive if I haven't read everything, but to me this whole global warming is just money making! (Hell I am sorry if I even answered already to this long thread and doesn't know anymore. *lol*)

I mean we really have to care bout our environment and stuff and it is wrong to go on polluting the planet, but generally it is pretty simple:

We are living at the end of a tertiary ice age. 80% of all those 4.5billion years, the earth is ice free. "Luckily" we are living right at the end of this last bit of an fading ice age and thats why the poles are melting.

Poles will melt anyway and it will get warmer. In like 100-200 years it won't be possible to live at cities along certain coasts. Noone can stop it, that's just nature and we have to accept it.


----------



## Ed

Oh dear, global warming denial conspiracy theories on VI...

Makes me sad.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Global Warming denial, or if you prefer, "skepticism" has just as much scientific weight as the 911 Conspiracy theories or Moon Landing Hoaxers, Creationism or AIDS denial. Yes, it really is that bad.

The people promoting it are provably either ignorant, incompetent or charlatans and have no problem lying through their teeth to try and convince the uneducated public. But unlike 911 Conspiracies or Moon Landing Hoax's, Global Warming conspiracy theories pose a dangerous threat to all life on this planet if we don't pull our head out of the sand and try and reverse the damage we have caused.


----------



## Ed

noiseboyuk @ Fri Aug 06 said:


> Sorry, sorry, sorry.... I now see this paper is co-authored by the same McKitrick whose (non scientifically peer-reviewed) paper on... oooh look... the Hockey Stick was debunked numerous times in scientifically peer reviewed literature and proven to be fatally flawed.



The Hockey Stick was never "debunked", the data was refined after that and the conclusion was still correct. Climate denialists just lied to you, as they always do.

Watch this video on the Hockey Stick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrKfz8NjEzU

Watch this for another great example of how Climate Deniers lie to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNbjqSyWdcs


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Ed is Al Gore aicmfp.


----------



## Waywyn

It's funny, why do they all talk about the temperature since the last 1000 years.
If you check graphs from the last 450 thousand years it has been constantly like this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... rature.png

Maybe I should correct myself and say, some or lots of the global warming is money making. Yes, we should reduce pollution, yes we should reduce and recycle better, use alternative energies and so on, I am totally on that train ... BUT the melting of the ice poles happened ALWAYS and it will always happen. No campaign to think about how to reduce the temperature on earth would PREVENT the melting of the poles. This is earths normal condition. It is like three ants decide to move the pyramids - it is simply not possible.

And even IF plans are well coordinated and everyone on this planet would help - the poles would melt anyway, with or without ANY human lifeform on this planet. Yes, due to pollution it might happen a bit faster, but how much time would we gain if we work against global warming? 10 years, 10 months, 10 days?

EDIT: Sorry, that exclamation mark in that link is messing it up. Here is the direct link to the Wikipedia website: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Ice_ ... rature.png


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

Exactly.


----------



## Waywyn

Ed, apparently you didn't read what I was saying. I know that pollution and stuff contributes to the global warming - this is obvious, no?

... but do you really believe guys telling you that farts of cows (of course not only those farts) could destroy earth? Come on, you are smarter than this ... and if you remember those arguments where used when talking of global warming.

Also I am NOT talking of stupid 1500 years cycle and other ups and down in the temperature, I am talking REAL ice ages as they are happening since billions of years on earth. Read all the Wikipedia or whatever you sites you trust about Ice ages.

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

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


Again, I am NOT saying that all the crap we exhaust is NOT harming the planet and I am not using this as an excuse. On of my biggest dream is to build or buy a house which is completely independent from every energy source polluting the planet, ... but back to topic currently we are living at the end of a Tertiary:

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


Again: YES, we cause global warming, but see it as a timer going towards zero. The temperature rise WE caused is just adding -5 seconds to the timer going down from 11:59:59 (which is now already down somewhere to like 00:00:15 or whatever).

So in the end what do we gain to prevent all this. Probably 5 seconds more or less.
If New York is inhabitable in 2100 or 2150 or 2200, does it really matter? To see it egoistic in the view of a human life, YES for sure, but to whole mankind it is just a blink of an eye.

And again, we should do everything to get our planet more clean, but it WILL NOT change the melting of the ice caps and prevent another Tertiary to end!!!


----------



## stevenson-again

> What journal was that published in?



The Annals of Applied Statistics. a top statistical journal. 



> What background do the authors have in climate science?



none whatsoever. statistics is about collating a large amount of data and deriving a pattern, or a signal from it. creating a proxy record is effectively doing that. however, climate scientists are not specialists in statistics, and yet they have to use very sophisticated statistical methods in order to collate the data they collect. in this case they actually used manns methods and data, assuming that the work they had done to collect the data was sufficiently rigorous.



> If its so simple apparently anyone can see it why do only a fringe minority dispute AGW?



exactly because it is NOT simple. it is extremely complex. even the position amongst climate scientists on the matter of AGW is extremely sensitive. in order to get grants for the research, they have to get published. in order to get published, they have to have their work reviewed - it's called peer review. in order to get their papers past review, they have to write papers that conform to the opinions of the reviews - it's not supposed to work like that but it does. the peer reviewers read through the paper and if it 'makes sense' to them, they pass it. the reviewers are very often colleagues or superiors well known to them.

in other scientific disciplines, if you make a claim contrary to conventional wisdom, then it does not take long for it to be either confirmed or proved wrong. climate science has only the earth to use as its experimental model and that its unit of measurements is decades.

it exactly at the fringes of mainstream climate science; geology, astrophysics, meteorology, mathematics and statistics, that most of the criticism of climate science comes. the reason for that is because they are scientists who are able to respond to the data presented from their own view point and rigour. the fact is, a great deal of climate science is just shoddy.




> Where the denialists have to make fraudulent petitions to try and pretend there is a scientific controversy? Or make "documentaries" just as scientific and honest as any Creationist one, quoting data and scientists out of context to try and make them say something they didnt? Where people believe people like Anthony Watts who even has connections to smoking-causes-cancer denialism and other right wing politics? Or Right Wing fundamentalist websites that promote all manor of crazyness like World Net Daily, even as far as some deniers out right plagiarising them such as Dr. Alan Carlin. Or people that should know better being qualified in relevant fields but for some reason have curious links to oil companies.



it's funny you making the mention of 'creationism'. because the climate change debate has polarised into one of neo-religious zeal. those sceptical of the science are 'deniers', the same term used to describe 'deniers' of the holocaust. instead of dispassionately looking at the evidence that has been presented and considering the criticism, anyone deigning to question any of the 'science' is a heretic and castigated for dooming us all into oblivion. and then on the other side you have the sceptics, entrenched in their position by the name calling and responding with one of their own; 'alarmists'.




> The point is that if you look at all the *data* its clear the earth is warming faster than ever before and we are the cause. There are two major kinds of Global Warming denier, one denies the earth is warming the other denies humans are responsible. The first kind is like Young Earth Creationists. [/òX   ã÷»X   ã÷¼X   ã÷½X   ã÷¾X   ã÷¿X   ã÷ÀX   ã÷ÁX   ã÷ÂX   ã÷ÃX   ã÷ÄX   ã÷ÅX   ã÷ÆX   ã÷ÇX   ã÷ÈX   ã÷ÉX   ã÷ÊX   ã÷ËX   ã÷ÌX   ã÷ÍX   ã÷ÎX   ã÷ÏX   ã÷ÐX   ã÷ÑX   ã÷ÒX   ã÷ÓX   ã÷ÔX   ã÷ÕX   ã÷ÖX   ã÷×X   ã÷ØX   ã÷ÙX   ã÷ÚX   ã÷ÛX   ã÷ÜX   ã÷ÝX   ã÷ÞX   ã÷ßX   ã÷àX   ã÷áX   ã÷âX   ã÷ãX   ã÷äX   ã÷åX   ã÷æX   ã÷çX   ã÷èX   ã÷éX   ã÷êX   ã÷ëX   ã÷ìX   ã÷íX   ã÷îX   ã÷ïX   ã÷ðX   ã÷ñX   ã÷òX   ã÷óX   ã÷ôX   ã÷õX   ã÷öX   ã÷÷X   ã÷øX   ã÷ùX   ã÷úX   ã÷ûX   ã÷üX   ã÷ýX   ã÷þY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãøY   ãø Y   ãø!Y   ãø"Y   ãø#Y   ãø$Y   ãø%Y   ãø&Y   ãø'Y   ãø(Y   ãø)Y   ãø*Y   ãø+Y   ãø,Y   ãø-Y   ãø.Y   ãø/Y   ãø0Y   ãø1Y   ãø2Y   ãø3Y   ãø4Y   ãø5Y   ãø6Y   ãø7Y   ãø8Y   ãø9Y   ãø:              òY   ãø<Y   ãø=Y   ãø>Y   ãø?Y   ãø@Y   ãøAY   ãøBY   ãøCY   ãøDY   ãøEY   ãøFY   ãøGY   ãøHY   ãøIY   ãøJY   ãøKY   ãøLY   ãøMY   ãøNY   ãøOY   ãøPY   ãøQY   ãøRY   ãøSY   ãøTY   ãøUY   ãøVY   ãøWY   ãøXY   ãøYY   ãøZY   ãø[Y   ãø\Y   ãø]Y   ãø^Y   ãø_Y   ãø`Y   ãøaY   ãøbY   ãùY   ãùY   ãùY   ãùY   ãùY   ãùY   ãùY   ãùY   ãùY   ãù Y   ãù!Y   ãù"Z   ãøcZ   ãødZ   ãøeZ   ãøfZ   ãøgZ   ãøhZ   ãøiZ   ãøjZ   ãøkZ   ãølZ   ãømZ   ãønZ   ãøoZ   ãøpZ   ãøqZ


----------



## Ed

Waywyn @ Tue Aug 31 said:


> Ed, apparently you didn't read what I was saying. I know that pollution and stuff contributes to the global warming - this is obvious, no?



Apparently not so obvious to global warming deniers which claim the earth isn't warming, some that take the really absurd position that its actually cooling or that it is warming but that humans arent causing it. 



> ... but do you really believe guys telling you that farts of cows (of course not only those farts) could destroy earth? Come on, you are smarter than this ...



Yes, those stupid scientists and their silly science.

I'm not sure just what about this idea do you find so hilarious. Maybe its the comical picture in your head I assume you've constructed judging from the words "farts" and "destroying the world". 

Still the fact remains that livestock do contributed a vast amount of methane, the livestock emissions being a significant contributor to greenhouse gasses. Therefore while it may sound hilarious and god knows I like to chuckle at the idea of farts as well, but our modern farming methods aren't exactly what nature intended as it were. It shouldn't be that surprising that for more reasons than just greenhouse gasses, livestock are bad for the enviroment and that fact has nothing to do with whether I want it to be true or whether I like meat or if I find it morally reprehensible, or even if I find farts hilarious amusing. Because even its is funny methane is still a very real gas that can cause very real damage, which is not so funny.




> Also I am NOT talking of stupid 1500 years cycle and other ups and down in the temperature, I am talking REAL ice ages as they are happening since billions of years on earth. Read all the Wikipedia or whatever you sites you trust about Ice ages.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age



And none show more extreme rises in temperature than we are seeing today, we have never seen anything like this before. Once again I have to ask why is it only the fringe with connections to pro-tobacco lobbying groups and oil companies, right wing political pundits, conspiracy theorists, outright liars and frauds and unqualified people on the internet can understand something that you suggest is just so simple? 

Do you think climate scientists somehow deny quaternary glaciation happens or something? Do you think they just deny that graph you posted exists? Do you think they just forgot to study the ice ages perhaps? Or maybe, just maybe, it doesn't mean what you think it means, not being qualified in climate science might have something to do with it. 

So I ask you again, do you somehow imagine that climate scientists are just too stupid or something not to understand all this? That they cant even read a wiki page? Maybe they accept global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate and humans are responsible because thats what the evidnece shows and maybe you have been duped into believing that really they are all idiots or apart of a vast conspiracy (or insert your excuse here), by a fringe group of dishonest incompetent charlatans. That you, with no expertise in anything relevant to this understands more than all these experts in climate science. 

Its the same deal with 911 Conspiracies, it all requires all these scientists to be in on a vast conspiracy because they are making such a vast amount of money for some reason or maybe they are just so scared of The Man that they just say whatever Al Gore wants them to say, because they are delusional or incompetent or just too damn stupid. But thats the way for every fringe scientific belief and conspiracy theory. Creationism, moon landing hoaxers, homeopathy, perpetual motion. Why is it that mainstream science can't take them seriously? 

One thing you have to learn about junk science is that they hate peer review and they hate the scientific process, obviously, because their nonsense wouldn't pass. They have to invent a conspiracy theory for why the big bad respected journals wont allow them to play in the big boys sand pit. With perpetual motion for example its the excuse that there's too much money to be lost from free energy so its suppressed, with 911 its becuase everyone is just too scared to question the government, with homeopathy its because there's too much money to be made from pharmaceuticals, you get the idea. But one thing is common to all these junk sciences and one very interesting thing is that they all try and claim its *all just so obvious*. 


They have to do this of course otherwise uneducated masses like yourself wouldnt be able to feel intellectually superior to all those professional scientists. Hey, I know something that thousands degreed professional scientists don't understand! Feels good, doesn't it? With 911, it gets really silly. Did you know, all you have to do is *look *at the collapses to *know *that it was a demolition? hmm... Its just so strange why no one can get more than a fringe group to accept this and why the people that do can't get it published in any proper journals or gain any mainstream scientific support at all. With global warming, some people actually think that all they have to do is look at one graph and read a couple of wiki pages and suddenly they are an expert in climate science ready to tell the hundreds of thousands of professional climate scientists around the world they are wrong and that they know better. Its pretty silly, I know!

What's also interesting is that the people pushing these claims, usually for a living, seem to understand that mainstream scientific opinion is in fact important to people afterall and these claims of conspiracy or some other reason isn't going to convince everyone. 

This is why they try and pretend there *is* a controvercy, when there *isn't*. Creationism and its little baby Intelligent Design have been trying to convince the public for over a hundred years that there's a genuine scientific controversy surrounding Evolution when of course there isn't and hasn''t been for a very long time. The same is certianly true for 911 Conspiracies. Did you know that over a thousand degreed architects and engineers in the world that support the idea that the government demolished the towers? What a staggering number! Shame that there are roughly 17,000 newly credentialed engineers every year just in the US. Still doesn't seem to dissuade the conspiracy theorists though and they'll still harp on about their pathetic little group of fringe lunatics as if that equals a controversy. Global Warming denial of course is no exception to this practise. The famous Oregon petition otherwise known as the Petition Project. Stevenson posted it earlier in this thread. It boasts over *32,000 signatures!* Sounds impressive? Not all is what it seems. They will essentially allow anyone to sign it, they don't check the credentials and don't care if they are a climate scientist or not. But that's just the start of how dishonest that petition is and sufficed to say it can be called nothing less than a utter fraud, but go ahead and check the video above for more details on just how embarassingly stupid these idiots are. 

I admit once I was sucked into 911 conspiracies, but then I discovered they operated exactly like Creationists when I checked up on their arguments. Global Warming denialism operates exactly the same way as every other pseudoscience, with no exceptions in their tactics. The faster you realised that the better.




> YES, we cause global warming, but see it as a timer going towards zero. The temperature rise WE caused is just adding -5 seconds to the timer going down from 11:59:59 (which is now already down somewhere to like 00:00:15 or whatever
> 
> So in the end what do we gain to prevent all this. Probably 5 seconds more or less.
> If New York is inhabitable in 2100 or 2150 or 2200, does it really matter? To see it egoistic in the view of a human life, YES for sure, but to whole mankind it is just a blink of an eye.




Well thats a nice theory, let me know when you've published a paper about it.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Thanks to Ed, who's saved me an awful lot of typing this evening!

Rohan - just done a quick google on that paper - has it actually been formally published yet or is that a draft? I see it's already been heavily criticized - see here for a climatologist's comments that the paper is riddled with basic factual innacuracies - http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... imate.html. Perhaps some climate science input wouldn't have been such a bad idea after all... lies, damned lies and statistics and all that...

I have to say, Rohan, that you do seem to jump on any and every contrary report and paper and declare it as a fatal flaw in the shoddy work of those who support AGW (that 600 degree fahrenheit story smacks of propaganda, nothing more nothing less). A continuous thread is the assumption that mainstream climate scientists are shoddy and partisan, whereas those on the opposite side are fearless brilliant iconoclasts with impeccable credentials, yet I see no evidence for that - quite the opposite, since the conclusions are endorsed by all the world's major academic scientific bodies. The vast body of science agrees with AGW for a reason - it has withstood all that genuine science and the politicised lobbies can throw at it.

But it really doesn't matter. The battle isn't won or lost on the science, that happens in the blogsphere and the media, and here AGW is getting smashed to pieces. Take the recent report the UN made on the IPCC, with some excellent recommendations to reduce the chance of further errors creeping in (however minor) and to be seen as being beyond reproach. They fully endorsed the work and the conclusions of the IPCC, yet in yesterday's UK Daily Express (that bastion of sound journalism) it screamed that the report exposed the whole thing as a pack of lies. This is the reality of the campaign relentlessly being fought... it's not about science or facts, it's simply twisting absolutely anything and everything to sow doubt in the public mind. Exactly the same tactics as used by the industry to deny the link between smoking and cancer - "doubt is our product".


----------



## stevenson-again

> And none show more extreme rises in temperature than we are seeing today, we have never seen anything like this before.



really? how do you know? what is the evidence for that? or are you just assuming...



> Once again I have to ask why is it only the fringe with connections to pro-tobacco lobbying groups and oil companies, right wing political pundits, conspiracy theorists, outright liars and frauds and unqualified people on the internet can understand something that you suggest is just so simple?



i am not sure where you are based, but if you are in the states then it would explain your extremely polarized view. i can assure you that in other parts of the world the scepticism crosses the political divide. but lets meet this silly 'pro-tobacco' lobbying groups thing finally. the 'tobacco' thing is referring to a group of scientists who examined some evidence supporting the case that smoking causes lung cancer. these people were not trying to say that smoking does not cause lung cancer, they were criticising the science that was supporting the case. basically some of the research was extremely flawed and did not support the stated case. these guys are a real pain. the expect scientists to be able to back up their claims with hard evidence that stands independent scrutiny.

unfortunately in the minds of some people, there fails to be a distinction between a truth and the evidence to support the truth. if you tell me the sky is blue and produce a bowl of porridge to prove it, it does not mean the sky is not blue, it just means you rubbish at proving it. but that isn't understood - if you disagree with the science it must mean you think smoking is fine. it's nonsense. you will here this a lot from some sceptics: 'don't make stuff up!'

most scepticism is along these lines. in particular the issue is of due diligence - ensuring your data IS correct before trying to stick into some model or other. another related issue is peer review - the reviewers should be checking the data and the conclusions drawn from it are correct.



> Apparently not so obvious to global warming deniers which claim the earth isn't warming, some that take the really absurd position that its actually cooling or that it is warming but that humans arent causing it.



why is that absurd? the earth warms and cools - its been doing that for much longer than we have been around. what caused it do that? surely those same forces are still at work.

in fact there is very good reason to believe that the earth is due to cool over the next 30 years. there are signs that it is starting to occur. firstly, the argos bouys have shown a cooling trend in the oceans (which hold 1000 times more energy than the atmosphere) and the onset of the pacific OCD. it's important to forget the silly bickering about AGW and concentrate on the actual science because this cooling could actually be more dangerous than warming. cooling conditions can lead to a reduction in crop yields world wide, and increased energy demand just at the point when the earth will reach its most populated, and its energy resources at its scarcest (for modern times).

humans do cause a certain amount of warming (and you are right - methane has at least a 10 fold greater greenhouse affect than CO2). this is one of the positive feedbacks. humans emit greenhouse gasses which absorb heat thus creating a warming effect. but there are also negative feedbacks. a warming planet creates more cloud cover which prevents sunlight from reaching the surface, thus creating a negative feedback. it's complex and it is not fully understood.



> Maybe they accept global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate and humans are responsible because thats what the evidnece shows and maybe you have been duped into believing that really they are all idiots or apart of a vast conspiracy (or insert your excuse here), by a fringe group of dishonest incompetent charlatans.



you need to be really careful here. some of the 'evidence' that things are not right as the IPCC has stated come from top members of the IPCC panel itself. so are you accusing those same scientists who say AGW is happening of being dishonest charlatans?



> One thing you have to learn about junk science is that they hate peer review and they hate the scientific process, obviously, because their nonsense wouldn't pass.



i find this incredibly ironic. do you know what climategate was about? there were a handful of researchers who wanted to scrutinise the data from UEA CRU so that they could replicate there findings, but they became incredibly evasive. they even tried to say that the information was not theirs to make freely available. mann et al were taken before congress in the united states and forced to hand over his work relating to the 'hockey-stick' graph because he refused to allow anyone access to the computer code used to process the data, and initially when he did hand over data he left some of it out.

it's the peer review process the sceptics are arguing is not happening rigorously enough!

i suggest you find answers for these problems with the case as it has been stated:



> - the temperature record as it has been presented to us is flawed. up to the 1980s there were 6000+ atmospheric recording stations. that was cut to just 1000. those that were cut were primarily from high altitude and high latitude areas and their instrumental record was not adjusted to take into account the warming bias. hey presto - instant global warming.
> 
> - the urban heat island effect is adjusted for in the models by a calculation that factors in the population of a city, the higher the population, the larger the city the greater the warming. but records of the populations of cities has not been updated and sometimes they are wildly wrong (always too low). one the figures were checked, at least a 3rd of the cities being adjusted for vie the UHIE were underestimated further contributing a warming bias.
> 
> - instrument sitings. at least a 3rd of the atmospheric instruments do not comply to NOAA own standards. if they exist at all...
> 
> - there is only 1 atmospheric station recording temperatures for the entire of the arctic area....over 1200 km2. it is located in a place whose microclimate is known to be warm anyway. the GISS data interpolates this one reading for the whole of the region. individual readings from independent temporary bouys show that the warming for this region is vastly overestimated.
> 
> - on to interpolation...NOAAs latest 'figures' show that 2009 was the warmest year on record. but they come to this interpretation because they interpolate data from areas that have no instrumental readings. ie they just made it up. you can actually see this for yourself by comparing their charts with the a map of where the instrumental stations (ie where they have taken actual readings) are located.
> 
> - the proxy record. this requires pretty heavy statistical processing in order to derive a signal. a new paper has just come out and using Mann et al 2008 (hockey-stick dude) showing that proxy data is too weak to derive any signal that would show a hockey stick at the start of the instrumental record. the uncertainties are so great, feeding in random numbers actually gives more accurate numbers when backcasting and comparing to the instrumental record. what this means is that the rate of change of temperature as seen over the last 2 decades (which probably isn't as sever as has been described anyway) cannot be shown to be unusual via the proxy record. it isn't sensitive enough.
> 
> - satellite record. NOAAs satellite readings have been thrown into complete doubt because the satellite seems to be malfunctioning - occasionally recording temperatures of over 600 fahrenheit. years of satellite data is now doubtful because of these anomalies that had not been noticed by them, but was actually picked up by a member of the public on sceptic forum. it turns out that the satellite readings can be thrown out by cloud cover....which is kind of well.... i dunno makes me wonder about its value...dunno 'bout you. this was quite a major embarrassment for them, and it leads to questions over other satellite readings.
> 
> - oceans are showing an overall a net cooling trend. what's not fully understood is whether that is because it is passing its heat to the atmosphere, or storing it further down in deep ocean where there are no records, or whether that energy is just escaping into space (infra-red).



just for starters.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf

> i am not sure where you are based, but if you are in the states then it would explain your extremely polarized view



Remember, it's only the right that's extremely polarized. The left is polarized against extreme conservatism, but we're not the extremists.


----------



## Narval

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Aug 31 said:


> i am not sure where you are based, but if you are in the states then it would explain your extremely polarized view
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, it's only the right that's extremely polarized. The left is polarized against extreme conservatism, but we're not the extremists.
Click to expand...

These guys are extremely _polarized:_


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Just a quick question to Ed, Nick and Guy...

Does it not worry you in the slightest that the UN IPCC is being castigated for a series of serious errors and, let's call them, blunders? Are you not even remotely concerned, for example, that the IPCC released a claim in its 2007 report for policymakers (ie Governments) suggesting that the Himalayan glaciers could be all melted by 2035?


----------



## noiseboyuk

Oh Rohan.... oh boy. If I read you correctly, you are DEFENDING the lobby who sought to deny the link between smoking and cancer? Boy I wish I knew this 8 pages ago...

Maybe I misunderstand you, if so all due apologies and humble pie will be instantly consumed by myself. But if true, it tells me all I need to know. That case is most definitely closed, and the parallels are striking. At the point where the link was all-but-proven, the lobby groups did everything they could to squeeze every drop of "doubt" remaining, while deliberately suppressing any evidence to the contrary. They give skeptics a bad name, cos they absolutely are not skeptics.... they are deniers, paid to do a job (and this is where the famous "doubt is our product" phrase originated, from internal memos). We all know how that turned out, of course, and eventually the tobacco companies paid colossal sums of money for suppressing evidence when found out in court. If you consider that good science, then the game is well and truly up. It is absolutely, emphatically, NOT scepticism in any way shape or form. It is simply protecting the considerable interests of businesses that harm.

