# Anyone left who cares about climate change?



## noiseboyuk (May 1, 2012)

I'm gonna regret this thread. When it comes to this subject, I always do.

It seems to me that climate change has gone from something that causes many people genuine concern, passed through a loud phase of debate concerning whether or not it a) exists and b) we're responsible for it if it does, and has now arrived at the point where nobody cares any more one way or the other. In fact, I sense it's reached the point where even mentioning the terms "global warming" or "climate change" produces a blanket interest shutdown among the general public.

Which is all slightly alarming and bizarre to me, since a) the science continues to decrease the uncertainties and affirms that it is very much real and b) we're all experiencing the effects of it - far earlier than I expected, actually.

I'm a fool for starting the thread, because no matter how carefully I phrase this OP, it will end up in yet another debate about "is it real". Here's why that pisses me off. I'm just reading the outstanding book Merchants of Doubt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt - by science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. They start in the 1950s, and chart the "progress" of industry sponsored disinformation campaigns against scientific discoveries which threaten industries. Beginning with smoking/cancer, they then look at the ozone layer, secondhand smoking and acid rain. The same people and organisations come up again and again, using the same arguments and techniques - their famous slogan is "doubt is our product". They actually MANUFACTURE doubt, and either create it or massively inflate it. They were successful with smoking for nearly 40 years, creating a "debate" in the media where the science had long been settled to the point of beyond reasonable doubt, where confidence levels were above 90%. In every case shown, continual scientific progress eventually showed that independent science was right (despite being termed variously "Junk Science" or "Bad Science") and that the industry-funded contrararians were nothing more than self-interested lobbyists.

Which, of course, is precisely where we are with climate change. Athropogenic origin has been confirmed to over 90% confidence, and the conclusion embraced by every major independent scientific body in the world. 97% of working climate scientists always agree. Yet in the public, it's more like 50/50. Why? Because the merchants of doubt have, yet again, been supremely successful in exploding that 3%. It's what the public wants to hear. People would rather believe the lone, maverick voices (and point to the same 2 or 3 famous scientific incidents which usually have no bearing on the current issue) - especially when the conclusions are, to use a phrase, inconvenient. I'm passionate about scepticism - but that's what real scientists are. This isn't scepticism, it's a terrible misnomer, this campaign is propaganda.

Meanwhile, the data keep going in one direction. I watched this yesterday - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-1iBHAivmw&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-1iBHAi ... re=related) and especially pt 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAZue6ylZ8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTAZue6y ... re=related) , produced by the forum for climate change and the media at Yale university. It's an explanation regarding a lot of the recent extreme weather in the northern hemisphere, including the wild broken records in March in the USA. Some of it is a combination of the effects of climate change - and specifically the melting of arctic sea ice - and the resulting changes in the jetstream. As the temperate difference north and south of the jetstream decreases the velocity of the jetstream. This in turn makes it behave differently - it gets more wavy (more north / south component) and it tends to vary less, getting stuck in a "blocking pattern". So weather hangs around for longer - droughts and storms stick in one place, causing more extremes. Speaking of storms, with more overall heat, there's more moisture, so we can expect more rain overall - but more concentrated. So droughts followed by floods are to be expected (exactly our UK weather actually).

Yet nobody wants to discuss the link with climate change, because people are bored stiff buy it. I noticed the BBC's recent Horizon documentary about the weird weather - Global Weirding (which features in the Yale documentary), the terms were pretty much banned. It was absolutely assumed as a scientific given, but the terminology was scrupulously avoided, to stop people turning off.

So I put 2 and 2 together. The Merchants of Doubt have won. All the fuss over so called ClimateGate - which revealed nothing other than scientists get tetchy in private emails like everyone else. Pouncing on every shred of apparently contrary evidence - even when it usually doesn't even exist. And they've won - created so much heat and no light that people are bored to death. And when an electorate is bored, the chance of any political action is zero. So even while the extreme weather is hitting ordinary people incredibly hard even now - and we've seen nothing yet - nobody is clamouring for any action that would restore an environmental equilibrium. So the people who gave you lung cancer are once again winning. Doubtless in another 40 years all the debate will be finally over - long, long past the time any action will be possible.