These same individuals and companies (sometimes under new names) then moved to working on the AGW issue. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to put 2 and 2 together.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Oh Rohan.... oh boy. If I read you correctly, you are DEFENDING the lobby who sought to deny the link between smoking and cancer? Boy I wish I knew this 8 pages ago...



no guy i am not. i am defending the scientists who castigated the science that was used to support the case that smoking causes cancer. read what i wrote again and let it sink in. the scientists i speak of (and i should add, i have not looked into this deeply, only through conversations with a scientist friend, who incidentally is in bone cancer research) that i think was being talked about were simply criticising supporting science that was highly flawed. they are not saying that smoking does or does not cause cancer they are criticising bad science.

if you use bad science to support a truth, it does not make the truth not true, but it does undermine the case. the problem is, when you criticise the science, people wrongly (yourself for example) assume you must believe the contrary. it's just not the case. it is simply wrong to use science that is flawed to support your idea. there are only a couple of name i can think of that discussed this and they went on to criticise climate science for exactly the same reasons. a good scientist does not take view on whether an idea is right or wrong, they just simply look at the evidence that is presented.

i think this is a key thing you are not getting guy.

i'll state it again: science is not about good or bad, right or wrong, it is about the quality of evidence and replication of results.

but even if these guys were heavy smokers who wanted to grind an axe, it wouldn't change the voracity of what they were saying. if hitler or saddam hussein told you that the sky was blue, would you disbelieve them simply because it was they that said it?

it would be perfectly reasonable to hold some doubt - dare i say it scepticism until you could verify it for yourself but it is crazy not to simply because that dude once worked for a mining company, or that dude criticised science supporting the case for smoking causing cancer. look at the information on its merits.

is it true that a reduction in atmospheric recording stations at the end of the 80's could have caused a warming bias in the instrumental record?

check that out!

is it true that a member of the public - not a scientist - discovered that the surface temperature satellite data has some serious errors that made their way into the official record of warming? is it? check it out!


----------



## noiseboyuk

Rousseau @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> Just a quick question to Ed, Nick and Guy...
> 
> Does it not worry you in the slightest that the UN IPCC is being castigated for a series of serious errors and, let's call them, blunders? Are you not even remotely concerned, for example, that the IPCC released a claim in its 2007 report for policymakers (ie Governments) suggesting that the Himalayan glaciers could be all melted by 2035?



Again, this is classic spin. They are not being "castigated". The report was excellent - it affirmed the work the IPCC has done and it's vital contribution to the science and public understanding, but it makes a number of significant reccommendations to keep the process as watertight as possible (all of them good as far as I can see).

The glacier thing is - AFAIK - the single significant mistake that made it into the 2007 document. It was a terrible howler - the source wasn't peer-reviewed, it came from an environmental group. People tried at the time to correct it, but their voices weren't heard. Clearly changes were - and are - needed to prevent anything like it happening again.

But look at the context. The mistake was one line in a 1,000 page document. It was never repeated in any summary for policymakers, so no-one can use the argument that any policy was formed around it. Further, the mistake was eventually spotted by the scientific community itself, and once acknowledged (which came too late) of course was retracted. And despite a thorough witch-hunt, no other similar error has come to light which has withstood scrutiny.

So overall the report is necessary, a very good thing. As the report's conclusion states:



> The Committee concludes that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall and has served society well. The commitment of many thousands of the world’s leading scientists and other experts to the assessment process and to the communication of the nature of our understanding of the changing climate, its impacts, and possible adaptation and mitigation strategies is a considerable achievement in its own right. Similarly, the sustained commitment of governments to the process and their buy-in to the results is a mark of a successful assessment. Through its unique partnership between scientists and governments, the IPCC has heightened public awareness of climate change, raised the level of scientific debate, and influenced the science agendas of many nations.



Not quite a "castigation" is it?


----------



## Stephen Baysted

It is indeed classic spin, remember turkeys do not vote for Christmas. 

Ok, now let's consider another 'howler' in the 2007 report, this time on the Amazon. Does that not perhaps undermine your confidence a little more?


----------



## Waywyn

Ed, you still don't get my point. Noone, except those stupid conspiracy guys deny global warming, but it would happen anyway and not as you say a few hundred thousand years earlier but maybe just a few years or months earlier. If you are not able by 2100 or 2200 to live in NewYork it really doesn't matter.

I still got one stupid comparison. Did you remember the slogan of the movie 2012?
If the gov would know something about the death of billions of people - what would they do? NOTHING!

Of course with this comparison I am NOT referring to any 2012 conspiracy or other crap, but just the essential meaning of these words.

If you have the chance to let people know that they are part of a global warning - would you say in public, that it would happen anyway? I think not, because lots of companies can make quite a big buck out of it! Thats how the world works. Everyone needs money!

So again, of course it is TRUE and TRUE and TRUE that there are lots of things mankind has build, produced using which causes global warming ... but since we are at the end of a Tertiary it will happen anyway.

Lol, damn, I am trying for around 4 posts to set this clear and you go on with conspiracy and shit. I give a big fuck about those guys. All I wanted to say is that global warming will continue since it is in the nature of planet earth and it is MUCH MUCH MUCH more complex rather than just looking back a few thousand years. Besides that you have to count in the whole solar system. I also know there are lots of crap studies about cosmic radiation is causing all of this ... but there is a certain connection through the last million if not billion year on how earth is reacting to sun ... and I don't mean summer, winter and so on  o-[][]-o


----------



## Ed

Waywyn @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> Ed, you still don't get my point. Noone, except those stupid conspiracy guys deny global warming, but it would happen anyway and not as you say a few hundred thousand years earlier but maybe just a few years or months earlier. If you are not able by 2100 or 2200 to live in NewYork it really doesn't matter.



Except when you tried to show evidence of that you referenced ANDRILL which, surprise surprise, dont deny global warming or AGW either despite your characterisation of their studies. Why is that? How is it you think you know better than they do about their own data? Come on, I'm waiting for you to just say you believe they are lying or come up with some other excuse. So far you've just been hand waving the issue, I realise its toughy.



> I still got one stupid comparison. Did you remember the slogan of the movie 2012?
> If the gov would know something about the death of billions of people - what would they do? NOTHING!



Of course is its not just the government saying AGW is real, so I'm not sure what you think this really means. 



> If you have the chance to let people know that they are part of a global warning - would you say in public, that it would happen anyway? I think not, because lots of companies can make quite a big buck out of it! Thats how the world works. Everyone needs money!



So you're saying ANDRILL *know *what you are saying is true, but are just too scared(?) to tell the public the truth and that there's too much money to be made? So I guess we're back to a massive scientific coverup. As I said, either its because they are stupid, incompetent or lying (which means coverup/conspiracy) you've apparently chosen conspiracy, but of course you still dont realise you're doing it. 




> So again, of course it is TRUE and TRUE and TRUE that there are lots of things mankind has build, produced using which causes global warming ... but since we are at the end of a Tertiary it will happen anyway.




If that were the case, why is it that idea doesnt have any scientific support, IOW why do all those scientists disagree with you? Maybe, just maybe, you dont actually understand any of this? Could that be it? Nah, I guess its much more fun or comforting to just go on pretending you understand things you don't. I notice the same when I argue with 911 Truthers.




> Lol, damn, I am trying for around 4 posts to set this clear and you go on with conspiracy and [email protected]#t.



If you dont want to be accused of voicing a conspiracy theory, then stop implicating people in coverups and conspiracies where they are intentionally lying about data and that someone as uneducated in the matter as a composer on the internet can understand it. 




> I also know there are lots of crap studies about cosmic radiation is causing all of this ... but there is a certain connection through the last million if not billion year on how earth is reacting to sun ... and I don't mean summer, winter and so on  o-[][]-o



I dont know if in that rather vague paragraph you actually think the sun is the cause of global warming, but if you do:

*Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Solar Schmolar:*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20


----------



## Animus

http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/1 ... f-science/


Another thing, I always find it funny that the AGWers always like to attack the dissenters as not being credible or qualified in that they come from meteorologists, geologist etc backgrounds, and don't have backgrounds in climatology. Well the leading scientist in AGW have backgrounds in those very things! Michael Mann has degrees in Physics, Applied Math and Geology. I think Phil Jones has a background in meteorology.


----------



## Waywyn

Bro, seriously, you are trapped in something you can't get out:

To make it really short and once and for all:

- Global warming, caused by us, happens - YES!
- Gobal warming is caused by nature sooner or later anyway
- Scientiest are aware of EVERY data, of course they are not stupid, but mostly you see global warming hype and if we fail the world will sink ... but it will sink anyway, just a few minutes later. Clear?

Truth: We cause the planet to heat up BUT Earth will warm and heat up and will be ice free anyway.

TV and media: Alarm, alarm!!!!! (with a tad irony) Only because you don't buy energy saving light bulbs and eat at Steakhouses which buy meat from South American farting cows, the world will end. So people go out, buy a new lightbulb for their living room and go to McDonalds ... MUAHAHAH.

Seriously, do you really think that lightbulbs is the best you can do? No, but people assume because they don't think and it is the most easiest thing to contribute ... and nooone knows that these bulbs just cause 5% of all the problems.


Regarding Andrill: WHY should they deny globald warming???!?!?!?!??!?
These guys just deliver a fact that earth was very warm back then and that even the CO2 concentration was about the same ...


----------



## Waywyn

And Ed, please forgive me but I stopped watching that YouTube video after a few seconds. Of course it is very well explained and the guy clears up with it ... but why the heck do you AAALWAYS stick to the last 10, 100 or 1000 years?? 

Of course sun doesn't have to do the tiniest bit with our clima throughout the last 1000 years.

I mentioned that a few posts before and you willingly seem to ignore it. Why??

I am NOOOOT talking the last 10,100 or 1000 years ... I am talking the whole complete all in all existence of earth which is 4.5 billion years ...


----------



## noiseboyuk

Rousseau @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> Ok, now let's consider another 'howler' in the 2007 report, this time on the Amazon. Does that not perhaps undermine your confidence a little more?



Nope, because that one has been completely debunked as a "scandal". The Sunday Times published the original scandal story in January, which was completely false. Eventually - in June - it printed a correction and an apology (first google link I found - http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/ ... -the-dust/)

This illustrates the point PRECISELY. It doesn't matter that it was false - it has been quoted by yourself and millions of others as Amazongate. Ha, it's got a Gate on it, it must be true, right? Well no actually - it's bullshit, plain and simple. Smoke utterly without fire. But it will be forevermore referred to as AmazonGate, and people will continue to believe that it dents the IPCC's credibility. It doesn't one iota (though it does the Sunday Times), but it doesn't matter. Perception is all. Exactly the same with Rajendra Pachauri's business affairs, which I think you referred to as PachuariGate. An independent investigation completely recently cleared him of any wrongdoing. But who cares about the truth when there's shit to be smeared, eh?

Wawyn - there have been times in the Earth's history where the planet was a virtual furnace, and times when it was a snowball. For much of those times, there was no life on earth, so I'm not sure what that proves. In recent history for mankind, this is unprecedented. And we've shoved the CO2 up there.

It strikes me that you're on dodgy ground by saying "yeah, well eventually the climate will change anyway". If memory serves, I think the received wisdom is that, left to its own devices, we'd have about 20,000 years til the next ice age kicks in. But is that really an excuse not to be concerned? Your argument is rather analogous to killing someone, and saying "well if I never killed them, they'd have died sooner or later of natural causes anyway". I'm not sure that's brilliant ethics myself.

Ed - just a thanks... it's felt lonely at times on this thread! I agree with pretty much every word, especially the comparisons with 9/11 conspiracies and Truthers movement etc. This conspiracy theory BS is becoming endemic in our culture.


----------



## Ed

Waywyn @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> Bro, seriously, you are trapped in something you can't get out:
> 
> To make it really short and once and for all:
> 
> - Global warming, caused by us, happens - YES!



Good. 



> - Gobal warming is caused by nature sooner or later anyway



When we say global warming we are talking about the human caused global warming, no one suggested that the earth doesnt have *natural *warming and cooling cycles. I told you this before. What we are experiencing is a massive increase in global temperatures that is unlike anything we have seen before caused by our *unnatural *pollutants. 



> - Scientiest are aware of EVERY data, of course they are not stupid, but mostly you see global warming hype and if we fail the world will sink ... but it will sink anyway, just a few minutes later. Clear?



No, not clear. Only a fringe minority are not concerned with global warming and/or claim that humans arent causing it. Thats the point, either all these scientists and scientific bodies are all in on some mass delusion or coverup or they are all stupid and incompetent. Once again you still dodge addressing this. 



> Truth: We cause the planet to heat up BUT Earth will warm and heat up and will be ice free anyway.



You referenced ANDRILL to apparently prove this yet they dont even say what you think they're saying, a clue might have been that that for some reason they didn't get the conclusion you did. I have to wonder just what part you read that lead you to the conclusion that you are right and they are wrong.



> Seriously, do you really think that lightbulbs is the best you can do? No, but people assume because they don't think and it is the most easiest thing to contribute ... and nooone knows that these bulbs just cause 5% of all the problems.



Ah I see so its the energy saving light bulb companies that are controlling this conspiracy and forcing all the worlds scientists to lie about the evidence, evidence so simple unqualified people on the internet can understand it. Good thing we got that cleared up. 




> Regarding Andrill: WHY should they deny globald warming???!?!?!?!??!?



Come on, do you really not understand? You just claimed that their data shows that global warming is neither significant or dangerous because you say they found that "_Co2 emission on this planet ...was almost the SAME as it is today_" So then why don't they agree with that conclusion? If this shows you that its so obvious that Co2 isn't causing Global Warming then why do they think AGW is a very real issue? Maybe because you dont understand what they are saying, perhaps? Maybe its not so simple? Isn't that more likely than you know better than they do?



Waywyn @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> Of course sun doesn't have to do the tiniest bit with our clima throughout the last 1000 years.
> 
> I mentioned that a few posts before and you willingly seem to ignore it. Why??



Because you suggested that the warming we're seeing could be caused by the sun, this is not true, that's the point. Maybe you should have watched more of the video.


----------



## Waywyn

Noiseboyuk: Apparently you are too, not reading everything what I wrote, as Ed?!

I mentioned several times that it is important to reduce pollution, that one of my biggest dreams is a alternative energy house which "works" completely independent ... it is very important to make this world a better place (to say it really cheesy) ... but even if, the temperature will change and the poles will melt anyway. One question back, is pollution ONLY causing global warming? As far as I know it also causes problems in terms of health and other environmental damage, no?

I don't know why that is so hard to understand, but all I am saying is that it is important to clean our planet and treat it as it deserves ... but the poles will melt anyway and cities will be swallowed only because humans felt superior to nature by building little tiny walls and stuff to keep the water away ... you CAN NOT STOP IT! Why is that so hard to understand!?

Please think for a while what happened with Eijafjallajojlkjlukjlukju  ... that volcano just farted a tiny tiny bit but spit out as much CO2 as the whole humanity has been spit out during it's WHOLE EXISTENCE ... think about this for a moment?!

What finally I am trying to say here?
It is important to let humans now how to keep our planet green and safe, but not just tell them as stupid shit as to exchange light bulbs. I know it is good to start at small things and actions, but this is doesn't help. Lots of humans think like: Hey I exchanged my lightbulbs, no I can buy my second car 


So therefore I have to give your killing comparison back:

What media does is telling humans, it is YOUR fault that you die

What I am saying is, that we die anyway, but lets keep us healthy and clean, but let's face the issue and make the best out of it

Not more, not less!


----------



## Ed

Waywyn @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> I don't know why that is so hard to understand, but all I am saying is that it is important to clean our planet and treat it as it deserves ... but the poles will melt anyway and cities will be swallowed only because humans felt superior to nature by building little tiny walls and stuff to keep the water away ... you CAN NOT STOP IT! Why is that so hard to understand!?



And eventually the sun will supernova and destroy us all, so we shouldn't bother making sure we don't destroy the earth before that. That is essentially your logic. Or here's another. We shouldnt bother trying to stop smoking, because we'll all die anyway eventually, heck you could get lung cancer without smoking at all! So light up! This is how you sound to me. 




> What finally I am trying to say here?
> It is important to let humans now how to keep our planet green and safe, but not just tell them as stupid [email protected]#t as to exchange light bulbs. I know it is good to start at small things and actions, but this is doesn't help. Lots of humans think like: Hey I exchanged my lightbulbs, no I can buy my second car



I agree that it does seem pretty futile, trying to save energy in this way when its oil companies and industry pumping tons of toxic fumes into the atmosphere and countries like India which have a real problem with Co2 emissions and ordinary people can't afford vehicles that perform better. But we have to try somehow, but this argument of what we can do to fix this is completely different to whether its happening at all.


----------



## Waywyn

Ed, I seriously really don't know how to say or epxlain myself better.

Andrill: These guys just found our that back then there was almost the same state as it is now, but what does that have to do with our caused global warming?!

Don't you understand that it simply sums up?

Back then: warm
Today: warm + our caused global warming = makes it a bit warmer


.. and I really don't understand why you always connect to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy would be that certain members on purpose warm up the planet to cause a problem only to make money from it. THAT would be conspiracy ... all I am saying is that there are companies who enrich on this problem. See it as a photographer who takes pictures of dying princess Diana to make money. It is simply someone enriching and making a buck ... and it's not just a few companies.


----------



## Waywyn

"""And eventually the sun will supernova and destroy us all, so we shouldn't bother making sure we don't destroy the earth before that. That is essentially your logic. Or here's another. We shouldnt bother trying to stop smoking, because we'll all die anyway eventually, heck you could get lung cancer without smoking at all! So light up! This is how you sound to me. """

Ed, okay, you are getting a bit childish here. I simply don't understand why you are completely and constantly ignoring my arguments against exactly these points you are mentioning now. Could it be you are bit in blind rage?

For you I copy it again (probably it was cross posting )

So therefore I have to give your killing comparison back:

What media does is telling humans, it is YOUR fault that you die

What I am saying is, that we die anyway, but lets keep us healthy and clean, but let's face the issue and make the best out of it


----------



## Ed

Waywyn @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> Ed, I seriously really don't know how to say or epxlain myself better.
> 
> Andrill: These guys just found our that back then there was almost the same state as it is now, but what does that have to do with our caused global warming?!
> 
> Don't you understand that it simply sums up?
> 
> Back then: warm
> Today: warm + our caused global warming = makes it a bit warmer



Simple, right! :roll: 

So again, why don't *they *agree with this? Why wasn't this *their *conclusion? 

Come on - either they are stupid, incompetent, delusional or lying. Pick one or give me an alternative but stop trying to make out this is irrelevant. 



> .. and I really don't understand why you always connect to conspiracy theories.



Its funny that you are voicing conspiracy theories and dont even know you're doing it.



> Conspiracy would be that certain members on purpose warm up the planet to cause a problem only to make money from it. THAT would be conspiracy



So the tobacco companies never really tried to create a false picture in the publics head about smoking being harmful and causing cancer either right? Why would over a thousand apparent professionals in building design and construction say that the WTC was demolished? Or so many pilots that say no plane could have hit the Pentagon? Why would so many scientists say that evolution is wrong and Intelligent Design is a proper scientific theory? Why would so many advocate homeopathy? This is how pseudo-science works, I dont know why these people do it, sometimes its clear they are being paid but sometimes there doesnt even appear to be specific reasons for their incompetence/lies. If you want to call that a conspiracy go ahead, but we know it happens all the time and we know why people would want to obscure the science of global warming. But if you find that unlikely just consider what you're proposing, its a lot lot more unlikely as you're implicating a helleva lot more people. . 



> ... all I am saying is that there are companies who enrich on this problem.



Groups like ANDRILL, right? Which for some reason can't see something so simple you can understand it. Well it makes no sense they are stupid or incompetent so I guess somehow they are making money from continuing to pretend AGW is a real threat, right? Why don't you email them and ask them why they can't see something so obvious that their own data shows? Let me know how that goes!

Of course there are people that will make money from this, that's just capitalism people make money from tragedies all the time its just a fact of life. 

For some reason however you don't seem to see all the money that is to be made from obscuring and obfuscating the science of global warming in order to convince the public there is no problem and that human influence isn't to blame. Why trust the fringe minority about subjects you don't understand? Maybe, just maybe, they are a minority for a reason.



> """And eventually the sun will supernova and destroy us all, so we shouldn't bother making sure we don't destroy the earth before that. That is essentially your logic. Or here's another. We shouldnt bother trying to stop smoking, because we'll all die anyway eventually, heck you could get lung cancer without smoking at all! So light up! This is how you sound to me. """
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed, okay, you are getting a bit childish here. I simply don't understand why you are completely and constantly ignoring my arguments against exactly these points you are mentioning now. Could it be you are bit in blind rage?
Click to expand...


Im not ignoring anything, I'm telling you just how much sense your argument seems to me. 



> What I am saying is, that we die anyway, but lets keep us healthy and clean, but let's face the issue and make the best out of it



Exactly, humans will eventually go extinct and the earth will be destroyed so why should we care about global warming? 

How you think this makes sense is beyond me.

I guess its because you are under the mistaken impression that the earth is warming for some other reason than increased Co2 caused by our pollutants and all we can do is sit back and watch the world burn. Such is the danger of climate denial.


----------



## Waywyn

Ed, I really don't understand when a company or a group of scientist discover something, that they automatically deny global warming?!

Imagine e.g. you find the ultimate evidence (I am NOT saying that Andrill did because of that little fact but lets just assume in general) that the earth would even heat up even if humans wouldn't exists. Does that automatically mean that you are denying global warming caused by humans?

Did you never consider the fact that simply both can be true?


""How you think this makes sense is beyond me. I guess its because you are under the mistaken impression that the earth is warming for some other reason that increased Co2 caused by our pollutants and all we can do is sit back and watch the world burn. Such is the danger of climate denial.""

Sorry Ed, but this exactly shows me that you are simply NOT reading what I am writing. I tried to explain myself several times, but this almost seems like trolling?!

Please don't get offended but how often do you want me to write and explain that I am not denying global warming?!??


----------



## Ed

Waywyn @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> Ed, I really don't understand when a company or a group of scientist discover something, that they automatically deny global warming?!
> 
> Imagine e.g. you find the ultimate evidence (I am NOT saying that Andrill did because of that little fact but lets just assume in general) that the earth would even heat up even if humans wouldn't exists. Does that automatically mean that you are denying global warming caused by humans?
> 
> Did you never consider the fact that simply both can be true?



Sure and maybe Al Qaeda demolished the WTC with explosives, you happy with that idea too?

You still haven't explained why ANDRILL can't see something that is just so simple you can understand it and summarise it here and can be easily understood by unqualified people in the subject like composers.

Are you going to email them and ask them what that data *means* in terms of climate change as you have said here? Or are you just going to assume you understand it and really *they *are covering it up for some reason? If what you're saying is true, that Co2 hasnt increased significantly in millions of years, then that would be a bombshell. But that's not true and thats why they don't agree with your position. But don't just believe me, ask them. Or, just admit that you believe they are covering up the twoof.



> ""How you think this makes sense is beyond me. I guess its because you are under the mistaken impression that the earth is warming for some other reason that increased Co2 caused by our pollutants and all we can do is sit back and watch the world burn. Such is the danger of climate denial.""
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Ed, but this exactly shows me that you are simply NOT reading what I am writing. I tried to explain myself several times, but this almost seems like trolling?!
> 
> Please don't get offended but how often do you want me to write and explain that I am not denying global warming?!??
Click to expand...


Maybe there is a language barrier or something. Read what i wrote again, I didnt say you denied global warming. I specifically said you believe that humans arent causing it and we cant do anything about it. And then you accuse *me *of not understanding *you*?


----------



## Waywyn

Noone never ever said, that CO2 concentration never changed. They just say that there was a certain point back then where the temperature and CO2 concentration was kind of similar to todays situation - noone never ever does conspiracy theory or whatever. They simply say, there have been times back then where it was almost as warm as today.

Besides that I am not getting your childish Al Qaeda comment. Why don't you simply answer my question? If you would find ultimate fact, would this automatically mean that you are into conspiracy theory or deny global warming caused by mankind?!


Okay, so you thought when I wrote global warming I didn't mean global warming specifically caused my humans? Of course I did ... sorry about that, but all the time I wrote global warming I ment of course THAT obvious global warming caused by the human race during the last few hundred years.


.. and please do yourself a favor and visit and browse the Andrill website a bit. This is not a party of 5 mad guys drilling throughout Antartica to deny human caused global warning - they simply collect data.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Waywyn - this is making no more sense to me than Ed... there seems to be nothing about Andrill that seems contentious. Please give us a specific link or quote of whatever it is that you think is important there and maybe we can move forward.


----------



## Waywyn

noiseboyuk @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> Waywyn - this is making no more sense to me than Ed... there seems to be nothing about Andrill that seems contentious. Please give us a specific link or quote of whatever it is that you think is important there and maybe we can move forward.



Hey,

Their general website - http://www.andrill.org

A more specific link, saying that it has been pretty warm back then: http://www.andrill.org/news/sms1

Again noone says that temperature or CO2 never changed. It simply says that there is a contant up and down during the last millions of years - I am not just talking weird theory about the sun causing global warming or whatever.

Also here is another one that proofes that human caused global warming is affecting the stability of Antartica: http://www.andrill.org/news/nature

Lots of others of informative links.


Again, the only thing I am saying is that there has been drastic climate change throughout the millions of years. And there was a huge ice age back then which is currently slowly fading out. Human caused global warming is accelerating that.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Yes, well. I don't think there's a climate scientist on earth who thinks it was never warmer than now, so hardly news! Again, AFAIK I think we're naturally due another ice age in terms of the natural systems though (in many thousands of years), so we're not naturally headed for warming next (again, AFAIK).

It's all rather a moot point though isn't it? Even if we were heading into warming in another 10,000 years, how is this relevant to anthropogenic warming? I don't get it. You seemed to suggest at one point that our warming doesn't really matter one way or the other, since we'd be getting it pretty soon anyway - this seems way wide of the mark.


----------



## Narval

Warming is natural.
Man is part of nature.
Therefore, AGW is natural.

That means, opposing AGW is opposing nature.
But opposing nature is natural too, 
because those who are opposing nature are, themselves, part of nature.
It's all a self-contradictory (yet self-promoting) circle. All natural. Recyclable.

Carry on.


----------



## stevenson-again

> I dont know how many more times I have to say it, no one denies that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. This is normal. The point is that we are CAUSING an UNNATURAL warming of the earth in a way we have not experienced before.



i don't know how many times i have to say it, no is denying CO2 has a net warming affect on temperature. that also is normal. in fact if we did not have greenhouse gases such as Co2 water vapour and methane in our atmosphere we would all be decidedly chillier - about 30 degrees centigrade chillier.

there is nothing wrong with saying "we are CAUSING an UNNATURAL warming of the earth in a way we have not experienced before" either. it is quite demonstrably true. there has never been industrialisation on the scale we see today at any time in earths history and there inevitably be an affect on climate, not just because of CO2 but also because we do other things that affect regional climate anyway. we are not a regular natural force on climate so it is reasonable to say that our force is 'unnatural'. however, we do not know if humans have experienced it before. the romans were growing grape vines as far north as york during the medieval warming. that certainly wouldn't be possible today, so anecdotally at least we can presume it was warmer.

what we are saying is:

- the evidence to support the claim that the earth is warming more quickly than at any other time does not really exist. possibly it is true, but what has been presented as evidence for it is pretty shoddy science.

- the significance of AGW against the natural variance is deeply questionable. we just don't know whether the warming over the period of the instrumental record (150 years) is significantly caused by us to seriously worry about. there is good reason to suppose we should give it our earnest attention, the basic tenets, the idea is sound and is worthy of investigation, but it is an extremely complicated science that is still in its infancy. the evidence as it has been presented does not show that human force on climate is greater or out of the range of natural variance.

- the data. it's all about the data. you cannot get around the fact that the raw data has problems with it, and yet you are asserting that the science is somehow settled and that how could scientists not know if the data had a problem with it. after all there is a consensus right? if there is a consensus the data can't possibly be wrong. what sceptics generally (ie sensible ones not right wing radicals or any other nut) are objecting to is the lack of due diligence to ensure the data sets are robust. i mean - come on! the data has to be right doesn't it?

the tone of your argument ed, and the deleterious way you are communicating with alex, is very typical of the politicisation and dogmatising of this whole subject. it may not be untypical, but it is extremely unfortunate. scientists themselves have been reduced ad hominem debate, rather than serious and dispassionate analysis of the all the facts, and view points. science and truth lay raped and blood spattered at the feet of this sort of discourse.

incidentally:

@ alex - the recent icelandic volcano didn't inject anywhere near as much CO2 into the atmosphere as human beings have emitted ever. an unfortunate attempt by a radical sceptic that had little do with hard evidence. i can assure you the same occurs from the other side - as you can read from ed's remarks.

@ narval - while that article was interesting, i have to say it did read like a polemic against socialism. this dude does read like a conspiracy theorist. it is certainly true that global warming was identified as a political tool very early on, but i don't think that there is any 'invisible' hand trying to work a socialist agenda. what is interesting and quite correct is the politicisation of the issue (of which he was a significant contributor i must say) and the term 'post-normal' science. by that 'post-normal' is when you get an idea to so accepted it becomes a 'truth' by default. similar to how you get an entire nation to persecute a minority.

i would bet any money that it was written by an american. that level of left vs right debate does not exist so much over in the UK, or other countries that i can see. in fact one noted editor who allows climate sceptical articles in her paper is a member of the labour party. i would recommend reading her take on things. very interesting.


----------



## Narval

stevenson-again @ Wed Sep 01 said:


> @ narval - while that article was interesting,


Not sure what article you are talking about and what does it have to do with what I was saying.


----------



## Waywyn

Sorry guys I am out of here, not because I am offended or anything, but it's getting too complicated and I it has become much more complicated than it is.

I used Andrill just as a little sidenote to show that everyone is just talking about the last heating/cooling cycles during the last thousand years, but earth is much older and there have been times earth was almost as warm as today. I wrote almost as, because I know that it is warmer than never before ... at least since the last 65mio years 

But I stick to what I said before. Mankind has to do everything to reduce this. Getting rid of pollution and other issues is very important, but the pole melting or that the water level is rising is not the only concern ... it will happen anyway and I am afraid not in a few 10.000 years ... and no I don't refer to aliens, conspiracy or a supernova :roll:


----------



## Waywyn

Guy, how can you state (that you think) that I am arguing that global warming is not bad? I seriously don't get, really! I slowly start to think that after I hit the submit button my letters still appear right to me but totally change on you guys screen. PLEASE! :D


----------



## noiseboyuk

Waywyn @ Thu Sep 02 said:


> Guy, how can you state (that you think) that I am arguing that global warming is not bad? I seriously don't get, really! I slowly start to think that after I hit the submit button my letters still appear right to me but totally change on you guys screen. PLEASE! :D



Well I guess it was this on p9:



> YES, we cause global warming, but see it as a timer going towards zero. The temperature rise WE caused is just adding -5 seconds to the timer going down from 11:59:59 (which is now already down somewhere to like 00:00:15 or whatever).



See, that makes it sound like efforts to do anything are futile (and I don't think its correct cos we're naturally cooling). If not, then I'm very glad, but I guess that's where the confusion comes from.

So - yes temperature rise it happening... yes we are causing it... yes it is bad. Is that a better summary of your position?

As to what we can do to stop it... well that's another thread entirely. Indeed I started one a few weeks ago asking for realistic ideas of how we could still turn it around, but there didn't really seem to be any. Kinda depressing. I know it's doable in theory, but I can't see it in practice. This thread perfectly illustrates why... people just won't believe it, no matter how strong the evidence, and we are in the dying geological seconds practically of any achievable window to turn it around. By the time there is enough political will to act, it will be long passed the time when we can.

Personally I can totally see why people do direct action on this, but I don't think even that does much good in the end. If it happened on a scale 100x now they maybe, but I can't see that cos the public doesn't care / believe it.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Rohan - if I read correctly, Ed was really responding specifically to Waywan's posts and there's a world of difference between your two positions.



my point is, the manner in which ed was discussing the issue with alex is pretty typical for the kind of 'debate' (if you can even call it that) this new religion has inspired.

i am interested only having really firm evidence and have been saddened and angered at the way science has been subjugated. the problem is, that in climate science, bad science - demonstrably bad science - has been created a prevailing view. when scientists work in this field has been called into contention, instead of 'fessing up, they became protective and defensive.



> The smoking example is the perfect indicator here. Even when it is known that industry was duplicitous in presenting "evidence" to the public, eventually they got found out and fined the largest sums in corporate industry, you appear to consider this good science under the banner of scepticism. My view is that this isn't scepticism at all, and that you've been duped by the very concept of scepticism itself... that it is somehow noble to adopt a contrary line against a prevailing wisdom (as opposed to being genuinely neutral). This isn't true if its motivated by ideology, as was the case with the smoking lobby or creationists and evolution, because its not part of a scientific endeavour - the answer has been already determined before they start.



you are right, smoking is a perfect example. do not pretend that your bowl of porridge proves the sky is blue! just because we all know it is blue does not justify making stuff up to support it. it really does happen you know - scientists do make stuff up and occasionally they get caught out. remember that south korean geneticist who claimed he had cloned a human embryo? or cold fusion? unfortunately for the geneticist, his work was in a laboratory in short time scales so he got caught pretty quickly. climate science is very unfortunately quite different. there were undoubtedly lobby groups who wanted to suppress any implication that smoking was bad for you, and i am sure they jumped all over the critics of the research that was done supporting initial relation with lung cancer. that has been subsequently proved with good science to be a significant factor does not in any way justify the earlier poor research.



> If what I've said frustrates you (and I can well imagine it might!), I'd spend a bit more time handing around Real Climate and a bit less around Climate Audit. Mackintyre is a PITA, but he does a job. The scientists at RC are incredibly senior in their fields and do deal with his issues. They have answered all those questions that you have raised.



oh no they haven't! you tell me where they have answered those questions! believe me i have looked.



> When I pointed out that a) the paper isn't yet published and b) it appears to be riddled with basic climate science errors and they don't understand the raw data and still less are able to interpret it, there was no response


. 

on the contrary, the paper is due to be published and it is not riddled with basic climate science errors. you find me those errors.

and bear in mind it is not a paper on climate science but a paper on statistics. all it says that using the statistical methods the Mann et all used, and Mann's own data, they could not claim that the recent warming as indicated by the instrumental record was in any way unusual.

i stress that they do NEVER say that the warming is NOT unusual - they are not disagreeing or even commenting on the conclusions, only that they cannot be drawn from a statistical analysis of the proxy record as provided by Mann et al. if you think the paper was in any way anything to do with climate science then you have seriously misunderstood what the paper is showing.


as for no response - explain to me what happened to the atmospheric recording stations in the late 80's? 
did they drop from over 6000 to just over 1000? 
were the ones that were closed predominantly in northern latitudes and high altitudes?
was the data from those stations removed from the record altogether?
has the NOAA satellite been feeding faulty data into the climate models?
how many weather stations are there north of the 80th parallel?
is antarctic sea ice growing and what does this mean? (i have read about this on realclimate btw and left with many more questions than answers.)
why are some records showing ocean cooling, and yet some others showing warming?


there might be reasonable and rational answers for these but i have yet to see them. they are not opinions but questions relating to fact. and believe me, i have been reading realclimate. i suggest you do the same. but you need to read it properly and with an open mind. realclimate is very much only showing one side, but some of the questions asked by posters are very interesting. then read the responses from the realclimate author. you may need to use a little intuition but when he starts talking about 'not having time' when a reader is trying to get confirmation of a salient point referred to in an article, my bullshit detector starts getting a little itchy. just read realclimate properly. you don't need to read sceptic sites to get a balanced view - but it might help start you off with some questions of your own. just ask yourself 'how do they know this? how can they be sure the data is accurate?'


----------



## Waywyn

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 02 said:


> Waywyn @ Thu Sep 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, how can you state (that you think) that I am arguing that global warming is not bad? I seriously don't get, really! I slowly start to think that after I hit the submit button my letters still appear right to me but totally change on you guys screen. PLEASE! :D
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I guess it was this on p9:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES, we cause global warming, but see it as a timer going towards zero. The temperature rise WE caused is just adding -5 seconds to the timer going down from 11:59:59 (which is now already down somewhere to like 00:00:15 or whatever).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that makes it sound like efforts to do anything are futile (and I don't think its correct cos we're naturally cooling). If not, then I'm very glad, but I guess that's where the confusion comes from.
> 
> So - yes temperature rise it happening... yes we are causing it... yes it is bad. Is that a better summary of your position?
> 
> As to what we can do to stop it... well that's another thread entirely. Indeed I started one a few weeks ago asking for realistic ideas of how we could still turn it around, but there didn't really seem to be any. Kinda depressing. I know it's doable in theory, but I can't see it in practice. This thread perfectly illustrates why... people just won't believe it, no matter how strong the evidence, and we are in the dying geological seconds practically of any achievable window to turn it around. By the time there is enough political will to act, it will be long passed the time when we can.
> 
> Personally I can totally see why people do direct action on this, but I don't think even that does much good in the end. If it happened on a scale 100x now they maybe, but I can't see that cos the public doesn't care / believe it.
Click to expand...


Okay, sorry if this sounded as if I don't care 

My perfect summary would be:
Human caused global warming is happening + it also additionally happens through nature anyway ... it BOTH bad? Yes SURE!
What do we do. Not just getting rid of steaks from Argentina and buying energy saying light bulbs, but really THINK about a alternative solution on IF it MAY BE to late!

I mean if it is really that late and scientists already suggested that water level may rise that hardcore, why don't they do actions to cities like New York?

Meaning, to build walls and dams to keep the water out? Even though it may not be possible on the other side.
Again, I am *NOT* talking conspiracy shit like the gov is doing in purpose to let half of humans drown in order to reduce population. Kind of like NWO shit!

I am just asking, shouldn't we have an alternative plan rather than media hammering news into peoples head to do all those little things which don't really affect human global warming in general?


----------



## stevenson-again

ok i just want to stress something:

CHECK the DATA!

the reason i take what appears to be a sceptical line on this issue is because the lack of due diligence from the climate science community. this is demonstrably the case - far far too much in the way of lack of due diligence.

check the data!
- one NOAA's satellites feeding ridiculously high figures into their models is a travesty!
check the data!
- to be picked up by a member of public is likewise a travesty.
check the data!
- Mann replaced the proxy record with the instrumental record in his initial hockey stick. since being caught out on that he then replaced it with proxy data, but left out a proxy set that showed no warming (assuming them to be wrong).
check the data!
- the heat island affect is interpolated using population to calculate the affect. but a lot of the population figures have not been updated as cities have grown. therefore the interpolations show an incorrect heating bias. all they had to do is...
check the data!
- NOAA uses further interpolation where they do not have regular or consistent records - or in fact none at all. you will notice that their own maps show that the areas of greatest overall warming are where there is no regular or consistent data. you can check this for yourself, and look at their own maps.
check the data!
- not adjusting the instrumental record to remove atmospheric recording stations that have been closed down will distort the record relied upon to show us trends. they have NOT been removed - and i can't find anyone who says they have. help me here!
check the data!


provided there is sufficient rigour i am perfectly happy to believe that there is A) significant warming and B) we are responsible for it. it is a perfectly reasonable claim. but it is also a very serious one which requires serious evidence that has been checked thoroughly. due diligence. stuff gets out and is accepted and not properly checked. it happens far too often, and because of a mainstream bias supporting warming, any data or information that contradicts that is assumed to be wrong or flawed. well, what if it isn't?


----------



## noiseboyuk

Alex - cool. A plan would be great. I'm not sure we're gonna get one, eh? IMHO, mass emigration and war are inevitable in the very long term.

Rohan - as you know, I consider myself to be unqualified so won't attempt to answer the specifics - my rationale is that its not necessary cos of the overwhelming support among the most qualified. We're rattling round the same old thing - you think there are unanswered questions and gross negligence, I don't. [BTW - I think your view of the smoking issue is totally wrong, btw - deliberate deceit was at work for a very long time, and there's no place in science for that. Whatever shortcomings there were in early research, it doesn't remotely explain what actually happened.]

But, in a bold new attempt to move this all forward, let's just pick one issue purely as a test - the first on your last list. One of the NOAA's satellites fed high figures into a model. I'll be a good boy and look into this thoroughly - what happened, how it was reported, the context, what is says about the state of climate science, everything. I'll be as open-minded as I can be (and as far as I can understand the science).

So - post a link (or links) where you got your info, and we'll take it from there....


----------



## Waywyn

noiseboyuk @ Thu Sep 02 said:


> Alex - cool. A plan would be great. I'm not sure we're gonna get one, eh? IMHO, mass emigration and war are inevitable in the very long term.



You mean in terms of ressources and stuff? Hm, hopefully not.
Current situation with Iran/North Korea is odd enough
(although it has nothing to do with GW of course) :(


----------



## stevenson-again

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/images/stories/pics3/2010_Jul04_959EDT.gif (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/image ... 959EDT.gif)

take a look at the bottom left hand corner - egg harbour. 600F is a bit steamy isn't it?

all those other temperatures are in fahrenheit. some of them are a bit ridiculous surely.

here is an article on 'satellite-gate'.

http://www.agoranews.org/sections/noaas-satellite-gate

please note that i completely disapprove of the tabloid tone of the article - or the barely concealed glee that NOAA have seriously messed up - because they have there is no doubt about it. but if this is the reaction to a cock-up, it only makes people all the more reluctant to admit to one. although NOAA have admitted to the satellite 'NOAA-16' as having been degraded it does 2 very serious things:

1. it throws into doubt other similar satellite readings
2. it shows there is a lack of due diligence.

the data has to be checked. all the time and constantly. this is not isolated incident. for such an important claim as catastrophic AGW you need to be seriously rigour with your data. you have to be 100% sure and then still worry if you might have missed something.


----------



## stevenson-again

i should add that this issue is still unfolding. but it remains that the whole data set because suspect. it needs to be checked. big job.


----------



## stevenson-again

LOL!

http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_o ... /nino4.php



> Niño4
> 
> The Niño4 SST anomaly index is an indicator of western tropical Pacific El Niño conditions. It is calculated with SSTs in the box 160°E - 150°W, 5°S - 5°N.
> 
> This index is temporarily offline (as of 14 June 2010) due to a discovered error in its calculation. Please check back soon.


----------



## Narval

stevenson,

again?


----------



## stevenson-again

http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/

there you go.




> I'll keep trying, really I will, but thus far it seems to be the usual hysterical "final nail in the AGW coffin" from all the usual blogs with nice balanced names like "climatecommunistdeathfraud.com". I can't find anything so far I'd come close to calling a fact in it. Gee, that Agoranews article is screaming so many conspiracy theories you could lose count... is this really the sort of place you base your opinions on?!!!




no its not. and i do agree the tone is pretty pathetic. very much the same sort of tone taken by 'warmers' against sceptics. it is ridiculous.

i really really think you should read the pdf from dr kaufmann. it pretty well encapsulates what i have been saying and he is peer reviewed full on scientist without any dodgy connections you can wave your finger at. it is an extremely good read.

he makes this point:



> In few fields considered to be science-based has there been such a high degree of polarization and refusal to consider alternate explanations of natural phenom- ena as in climate change at present. Warmers accuse Skeptics of being paid by hydrocarbon energy companies, and Skeptics accuse Warmers of doing anything for grant funding. Ernst-Georg Beck (by e-mail) and I affirm that we have no financial conflict.



and this from his conclusion:



> The AGW Hypothesis is not supported by surface temperature records of the last 250 years or by climate proxies of the greatest number and credibility from the past 1000 years, or by recent surface measurements in rural areas, or by atmospheric temperatures.
> The most commonly presented temperature proxy record, that of Michael Mann, was shown to be seriously flawed. The Earth’s surface has warmed about 0.6–1 degree since 1900, including parts of the Atlantic Ocean. The troposphere has warmed erratically by about 0.2 degrees since 1979, with no correlation with CO2 levels. The period from 1000–1400 saw temperatures, based on many proxies, as
> high or slightly higher than now. The Little Ice Age saw surface temperatures about 1 degree lower than in 1900, or 2 degree lower than now. Only very large metropolitan areas had increases in the 3–4 degree range. The 1930s were warmer than the 1990s.
> The most commonly presented pre-1958 CO2 proxy records, ice core data, were shown to be erratic. Direct chemical assay from 1812–1965 cannot be ignored. The pre-1957 level of CO2 was certainly not 290 ppm in air, but it was higher during several portions of the period from 1812–1965 (415 ppm in 1940). Ocean temperature increases that were found seem to have preceded the increases in CO2 levels and may have been the source.
> The predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor, not CO2. More water vapor also limits the day/night temperature range.



his explanations are not easy to refute. it is not hysterical, just good old fashioned reasoned argument with some evidence to back up what he is saying. some other things to look out for:
- the correlation between CO2 and sea temperature
- the unreliability of ice core depth as a measurement of time. he has an extremely interesting illustration for that...
- CO2 levels were actually as high or higher in the past than now and he explains the process behind that.

really recommend it....


----------



## noiseboyuk

Rousseau @ Thu Sep 02 said:


> For those who would keep trotting out the canard that skeptic scientists 'must necessarily be in the pay of petrol companies etc etc', just take a look at the funders list of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia Uni... (the department at the heart of the climategate scandal)...
> 
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
> 
> 
> British Council, *British Petroleum*, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, *Nuclear Installations Inspectorate*, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, *Shell*, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, *UK Nirex Ltd*., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).



How ON EARTH does it bolster your case that the unit that is supposedly pushing an agenda to defraud the world about increased warming is supposedly funded by the oil industry?!!!! That's hilarious.

PS - I see you've made no comment on the various allegations you've made which I've pointed out have been completely and publicaly debunked by the sources that put it there (specifically so-called Amazongate and Pachaurigate). This is classic denial tactic stuff - make baseless allegations, then when they have been disproved simply ignore it and move on to the next one.


----------



## noiseboyuk

stevenson-again @ Thu Sep 02 said:


> http://www.coastwatch.msu.edu/
> 
> there you go.



???

Can't find anything there except that there was a satellite error which is being corrected. That much is obvious and proves nothing.... I'm not saying there was no glitch, I'm looking for a source that suggests this error is anything other than a routine glitch that would have been picked up anyway and discarded as part of the normal scientific process. (I love how that website breathlessly reported the removal of the faulty data as "mysteriously disappeared", proving another sinister conspiracy! You couldn't make it up... well, actually, you could and they did...) The fact that no respectable media organ has picked up on this supposed scandal (precisely the kind of thing many of them would lap up) really does make me think there is absolutely nothing in this whatsoever. But, as I say, I'll stay on it.

Just an observation, but there have now been many of these kinds of incidents where a routine error has been hysterically highlighted by the denial community. When the dust settles and the numbers are recrunched, they typically seem to make something like 0.00000001% difference to the total figures. In some cases they've even gone the other way and ended up making the final figure higher. 

Since your mantra is "check the data", I think you need to apply the same rigour to your sources... you're breathlessly quoting obviously denial websites and drafts of papers that are yet to be published. IMHO you need to be far less hasty in pointing fingers and making accusations, far more sceptical of some of your sources and far more respectful of due process, because despite your claims to the contrary, this is PRECISELY how the denial community functions.

Please post the Dr Kaufmann link and I'll take a look.


----------



## chimuelo

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... b9Rtb0XKFg

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... fUj6eVl0Bw

It's called having a hedge bet.
Just one example off hand is the building of Coal firing power plants in South Africa since it's impossible to build those in the USA or Europe, and then the same folks who want to save the Planet finance the loans to build.
Then later on, if the UN gets away with their agenda, they not only get the interest on their financing, but Green taxes to help lower the Planets tempurature later on.

I understand those who really want to curve emmissions as it makes great ecological sense, but you really should research a little on the spokespeople who have politicized this movement.
Follow their investment portfolios and its apparent what their motivations are.

Follow the link below and you'll notice how so many retractions on the internet are being deleted as these groups desperately try and change the appearance of their agendas with new faces and slogans.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overpopulation.com%2Farticles%2F2001%2Fcould-the-entire-world-live-in-texas-part-ii%2F&ei=9m2ATIHIF5DmsQPp1_zWBA&usg=AFQjCNEPLnZKtD3npYOjFmoglDYdxZasDw (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=w ... lDYdxZasDw)

Remember how the Earth was overpolulated and we were all going to die in 100 years.....? Actually the entire population of the Earth can fit into the state of Texas...............ooooooo.......it's so scary... :mrgreen:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overpopulation.com%2Farticles%2F2001%2Fcould-the-entire-world-live-in-texas-part-ii%2F&ei=9m2ATIHIF5DmsQPp1_zWBA&usg=AFQjCNEPLnZKtD3npYOjFmoglDYdxZasDw (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;source=w ... lDYdxZasDw)

No matter where you stand on believing the right/left narratives, the elite are taking advantage of the people and the Planet.
While we are all concerned and wish we could contribute in a large collective process, it's obvious that we will foot the bill that lines the pockets of the ruling class.
They might show some new panels or wind mills, but don't forget, they need big oil and corporate profits to fund other offests.

Somehow I don't think some here like to hear the truth, but if you just follow the money, the truth will reveal itself everytime.
Politicians are the new Sicilian Mafia and have killed millions over the decades.
They have created this process, then created the reaction, and now the solution.
Brilliant......really.

Is this so hard to see...?


----------



## stevenson-again

> How ON EARTH does it bolster your case that the unit that is supposedly pushing an agenda to defraud the world about increased warming is supposedly funded by the oil industry?!!!! That's hilarious.



what does say is that the same oil companies that are supposedly pushing a sceptical line are also funding research from confirmed 'warmers'. at the very least it suggests not all oil companies are trying to take over the world. it is a claim often touted by 'warmers' that research and papers by sceptical scientists are funded by the oil indeusty.




> PS - I see you've made no comment on the various allegations you've made which I've pointed out have been completely and publicaly debunked by the sources that put it there (specifically so-called Amazongate and Pachaurigate). This is classic denial tactic stuff - make baseless allegations, then when they have been disproved simply ignore it and move on to the next one.



it certainly is. but exactly the same can be said about warmers or alarmists.



> Can't find anything there except that there was a satellite error which is being corrected. That much is obvious and proves nothing.... I'm not saying there was no glitch, I'm looking for a source that suggests this error is anything other than a routine glitch that would have been picked up anyway and discarded as part of the normal scientific process. (I love how that website breathlessly reported the removal of the faulty data as "mysteriously disappeared", proving another sinister conspiracy! You couldn't make it up... well, actually, you could and they did...) The fact that no respectable media organ has picked up on this supposed scandal (precisely the kind of thing many of them would lap up) really does make me think there is absolutely nothing in this whatsoever. But, as I say, I'll stay on it.



good on you, but i am afraid you are not going to find a lot of information precisely because it undermines NOAA's credibility and the AGW case - at least that is how it seems to sceptics. they will keep quiet about it and hope it goes away, and it would take a pretty intrepid editor to pick this story up. you have seen how much this issue has polarized society. like the CRU email scandal, it may yet get out, in which case those 'resepectable media organs' (please define??) may well have to start running it.



> Just an observation, but there have now been many of these kinds of incidents where a routine error has been hysterically highlighted by the denial community. When the dust settles and the numbers are recrunched, they typically seem to make something like 0.00000001% difference to the total figures. In some cases they've even gone the other way and ended up making the final figure higher.



there are more than just a handful of these incidents. and the issue is that *they* did not spot it, a member of the public did. how many more of those errors have gotten into the record that were *not* spotted?




> Since your mantra is "check the data", I think you need to apply the same rigour to your sources... you're breathlessly quoting obviously denial websites and drafts of papers that are yet to be published.



but you are doing the same! read the kaufmann paper and you will understand how hard it is get anything sceptical published.



> IMHO you need to be far less hasty in pointing fingers and making accusations, far more sceptical of some of your sources and far more respectful of due process, because despite your claims to the contrary, this is PRECISELY how the denial community functions.



it is also how the alarmist community works. and you are far too concerned about sources and not concerned enough but the argument. did or did not the satellite fail? did or did not the agency publishing the data notice? are there any more similar satellites degraded? are they or they not going to check the entire record to see if any other errors got through?

i don't care if hitler or george bush pointed these things out. maybe a chain smoking alcoholic kiddy fiddler discovered the error. you don't have to 'trust' the source, just look at the argument with the desire to actually 'be sure'.

here is the link (sorry i thought i had already posted it)

http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/ccr.pdf

i have no doubt that you will find some way to discredit the paper by saying dr kaufmann is not really a climate scientist or that he is an oil rep, or he once knew some one who was republican, or he believes in fairies or something. so far as i can tell he is pretty respectable. the tone of his paper is not hysterical but it is highly critical of the political correctness within climate science and you can see why. it also may give you a feeling for why the satellite issue is not be so quick to come to light in mainstream media.

as a summation of my criticisms it is pretty good and well informed, and actually add a few others i was not aware of.


----------



## Stephen Baysted

noiseboyuk @ Fri Sep 03 said:


> Rousseau @ Thu Sep 02 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who would keep trotting out the canard that skeptic scientists 'must necessarily be in the pay of petrol companies etc etc', just take a look at the funders list of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia Uni... (the department at the heart of the climategate scandal)...
> 
> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
> 
> 
> British Council, *British Petroleum*, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, *Nuclear Installations Inspectorate*, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, *Shell*, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, *UK Nirex Ltd*., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How ON EARTH does it bolster your case that the unit that is supposedly pushing an agenda to defraud the world about increased warming is supposedly funded by the oil industry?!!!! That's hilarious.
> 
> PS - I see you've made no comment on the various allegations you've made which I've pointed out have been completely and publicaly debunked by the sources that put it there (specifically so-called Amazongate and Pachaurigate). This is classic denial tactic stuff - make baseless allegations, then when they have been disproved simply ignore it and move on to the next one.
Click to expand...



It merely illustrates the point that assertions by Greenpeas, Fiends of the Earth and countless other political advocacy groups about climate realism being in the pay of big oil, entirely vacuous. 

I've made no comment about amazongate because the issue itself has not been disproved - you cited a blog post which does not provide data or evidence to substantiate the article's original claim.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Rousseau @ Fri Sep 03 said:


> It merely illustrates the point that assertions by Greenpeas, Fiends of the Earth and countless other political advocacy groups about climate realism being in the pay of big oil, entirely vacuous.
> 
> I've made no comment about amazongate because the issue itself has not been disproved - you cited a blog post which does not provide data or evidence to substantiate the article's original claim.



Let's deal with the easy one first!

1. Greenpeas! Fiends of the Earth! Hysterical!

2. It's not a matter of conjecture that oil has funded a large number of contrarian organisations - it's a matter of public record.

3. Unfortunately the Sunday Times retraction of the Amazongate story is behind a paywall, so I can only point to all the news reports that themselves reported it (the FT, Guardian, Telegraph etc) - a basic google search will suffice. Probably meaningless to you anyway. Just keep believing whatever you want - that's what you will do anyway.


----------



## noiseboyuk

OK Rohan, here we go...

First, don't tarnish us all with the same brush. I've said, time and again, that I respond to evidence. I would be utterly delighted to wake up tomorrow and read that NASA or the Royal Society say there's nothing to worry about any more. These people are scientists. They are a different breed to denial bloggers (or yes indeed environmental advocacy ones). I was calling you on the point that your own behaviour is mimicking those of denial websites. Mine is absolutely not.

Do you really – HONESTLY – believe that no news organsiations would be interested in “satellitegate” if it demonstrates what the denial community is claiming? My basic credibility-problem with this story is that it's incredibly easy to see a really mundane explanation for what is being reported, and it is this – there was a glitch. That's it, story ends to big yawns all round. It's absolutely absurd to the point of madness to think that in science there are no glitches. Glitches are mundane, everyday things that every scientist has to deal with. Even if this particular glitch is first picked up by a member of the public, that fact on its own it means precisely nothing. Firstly (oh the irony) it shows the data is open, second it would be utterly impossible for researchers to check every piece of data in real time. The only relevant question is “would this error have been (or was this) discovered by researchers. and then corrected, in the normal course of events”? About that, from any non-partisan source, I can find nothing. Until I do, then this seems to be a dead end, and I am mystified as to why you think we should all be outraged and jumping up and down about the supposed horror of it all.

Now, to sources. Do you REALLY not understand the difference between deathtoalltreehuggers.com and the Financial Times? Between itsallapackoflies.org and Reuters? The major news organisations are EXTREMELY fallible, but at least they are a starting point and worth reading, unlike the myriad of hysterical bloggers on all sides.

You seem to resent the idea that I will check sources. Rohan – what's the logic here? Am I supposed to swallow everything I read on the internet, no matter who wrote it? If so, then yes to every 9/11 / moon landing / Elvis Killed JFK conspiracy out there. 

So of course I will check out the author and the publication. It's page one stuff. It is absolutely, ABSOLUTELY what you should do with all this stuff you seem to uncritically swallow. Again, I find the disparity between your haranguing climate scientists to “check the data” and your seeming resentment of people checking sources to be rather odd.

Here then my first fact-checking – not from wading through 10 google pages of results looking for anything dodgy, but by going to the top of the lists. First then – the Journal Of Scientific Exploration (wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of ... xploration ) The journal describes itself as publishing:



> claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. Nevertheless, those observations and explanations must conform to rigorous standards of observational techniques and logical argument



Fair enough, but definitely to be borne in mind (there is more detail on Wikipedia of how they operate on the fringes of science). So now who is Dr Kaufmann? He's a chemist, as self-described in his paper and elsewhere on the net (the first article I looked at was his review of a pharmacology book, another was his article about asprin and heart attacks). So, not from any muck-trawling or preconceptions, but what we have here is a paper by a chemist in a journal dedicated to fringe science. You'll forgive me, since I've been up since 3am, for passing this evening...

Rohan, I have no problem at all with you believing all this speculation, and giving disproportionate weight to fringe scientists. But I kinda take exception to the notion that we should follow you there. Similarly, I side with the US Supreme Court when they found the tobacco companies guilty of deliberately misleading the public... it's an interesting angle that they might have been crusaders for scientific discovery all along, but I don't really buy it.

Climate science should be treated with scepticism, as should all science. But, as I have now said many times I think, what you see on denial websites is the complete opposite of scepticism – it is a pre-determined agenda in search of “facts” to back it up, no different to Intelligent Design sites et al. You say "check the data" - I say "check the sources" first.

One final point before I fall asleep at the keyboard - I think your language is betraying you – everything now seems to be “warmist” and “alarmist”. I am unapologetic about the use of the word “denial” to describe some blogs and websites – that's exactly what they are. Sometimes contrarian is more appropriate. Some sites – like Climate Audit – might come under the banner of sceptical. You can call desmogblog et al warmist or alarmist if you like. But as to mainstream science and organisations – nope, they are neither warmist or alarmist. They are just science. I think you may have lost sight of the difference.


----------



## chimuelo

Before petroleum was being burnt as fossil fuel the weather wòó   ä²ó   ä²ó   ä²ó   ä²ó   ä²ó   ä² ó   ä²!ó   ä²"ó   ä²#ó   ä²$ó   ä²%ó   ä²&ó   ä²'ó   ä²(ó   ä²)ó   ä²*ó   ä²+ó   ä²,ó   ä²-ó   ä².ô   ä²/ô   ä²0ô   ä²1ô   ä²2õ   ä²3õ   ä²4õ   ä²5õ   ä²6õ   ä²7õ   ä²8õ   ä²9õ   ä²:õ   ä²;õ   ä²<õ   ä²=õ   ä²>õ   ä²?õ   ä²@õ   ä²Aõ   ä²Bõ   ä²Cõ   ä²Dõ   ä²Eõ   ä²Fõ   ä²Gõ   ä²Hõ   ä²Iõ   ä²Jõ   ä²Kõ   ä²Lõ   ä²Mõ   ä²Nõ   ä²Oõ   ä²P


----------



## noiseboyuk

Oh boy, I just read that Kaufman abstract... it's an I'm-feeling-lucky hotch-potch of every random out-of-date idea out there. Urban Heat Islands ("there is no warming") rubs shoulders with good old cosmic rays ("there IS warming but it isn't us") with no apparent awareness that no only have both been comprehensively ruled out as reasonable theories by those who originally proposed them, but that the two concepts are mutually exclusive - it's a logical impossibility for there to be no warming, and this absence of warming to have been caused by cosmic rays...

Well, he is a chemist after all. The odd thing, Rohan, is that there ARE serious climate scientists (3% of them, apparently) who can do better than this... surely?!

Chimuelo - huh? Earthquakes caused by CO2 emissions?! What new straw man is this?!


----------



## chimuelo

C02 is evil.....it causes earthquakes and floods worldwide.... >8o 
Lions and Tigers and Bears Oh My........ :mrgreen: 

As usual I just enjoy the hypocracy of the academics, the left/right narratives, and their excellent brainwashing and politicizing of the entire topic.
The Right is the evil corporations that are hellbent on destroying the Planet as they collect huge revenues, and those same corporations are owned by the wealthiest left/right Planet savers who created this process, and now are poised to profit from their very own solutions.
But their effective media blitzes have caused people to actually believe the weather is man made, and even more hysterical, that they can control this if they had just a few more trillion.
The same hypocracy can be found on the so called deniers' side as they spend untold millions and man hours on breaking down falsified models and documents to begin with.

One would think that both camps could come together and show us " stupid peasants " how they wave a magic wand and put a stop to overfishing, or ban plastics.....?? No they prefer the usual pathetic left/right divisive narratives that divide and distract.........The end result............nothing gets done.
It's Bush's fault........10 years from now Obamas fault........etc.etc.

I have seen this Dog and Pony show before. When I was young I believed the spoonfed media blitzes.
After a few decades I see the same hypocracy,and in many cases the same players profiting.

I would love to take the deniers and believers along with me on an outdoor 5 day hunting and fishing trip and hear them cry about no toilet paper and plastic cups to drink from. They would also prefer eating the steroid grown beef they consume, or the chicken they eat from those inhumane farms.
I eat what I bring home and I wish I had access to the original seeds from various fruits and vegetables, but their corporate sponsors like Monsanto have seen that their unproven but highly profitable GM grown crops are now what is grown and we have no access to the original food groups. They of course have campaign contributions from these new Green Giants to worry about.

There is only one place in our hemisphere where thousands of years of seedlings can still be found in Oaxaca, Mexico. But guess what, descendants of the ancient Aztec farmers are seeing their Maze and Corn being contaminated by the genetics from Monsanto.
It only takes a few years of contamination to ruin the entire harvests that took 1000's of years to cultivate.

So if I seem a little upset, I am saddened more than anything by the effective campaign that these global giants have waged and successfully succeded in implementing.

That's why I choose to find the hypocracy and humor in these issues, since I will never be able to stop or even slow this process.
Ultimately,if the trucks stop rolling, I will return to eating Pine Nuts, wild rice, fish and game,just like our evil ancestors have done for thousands of years.
If they were here, we could blame them for the thousands of years of fires they burned to perpetuate their offspring....
Since there was no petroleum being burned back in those days the Ice Ages had to come from Millions of world wide camp fires right......?
Hence the Earthquake that changed the course ofthe Mississippi River, which I view is far worse of a tragedy than any Hurricane, flood or heat wave we have seen in the last 100 years.

We will all die eventually from a supervolcano that blankets the globe anyways.
I will probably laugh as I try to escape the pyroclastic flow in my hybrid electric car unsuccessfully.


----------



## Narval

chimuelo @ Sat Sep 04 said:


> We will all die eventually from a supervolcano that blankets the globe anyways.
> I will probably laugh as I try to escape the pyroclastic flow in my hybrid electric car unsuccessfully.


Behold da Man!  

However, 
death and perishing are not the reason why 
we (both as individuals and as humanity) 
are supposed to act responsibly 
towards ourselves, 
towards others, 
and towards nature. 
Death is unavoidable. 
Living badly isn't.

After all, 
acting responsibly is an ethical decision 
that science has no say on.


----------



## stevenson-again

not at my computer so bear with me...




> First, don't tarnish us all with the same brush. I've said, time and again, that I respond to evidence. I would be utterly delighted to wake up tomorrow and read that NASA or the Royal Society say there's nothing to worry about any more. These people are scientists. They are a different breed to denial bloggers (or yes indeed environmental advocacy ones). I was calling you on the point that your own behaviour is mimicking those of denial websites. Mine is absolutely not.



on the contrary it absolutely is - mine is not. you are absolutely not paying attention to the argument and the evidence of your own eyes. even your nomenclature 'denialists' betrays an unwillingness to actually look at evidence presented to you by advocates of AGW and question it. You completely dismiss out of hand arguments and evidence from scientists who have good reason to question the evidence on the basis the article might have been published in some spurious magazine or blog or other, that the scientist may have had some nefarious association with something else, or that they are 'fringe' scientists and not 'real' climatologists. and all without accepting that those 'fringe' disciplines may areas of expertise that are vital toward substantiating claims made my climate scientists.

furthermore - you seem absolutely unwilling to engage your OWN mind into weighing up why and why not something is being presented as it is and really weighing up dissenting views. at the very least you should be able to see that there is sufficient criticism of the prevailing view on AGW to warrant further serious scrutiny. 

for example, you dismiss the satellite error as being a glitch and ho hum that sort of thing is bound to occur and be quite normal - which i am quite sure it is and in and of itself is no big deal. and you are quite right. but that is NOT the point or the problem. the problem is due diligence. you were pointed to a satellite generated image that was PUBLISHED! that means they did NOT check the figures and it got published. had they checked it, they would have seen that there was a glitch - no big deal - just remove all data from that satellite and back check to make sure it had not been feeding anamolies into the system. but that clearly did NOT happen because it got out.

can you really not see that the issue is due diligence - checking the data. it wouldn't matter if we were checking up on the mating habits of the short-nosed beaver, but these figures are being fed into cliamte models that are being used to support the case for AGW and significantly affect governmental policy around the world. but you think that is completely inconsequential. i could not disagree more.

if you had read the kaufmann document with an open mind it would have become patently obvious why such an article is not going to be published in mainstream journals. never-the-less, my scientific background is strong enough for me to see that many of his points are difficult to refute, and he brings to bear his own chemistry background, particualrly in his reference to historic levels of CO2. 

should we dismiss that out of hand? i don't think so.

should believe what he says blindly? i don't think that either.

since historically higher levels of CO2 (i mean in recent past) would completely undermine the AGW hypothesis, it behooves us to check what he is saying. that means getting off our bottoms and finding out if those records do show what he is saying. or, there may be some other explanation not considered, such as the locations those historic readings were made. it would be a mistake to jump to conclusions.

this is not giving disproportionate weight. if only one scientist, makes only one point that can be incontestable or proven over time to be correct, then the basis for AGW can be overturned. but it is naive in the extreme to think that an entire community of scientists who have made careers out of following a particular theory are going to change their minds about it over night.



> One final point before I fall asleep at the keyboard - I think your language is betraying you – everything now seems to be “warmist” and “alarmist”



on the contrary, the language you have been using has frequently mentioned the 'hysterical' nature of sceptics. again tarnishing them all with the same brush as you put it yourself. i have adopted 'warmers' as being the least pejorative, and to distinguish between those who sincerely and calmly believe in AGW and those who are exactly as hysterical and unthinking about the case for it and equating sceptics to holocaust deniers. 

i want to make a further point relating to the unwillingness to consider viewpoints outside of the mainstream. you may find this outrageous, and i apologize in advance, but i think it is pertinent and important. the issue a sociological one, rather than a climate science one.

have you ever wondered how it was that an entire country could be hoodwinked by a single man, and his political movement? how is it that decent, civilised people can so easily demonize a section of society, a section that had only the most tenuous of actual difference to the rest, to the extent that they would stand by or even actively participate in the most horrific persecution.

it's hard to imagine any of us condoning anything like that, yet we are very much the same species of creature that did, and we are not only not very much different but in fact very much the same. how could such a thing happen? when we only accept the consensus, the prevailing mainstream view from people in authority, from our friends and community, from people who in any other aspect of our lives we trust and value, then it is only to easy to slip into mode of thinking that easily discounts any view to the contrary. 97% of scientists, politicans, newspapers all believe this section of society is an evil and must be rooted out. as good citizens we have our duty to our country support this view and report any deviance.

it all starts breaking down when a few actually question what they are being told, check the facts, listen to their conscience. of course it is difficult some situations when this way of thinking persists to make such views known. but you should have enough experience having read enough blogs to see that both side of this debate are guilty of unquestioning thinking, but the very nature of scepticism is questioning. there will inevitably be those whose argument will simply fall in line with which ever club they happen to be a member of - for example this sharply in focus in the states where it is not a question of argument or evidence but a question of politics vis a vis, nicks position.

i have repeatedly suggested that you can form sceptical opinions simply by reading pro-warming websites with an open and questioning mind. you do NOT need to subject yourself to the shrill hysteria i quite agree does exist on some sceptic sites. but if you do, look beyond to the emotional frustration and consider the argument.

PS Ed - i will have to come back to you. i have links to post you on the questions you have asked and i have questions i want to ask of you.


----------



## George Caplan

chimuelo @ Sat Sep 04 said:


> I will probably laugh as I try to escape the pyroclastic flow in my hybrid electric car unsuccessfully.


 
:lol: :lol: :lol: 



535 AD


----------



## noiseboyuk

And there it is - Rohan's reply is the 1,567,246th to successfully demonstrate Godwin's Law - "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".

OK, one point before I make my main point. AFAIK, the duff temperature map was only "published" in the sense that automated data was automatically placed on an automatic map and automatically put on the web. I thought you'd approve of open data? No, I absolutely can't get excited about an error whether or not it read 600 degrees F or 0 degrees Kelvin (and you can bet your life if that ever happened no-one would be blogging about it). All I care about is that the error is discovered and fixed, so would a researcher have found this out (or did they in fact find it out) in the natural cause of events?

Right, to the main point. This is no newsflash, but Rohan - you and I are not going to agree on this subject. All the while you ask me to read chemists' reports in "fringe science" journals or ask me to wade through denial blogs of hysteria, I will never be interested and am more likely to dig my heels in the other way. It would be nice if you'd at least acknowledge that I've never once linked to a "warmist" equivalent site, or asked you to read James Hansen's speculative thoughts on the breeding habits of termites (which AFAIK he's singularly unqualified to discuss), but I concede that's unlikely.

I have said, repeatedly to the point of tedium, that I believe in the scientific method, and I respond to the collective prevailing wisdom of the experts in the field. That's all I'm interested in, no ifs, no buts, no agenda. Of those, 97% agree with the AGW consensus, and are backed up by every major scientific institution in the world. That's where I am. Now, papers do exist by actual climatologists that are published in actual respected peer-reviewed journals which question basic elements of this (such as Svensmark and Cosmic Rays). If the science, data and analysis is good, that will get cited and further research done - which is how science advances. If it isn't, contrary evidence will be presented, which is what happened in their case, which is persuasive, and the theory is rejected. To date, to my knowledge, there is no significantly large debate occurring over these basic issues in the community (which is no surprise when you know 97% of the scientists support it).

So I'm Mr Mainstream. Perhaps that somehow makes me a nazi sympathiser, I'm not really sure of the logical leap that got us there. You, by your own links and references, are attracted to the fringes of science and communities outside science altogether, so that makes us opposites here. I once thought that you could clearly see the difference between a denial site and a genuinely sceptical one, but I'm no longer sure that that is the case. Be that as it may, I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are predisposed to iconoclasts, to the mavericks in the face of all evidence who are wrong nearly all the time but - just occasionally - are right. Good for you, we need iconoclasts, go about your way.

But you must surely see the futility in trying to get me to see things the way you do? I'd like to think you'd grant me the good grace enough to say that my reasons for believing what I do are grounded IN reason (even if you don't agree with them), but it seems you now have me pegged as an hysterical alarmist no matter how many times I demonstrate the difference between someone who adopts the position of consensus mainstream science and someone who is driven by an ideological agenda. But let's save ourselves an awful lot more man hours and move on, eh?

Of course, if there is any evidence from climatologists in peer review (and associated discussion by those professionals) I will be all ears. But no more chemists' papers, and no more diegrenniesdie.org links, surely?


----------



## stevenson-again

> And there it is - Rohan's reply is the 1,567,246th to successfully demonstrate Godwin's Law - "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1".



LOL!  never-the-less if you want to know how it is society can become hypnotized by wrong information then that is a salutary lesson. all i am trying to say is that you need to keep an open mind and not believe everything you are told, even if 97% of climate scientists are telling you that. (even that there are 97% climate scientists telling you that there are 97% of climate scientists telling you.)



> K, one point before I make my main point. AFAIK, the duff temperature map was only "published" in the sense that automated data was automatically placed on an automatic map and automatically put on the web. I thought you'd approve of open data? No, I absolutely can't get excited about an error whether or not it read 600 degrees F or 0 degrees Kelvin (and you can bet your life if that ever happened no-one would be blogging about it). All I care about is that the error is discovered and fixed, so would a researcher have found this out (or did they in fact find it out) in the natural cause of events?



i approve of due diligence. check the data before you publish. get it properly peer reviewed in the case of hockey stick graphs. do not try and prevent people from getting access to it, do not force them to invoke the freedom of information act. and the issue is entirely that one of their researchers dit not check and discover the discrepancy and it is an appalling lapse that they allowed it to be published. if they allowed it to be published how do we know they do not allow other kinds of errors to go through into the record? it matters just as much that it read 600F or 0 K because it shows LACK of DUE DILIGENCE. its unprofessional - these are the same guys you link to say '2009 was the hottest year on record' with your hair on fire and wringing your hands at the catastrophe unfolding before us!



> I have said, repeatedly to the point of tedium, that I believe in the scientific method, and I respond to the collective prevailing wisdom of the experts in the field. That's all I'm interested in, no ifs, no buts, no agenda. Of those, 97% agree with the AGW consensus, and are backed up by every major scientific institution in the world. That's where I am. Now, papers do exist by actual climatologists that are published in actual respected peer-reviewed journals which question basic elements of this (such as Svensmark and Cosmic Rays)



question = how do you know AGW is occuring?

answer = because 97% of climate scientists say it is.

that isn't an argument. further more, how do you its 97%? does that tell the real story? we have been over this but clinging to that figure as if it was some sort of magic stick to make everything true is just nonsense and a little bit of a shame for someone who is clearly otherwise intelligent.

97% of the prevailing conventional wisdom does not a truth make. that is why i brought up the danger of falling in line with what authority tells you unquestioningly. open your mind and question. it doesn't matter if the fruitiest nutter on the planet asks a question that is intrinsically sensible and logical - it is the question that matters - not the asker.

so answer this: are you saying that dr kaufmann was wrong or lying when he pointed to historic records showing that the CO2 levels were higher than they are today?

if it is a matter of record, surely we can check.

if it IS true, what implication does that have on the AGW hypothesis. a) does it undermine it b) does it not matter - AGW is occurring anyway?

or are you going to slip into the 'well everyone else believes in it theory' and run with what you imagine is the crowd.



> You, by your own links and references, are attracted to the fringes of science and communities outside science altogether, so that makes us opposites here. I once thought that you could clearly see the difference between a denial site and a genuinely sceptical one, but I'm no longer sure that that is the case. Be that as it may, I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are predisposed to iconoclasts, to the mavericks in the face of all evidence who are wrong nearly all the time but - just occasionally - are right. Good for you, we need iconoclasts, go about your way.



the real denialist here is actually you. despite perfectly rational reasons why 'fringe science' is were scepticism lies, you are simply going to dismiss rational claims by perfectly qualified scientists, who have areas of expertise which cut into climate science. even when it was from Dr Trenbeth, an actual climatologist and a member of the IPCC panel, who is still unequivocal about AGW, but is having monumental problems by his own admission making the numbers add up, that somehow is worthy of dismissal because....why? because he still thinks AGW is occurring even though his own maths at the very least cast *some* doubt on it.



> Of course, if there is any evidence from climatologists in peer review (and associated discussion by those professionals) I will be all ears. But no more chemists' papers, and no more diegrenniesdie.org links, surely?



if you cannot see the scientific merit of a chemists view on climate science, or you cannot see the importance of a stasticians expertise in anaylzing the data, you are doomed to hide behind your 97% and ignorance. as i have repeatedly said, you do not need to look at the hysterical sceptic sites, although if you can look past the nonsense and ask whether or not they actually have a point, you would be step closer to free-thinking. you can look at the real climate blog, run incidentally by mates of michael mann, and start asking your own questions. start with 'how do they know they haven't made a mistake measuring the data?'. keep going with, 'does this make sense?'. then read some of the bloggers questions. a lot of those bloggers, just like the fora here are full of interested professionals - scientists. they ask some extremely interesting questions and some of the responses are also very interesting.

make your own mind up - don't let authority make it up for you.


----------



## Ed

Stevenson,

Please answer my question, I have checked a variety if things you have said. Some stuff I knew about before and some stuff I didnt and you get it all wrong. This is unsurprising since you are clearly getting all your information from these fringe sources. I predict that once I have responded in the way I am planning you will hand wave the clear misrepresentation by your sources and jump onto some other claim, but maybe you will surprise me.


----------



## stevenson-again

sorry ed - i have had to work. i was warned that this climate business could be time consuming so here goes:



> 1. In this thread you have indicated that you believe the Petition Project, aka the Oregon Petition to be legitimate in showing that the scientific dissent on Global Warming is real and not just a fringe minority.



it really doesn't matter. i tried to indicate that the variety of opinion is greater than '97%'. i am also trying to say that within the consensus view is a range of opinions regarding what is really happening - that it is not a black and white issue. that those who would subscribed to some sort of AGW might be sceptical as to the extent of it. it really doesn't matter if only one scientist is disagreeing with the rest if he is right. consensus is not proof of an argument.




> 2. You believe that the "Urban Heat Island effect" has made it look like temperatures are warmer than they actually are.



no that's not correct. the urban heat island affect is adjusted for in interpolated data. they take reading from a city and then work out the amount of heating bias occurs because the instruments are sited in the city. what they do is feed the population of the city into a formula that calculates the bias that has to be adjusted for. the idea is that the greater the population, the greater the heating effect. unfortunately, they haven't checked the populations of a lot of the cities which have grown enormously in a short period of time, so there is a greater heating bias than they are accounting for.



> 3. You believe that the US weather stations that are not up to standards has made it look like temperatures are warmer than they actually are.



at least 1/3 do not meet NOAA's own standards of instrument siting. but there is a bigger problem than that. about 3/4 of global atmospheric stations were closed down around the end of the 80's. most of these tended to be in remote locations, high altitude and high latitude locations. apart from making the resolution of data lower, it wouldn't matter that much provided that those stations had their entire data set removed entirely from the record. because that hasn't happened, and these stations tended to be from colder locations, there is an automatic heating bias in the record.



> 4. You seem to indicate that you believe the polar sea ice is growing.



this is correct. the maunder minimum was reached and now arctic sea ice is recovering. in anarctica sea ice is growing quite extensively even though the southern ocean is warming. you can read about this on skepticalscience which is a pro-AGW blog...and their theories about it. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is- ... asing.html

apparently the antarctic is losing mass even though sea ice is increasing and the region as a whole is cooling. reading through the explanations leaves me with the feeling of 'well maybe...but it doesn't sound very convincing....'. i think anyone would - but maybe there is more info to come on this. it seems to be in its very early stages of understanding.

arctic sea ice is recovering as well:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 086746.ece

you will note that scientists say that this all part of natural variation and does not necessarily indicate a long term trend, and that they need to be more cautious about 'over-stating' or reading too much into one event. something i have been at pains all through to insist upon. basically expectations are being trumped by natural variation indicating natural variation is a more significant force on our climate than anthropogenic ones. those same scientists should exercise the same caution with their view of global warming and climate change and the extent to which it is man-made.


----------



## stevenson-again

actually this is a bit better explanation of antarctic sea ice increase - 


http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/08/judith_curry_on_antarctic_ice_climategate_and_skep.html (http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/ ... _skep.html)


OMG a proper breath of fresh air. she is actually interested in dissenting views even though she is clear still certain of AGW. if anyone could reconvince me of AGW as a significant player - she could.


----------



## chimuelo

In Las Vegas they can legally take the tempurature at the Airport where there is always a thermal breeze that causes the tempurature to be 5-10 degrees cooler than the the proper heat index.
Fly here sometime or drive and then check the thermometer your car provides at the rental company or from the local news.
Totally different from the national weather and news.
This is how we attract tourists without making them think its really hot here.
Its really HOT here.......everyone knows this.

Its a local joke that .............." Today in Las Vegas....the tempurature is 103 degrees." 
We who live here know that it's at least 110 degrees becasue we are playing soccer at 0600 Hours before school to avoid the overwhelming heat.

But gosh, I could never see our government lying to us just to pass some silly bills that claim to lower lower the planets tempurature and create huge bureaucratic revenue streams.................. =o 

I could also tell you since I live near Nellis Air Base, Area 51 and the Mercury, Nevada Nuclear Test Site that Uncle Sam never misleads the public interms of National Security................ =o 
Al Gore and the other CME Globalists have already stated that this is a matter of National Security............
But I expect the total truth from these courageous leaders who only lie about insignificant sonsequences as minor as their Military Service........

I love hypocracy.
But I do feel safe knowing the Aurora SRAM Jets, Ospreys and Raptor FY-22's protect me.

Anyone remember the Nuclear Bomb drills we did as children in class where we would get under our desks as if this would protect us from a Nuclear explosion...........? Talk about scare tactics.......

But again, I can only say I feel so warm and humane knowing my government is in business just to save all mankind and protect me..........................as we kill hundreds of thousands in far away lands.

God Bless The USA...


Oh BTW...............Why do you think ex Leaders still recieve Secret Service security details...............???
I think its protect them from their own citizens, not some foreign hit squad. Foreign assasination squads want to target current leaders, not x wanna be's.
The SS is there to protect them from the millions they lied to while stealing our money........... :lol:


----------



## noiseboyuk

Rohan, it really is a shame you aren't able to return the good faith that I extend towards you.


----------



## stevenson-again

what do you mean? from this article i just posted:

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/08/judith_curry_on_antarctic_ice_cli (http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/ ... ic_ice_cli) mategate_and_skep.html

judith curry who is a climatologist out of CRU says:



> *Why have you been so conversant with some of the so-called skeptical sites, sites that are certainly outside mainstream climate science?*
> 
> One of the other positives that I think has come out of Climategate is a realization of what other bloggers like (Steve) McIntyre (of Climate Audit) are actually up to. This isn't a Merchants of Doubt, oil-company-funded effort. It's a grassroots effort. These are people who are interested, they want to see accountability. They have a certain amount of expertise and they want to play around with climate data. There's no particularly evil motives behind all this.
> 
> We really don't understand the potential or impact the blogosphere is having. I think it's big and growing. The sites that are growing in popularity are Watts Up With That, which really have huge traffic. I think there's a real interest in the subject. I think there's a hunger for information. I think there's a huge potential here for public education. People say it's polarizing, and sure, you have Climate Progress and Climate Depot on the two extremes, but in the middle you've got all these lukewarmer blogs springing up. So I can also see a depolarizing effect. There seems to be a lot more stuff building up in the middle right now. With the IPCC, and the expectation that scientists hew to the party line, it was getting pretty evangelical. When I speak up about maybe there's more uncertainty, some people regard that as heresy. That's not a good thing for either science or policy. We've got to lose that.



in the same article she has been calling for the publication of sceptical papers that have until now been blocked. the only information you can get that casts some doubt on AGW are going to be from 'fringe' scientists, but that does not mean that what they have to say has to be dismissed out of hand which is what you appear to do.

it isn't enough just to dismiss what a scientist or other well-informed person says just because they do not conform to your expectations of what climate science should be about. you have to listen to what they say and judge it on its merits, or look more deeply. and you should do that with BOTH sceptics and warmers.


----------



## chimuelo

How about those Climatologists prediction of Hurricane Earl last week...?
They can't even predict which way the wind blows but I bet they are much better at telling us what the Earths tempurature will be in 10 years.............

I really like when they tell us that 15,124 years and 3 days during the daytime that a certain scientific event took place..................Kind of hard to disporove that prediction too.

Watch the NHS in the coming weeks and see just how far off they are with their estimations and predictions....
But this really is no big deal.
They are much better at predicting the future and past than they are at current realtime events.......


----------



## Ed

chimuelo @ Mon Sep 06 said:


> How about those Climatologists prediction of Hurricane Earl last week...?
> They can't even predict which way the wind blows but I bet they are much better at telling us what the Earths tempurature will be in 10 years.............



Learn the difference between weather and climate.


----------



## Narval

He may or may not know the difference between weather and climate, but do you know the difference between similarity?


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Ed @ Mon Sep 06 said:


> chimuelo @ Mon Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about those Climatologists prediction of Hurricane Earl last week...?
> They can't even predict which way the wind blows but I bet they are much better at telling us what the Earths tempurature will be in 10 years.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between weather and climate.
Click to expand...


If it's 'the hottest August day since records began' then it's climate; if it's the coldest January since records began' it's weather. 

In other news, apparently the ice caps are melting at half the speed as previously thought:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085152.htm

That should, of course, make it easier for all those fluffy polar bears (who had all died, but have now all miraculously ressurected) to make it across to Svalbard in even greater numbers to eat loads of geese for their dinner.


----------



## chimuelo

I would link the UN Secretary Generals' speech but then it would appear I am taking sides.
I despise all of these suits pretending to be involved in anything other than lining their pockets.
These " Suits " from the hypocratic left, and Spin Doctors of the right wouldn't make much sense out in the Eldorado Forest on a 4 day trip.
Of course they would be choppered in, and have food delivered while jibberish theories fall from their lips like feeces from a rectum....

According to the ruling class that many here worship, weather and climate are of the same discipline. National Security is tied into this now too.

Hopefully we can alleviate the dreamers from thier lucrative jobs this fall, and make the academics go teach at some College, where idealism is acceptable since learning and forming opinions is whats important there.


----------



## stevenson-again

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085152.htm 

actually this is an interesting explanation for why it appears that antarctica is 'losing' mass. the earth crust shifts all the time and can have a significant gravitational affect on an area - which is how they determined that the antarctic was losing mass, by measuring its gravitational pull. so perhaps it is not losing ice after all, just being affected by changes in the earths crust. makes sense.


----------



## Ed

Rousseau @ Mon Sep 06 said:


> Ed @ Mon Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chimuelo @ Mon Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about those Climatologists prediction of Hurricane Earl last week...?
> They can't even predict which way the wind blows but I bet they are much better at telling us what the Earths tempurature will be in 10 years.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between weather and climate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's 'the hottest August day since records began' then it's climate; if it's the coldest January since records began' it's weather.
Click to expand...


So you wont learn the difference, predictable.



> In other news, apparently the ice caps are melting at half the speed as previously thought:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085152.htm
> 
> That should, of course, make it easier for all those fluffy polar bears (who had all died, but have now all miraculously ressurected) to make it across to Svalbard in even greater numbers to eat loads of geese for their dinner.



Just keep on misrepresenting the facts to yourself and others, god knows you wouldnt want to learn whats actually going on. 

You've talked about the "elites" several times, do you believe in 911 Conspiracies too?


----------



## Stephen Baysted

Ed @ Mon Sep 06 said:


> Rousseau @ Mon Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ed @ Mon Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chimuelo @ Mon Sep 06 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about those Climatologists prediction of Hurricane Earl last week...?
> They can't even predict which way the wind blows but I bet they are much better at telling us what the Earths tempurature will be in 10 years.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learn the difference between weather and climate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's 'the hottest August day since records began' then it's climate; if it's the coldest January since records began' it's weather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you wont learn the difference, predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other news, apparently the ice caps are melting at half the speed as previously thought:
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 085152.htm
> 
> That should, of course, make it easier for all those fluffy polar bears (who had all died, but have now all miraculously ressurected) to make it across to Svalbard in even greater numbers to eat loads of geese for their dinner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just keep on misrepresenting the facts to yourself and others, god knows you wouldnt want to learn whats actually going on.
> 
> You've talked about the "elites" several times, do you believe in 911 Conspiracies too?
Click to expand...


Keep up the ad hominems Ed, they're most educational. Conflating a heinous terrorist attack with a legitimate object of scientific argument is a rather peculiar debating strategem - each to his own I guess - but since you're not providing any data which shows that elusive human signal beyond natural variation in climate change data I'll assume that you haven't found any. Nor are you likely to.


----------



## Ed

stevenson-again @ Mon Sep 06 said:


> it really doesn't matter. i tried to indicate that the variety of opinion is greater than '97%'. i am also trying to say that within the consensus view is a range of opinions regarding what is really happening - that it is not a black and white issue. that those who would subscribed to some sort of AGW might be sceptical as to the extent of it. it really doesn't matter if only one scientist is disagreeing with the rest if he is right. consensus is not proof of an argument.



Unfortunately what you "tried to indicate" shows me the kinds of people you are getting your information from and who you are trusting for information. 

You give yourself away with things like this. The Petition Project is an utter fraud from beginning to end and the fact that you cited it as evidence that there is real scientific dissent either shows you are ignorant about it and simply believed deniers saying it was genuine or you knew it was nonsense but chose to lie about it anyway. I would of course choose the first option rather than assuming you are being dishonest, however you have also made reference to various pro-AGW websites so presumably you do read them so *if *you really have studied both sides as you say you have done I am at a loss as to how you could continue to think the Petition Project was valid as early as a few pages ago. I'm not letting this go, this is a great example of where and how you are being lied to and how you don't seem to care all that much.





> no that's not correct. the urban heat island affect is adjusted for in interpolated data. they take reading from a city and then work out the amount of heating bias occurs because the instruments are sited in the city. what they do is feed the population of the city into a formula that calculates the bias that has to be adjusted for. the idea is that the greater the population, the greater the heating effect. unfortunately, they haven't checked the populations of a lot of the cities which have grown enormously in a short period of time, so there is a greater heating bias than they are accounting for.



So if that's true and this was having a significant affect on climate temperature data we should expect the highest temperatures to be recorded to be surrounding the most populated parts of the earth right?

2008 Surface Temperature Anomaly Map:
http://westcoastclimateequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008-surface-temperature-anomaly.jpg (http://westcoastclimateequity.org/wp-co ... nomaly.jpg)

It shows which parts of the earth has been warming the fastest over several decades. Warmer areas in red, cooler areas in blue. 

Compare to...
http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/bisa-ewg/night.jpg (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/ ... /night.jpg)

Notice anything?




> at least 1/3 do not meet NOAA's own standards of instrument siting. but there is a bigger problem than that. about 3/4 of global atmospheric stations were closed down around the end of the 80's. most of these tended to be in remote locations, high altitude and high latitude locations. apart from making the resolution of data lower, it wouldn't matter that much provided that those stations had their entire data set removed entirely from the record. because that hasn't happened, and these stations tended to be from colder locations, there is an automatic heating bias in the record.




Is this because you think that the theory of AGW is based on US weather stations? Seems you've been reading Anthony Watts' (WhatsUpWithThat) and even if you deny it, it doesnt matter since you heard it somewhere who invariably just stole it from him anyway.

Just what is the problem you find with this response?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the- ... iable.html

And what is problem is it that you find with NOAA's response?



> Q. Over the years, stations move in location for a variety of reasons and the local environment
> changes. If the local environment around the station changes could this cause a bias in the
> temperature record? Can that bias be adjusted out of the record?
> 
> A. A great deal of work has gone into efforts to account for a wide variety of biases in the
> climate record, both in NOAA and at sister agencies around the world. Since the 1980s,
> scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center have been at the forefront of this effort
> developing techniques to detect and quantify biases in station time series. When a bias
> associated with any change is detected, it is removed so that the time series is homogeneous with
> respect to its current instrumentation and exposure. The latest peer-reviewed paper which
> provides an overview the sources of bias and their removal (Menne et al., 2009 in press),
> including urbanization and nonstandard exposures. They evaluated urban bias and found that
> once the data were fully adjusted the most urban stations had about the same trend as the
> remaining more rural stations.


- NOAA: Talking Points related to concerns about whether the U.S. temperature record is reliable
http://tinyurl.com/2wngglx


So they factored in all of Watts so called "best" weather stations and it came up practically identical to the previous measurement, they are aware of and care about potential biases and factor these in. Yet you act like you and your intrepid band of heroic climate skeptics are saying something that people like NOAA doen't know about or havent thought of. 

Its at this point I am promoted to make a relevant point, again. Yes, Stevenson, all these scientists are that stupid that they didnt think that removing weather stations from high altitude areas might affect the results and they are that stupid that they didnt realise that denser populations of people might seem a bit warmer than areas with no people. Once again you are either calling them all stupid, incompetent, delusional or lying. Why not just pick one like Alex Jones does and say they are all in on a giant conspiracy and stop pretending that you dont have to deal with this?. I don't expect you to actually address this in any meaningful fashion of course because you can't since all options are ridiculous, but those are the only options.

You told me before when I said deniers want to make it sound really simple so unqualified people like composers can understand it that actually its all a very complex issue. For some reason you cant see how little sense this makes when you then proceed to provide talking points such as this that require all these scientists to be so incompetent that they can't understand something so simple uneducated/unqualified people on an internet forum can all understand easily. It cant be that simple and that complex at the same time, okay? Clearly saying they are stupid or incompetent is ridiculous, so then they must be lying. See how this works? Just following your logic through for you. Maybe you can come up with a way to explain why only people like you and a fringe minority (many with questionable associations of course) can see something all these scientists can't, without them all being a bunch of liars or idiots. 

I await the inevitable hand waves.


----------



## Ed

Rousseau @ Mon Sep 06 said:


> Keep up the ad hominems Ed, they're most educational. Conflating a heinous terrorist attack with a legitimate object of scientific argument is a rather peculiar debating strategem - each to his own I guess - but since you're not providing any data which shows that elusive human signal beyond natural variation in climate change data I'll assume that you haven't found any. Nor are you likely to.



They are relevant when 911 Truthers are always Global Warming deniers, always nice to see just how nuts the people are that you are dealing with.

We have several truthers on this board and they give themselves away when they talk of elites and so on. Though to be fair I did confuse your last response with chimuelo.


----------



## Ed

> 4. You seem to indicate that you believe the polar sea ice is growing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is correct. the maunder minimum was reached and now arctic sea ice is recovering.
> 
> in anarctica sea ice is growing quite extensively even though the southern ocean is warming. you can read about this on skepticalscience which is a pro-AGW blog...and their theories about it.
> 
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-is- ... asing.html
> 
> apparently the antarctic is losing mass even though sea ice is increasing and the region as a whole is cooling. reading through the explanations leaves me with the feeling of 'well maybe...but it doesn't sound very convincing....'. i think anyone would - but maybe there is more info to come on this. it seems to be in its very early stages of understanding.
> 
> arctic sea ice is recovering as well:
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 086746.ece
> 
> you will note that scientists say that this all part of natural variation and does not necessarily indicate a long term trend, and that they need to be more cautious about 'over-stating' or reading too much into one event. something i have been at pains all through to insist upon. basically expectations are being trumped by natural variation indicating natural variation is a more significant force on our climate than anthropogenic ones. those same scientists should exercise the same caution with their view of global warming and climate change and the extent to which it is man-made.
Click to expand...



Simply saying that the Antarctica sea ice is growing in the way you guys do is a gross misrepresentation and of course out of context. Saying the artic sea ice is recovering is ignoring how much as been lost and everything surrounding that issue. When you post stuff like this makes everyone think, 'right so the ice is fine no problem here then'. This is one of the reasons I cant take you seriously, especially when you say you read websites like Real Climate, otherwise you'd know this already.

You even have a perfectly good explanation by Skeptical Science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/increas ... ea-ice.htm



> There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).
> 
> Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).
> 
> Antarctic sea ice is complex and counter-intuitive. Despite warming waters, complicated factors unique to the Antarctic region have combined to increase sea ice production. The simplistic interpretation that it's caused by cooling is false.



Just what don't you find "very convincing" about that? 

Sure the story is hailed by your denier blogs and tabloid news reports as some kind of evidence that the earth isn't warming and the ice isn't in trouble after all and I guess you respond better to sources like that apparently for the same reason that truthers don't care about any explanations of how the towers collapsed, all they know is is that "it doesn't sound very convincing" since its easier for them to believe their fringe few are right.



> "Diminishing the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by calling attention to Antarctic sea ice gain is like telling someone to ignore the fire smoldering in their attic, and instead go appreciate the coolness of the basement, because there is no fire there. Planet Earth’s attic is on fire."



http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/28/a ... c-sea-ice/

You also said this earlier:



> do you know what climategate was about? there were a handful of researchers who wanted to scrutinise the data from UEA CRU so that they could replicate there findings, but they became incredibly evasive. they even tried to say that the information was not theirs to make freely available. mann et al were taken before congress in the united states and forced to hand over his work relating to the 'hockey-stick' graph because he refused to allow anyone access to the computer code used to process the data, and initially when he did hand over data he left some of it out.



I asked on the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation), filled with much more informed people that myself and got this response:



> "Mann did go before congress, but that has nothing to do with Climategate (or SwiftHack as it has become known in rational circles). M&M (McIntyre and McKitrick) filed hundreds of FOI requests to Mann to release his data and everything else he had (source codes for the software he had created etc). Mann complied with these requests until it became clear to him that M&M were simply wasting his time, asking for stuff that weren't his to give (subject to copyright laws) or stuff that was already public. Mann stopped complying, which led to a media crap storm stirred up by M&M.
> 
> Congress set out to investigate, asking Mann to present everything to them, to which he complied. Scientific organizations viewed this "investigation" by the congress as nothing more than a way to discredit a scientist. The goal of the whole deal was to discredit Mann's "hockey stick graph" which was viewed by denialists as the foundation of the science of Global Warming - something which it is not. The hockey stick graph has since been verified by numerous other research teams.
> 
> Wiki has most of the story here.
> 
> Realclimate:here.
> 
> Desmogblog: here
> 
> DeepClimate:here.



Now to me this revealed several things;

One, your perspective and facts were completely backwards as I knew it would be. Its what always happens when you trust things pseudo science promoters say, including Creationists or 911 Truthers. You always end up being wrong about damn near everything. The second thing is that you claim to read all these pro-AGW blogs and websites and like before apparently nothing has sunk in.

The third and final thing and I think most important part of all this, you cry out for people to respond to your arguments and explain complex ins and outs of climate science and statistics when you are posting about it on a forum for composers. Why are you not arguing on Real Climate, Climate Progress or the JREF about this or some other? I suggest its because you don't want to get someone truly informed to respond to your arguments in case you're proved wrong. I also know you have likely never done this because if you had you wouldnt have used something as dumb as the Petition Project as if it was a good argument for your case since you would have long since realised what a terrible argument that was and never brought it up.


----------



## Ed

stevenson-aain @ Fri Sep 03 said:


> How ON EARTH does it bolster your case that the unit that is supposedly pushing an agenda to defraud the world about increased warming is supposedly funded by the oil industry?!!!! That's hilarious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what does say is that the same oil companies that are supposedly pushing a sceptical line are also funding research from confirmed 'warmers'. at the very least it suggests not all oil companies are trying to take over the world. it is a claim often touted by 'warmers' that research and papers by sceptical scientists are funded by the oil indeusty.
Click to expand...


Oh please, we *know * Exxon fund "skeptic" organisations. 

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets/ (http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns ... n-secrets/)
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/stop-esso

When a GW "skeptic" is being funded by an organisation like Exxon its obvious that its because Exxon like what they are saying and want them to pay them to help them keep saying it. Exxon want the science of AGW obscured as much as possible because they want a reason to keep burning fossil fuels which = more $$$$. 

No oil company will make money from AGW being real, they will all loose a ton of money. Companies like BP fund solar and wind energy* because it makes them look good.* BP fund the CRU because it makes them look good too and I guess they are just a lot more progressive than Exxon, AGW being real isn't going to help them rack up money switching to renewable instead of fossil fuel so what else exactly is the motivation there? The idea that you guys actually think this is the same is really hilarious.


----------



## noiseboyuk

Another one for Rohan's bulding in-tray. I'm hyper-busy this whole week til the weekend, so I can't reply to the detail of the CO2 in Kaufman's paper til then. Ordinarily I'd ignore it completely ignore it cos it's from a highly dubious source, of which there are millions and you can waste a life that way, but I'm taking this paper and Gltichgate to try to see through 2 test cases.

As far as I can tell, I agree with every one of Ed's points above - I'll read your responses in the meantime.

One specific thing he raised which is something I've also done relates to why I am currently pretty pissed off about your responses to me, Rohan. My basic view on this, as I have repeatedly said, is that I trust those most qualified to know. The peer reviewed evidence shows that these people overwhelmingly endorse AGW theory, backing up by the world'scientific institutions. I have the humility to accept that my own expertese and intellect are never going to rival theirs, and as part of academia they have the least vested interests. I'm similarly humble about my own contributions to the world of quantum physics or neurosurgery. You take a different view that from your composer's armchair, you can take on these guys not only as equals, but can also deride them as lazy / ignorant / stupid or biased based on, what seems to me, flimsy evidence. That much I strongly don't agree with but each to their own and all that. What I can't and WON'T do is take crap from you that I am a denier for taking the line - purely based on basic logic and reason, and not an over-inflated veiw of my own brilliant intellect - that I do this. Indeed, my reasoning is a non-argument apparently. For that, I really would like an apology - I get that these debates wind us all up (and they are about extremely important issues, so passion is good) so sometimes things get said that go over the line. If I get one, then I'll be minded to see through these test cases when I have some more time (and in the meantime I'll let Ed handle the rest!)

Please note the difference also - I have drawn attention to the fact that you seem uninterested in sources and sometimes exhibit behaviours that are similar to deniers. I didn't, and won't, flat out call you a deniar - this was absolutely deliberate.


----------



## stevenson-again

ok guys, going backwards.



> One specific thing he raised which is something I've also done relates to why I am currently pretty pissed off about your responses to me, Rohan. My basic view on this, as I have repeatedly said, is that I trust those most qualified to know. The peer reviewed evidence shows that these people overwhelmingly endorse AGW theory, backing up by the world'scientific institutions. I have the humility to accept that my own expertese and intellect are never going to rival theirs, and as part of academia they have the least vested interests.



guy, you repeatedly refuse to even consider the opinions of scientists whose areas of expertise intersect climate science. you do not argue based on how those opinions may be wrong, because they haven't considered this or they haven't considered that. you only argument as you reiterated is that


> the peer reviewed evidence shows that these people overwhelmingly endorse AGW theory, backing up by the world'scientific institutions.



which is not an argument. there are reasons why it is only fringe disciplines that manage to get their papers published and that is very much at the heart of my argument - the absolute soul of it - that i started off by saying that climate science has descended into tribalism. for that, the sceptical community is as much to blame.

i have shown you peer reviewed literature, from mcshane and wyner and from dr trenbeth, who was a member of the IPCC panel, and a climatologist. but you ignore them. i am sorry if the responses i have given you have pissed you off, but they are very much in line with the sort of responses you were giving me; that i was quoting breathlessly dubious sources etc etc. they are not dubious, and even if they were the points made by them still stand as requiring some explanation. i do not mind if you don't agree, in fact it would be no fun if you did, but you should argue in point of fact and not dismiss rational and reasonable arguments as having come from 'dubious sources' or 'fringeò\0\0\0å/ë\0\0\0å/ì\0\0\0å/í\0\0\0å/î\0\0\0å/ï\0\0\0å/ð\0\0\0å/ñ\0\0\0å/ò\0\0\0å/ó\0\0\0å/ô\0\0\0å/õ\0\0\0å/ö\0\0\0å/÷\0\0\0å/ø\0\0\0å/ù\0\0\0å/ú\0\0\0å/û\0\0\0å/ü\0\0\0å/ý\0\0\0å/þ\0\0\0å/ÿ\0\0\0å0\0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0	\0\0\0å0
\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0 \0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0 \0\0\0å0!\0\0\0å0"\0\0\0å0#\0\0\0å0$\0\0\0å0%\0\0\0å0&\0\0\0å0'\0\0\0å0(\0\0\0å0)\0\0\0å0*\0\0\0å0+\0\0\0å0,\0\0\0å0-\0\0\0å0.\0\0\0å0/\0\0\0å00\0\0\0å01\0\0\0å02\0\0\0å03\0\0\0å04\0\0\0å05\0\0\0å06\0\0\0å07\0\0\0å08\0\0\0å09\0\0\0å0:\0\0\0å0;\0\0\0å0<\0\0\0å0=\0\0\0å0>\0\0\0å0?\0\0\0å[email protected]\0\0\0å0A\0\0\0å0B\0\0\0å0C\0\0\0å0D\0\0\0å0E\0\0\0å0F\0\0\0å0G\0\0\0å0H\0\0\0å0I\0\0\0å0J\0\0\0å0K\0\0\0å0L\0\0\0å0M\0\0\0å0N\0\0\0å0O\0\0\0å0P\0\0\0å0Q\0\0\0å0R\0\0\0å0S\0\0\0å0T\0\0\0å0U\0\0\0å0V\0\0\0å0W\0\0\0å0X\0\0\0å0Y\0\0\0å0Z\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0ò\0\0\0å0\\0\0\0å0]\0\0\0å0^\0\0\0å0_\0\0\0å0`\0\0\0å0a\0\0\0å0b\0\0\0å0c\0\0\0å0d\0\0\0å0e\0\0\0å0f\0\0\0å0g\0\0\0å0h\0\0\0å0i\0\0\0å0j\0\0\0å0k\0\0\0å0l\0\0\0å0m\0\0\0å0n\0\0\0å0o\0\0\0å0p\0\0\0å0q\0\0\0å0r\0\0\0å0s\0\0\0å0t\0\0\0å0u\0\0\0å0v\0\0\0å0w\0\0\0å0x\0\0\0å0y\0\0\0å0z\0\0\0å0{\0\0\0å0|\0\0\0å0}\0\0\0å0~\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0€\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0‚\0\0\0å0ƒ\0\0\0å0„\0\0\0å0…\0\0\0å0†\0\0\0å0‡\0\0\0å0ˆ\0\0\0å0‰\0\0\0å0Š\0\0\0å0‹\0\0\0å0Œ\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0Ž\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0‘\0\0\0å0’\0\0\0å0“\0\0\0å0”\0\0\0å0•\0\0\0å0–\0\0\0å0—\0\0\0å0˜\0\0\0å0™\0\0\0å0š\0\0\0å0›\0\0\0å0œ\0\0\0å0\0\0\0å0ž\0\0\0å0Ÿ\0\0\0å0 \0\0\0å0¡\0\0\0å0¢\0\0\0å0£\0\0\0å0¤\0\0\0å0¥\0\0\0å0¦\0\0\0å0§\0\0\0å0¨\0\0\0å0©\0\0\0å0ª\0\0\0å0«\0\0\0å0¬\0\0\0å0­\0\0\0å0®\0\0\0å0¯\0\0\0å0°\0\0\0å0±\0\0\0å0²\0\0\0å0³\0\0\0å0´\0\0\0å0µ\0\0\0å0¶\0\0\0å0·\0\0\0å0¸\0\0\0å0¹\0\0\0å0º\0\0\0å0»\0\0\0å0¼\0\0\0å0½\0\0\0å0¾\0\0\0å0¿\0\0\0å0À\0\0\0å0Á\0\0\0å0Â\0\0\0å0Ã\0\0\0å0Ä\0\0\0å0Å\0\0\0å0Æ\0\0\0å0Ç\0\0\0å0È\0\0\0å0É\0\0\0å0Ê\0\0\0å0Ë\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0ò\0\0\0å0Í\0\0\0å0Î\0\0\0å0Ï\0\0\0å0Ð\0\0\0å0Ñ\0\0\0å0Ò\0\0\0å0Ó\0\0\0å0Ô\0\0\0å0Õ\0\0\0å0Ö\0\0\0å0×\0\0\0å0Ø\0\0\0å0Ù\0\0\0å0Ú\0\0\0å0Û\0\0\0å0Ü\0\0\0å0Ý\0\0\0å0Þ\0\0\0å0ß\0\0\0å0à\0\0\0å0á\0\0\0å0â\0\0\0å0ã\0\0\0å0ä\0\0\0å0å\0\0\0å0æ\0\0\0å0ç\0\0\0å0è\0\0\0å0é\0\0\0å0ê\0\0\0å0ë\0\0\0å0ì\0\0\0å0í\0\0\0å0î\0\0\0å0ï\0\0\0å0ð\0\0\0å0ñ\0\0\0å0ò\0\0\0å0ó\0\0\0å0ô\0\0\0å0õ\0\0\0å0ö\0\0\0å0÷\0\0\0å0ø\0\0\0å0ù\0\0\0å0ú\0\0\0å0û\0\0\0å0ü\0\0\0å0ý\0\0\0å0þ\0\0\0å0ÿ\0\0\0å1\0\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1
\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1 \0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1	\0\0\0å1 	\0\0\0å1!	\0\0\0å1"	\0\0\0å1#	\0\0\0å1$	\0\0\0å1%	\0\0\0å1&	\0\0\0å1'	\0\0\0å1(	\0\0\0å1)	\0\0\0å1*	\0\0\0å1+	\0\0\0å1,	\0\0\0å1-	\0\0\0å1.	\0\0\0å1/	\0\0\0å10	\0\0\0å11	\0\0\0å12	\0\0\0å13	\0\0\0å14	\0\0\0å15	\0\0\0å16	\0\0\0å17	\0\0\0å18	\0\0\0å19	\0\0\0å1:	\0\0\0å1;	\0\0\0å1<\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0ò	\0\0\0å1>	\0\0\0å1?	\0\0\0å[email protected]	\0\0\0å1A	\0\0\0å1B	\0\0\0å1C	\0\0\0å1D	\0\0\0å1E	\0\0\0å1F
\0\0\0å1G
\0\0\0å1H
\0\0\0å1I
\0\0\0å1J
\0\0\0å1K
\0\0\0å1L
\0\0\0å1M
\0\0\0å1N
\0\0\0å1O
\0\0\0å1P
\0\0\0å1Q
\0\0\0å1R
\0\0\0å1S
\0\0\0å1T
\0\0\0å1U
\0\0\0å1V
\0\0\0å1W
\0\0\0å1X
\0\0\0å1Y
\0\0\0å1Z
\0\0\0å1[
\0\0\0å1\
\0\0\0å1]
\0\0\0å1^
\0\0\0å1_
\0\0\0å1`
\0\0\0å1a
\0\0\0å1b
\0\0\0å1c
\0\0\0å1d
\0\0\0å1e
\0\0\0å1f
\0\0\0å1g
\0\0\0å1h
\0\0\0å1i
\0\0\0å1j
\0\0\0å1k
\0\0\0å1l
\0\0\0å1m
\0\0\0å1n
\0\0\0å1o
\0\0\0å1p
\0\0\0å1q
\0\0\0å1r
\0\0\0å1s
\0\0\0å1t
\0\0\0å1u
\0\0\0å1v
\0\0\0å1w
\0\0\0å1x\0\0\0å1y\0\0\0å1z\0\0\0å1{\0\0\0å1|\0\0\0å1}\0\0\0å1~\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1€\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1‚\0\0\0å1ƒ\0\0\0å1„\0\0\0å1…\0\0\0å1†\0\0\0å1‡\0\0\0å1ˆ\0\0\0å1‰\0\0\0å1Š\0\0\0å1‹\0\0\0å1Œ\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1Ž\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1‘\0\0\0å1’\0\0\0å1“\0\0\0å1”\0\0\0å1•\0\0\0å1–\0\0\0å1—\0\0\0å1˜\0\0\0å1™\0\0\0å1š\0\0\0å1›\0\0\0å1œ\0\0\0å1\0\0\0å1ž\0\0\0å1Ÿ\0\0\0å1 \0\0\0å1¡\0\0\0å1¢\0\0\0å1£\0\0\0å1¤\0\0\0å1¥\0\0\0å1¦\0\0\0å1§\0\0\0å1¨\0\0\0å1©\0\0\0å1ª\0\0\0å1«\0\0\0å1¬\0\0\0å1­\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0hat intersect their own. judith curry would be well and truly be in your 97%.



> Indeed, my reasoning is a non-argument apparently.



absolutely. provided you can stick to reasoned argument as to why evidence examined by a scientist whether within climatology is valid/supportable or not, and not simply dismiss it out of hand because you deem the source to dubious, then we can debate and actually learn something from each other. find an answer to why it is:



> Compared with the so-called pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm, a level of 410 ppm was found in 1812, rising to 450 ppm in 1825. There were levels of 370 ppm in 1857, and 4 sets of measurements gave 350–415 ppm around 1940 (Figure 10). From 1870–1920 values remained within 295–310 ppm. From 1955–1965 the values were 325 ppm. Beck chose the most carefully done assays for this graph. One was from Poona, India. An effort not described by Beck was one of 350 determinations near Point Barrow, Alaska, from 1947–1949, with a mean result of 420 ppm (Hock et al., 1952). The two non-European assays agree with the European ones of the same time period. Locations for many of these determinations were near the ocean or on islands, when practical. In general, the chemists would try to keep clear of any known CO2-emitting source. Several of the chemists made plots of wind direction vs. CO2 levels, observing some directionality. From 1945–1965 world hydrocarbon use as fuel doubled (Robinson et al., 2007) as CO2 levels dropped from 415 to 325 ppm, so some other major source of CO2 had to exist.



and i am not ever saying one does not exist! but find a reasoned explanation for these figures and not that he is a chemist and therefore doesn't know anything about climate change. he is a chemist and knows a thing or two about measuring CO2!


----------



## noiseboyuk

OK, so you've chosen not to apologise. I'll merely point out that you referenced many, many links and papers over these 11 pages. When I've looked into them, they've been variously denial sites; unpublished papers by statisticians or self-described "fringe science" journals, written by chemists. I've explained why I'm not really interested in the climatology opinions of someone who writes professionally about asprins and stomach ulcers, and place any of his allegations above those of professionals. If I've missed real climatology in those links somewhere I'm sorry, but you see the problem - I have little time to devote to this and its gets wearing wading through all this nonsense (as Ed says, quoting the Oregon science petition does you no favours in the credibility stakes whatsoever). If you want people to take you seriously, you have to be more sceptical of what sources you read and present.

You obviously take this very dim view of climatology as just self-interested warring factions, and that's your view. It's not mine. As I say, if you have the good grace to allow my position of preferring to stick to climatology when discussing climatology then we can move on - I'll happily look at those actual climatology links if that's what they are, look more and Judith's comments etc. You say that the related subjects are just as important, but when the first thing I read about that unpublished statistical paper draft was from a climatologist who said "this paper is basically makes no sense cos he hasn't understood any of the data", then it reinforces my position. Again - you disagree - fine. But all the while you keep just calling me a denierò   å3s   å3t   å3u   å3v   å3w   å3x   å3y   å3z   å3{   å3|   å3}   å3~   å3   å3€   å3   å3‚   å3ƒ   å3„   å3…   å3†   å3‡   å3ˆ   å3‰   å3Š


----------



## Ed

Once again I have to ask you Stevenson why you are not arguing on the JREF or Climate Progress? Here's a *link* to one such thread about it. If you want to be an armchair scientist go debate them, in fact put a link here so we can all watch. 

Why post in a group for composers to ask questions about complex scientific matters and then decry the lack of responses as if no one has any? Maybe you think that composers are qualified enough to deal with it, which isn't surprising since you clearly think these subjects are so simple that unqualified armchair enthusiasts can understand it ò   å6û   å6ü   å6ý   å6þ   å6ÿ   å7    å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7	   å7
   å7   å7   å7    å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7   å7    å7!   å7"   å7#   å7$   å7%   å7&   å7'   å7(   å7)   å7*   å7+   å7,   å7-   å7.   å7/   å70   å71   å72   å73   å74    å75    å76    å77    å78    å79    å7:    å7;    å7<    å7=    å7>    å7?    å[email protected]    å7A    å7B    å7C    å7D    å7E    å7F    å7G    å7H    å7I    å7J    å7K    å7L    å7M    å7N    å7O    å7P    å7Q    å7R    å7S    å7T    å7U    å7V    å7W    å7X    å7Y    å7Z    å7[    å7\    å7]    å7^    å7_    å7`    å7a    å7b    å7c    å7d    å7e    å7f    å7g    å7h    å7i    å7j              ò    å7l    å7m    å7n    å7o    å7p    å7q    å7r    å7s    å7t    å7u    å7v    å7w    å7x    å7y    å7z!   å7{!   å7|!   å7}!   å7~!   å7!   å7€!   å7!   å7‚"   å7ƒ"   å7„"   å7…"   å7†"   å7‡"   å7ˆ"   å7‰"   å7Š"   å7‹"   å7Œ"   å7"   å7Ž"   å7"   å7"   å7‘"   å7’"   å7“"   å7”"   å7•"   å7–"   å7—"   å7˜"   å7™"   å7š"   å7›"   å7œ"   å7"   å7ž"   å7Ÿ"   å7 "   å7¡"   å7¢"   å7£"   å7¤"   å7¥"   å7¦"   å7§"   å7¨"   å7©"   å7ª"   å7«"   å7¬"   å7­"   å7®"   å7¯"   å7°"   å7±"   å7²"   å7³"   å7´"   å7µ"   å7¶"   å7·"   å7¸"   å7¹"   å7º"   å7»"   å7¼"   å7½"   å7¾"   å7¿"   å7À"   å7Á"   å7Â"   å7Ã"   å7Ä"   å7Å"   å7Æ"   å7Ç"   å7È"   å7É"   å7Ê"   å7Ë"   å7Ì"   å7Í"   å7Î"   å7Ï"   å7Ð"   å7Ñ"   å7Ò"   å7Ó"   å7Ô"   å7Õ"   å7Ö"   å7×"   å7Ø"   å7Ù"   å7Ú#   å7Ý              ò#   å7ß#   å7à#   å7á#   å7â#   å7ã#   å7ä#   å7å#   å7æ#   å7ç#   å7è#   å7é#   å7ê#   å7ë#   å7ì#   å7í#   å7î#   å7ï#   å7ð#   å7ñ#   å7ò#   å7ó#   å7ô#   å7õ#   å7ö#   å7÷#   å7ø#   å7ù#   å7ú#   å7û#   å7ü#   å7ý#   å7þ#   å7ÿ#   å8 #   å8#   å8#   å8#   å8#   å8#   å8#   å8#   å8$   å7Û$   å7Ü$   å8	$   å8
$   å8$   å8$   å8 $   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8$   å8%   å8%   å8%   å8%   å8 %   å8!%   å8"%   å8#%   å8$%   å8%%   å8&%   å8'%   å8(%   å8)%   å8*%   å8+%   å8,%   å8-%   å8.%   å8/%   å80%   å81%   å82%   å83%   å84%   å85%   å86%   å87%   å88%   å89%   å8:%   å8;%   å8<%   å8=%   å8>%   å8?%   å[email protected]%   å8A%   å8B%   å8C%   å8D%   å8E%   å8F%   å8G%   å8H%   å8I%   å8J%   å8K%   å8L              ò%   å8N%   å8O%   å8P%   å8Q%   å8R%   å8S%   å8T%   å8U%   å8V%   å8W%   å8X%   å8Y%   å8Z%   å8[%   å8\%   å8]%   å8^%   å8_%   å8`&   å8a&   å8b&   å8c&   å8d&   å8e&   å8f&   å8g&   å8h&   å8i&   å8j&   å8k&   å8l&   å8m&   å8n&   å8o&   å8p&   å8q&   å8r&   å8s&   å8t


----------



## noiseboyuk

I think it looks like we really are at an end on this one, Rohan. The ground seems to constantly shift... one moment I'm being hauranged for ignoring your peer reviewed links, the next for ignoring the ridiculous very-much-not-peer-reviewed ones like the Oregon Science Project. I (and anyone else who follows the mainstream) won't take you seriously if you are as undiscriminating as this. I appreciate this whacked out stuff is important to you, but it has no place in any serious discussion.

I just don't see how we can go forward on this and keep my sanity, especially when you've indicated several times that you have no respect for where I'm coming from (feel free to listen to all the chemists, taxidermists and police wardens you want, but I thought at least you could see why others might be less than keen), and you're unwillingness to acknowledge that is the final straw really.

(and another +1 to Ed's comments).


----------



## stevenson-again

> I think it looks like we really are at an end on this one, Rohan. The ground seems to constantly shift... one moment I'm being hauranged for ignoring your peer reviewed links, the next for ignoring the ridiculous very-much-not-peer-reviewed ones like the Oregon Science Project. I (and anyone else who follows the mainstream) won't take you seriously if you are as undiscriminating as this. I appreciate this whacked out stuff is important to you, but it has no place in any serious discussion.




it looks like we are - and that's a shame. the ground has not shifted one iota though guy. at one stage i thought we were going to properly debate the specific issues, but seriously mate, it is not reasonable to reject an argument for the reasons you have given - including carrying on about the petition project (which i will come to when i deal with ed's points). can you really not see why rejecting a serious point of view because it was made by a scientist on a point relating to his field of expertise because it is not 'climate science' is absurd?

we initially engaged over the issue of whether the science is settled. surely by now at least you can see that it is far from so. you persisted in wanting peer-reviewed literature from climate scientists - which of itself is not unreasonable - yet one of the big problems with climate science today is that sceptical papers on the subject are repressed. read judith curry's letter and interview - its as horse mouth as it gets.

this is what i object to - politics and tribalism that climate science has descended into. and i have been at pains to emphasize how poorly i think the sceptical side of the argument has handled it.

i still generally hold you in high regard guy, but i admit to being disappointed that you would not tackle the argument in this case.


----------



## noiseboyuk

stevenson-again @ Tue Sep 07 said:


> it looks like we are - and that's a shame. the ground has not shifted one iota though guy. at one stage i thought we were going to properly debate the specific issues, but seriously mate, it is not reasonable to reject an argument for the reasons you have given - including carrying on about the petition project (which i will come to when i deal with ed's points). can you really not see why rejecting a serious point of view because it was made by a scientist on a point relating to his field of expertise because it is not 'climate science' is absurd?



But that's not the issue - the chemist was talking about cosmic rays in his abstract. Maybe I studied at a conservative school, but it was never on our Chemistry syllabus.... and once I see something that seems manifestly absurd, I tend to not bother with the rest. I would have delved further into the specific points at the weekend, but we probably both agree it's not worthwhile now.

I too hold you in high regard, Rohan. It's just a shame you can't see anyone else's perspective on this issue as valid, even though your òf   å	ff   å	gf   å	hf   å	if   å	jf   å	kf   å	lf   å	mf   å	nf   å


----------



## stevenson-again

*heat island*




> So if that's true and this was having a significant affect on climate temperature data we should expect the highest temperatures to be recorded to be surrounding the most populated parts of the earth right?
> 
> 2008 Surface Temperature Anomaly Map:
> http://westcoastclimateequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/2008-surface-temper (http://westcoastclimateequity.org/wp-co ... ace-temper) ature-anomaly.jpg
> 
> It shows which parts of the earth has been warming the fastest over several decades. Warmer areas in red, cooler areas in blue.
> 
> Compare to...
> http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/bisa-ewg/night.jpg (http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/ ... /night.jpg)
> 
> Notice anything?




finally an actual argument.

the problem with the anamoly map is that it is deceptive. it looks like lots of the arctic is really hot, but because the map is spread out, it is actually a much smaller area than is represented visually. the second problem is that the data is interpolated, and there is disagreement as to how that interpolation should be done. for one thing, there are too few surface stations recording for that region. in fact there is actually only one. independent recordings of temperature in that region from bouys show a much lower temperature anomaly. 



> Is this because you think that the theory of AGW is based on US weather stations? Seems you've been reading Anthony Watts' (WhatsUpWithThat) and even if you deny it, it doesnt matter since you heard it somewhere who invariably just stole it from him anyway


. 

no of course i don't deny reading WUWT. although it's tone is poor it is never-the-less full of pretty good information including counters against their own arguments. you should read past the nonsense and have a look at the arguments being made. there are some good ones. never-the-less i did not get that information from WUWT. i got it from here:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7ermckitri/research/nvst.html

http://www.surfacestations.org/



> So they factored in all of Watts so called "best" weather stations and it came up practically identical to the previous measurement, they are aware of and care about potential biases and factor these in. Yet you act like you and your intrepid band of heroic climate skeptics are saying something that people like NOAA doen't know about or havent thought of.



have a look at your language though ed. is this the language of considered argument?

never-the-less it is so far the best link i have had on this whole thread. never-the-less, mistakes have been made in the past (and in the present), and these should be scrutinised too. consider too, that it is at least worthy further investigation. also consider that NOAA are investing in a lot of modernization of the surface stations. if they were perfect why would they need to.



> Its at this point I am promoted to make a relevant point, again. Yes, Stevenson, all these scientists are that stupid that they didnt think that removing weather stations from high altitude areas might affect the results and they are that stupid that they didnt realise that denser populations of people might seem a bit warmer than areas with no people. Once again you are either calling them all stupid, incompetent, delusional or lying. Why not just pick one like Alex Jones does and say they are all in on a giant conspiracy and stop pretending that you dont have to deal with this?. I don't expect you to actually address this in any meaningful fashion of course because you can't since all options are ridiculous, but those are the only options.



no, i am accusing of behaving in exactly the same manner as you are in the above paragraph ed. read it again. i have repeatedly said that a lot of the blame for the 'circling the wagons' attitude in climate science is because of the sceptical community who use language just like your paragraph above. they then start becoming defensive and defending and protecting their research which further inflames the sceptics and truth and science are blood spattered victims lying raped upon the ground.



> You told me before when I said deniers want to make it sound really simple so unqualified people like composers can understand it that actually its all a very complex issue.



eh?



> For some reason you cant see how little sense this makes when you then proceed to provide talking points such as this that require all these scientists to be so incompetent that they can't understand something so simple uneducated/unqualified people on an internet forum can all understand easily. It cant be that simple and that complex at the same time, okay? Clearly saying they are stupid or incompetent is ridiculous, so then they must be lying. See how this works? Just following your logic through for you. Maybe you can come up with a way to explain why only people like you and a fringe minority (many with questionable associations of course) can see something all these scientists can't, without them all being a bunch of liars or idiots.



well it works the other way round too. if bad science is being used to substantiate such a serious claim as AGW then it is obviously going to come under attack from other just as non-stupid and non-incompetent scientists who have a view point on the science that is being presented to them. but with attitudes like you are displaying in the mainstream, they have to shout from the fringes to be heard and to ensure that climate scientists don't make some of the claims that cannot be properly substantiated. if the political climate in climate research is stifling research that does not go along with the mainstream then that is not good. the tone of your writing makes me think that like many people such as yourself deal in absolutes. that if someone says that the climate scientists may have over looked an important factor that determines the results they are seeing, they are incompetent or lying.

what i say is that the lack of due diligence, and transparency on such a crucial issue is absolutely untenable. i am hopeful that since climate-gate that may be starting to change.


----------



## P.T.

The problem is that very few people are interested in what is truly happening.

Everyone is divided into hardened camps based on pre-conceived ideas and ideology.

Science is impossible in such an environment.
Society currently runs on propaganda and the strongest propaganda will dominate. Truth be damned.

There is no such thing as settled science.
There is just the current state of understanding, which may be right or wrong.
Science is always in flux.
The earth was flat until it was roundish.
Cells were filled with undifferentiated goo until it was found to be otherwise.
People mocked the idea that bacteria caused disease.


----------



## stevenson-again

> But that's not the issue - the chemist was talking about cosmic rays in his abstract. Maybe I studied at a conservative school, but it was never on our Chemistry syllabus.... and once I see something that seems manifestly absurd, I tend to not bother with the rest. I would have delved further into the specific points at the weekend, but we probably both agree it's not worthwhile now.



i know its tiresome disagreeing all the time, but if you were to phrase the sentence: "the chemist was talking about cosmic rays in abstròÎ   å]ÙÎ   å]ÚÎ   å]ÛÎ   å]ÜÎ   å]ÝÎ   å]ÞÏ   å]ßÏ   å]àÏ   å]áÏ   å]âÏ   å]ãÏ   å]äÏ   å]åÏ   å]æÏ   å]çÏ   å]èÏ   å]éÏ   å]êÏ   å]ëÏ   å]ìÏ   å]íÏ   å]îÏ   å]ïÏ   å]ðÏ   å]ñÏ   å]òÏ   å]óÏ   å]ôÏ   å]õÏ   å]öÏ   å]÷Ï   å]øÏ   å]ùÏ   å]úÏ   å]ûÏ   å]üÏ   å]ýÏ   å]þÏ   å]ÿÏ   å^ Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^	Ï   å^
Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^ Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^ Ï   å^!Ï   å^"Ï   å^#Ï   å^$Ï   å^%Ï   å^&Ï   å^'Ï   å^(Ï   å^)Ï   å^*Ï   å^+Ï   å^,Ï   å^-Ï   å^.Ï   å^/Ï   å^0Ï   å^1Ï   å^2Ï   å^3Ï   å^4Ï   å^5Ï   å^6Ï   å^7Ï   å^8Ï   å^9Ï   å^:Ï   å^;Ï   å^<Ï   å^=Ï   å^>Ï   å^?Ï   å^@Ï   å^AÏ   å^BÏ   å^CÏ   å^DÏ   å^EÏ   å^FÏ   å^GÏ   å^H              òÏ   å^JÏ   å^KÏ   å^LÏ   å^MÏ   å^NÏ   å^OÏ   å^PÏ   å^QÏ   å^RÏ   å^SÏ   å^TÏ   å^UÏ   å^VÏ   å^WÏ   å^XÏ   å^YÏ   å^ZÏ   å^[Ï   å^\Ï   å^]Ï   å^^Ï   å^_Ï   å^`Ï   å^aÏ   å^bÏ   å^cÏ   å^dÏ   å^eÏ   å^fÏ   å^gÏ   å^hÏ   å^iÏ   å^jÏ   å^kÏ   å^lÏ   å^mÏ   å^nÏ   å^oÏ   å^pÏ   å^qÏ   å^rÏ   å^sÏ   å^tÏ   å^uÏ   å^vÏ   å^wÏ   å^xÏ   å^yÏ   å^zÏ   å^{Ï   å^|Ï   å^}Ï   å^~Ï   å^Ï   å^€Ï   å^Ï   å^‚Ï   å^ƒÏ   å^„Ï   å^…Ï   å^†Ï   å^‡Ï   å^ˆÏ   å^‰Ï   å^ŠÏ   å^‹Ï   å^ŒÏ   å^Ï   å^ŽÏ   å^Ï   å^Ï   å^‘Ï   å^’Ï   å^“Ï   å^”Ï   å^•Ï   å^–Ï   å^—Ï   å^˜Ï   å^™Ï   å^šÏ   å^›Ï   å^œÏ   å^Ï   å^žÏ   å^ŸÏ   å^ Ï   å^¡Ï   å^¢Ï   å^£Ï   å^¤Ï   å^¥Ï   å^¦Ï   å^§Ï   å^¨Ï   å^©Ï   å^ªÏ   å^«Ï   å^¬Ï   å^­Ï   å^®Ï   å^¯Ï   å^°Ï   å^±Ï   å^²Ï   å^³Ï   å^´Ï   å^µÏ   å^¶Ï   å^·Ï   å^¸Ï   å^¹              òÏ   å^»Ï   å^¼Ï   å^½Ï   å^¾Ï   å^¿Ï   å^ÀÏ   å^ÁÏ   å^ÂÏ   å^ÃÏ   å^ÄÏ   å^ÅÏ   å^ÆÏ   å^ÇÏ   å^ÈÏ   å^ÉÏ   å^ÊÏ   å^ËÏ   å^ÌÏ   å^ÍÏ   å^ÎÏ   å^ÏÏ   å^ÐÏ   å^ÑÏ   å^ÒÏ   å^ÓÏ   å^ÔÏ   å^ÕÏ   å^ÖÏ   å^×Ï   å^ØÏ   å^ÙÏ   å^ÚÏ   å^ÛÏ   å^ÜÏ   å^ÝÏ   å^ÞÏ   å^ßÏ   å^àÏ   å^áÏ   å^âÏ   å^ãÏ   å^äÏ   å^åÏ   å^æÏ   å^çÏ   å^èÏ   å^éÏ   å^êÏ   å^ëÏ   å^ìÐ   å^íÐ   å^îÐ   å^ïÐ   å^ðÐ   å^ñÐ   å^òÑ   å^óÑ   å^ôÑ   å^õÑ   å^öÑ   å^÷Ñ   å^øÑ   å^ùÑ   å^úÑ   å^ûÑ   å^üÑ   å^ýÑ   å^þÑ   å^ÿÑ   å_ Ñ   å_Ñ   å_Ñ   å_Ñ   å


----------



## stevenson-again

P.T. your first post was absolutely spot on. absolutely right on the money.

and by your second, do you mean to say that if all we have is specialists exercising their 'authority' in their area of specialisation we do not advance the understanding of the whole. then yes i think you are right to a point there as well. in all areas of science openness and critical thinking is paramount, and most especially looking to areas of science that intersect to shed some light on an aspect of the whole. i think that generally happens in most disciplines....


----------



## Ed

I guess round 2 will have to wait a few days while I'm away, talk among yourselves.


----------



## P.T.

How can the whole be seen by a world of specialists, especially if , as some suggest, only a specialist has the authority to talk about that particular field.

Who, in that world view, has the authority of knowledge to create the whole from the parts?


----------



## Narval

Nobody. Anybody.

I second s-a: spot on, P.T.! - these are the right questions.


----------



## noiseboyuk

[quote:338ee63c44="stevenson-again @ Tue Sep 07, 2010 10:43 pm"]disagree with the view all you like but give a reason that is rational - like; 'dr kaufmans view on CO2 levels doesn't take into account historical vulcanism', or 'the description CO2 variability during the period of 1850-1950 seems a bit suspicious to me. why would the next 50 years show such stability?'

you could even argue 'look, i am sure the article is written in good faith(ie he hasn't deliberately made it up), and i agree that it could undermine the whole basis for AGW, but it doesn't seem to be discussed much around the place. why is that?' its not strictly an argument, but it has me wondering as well...has it just passed under the radar or is there a really sound explanòõ   åj5õ   åj6õ   åj7õ   åj8õ   åj9õ   åj:õ   åj;õ   åj<õ   åj=õ   åj>õ   åj?õ   å[email protected]õ   åjAõ   åjBõ   åjCõ   åjDõ   åjEõ   åjFõ   åjGõ   åjHõ   åjIõ   åjJõ   åjKõ   åjLõ   åjMõ   åjNõ   åjOõ   åjPõ   åjQõ   åjRõ   åjSõ   åjTõ   åjUõ   åjVõ   åjWõ   åjXõ   åjYõ   åjZõ   åj[õ   åj\õ   åj]õ   åj^õ   åj_õ   åj`õ   åjaõ   åjbõ   åjcõ   åjdõ   åjeõ   åjfõ   åjgõ   åjhõ   åjiõ   åjjõ   åjkõ   åjlõ   åjmõ   åjnõ   åjoõ   åjpõ   åjqõ   åjrõ   åjsõ   åjtõ   åjuõ   åjvõ   åjwõ   åjxõ   åjyõ   åjzõ   åj{õ   åj|õ   åj}õ   åj~õ   åjõ   åj€õ   åjõ   åj‚õ   åjƒõ   åj„õ   åj…õ   åj†õ   åj‡õ   åjˆõ   åj‰õ   åjŠõ   åj‹õ   åjŒõ   åjõ   åjŽõ   åjõ   åjõ   åj‘õ   åj’õ   åj“õ   åj”õ   åj•õ   åj–õ   åj—õ   åj˜õ   åj™õ   åjšõ   åj›õ   åjœõ   åjõ   åjžõ   åjŸõ   åj õ   åj¡õ   åj¢õ   åj£õ   åj¤              òõ   åj¦õ   åj§õ   åj¨õ   åj©õ   åjªõ   åj«õ   åj¬õ   åj­õ   åj®õ   åj¯õ   åj°õ   åj±õ   åj²õ   åj³õ   åj´õ   åjµõ   åj¶õ   åj·õ   åj¸õ   åj¹õ   åjºõ   åj»õ   åj¼õ   åj½õ   åj¾õ   åj¿õ   åjÀõ   åjÁõ   åjÂõ   åjÃõ   åjÄõ   åjÅõ   åjÆõ   åjÇõ   åjÈõ   åjÉõ   åjÊõ   åjËõ   åjÌõ   åjÍõ   åjÎõ   åjÏõ   åjÐõ   åjÑõ   åjÒõ   åjÓõ   åjÔõ   åjÕõ   åjÖõ   åj×õ   åjØõ   åjÙõ   åjÚõ   åjÛõ   åjÜõ   åjÝõ   åjÞõ   åjßõ   åjàõ   åjáõ   åjâõ   åjãõ   åjäõ   åjåõ   åjæõ   åjçõ   åjèõ   åjéõ   åjêõ   åjëõ   åjìõ   åjíõ   åjîõ   åjïõ   åjðõ   åjñõ   åjòõ   åjóõ   åjôõ   åjõõ   åjöõ   åj÷õ   åjøõ   åjùõ   åjúõ   åjûõ   åjüõ   åjýõ   åjþõ   åjÿõ   åk õ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åk	õ   åk
õ   åkõ   åkõ   åk õ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åk              òõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åkõ   åk õ   åk!õ   åk"õ   åk#õ   åk$õ   åk%õ   åk&õ   åk'õ   åk(õ   åk)õ   åk*õ   åk+õ   åk,õ   åk-õ   åk.õ   åk/õ   åk0õ   åk1õ   åk2õ   åk3õ   åk4õ   åk5õ   åk6õ   åk7õ   åk8õ   åk9õ   åk:õ   åk;õ   åk<õ   åk=õ   åk>õ   åk?õ   å[email protected]õ   åkAõ   åkBõ   åkCõ   åkDõ   åkEõ   åkFõ   åkGõ   åkHõ   åkIõ   åkJõ   åkKõ   åkLõ   åkMõ   åkNõ   åkOõ   åkPõ   åkQõ   åkRõ   åkSõ   åkTö   åkUö   åkVö   åkWö   åkXö   åkYö   åkZ÷   åk[÷   åk\÷   åk]÷   åk^÷   åk_÷   åk`÷   åka÷   åkb÷   åkc÷   åkd÷   åke÷   åkf÷   åkg÷   åkh÷   åki÷   åkj÷   åkk÷   åkl÷   åkm÷   åkn÷   åko÷   åkp÷   åkq÷   åkrø   åksø   åktø   åkuø   åkvø   åkwø   åkxø   åkyø   åkzø   åk{ø   åk|ø   åk}ø   åk~ø   åkø   åk€ø   åkø   åk‚ø   åkƒø   åk„ø   åk…ø   åk†              òø   åkˆø   åk‰ø   åkŠø   åk‹ø   åkŒø   åkø   åkŽø   åkø   åkø   åk‘ø   åk’ø   åk“ø   åk”ø   åk•ø   åk–ø   åk—ø   åk˜ø   åk™ø   åkšø   åk›ø   åkœø   åkø   åkžø   åkŸø   åk ø   åk¡ø   åk¢ù   åk£ù   åk¤ù   åk¥ù   åk¦ù   åk§ù   åk¨ù   åk©ù   åkªù   åk«ù   åk¬ù   åk­ù   åk®ù   åk¯ù   åk°ù   åk±ù   åk²ù   åk³ù   åk´ù   åkµù   åk¶ù   åk·ù   åk¸ù   åkÅù   åkÆù   åkÇù   åkÈú   åk¹ú   åkºú   åk»ú   åk¼ú   åk½ú   åk¾ú   åk¿ú   åkÀú   åkÁú   åkÂú   åkÃú   åkÄû   åkÉû   åkÊû   åkËû   åkÌû   åkÍû   åkÎû   åkÏû   åkÐû   åkÑû   åkÒû   åkÓû   åkÔü   åkÕü   åkÖü   åk×ü   åkØü   åkÙü   åkÚü   åkÛü   åkÜü   åkÝü   åkÞü   åkßü   åkàü   åkáü   åkâü   åkãü   åkäü   åkåü   åkæü   åkçü   åkèü   åkéü   åkêü   åkëü   åkìü   åkíü   åkîü   åkïü   åkðü   åkñü   åkòý   åkóý   åkôý   åkõý   åköý   åk÷              ne argument that is pertinent to my methodology - that the people most qualified to know are infected by some sort of rampant tribalism and have lost their independence. I think its unlikely, but clearly that's important, so I'm much more minded to explore what Judith Curry is saying (and put it into its full context).

But in the meantime, its very important for you to understand why Ed and I make a big deal about the Oregon petition. Put most succinctly, it's a pile of crap. There isn't a single criteria that passes muster with it. It's very important to me that you see why we have reacted to it like we have... it's no use imploring us to see that, despite every methodological flaw it is possible to conceive of, that there must still be scientists who disagree with AGW. The correct response is this - drop the petition. It's a worthless source. Find better sources. You will certainly exhaust my patience by chosing such desperately poor material and asking us to the see the good in it.

Ok, too much time on this. The important point is that you try and see where I'm coming from. You see things differently, you're fascinated by the science, you seek out the lone voices. But my position, I absolutely maintain, is more than valid... if you still disagree, then we're still at the impasse I thought we were.


----------



## P.T.

Some of the issues that I see even though I don't know the details of climate science (I do have a science and engineering background though and understand the scientific approach).

There have been a number of "gates" that bring data and methods into question.

There were things like placing temp stations purposely in hot areas like near heat vents, in asphalt parking lots and asphalt rooftops in order to get warm readings.

There is the simple fact that all of the data is just data until something is done with it and that something is to run it through a computer model.
Call me a cynic but I really doubt that climate scientists have anything even close to a full model of how climate works.

Statements like "we just had the hottest year in 400 years" sound severe but on reflection, doesn't that mean that there was a year just barely cooler than our recent hottest year? And if so, what made it so warm 400 years ago.

I also remember reading an article stating that temps on other planets in our solar system had been registering warmer than usual temps and there was also much talk about solar flares and a generally more active sun. These articles, however made no links to the global warming debate as if they were unrelated.

Then there is the talk about large areas of the ocean being warmer than usual, but no talk of undersea volcanic activity.

There is more, but that is quit a bit.

So, call me skeptical and consider me concerned that we will cause serious disruption to the global economy and be wrong.

Then there was the Kyoto Protocol, which as I remember would restrict the pollution output of 1st world countries, but not that of 3rd world emerging economies.
If you look at the amount of pollution in China, eastern Europe and potions of Russia, it dwarfs the pollution in the 1st world.

The Kyoto Protocol would have the (intended, in my opinion) effect of moving industry from 1st world countries to 3rd world emerging economies and actually make global pollution worse.
Though it would have the effect of bolstering the economies of the 3rd world emerging economies.
So, it generally has the appearance of being the Global Wealth Redistribution Protocol.


----------



## noiseboyuk

P.T. - most of these things have been discussed to death here (and among climate scientists). Even Rohan kinda approves of this site:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Which neatly summarises where the peer-reviewed research is on all the controversial subjects such as the urban heat islands, and has all the links / references to the research itself. Thoroughly recommended.


----------



## stevenson-again

no i think i see your position a bit better.

i suppose my expectation is that if someone is going to have such firm views, they should be informed ones. so i think it reasonable of you to say 'look my opinion on this is that the mainstream science has the right of it, but i don't discount opposing views and i am not qualified to comment on them.'

that's pretty much the end of it then. if you chose to inform yourself further, you may or may not change your opinion, but until you do your views should not automatically dismiss views opposing the mainstream.



> The argument that this actually IS his field I have to say seems extremely tenuous... it's not stomach ulcers, is it?!



no, but his paper is well argued with tons of references, and make serious points directly related to both his field and climatology. actually you mentioned the cosmic ray hypothesis. the cosmic ray/climate influence is gaining some experimental traction:

http://spacecenter.dk/research/sun-clim ... experiment

there is some talk of this becoming a rival theory for CO2 driven global warming affecting climate - that would be interesting. sorry to be such a nerd.



> It's a worthless source. Find better sources. You will certainly exhaust my patience by chosing such desperately poor material and asking us to the see the good in it.



mine was long ago exhausted by the continual reference to it. just drop it then. it was pointed to in passing. it may be a very defective census, but even if it wasn't it doesn't prove anything either way. even if only 5% of the signatories were bona fide it still represents sufficient number to be taken seriously. why do they disagree? just because they are not in the majority does it mean there views are wirthless?....blah blah blah....we have been through this. anyway, there are other ways of indicating the level of 'consensus' amongst your 97% ranges greatly.

it's very important that you and ed understand that a petition is pretty meaningless if you are trying to substantiate a scientific case. just as the 97% petition you quote regularly is absolutely meaningless. in the sense that it has meaning to you, it validates your position, since the majority of informed scientists agree with it, but without being fully informed of all the ins and outs i do really think you should allow opposing views without dismissing them out of hand.

and that's really the nub of it. i love, absolutely love, chasing down the arguments. i look at a warmers view or a sceptics view, try and find the rebuttal, then try to find the rebuttal of the rebuttal, and so on, and eventually you start to form a picture of what they 'know' as opposed to what they spin. on both sides. the one thing i really hate, is the tone in which the debate is conducted. P.T. absolutely nailed it in his first post a few back.

let me make this prediction in closing, i think we will see over the next few years emerging new theories, solar based, PDO etc. eventually they will probably merge to create a larger picture and a better understanding than what we have now.


----------



## stevenson-again

an excellent and succinct post P.T.

particularly of concern is certain forcings on climate that are left out of models because they are poorly understood, such as undersea vulcanism, and solar activity.



> So, call me skeptical and consider me concerned that we will cause serious disruption to the global economy and be wrong. [/quote:3824ò   åqE   åqF   åqG   åqH   åqI   åqJ   åqK   åqL   åqM   åqN   åqO   åqP   åqQ   åqR   åqS   åqT   åqU   åqV   åqW   åqX   åqY   åqZ   åq[   åq\   åq]   åq^   åq_   åq`   åqa   åqb   åqc   åqd   åqe   åqf   åqg   åqh   åqi   åqj   åqk   åql   åqm


----------



## noiseboyuk

Cool, Rohan, except (again):

The 97% was from a peer reviewed study, it's not a petition. VERY big difference. And even if out of OISM it is 5%, that total out of a possible 10 million proves very little / nothing. Hence why I agree that dropping it from here-on-in is a good way forward!

Needless to say, Sceptical science covers how I see the cosmic ray thing pretty well... seems kinda old and lacking in evidence right now, but I'll keep my eyes open for new stuff as it comes out of Svensmark's camp.


----------



## stevenson-again

> Needless to say, Sceptical science covers how I see the cosmic ray thing pretty well... seems kinda old and lacking in evidence right now, but I'll keep my eyes open for new stuff as it comes out of Svensmark's camp.



at the risk of opening another can of worms...

i have been looking into this - or should i say, retracing some steps i took some years ago when my head was being turned.

this dude:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=uk

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

is really the father of the theory and famously forecast several major climatic events before they happened. he has 5 peer reviewed articles on this subject which has been around for a long while. he has clearly invested his lifes work into understanding the impact of orbital fluctuations and solar weather, and appears to be very disgruntled that the IPCC simply disregarded that work in creating the models that predicted climate change. the reason they did was because they only looked at radiance, ie how brightly the sun shines, but they did not take into account cosmic radiation (which is actually a misnomer - they are just high energy particles such as cause the aurora borealis etc).

it appears likely that svensmark has made some mistakes in some of his approach - i don't know i haven't looked at it closely, but that doesn't mean to say that the hypothesis is wrong. at least experimentally there is support for the hypothesis, because they have been able to replicate the effect in laboratories.

i should add too that svensmark is not the only game in town looking into this stuff.

certainly landsheidts work merits further investigation, but i have to say it is VERY technical. i think the best thing is to put my top man in charge understanding it.

what is clear, is that his track record includes very accurate predictions of weather events on earth AND on the sun, and predicts the 2030 cooling (i glossed over some articles suggesting that figure might now be late) and significant cooling in 2200 - ie a mini ice age. 

please don't poo-poo this. this guy regularly out-forecast NOAA with lead times as much 2 years. ie he could tell when a el nino or a la nina event might occur that far ahead.

just read this:

http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisit.htm

scan through to the end and skip the technical stuff. by god it is fascinating.

btw...

i think the skeptical science site is excellent. i think the tone is sober and it seems to be a place where the debate sticks to arguing over the science. the author is wrong about a number of things, which is pointed out by posters, some of whom seem extremely well informed. but this has become my number one place to find rebutalls and discussions.


----------



## Animus

Certainly an interesting development..... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/h ... l-society/)

Cue up AGWers claiming Hal Lewis is not a real scientist and is in big oils pockets etc....


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5933353-504383.html (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162- ... 04383.html)



> Hal Lewis of the University of California, Santa Barbara:
> 
> I think it behooves us to be careful about how we state the science. I know of nobody who denies that the Earth has been warming for thousands of years without our help (and specifically since the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago), and is most likely to continue to do so in its own sweet time. The important question is how much warming does the future hold, is it good or bad, and if bad is it too much for normal adaptation to handle. The real answer to the first is that no one knows, the real answer to the second is more likely good than bad (people and plants die from cold, not warmth), and the answer to the third is almost certainly not. And nobody doubts that CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing for the better part of a century, but the disobedient temperature seems not to care very much. And nobody denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, along with other gases like water vapor, but despite the claims of those who are profiting by this craze, no one knows whether the temperature affects the CO2 or vice versa. The weight of the evidence is the former.
> 
> So the tragedy is that the serious questions are quantitative, and it's easy to fool people with slogans. If you say that the Earth is warming you are telling the truth, but not the whole truth, and if you say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels you are on thin ice. If you say that the Earth is warming and therefore catastrophe lies ahead, you are pulling an ordinary bait and switch scam. If you are a demagogue, of course, these distinctions don't bother you -- you have little interest in that quaint concept called truth.
> 
> So it isn't simple, and the catastrophe mongers are playing a very lucrative
> game.



Seems to be a lot of demagoguery on this very thread.


----------



## Animus

P.T. @ Tue Sep 07 said:


> How can the whole be seen by a world of specialists, especially if , as some suggest, only a specialist has the authority to talk about that particular field.
> 
> Who, in that world view, has the authority of knowledge to create the whole from the parts?



Furthermore, these "specialists" the Global Warming truthers place their faith on so much all have educational backgrounds not in "climatology" per se, but from a various different disciplines, including chemistry, mathematics, physics, meteorology, geology. But it's a bad thing if the "deniers" are. lol


----------



## Stephen Baysted

I'd be careful what you say Animus, you might get blown up by the 10:10 mob...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3tTGqIH ... re=related


----------



## Ed

Animus @ Sun Oct 10 said:


> Certainly an interesting development..... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/h ... l-society/)
> 
> *Cue up AGWers claiming Hal Lewis is not a real scientist* and is in big oils pockets etc....



The following is not at all exhaustive. 

*Intelligent Design Creationism advocates*:

_Jonathan Wells, PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology
Michael Behe, PhD in Biochemistry
Edward D. Lozansky, PhD in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 
Richard Sternberg, PhD in Molecular Evolution and Systems Science
Stephen C. Meyer, PhD. in the History and Philosophy of Science 
Scott Minnich, PhD in Microbiology
Guillermo Gonzalez Ph.D. in Astronomy_


911 Truth advocates *boast *over 1,330 professional architects and engineers support them. They will argue, just like Global Warming "skeptics", that this figure represents a lot of dissent in the engineering/scientific community and they have been gathering signatures for years and from all over the world. One should note however that there are around 17,000 newly credential engineers every year just in the US alone and AE911Truth also includes architects and software engineers in their list. Here are a few names...

*"911 Truth" Conspiracy Theory advocates:*

_Steven E. Jones, Ph.D. in Physics
Anders Björkman, M.Sc Naval architect & Marine engineer 
Judy Wood, Ph.D Mechanical Engineering
Tony Szambot, Mechanical Engineer
Dr. Robert T. Mote, PhD in Structural Engineer 
Edwin L. Force, PhD in Chemical Engineering
Henry W. Tieleman, PhD in Civil Engineering 
Mark Allen, PhD, Engineering_


As someone on that http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5933353-504383.html (CBC article) you posted, said:



> *"Climate change deniers trumpet the fact that 230 physicists have signed a petition opposing the American Physical Society (APS) statement on climate change. The APS has over 46,000 members and the petition was written in 2007. So, in the past two years, fewer than 1% of the physicists have signed. Only committed climate change deniers could call that a victory "*



I'd also like to point out that reading Watts Up With That, is like reading Alex Jones' Prison Planet or InfoWars.

I think the main point in all of this is that if you're going to argue from authority, then "skeptics" still loose.


----------



## Animus

Rousseau @ Sun Oct 10 said:


> I'd be careful what you say Animus, you might get blown up by the 10:10 mob...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3tTGqIH ... re=related



haha! Nice one. it certainly feels like the Spanish Inquisition.


----------



## Ed

Animus @ Sun Oct 10 said:


> Even though i expected this type of reply you missed one of the whole points of what Hal Lewis speaks of.



Firstly, he says absolutely nothing new just throws out a few typical "skeptic" canards. Second, all you have left is his qualifications and as I said I can show you 911 Truthers and Creationists with qualifications as well. The point being that percentage wise they are still very much fringe, see the paragraph I quoted at the end of my post. Sums things up quite nicely I think. If you're going to argue from authority you're always going to loose.



> The whole scientific process has be usurped by political and financial mechanization, and a system setup which discourages any dissenting or diverging opinions to even get peer reviewed, and intimidates people into submission



Yes yes, I've heard all this before. Its the same thing Creationists have been complaining about for donkeys years and its what the truth movement have been crying about for nearly a decade. Forgive me if I find it all rather dull hearing the exact same conspiracy accusations by fringe groups promoting different claims. Seriously, its practically identical.



> It's cherrypicking only the results you want and throwing out any other undesirable results before it even gets a chance to be judged on its on merits.



What I find interesting is that GW "skeptics", 911 Truthers and Creationists (and so on...) act like they care such a lot about truth, honesty and facts but apparently seem to care not one whit about any of the blatent and numerous examples of gross incompetence, lies and outright fraud from their *own *groups and experts.




> Climategate has totally blown the credibility of your respectable scientists, and has shown them maliciously and willfully subverting the scientific process.



As usual for conspiracy theorists like GW "skeptics" they typically rely mostly on quote-mines. Its really not smart or clever, but its so easy to do, isn't it? Creationists are the best at it though and have been doing it for over a hundred years, they actually have a far better case to make for scientific fraud in evolution science than GW "skeptics" ever had.



> You guys still refuse to admit that but a lot of people have seen the light and the tide is turning.



I can't tell you how many times I've heard 911 Truthers claim that more and more people are "waking up" after some new thing becomes the latest "bombshell" evidence that will validate their conspiracy theories. Or Creationsits which have been predicting the "imminent" demise of evolution for over a hundred years. Save it, please. I've heard it all before. In the end it either makes a group all excited over absolutely nothing (1330 "experts" signing their 911 petition) or commit fraud and deception with the GW "skeptics" Petition Project in order to make it look like there's way more scientific dissent on the subject than there actually is. But this goes back to what I said earlier, strangely none of you guys seem to care about *that*.



> I'd also like to add in the fact that one of the main architects of cap and trade legislation is a person that works for Goldman Sachs. That should tell you a lot.



I do wonder if you could explain, since all other GW "skeptics" have refused to, how this "cap and trade" business apparently brings in so much money for everyone that it reduces all but a tiny fringe minority in the scientific community to incompetence and stupidity and just go along with this conspiracy of yours?


----------



## Animus

lol Typical liberal tactic of smearing. What the hell does Creationism or Truthers have to do with it? Believing in AGW has more relevance to Creationism than not believing it if anything. Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. This used to be scientific fact before you loonies became Nurse Ratchet of the asylum.

I am card carrying atheist and I am not a truther or a birther or what ever other labels you people like to use to divert the subject.


----------



## Ed

Animus @ Sun Oct 10 said:


> lWhat the hell does Creationism or Truthers have to do with it?



I just told you. You all use the exact same general arguments, its boring.



> Believing in AGW has more relevance to Creationism than not believing it if anything.



How do you figure that? GW Deniers quote mine, they shamelessly and obviously and demonstrably lie about the data, they create fake petitions, they pretend there is a real scientific debate when there isn't... you yourself just complained that the scientific process is being controlled by some other interest that don't allow your GW "skeptics" a go in the sand pit, you also say that "the tide is turning" because more people are "seeing the light" both things that Creationists have been saying for decades. So that sounds *just *like a Creationist to me, or a truther for that matter. Trusting a small fringe minority while implicating the rest of the scientific community in either mass incompetence, delusion or a global intentional coverup which is both ridiculous and absurd but for some reason that doesn't seem to cross your minds.




> Temperature drives CO2, not the other way around.



No evidence for that only data manipulation, of course.






> This used to be scientific fact before you loonies became Nurse Ratchet of the asylum.



So you're claiming that Co2 doesn't affect temperature? That's like the Young Earth Creationist version of a Global Warming denier.



> I am card carrying atheist and I am not a truther



So? Plenty of truther's are atheists. Ever heard of the film Zeitgeist?



> or a birther or what ever other labels you people like to use to divert the subject.



Never said you were, can you really not see why I am comparing this? Maybe you just don't want to, its pretty simple. Creationists, truthers, moon hoaxers, JFK, Freeman on the Land, homeopaths - whatever. They all have very similar ways of arguing.

You seem to have missed my question though, I had hoped you would do what no other GW Denier has ever done before and provide an actual answer to it:

_I do wonder if you could explain, since all other GW "skeptics" have refused to, how this "cap and trade" business apparently brings in so much money for everyone that it reduces all but a tiny fringe minority in the scientific community to incompetence and stupidity and just go along with this conspiracy of yours?_


----------



## Animus

Your exact Creationist arguments can be turned back on to you as well. It's a silly way to debate.

Anyway, just remember this and think about it years from now when you are undeniably proven wrong, make sure to button up and keep warm though. The tides have already started to turn, and the desperation is already starting to show. It's impossible to argue with you people. It's like arguing with Creationists. You keep worshiping your spaghetti monster.


----------



## Ed

Animus @ Sun Oct 10 said:


> Your exact Creationist arguments can be turned back on to you as well. It's a silly way to debate.



I dare you to try and do that, simply saying "you too!" may sound like an easy retort but not when you actually have to back it up. I can actually back up everything I said to you, would you be able to?

I had a truther only the other day tell me I am not giving any evidence for my points against his 911 conspiracy theories, apparently he thinks he can just really, really, really disagree and that's enough. 



> Anyway, just remember this and think about it years from now when you are undeniably proven wrong, make sure to button up and keep warm though. The tides have already started to turn, and the desperation is already starting to show.



*yawn*

*The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism*
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html



> "Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; *but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them:* it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge."
> - Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38
> 
> "…I am convinced that *science is making substantial progress*. *Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. *As a doctrine it is *merely of historical interest*.
> - George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html
> 
> "In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, *there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism"*
> - Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
> 
> "But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. *A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment*." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm
> 
> "Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, *but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism* at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence."
> - Henry Morris, "What are Evolutionists Afraid of?" Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).





> It's impossible to argue with you people. It's like arguing with Creationists. You keep worshiping your spaghetti monster.



Cute, but its just word salad you think sounds smart. 

I asked you a direct question, my only direct question twice now. I told you no denialist has ever answered it, in fact no one has ever even acknowledged it as far as I recall and look, you too have ignored it as well. I'm going to ask you again, just to show that you simply refuse to address such a simple issue. 

_I do wonder if you could explain, since all other GW "skeptics" have refused to, how this "cap and trade" business apparently brings in so much money for everyone that it reduces all but a tiny fringe minority in the scientific community to incompetence and stupidity and just go along with this conspiracy of yours?_

Bottom line is, you guys are raving conspiracy theorists in order to believe this nonsense, but you hate people suggesting you are promoting conspiracy theories so you try very hard to ignore difficult questions like this.


----------



## Animus

Ed,

Are you familiar with the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warming Period?


----------



## Ed

Animus @ Sun Oct 10 said:


> Ed,
> 
> Are you familiar with the Holocene Maximum and the Medieval Warming Period?



:lol: How about we can talk about that particular denier debacle - again - after you answer my question.

*For the 4th time:*

_ I do wonder if you could explain, since all other GW "skeptics" have refused to, how this "cap and trade" business apparently brings in so much money for everyone that it reduces all but a tiny fringe minority in the scientific community to incompetence and stupidity and just go along with this conspiracy of yours?_


----------



## Animus

Ed @ Sun Oct 10 said:


> Animus @ Sun Oct 10 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your exact Creationist arguments can be turned back on to you as well. It's a silly way to debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dare you to try and do that, simply saying "you too!" may sound like an easy retort but not when you actually have to back it up. I can actually back up everything I said to you, would you be able to?
> 
> I had a truther only the other day tell me I am not giving any evidence for my points against his 911 conspiracy theories, apparently he thinks he can just really, really, really disagree and that's enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, just remember this and think about it years from now when you are undeniably proven wrong, make sure to button up and keep warm though. The tides have already started to turn, and the desperation is already starting to show.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *yawn*
> 
> *The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism*
> http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/demise.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Till within a few years, these two [Neptunism and Huttonism] have been the prevailing system; *but another has lately appeared which seems likely, I think, to supercede them:* it is called by Mr. Granville Penn, who is its great champion, the MOSAIC GEOLOGY, because it is chiefly derived from the Mosaic History of the Creation and the Deluge."
> - Granville Penn, Conversations on Geology, (London: J. W. Southgate and Son, 1840), p. 38
> 
> "…I am convinced that *science is making substantial progress*. *Darwinism has been definitely outgrown. *As a doctrine it is *merely of historical interest*.
> - George McCready Price, quoted in Alexander Hardie’s Evolution: Is It Philosophical, Scientific Or Scriptural? (1924), pp.125-126 Taken from Troy Britain's reply at http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul02.html
> 
> "In spite of the tremendous pressure that exists in the scientific world on the side of evolutionary propaganda, *there are increasing signs of discontent and skepticism"*
> - Henry Morris, The Twilight of Evolution, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1963), p. 84
> 
> "But even at that time there were some evolutionists who were beginning to express doubts concerning this formulation of evolution theory. *A decade later, these incipient cracks have widened to the point that some, formerly strongly committed to this theory, are now expressing disillusionment*." Duane T. Gish, "Cracks in the NeoDarwinian Jericho, Part 1," Impact, 42(Dec. 1976). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-042.htm
> 
> "Creation scientists may be in the minority so far, *but their number is growing, and most of them (like this writer) were evolutionists at one time, having changed to creationism* at least in part because of what they decided was the weight of scientific evidence."
> - Henry Morris, "What are Evolutionists Afraid of?" Back to Genesis, No. 168(Dec. 2002).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's impossible to argue with you people. It's like arguing with Creationists. You keep worshiping your spaghetti monster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cute, but its just word salad you think sounds smart.
> 
> I asked you a direct question, my only direct question twice now. I told you no denialist has ever answered it, in fact no one has ever even acknowledged it as far as I recall and look, you too have ignored it as well. I'm going to ask you again, just to show that you simply refuse to address such a simple issue.
> 
> _I do wonder if you could explain, since all other GW "skeptics" have refused to, how this "cap and trade" business apparently brings in so much money for everyone that it reduces all but a tiny fringe minority in the scientific community to incompetence and stupidity and just go along with this conspiracy of yours?_
> 
> Bottom line is, you guys are raving conspiracy theorists in order to believe this nonsense, but you hate people suggesting you are promoting conspiracy theories so you try very hard to ignore difficult questions like this.
Click to expand...


You haven't backed up your arguments with any substantive either other than to pull the whole smearing the opponent with negative and unrelated associations, and also the whole "I only listen to prescreeened peer-reviewed scientist, no other scientist counts, and only go to liberal approved websites" argument. Your arguments of the scientists who are Creationist and Truthers is laughable and illogical because it discredits scientists in general, and can be used in argument against your scientist too. Mind you these are the same respected scientist that warned of global cooling in the 1970's. 

So I might also say I am a Creationist then you of course discount what I say. Then I might say I am an atheist then you counter with "well, scientists who are conspiracy theorist can be atheist too so you are discredited". lol get the fuck out of here dude. you can't be serious.

I can write a whole page on cap and trade so let me get back to you when it's not so late, some people have to get up in the morning and go to work to pay for all your entitlement programs. It's not difficult at all and has been discussed to death on other forums. But in the meantime please research the success it has been over in Europe and then read about all the scams and corruption. Basically all cap and trade will do in the long run is make everything a hell of lot more expensive for the middle class and poor (something I thought you liberals cared about). Companies will just trade these carbon credits and build a huge bubble and pass on all losses and risks to the customers and taxpayer and rake in profits for themselves. All the while, it will do nothing to curb global warming even if such a thing would be possible. Corporations like GE and BP totally support cap and trade and are counting on it.


----------



## Ed

Animus @ Sun Oct 10 said:


> You haven't backed up your arguments with any substantive either other than to pull the whole smearing the opponent with negative and unrelated associations, and also the whole "I only listen to prescreeened peer-reviewed scientist, no other scientist counts, and only go to liberal approved websites" argument.



Stop complaining and deal with the fact that you are making the exact same arguments Creationists and 911 conspiracy theorists make, if they are wrong for doing it so are you.



> Your arguments of the scientists who are Creationist and Truthers is laughable and illogical because it discredits scientists in general, and can be used in argument against your scientist too. Mind you these are the same respected scientist that warned of global cooling in the 1970's.



What on earth are you talking about? Are you suggesting that those Creationists talking about how evolution is on its last legs were also _"respected scientists that warned of global cooling in the 1970's_"? You really sure about that? :| 




> So I might also say I am a Creationist then you of course discount what I say.



Not necessarily if you were I would just know how you deal with science, that is to say _badly_. Since Creationists are usually wrong about damn near everything, I will be biased to thinking that you _probably _would be as well.



> Then I might say I am an atheist then you counter with "well, scientists who are conspiracy theorist can be atheist too so you are discredited". lol get the f#@k out of here dude. you can't be serious.



... There's no suitable smiley. wtf are you talking about? I don't care if you're an atheist or a Christian. YOU are promoting conspiracy theories and YOU are promoting the same tired old complaints about the scientific process and community that all fringe groups do. That's not my fault.




> I can write a whole page on cap and trade so let me get back to you when it's not so late, some people have to get up in the morning and go to work to pay for all your entitlement programs.
> 
> It's not difficult at all and has been discussed to death on other forums. But in the meantime please research the success it has been over in Europe and then read about all the scams and corruption. Basically all cap and trade will do in the long run is make everything a hell of lot more expensive for the middle class and poor (something I thought you liberals cared about). Companies will just trade these carbon credits and build a huge bubble and pass on all losses and risks to the customers and taxpayer and rake in profits for themselves. All the while, it will do nothing to curb global warming even if such a thing would be possible. Corporations like GE and BP totally support cap and trade and are counting on it.



Yes yes I know all that, please address my point. You may have to actually read it rather than knee jerk as soon as you saw a question about cap and trade.

My question is regarding *HOW *this cap and trade is somehow *so* lucrative that it can not only be more profitable than oil but also turn *all but a small, fringe minority *in the scientific community into *stupid, incompetent tools* for this corporate/government conspiracy, all over the world, when the truth is so simple that unqualified people on the internet can easily understand it?


----------



## chimuelo

I can answer that and have several times here, but most folks prefer to just Parrot on for their particular cause. 
The CME Bank is where the elite ruling class have all placed their bets. 
Its board members are a testament to why this bill will pass. 
Its out of our hands at this point. 

Our tax dollars have set up huge grants that have corrupted the " scientific " research and turned NASA into a Climatology Conglamorate instead of the worlds leading Space exploration facility. 

Since our leaders have been corrupted by the process, this giant political machine will never be dismantled. 
We have allowed our ruling class to transfer the wealth of the middle class to China to ensure they prefer economic strength over military strength. This was wise to avert a future war as the 2 biggest kids on the block always end up having to square off. 

As we speak more and more corporations and industries will relocate to China instead of the USA as our leaders continue to push legislation that favors China in trade. We cannot sell our products there, but their products flood our markets through the CHinese owned port of Long Beach. 
These are the crimes that most of us are unaware of as we are distracted by the medias' left and right puppet wars, and divisive race strategies. 

I have passed up so many gigs in China, but while my pay here decreases year by year, the enticing pay scale in China has tripled since 2004. 
As a contactor I do OK here, but in CHina, I would make 6-700 USD per night as opposed to the 250 USD I make here, which I am severely punished and taxed on too. I provide the insurances necessary to protect myself from lawsuits, where in China, they have no such restrictions. 

The bottom line. 
The whores in DC have succeeded in ruining the middle class here in the USA, since they are all wealthy, this doesn't bother them much. 
So when you hear these liars targeting the wealthy Americans during one of their class warfare speeches, try and remain focused, as they are never going to tax themselves. 

Cap & Trade is coming to a town near you. 
I hope you like it deep....


----------



## Ed

chimuelo @ Mon Oct 11 said:


> The CME Bank is where the elite ruling class have all placed their bets.



Oh dear.. I don't think this is going to go well.. :roll: 



> Our tax dollars have set up huge grants that have corrupted the " scientific " research and turned NASA into a Climatology Conglamorate instead of the worlds leading Space exploration facility.



Yes I know you believe in a conspiracy, I was looking for how you think its possible to turn all but a few fringe scientists into a bunch of bumbling incompetent morons and the rest into shills for this corporate conspiracy... but maybe you're getting to it, further on... 



> Since our leaders have been corrupted by the process, this giant political machine will never be dismantled.
> We have allowed our ruling class to transfer the wealth of the middle class to China to ensure they prefer economic strength over military strength. This was wise to avert a future war as the 2 biggest kids on the block always end up having to square off.



All I got from this was, _"conspiracy to controlz us by the evil rich bankers!"._

Not sure how that relates to my question though.



> The bottom line.
> The whores in DC have succeeded in ruining the middle class here in the USA, since they are all wealthy, this doesn't bother them much.
> So when you hear these liars targeting the wealthy Americans during one of their class warfare speeches, try and remain focused, as they are never going to tax themselves.
> 
> Cap & Trade is coming to a town near you.
> I hope you like it deep....



I have absolutely no idea how you think this in any way whatsoever answers my question.

Will any GW "skeptic" even show they _understand_ the question?

Again:

_My question is regarding *HOW *this cap and trade is somehow *SO *lucrative that it can not only be *more profitable than oil* but also turn all but a *small, fringe minority *in the scientific community into* stupid, incompetent tools* for this corporate/government conspiracy, all over the world, when the truth is so simple that *unqualified people on the internet* can easily understand it?_


----------



## Animus

Ed @ Mon Oct 11 said:


> chimuelo @ Mon Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CME Bank is where the elite ruling class have all placed their bets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh dear.. I don't think this is going to go well.. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our tax dollars have set up huge grants that have corrupted the " scientific " research and turned NASA into a Climatology Conglamorate instead of the worlds leading Space exploration facility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I know you believe in a conspiracy, I was looking for how you think its possible to turn all but a few fringe scientists into a bunch of bumbling incompetent morons and the rest into shills for this corporate conspiracy... but maybe you're getting to it, further on...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since our leaders have been corrupted by the process, this giant political machine will never be dismantled.
> We have allowed our ruling class to transfer the wealth of the middle class to China to ensure they prefer economic strength over military strength. This was wise to avert a future war as the 2 biggest kids on the block always end up having to square off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All I got from this was, _"conspiracy to controlz us by the evil rich bankers!"._
> 
> Not sure how that relates to my question though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line.
> The whores in DC have succeeded in ruining the middle class here in the USA, since they are all wealthy, this doesn't bother them much.
> So when you hear these liars targeting the wealthy Americans during one of their class warfare speeches, try and remain focused, as they are never going to tax themselves.
> 
> Cap & Trade is coming to a town near you.
> I hope you like it deep....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have absolutely no idea how you think this in any way whatsoever answers my question.
> 
> Will any GW "skeptic" even show they _understand_ the question?
> 
> Again:
> 
> _My question is regarding *HOW *this cap and trade is somehow *SO *lucrative that it can not only be *more profitable than oil* but also turn all but a *small, fringe minority *in the scientific community into* stupid, incompetent tools* for this corporate/government conspiracy, all over the world, when the truth is so simple that *unqualified people on the internet* can easily understand it?_
Click to expand...




Do you understand what derivatives and credit default swaps are? Do you remember what happened that caused the recent housing collapse and subsequent recession we are in? Do you understand what these "corporations" were doing that caused all this? That's a conspiracy theory that was real! Then our government bailed them out with our money while we got jackshit. Though I am guessing you think it was all the Republicans fault. So easy. lol I can see that you are a youngin' so you are probably full of ideals and don't understand how the real world works yet. The key for you to understand is how this new "market" of carbon credits will function. And it will operate exactly the same way these financial corporations did with the previous bubble. How is it more profitable than oil?!?! That's easy! Because you are making lot's of money selling absolutely nothing with the backing of the US taxpayer taking all the risk and expense! With oil, it's a finite, tangible commodity that costs a company money to produce. I think you need to do some research into all this yourself and stop listening to the silly propaganda anthems and soundbytes. I mean it's all good and grand your style of debating with somebody to disprove their theory is comparing them to Creationists or Truthers but that ain't going to get you any seats on a debating team. It takes actual knowledge and critical thinking skills to do that.


----------



## Ed

Animus @ Mon Oct 11 said:


> Do you understand what derivatives and credit default swaps are? Do you remember what happened that caused the recent housing collapse and subsequent recession we are in? Do you understand what these "corporations" were doing that caused all this? That's a conspiracy theory that was real!





> _Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, *it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning*_.


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

Sounds just like what you're promoting to me. 



> Then our government bailed them out with our money while we got jackshit. Though I am guessing you think it was all the Republicans fault. So easy. lol I can see that you are a youngin' so you are probably full of ideals and don't understand how the real world works yet.



Blah blah, I do wonder if you're going to get back to my question.



> The key for you to understand is how this new "market" of carbon credits will function. And it will operate exactly the same way these financial corporations did with the previous bubble. How is it more profitable than oil?!?! That's easy! Because you are making lot's of money selling absolutely nothing with the backing of the US taxpayer taking all the risk and expense! *With oil, it's a finite, tangible commodity that costs a company money to produce. *



Yea you're right, oil isn't really all that much of a money maker. :roll: 




> I think you need to do some research into all this yourself and stop listening to the silly propaganda anthems and soundbytes. I mean it's all good and grand your style of debating with somebody to disprove their theory is comparing them to Creationists or Truthers but that ain't going to get you any seats on a debating team. It takes actual knowledge and critical thinking skills to do that.



Unsurprisingly you have once again ignored my question and wrote a paragraph of waffle.

How does any of that turn all but a few fringe minority of scientists into bumbling idiots ready to sell their proverbial souls and professional reputations to this government/evil banker conspiracy? They are either all too scared, too stupid or too evil. Maybe you should pick one and stop dancing around the question I'm actually asking you.


----------



## Animus

Ed @ Tue Oct 12 said:


> Animus @ Mon Oct 11 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand what derivatives and credit default swaps are? Do you remember what happened that caused the recent housing collapse and subsequent recession we are in? Do you understand what these "corporations" were doing that caused all this? That's a conspiracy theory that was real!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal, or political conspiracy. However, *it has become largely pejorative and used almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
> 
> Sounds just like what you're promoting to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then our government bailed them out with our money while we got jackshit. Though I am guessing you think it was all the Republicans fault. So easy. lol I can see that you are a youngin' so you are probably full of ideals and don't understand how the real world works yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blah blah, I do wonder if you're going to get back to my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The key for you to understand is how this new "market" of carbon credits will function. And it will operate exactly the same way these financial corporations did with the previous bubble. How is it more profitable than oil?!?! That's easy! Because you are making lot's of money selling absolutely nothing with the backing of the US taxpayer taking all the risk and expense! *With oil, it's a finite, tangible commodity that costs a company money to produce. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea you're right, oil isn't really all that much of a money maker. :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to do some research into all this yourself and stop listening to the silly propaganda anthems and soundbytes. I mean it's all good and grand your style of debating with somebody to disprove their theory is comparing them to Creationists or Truthers but that ain't going to get you any seats on a debating team. It takes actual knowledge and critical thinking skills to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unsurprisingly you have once again ignored my question and wrote a paragraph of waffle.
> 
> How does any of that turn all but a few fringe minority of scientists into bumbling idiots ready to sell their proverbial souls and professional reputations to this government/evil banker conspiracy? They are either all too scared, too stupid or too evil. Maybe you should pick one and stop dancing around the question I'm actually asking you.
Click to expand...



wow, you are so clueless and drunk on koolaid it aint funny. It's pointless arguing with your blind zealotry. Kind of ironic though... you blather on about conspiracy theories yet it's only the global warming alarmists that have been caught red-handed in a conspiracy--CLIMATEGATE. Did read your boy Mann crying in the Post last week? He is whining because he knows he did wrong and will get lynched if the liberals lose power.

I never said oil wasn't profitable. You obviously didn't get what I was saying at all. Oil companies have pretty average profits.. Drug and electronic companies to name a few make twice as much profit as oil companies. It is estimated a carbon credit market would have a 600 trillion dollar volume. But it's obvious you have no understanding of finance or economy.

I thought your question was about cap n trade? You are just not reading stuff that has already been posted on how scientists and the scientific process has been corrupted. That has already been answered several times. There's lots of funding to be had for global warming research and danger to your career if you speak out against it. 

Anyway, I am done with you now. Your homework assignment is to try and go on the web and find excuses for the Holocene Maximum/Medieval Cooling Period and Climategate.


----------



## stevenson-again

sorry couldn't resist:



> Dr. Judith Curry was recently called a heretic by Scientific American due to her views on climate science and public policy. Here, in a post at he new blog, she shows her resolve to maintain her independence from consensus thinking and to ignore the slings and arrows.
> 
> She takes no prisoners with this missive where she asks a very direct and effective question:
> 
> Let me preface my statement by saying that at this point, I am pretty much immune to criticisms from my peers regarding my behavior and public outreach on this topic (I respond to any and all criticisms of my arguments that are specifically addressed to me.) If you think that I am a big part of the cause of the problems you are facing, I suggest that you think about this more carefully. I am doing my best to return some sanity to this situation and restore science to a higher position than the dogma of consensus. You may not like it, and my actions may turn out to be ineffective, futile, or counterproductive in the short or long run, by whatever standards this whole episode ends up getting judged. But this is my carefully considered choice on what it means to be a scientist and to behave with personal and professional integrity.
> 
> Let me ask you this. So how are things going for you lately? A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe. Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science. The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science. The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies. The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives. In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.
> 
> What happened? Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win? No, you lost. All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand. What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life. And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties. This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.




rad the full article here:

http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heres ... -monsters/


----------



## Ed

No one has answered the question yet, just thought I'd point that out. 

Animus, in an effort to ignore it, decides to pretend to have a problem with reading comprehension. I know what cap and trade is, my question, as I have said, relates to how this can be so lucrative that it creates mass conspiracy (or mass incompetence)among scientists other than a small fringe minority.

This will now be the 6th time Ive asked


----------