As you can tell, I'm passionate about all this, but even I've essentially given up. I can't see a realistic path to any action that will make a shred of difference. I could before Copenhagen but not any more. I have a horrible feeling the war is over, and science has lost. And for that, we can all thank the people who gave us lung cancer - those Merchants of Doubt.


----------



## Udo (May 1, 2012)

In Australia a fixed-price carbon tax starts on 1 July this year, transitioning to a cap-and-trade ETS on 1 July 2015. Although the economy here is in better shape than most other countries', the main argument against the introduction was that, for the time being at least, Australia will be on its own.


----------



## hbuus (May 1, 2012)

I don't think people are bored with the subject. It's just that the (global) economy now takes up much more interest. When people are losing their jobs, their #1 priority is not climate change but instead job creation.

Best,
Henrik


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 1, 2012)

Both important points - nobody wants to be first. Good on Australia - you guys are suffering more than us in the northern hemisphere...

The economy has undoubtedly taken a lot of the attention away. It's pretty disastrous actually - it makes a critical situation far worse. There's a good argument that a war-footing is what's needed - take drastic action which ironically stimulates the economy. Don't think there's a hope in hell of that happening though - all the while the electorate are apathetic, there will be no will to fight it through / impose it.

How did Australia get their measures there, Udo? Is there more public support there now after the droughts and floods?


----------



## SergeD (May 1, 2012)

"Jesus is coming back brothers". Climate change is good business for the new era predicators. It could be the reason why people do not care anymore.

Climate change is something very hard to put numbers on. It could be caused by some unknown solar "flatulence" or by a Gulf Stream effect not discovered yet.

Yes, something happens now like it happens since millions of years. 

the bio diversity degradation, on the other side, has real numbers to make people thinking about our future. Scaring...


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 1, 2012)

SergeD @ Tue May 01 said:


> "Jesus is coming back brothers". Climate change is good business for the new era predicators. It could be the reason why people do not care anymore.
> 
> Climate change is something very hard to put numbers on. It could be caused by some unknown solar "flatulence" or by a Gulf Stream effect not discovered yet.
> 
> Yes, something happens now like it happens since millions of years.



And there it is - 5th post. All that vast quantity of independent science, but the work of the industry lobbyists wins. And what Serge says, around 50% of people in pubs and bars in the world say too, regardless of the science.

Sigh.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 1, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Tue May 01 said:


> SergeD @ Tue May 01 said:
> 
> 
> > "Jesus is coming back brothers". Climate change is good business for the new era predicators. It could be the reason why people do not care anymore.
> ...



What's 'independent' science Guy? No such thing mate. 

And anyway, the new gravy train is ocean acidification (ho ho). 

My advice: buy Damart and candles.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 1, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue May 01 said:


> What's 'independent' science Guy? No such thing mate.



Score another win for the lobbyists. That's the kind of debate that one gets sucked into now - some insane equivalence between "science" funded by an industry with an obvious commercial agenda versus academia - including the worlds institutes of learning and esteemed societies. It's now seen as two sides of the same coin.

Very dark days for science indeed.


----------



## Arbee (May 1, 2012)

Not preaching, just saying, but I'm very in favour of pro-active climate change management.

Reason is:

I'm not saying the pro human warming group is right or wrong, I'm just saying they "might" be right. If their worst case scenario is only 1% likely then I think we should pay attention.

Most of us have car insurance and life insurance on the remote off chance we might need it. Why is being proactive about climate change "in case" any different?

We've taken millions of years of laid-down carbon and thrown it back up in the air in just over hundred years. I really don't know then why human induced climate warming (or climatic instability as well as /instead) is such a stretch.

Furthermore, business will not embrace any change like this unless they have to. Look what happens when govts introduce and retire training levy tax support for business. The "oh-so-sincere" commitment to developing their staff evaporates magically overnight. Sorry, but I've been in the general business community for a long time in several roles and very rarely, with some very notable exceptions, will a company embrace things like this unless there is no choice. Sorry, you got me going o


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 1, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Tue May 01 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Tue May 01 said:
> 
> 
> > What's 'independent' science Guy? No such thing mate.
> ...



Guy, like I said, science isn't independent chap, never has been. You imagine so-called academic science to be free from agendas, ideology and commercial interests? Think again. 

Don't make the mistake of falling for the argumentum ad populum or the argumentum ad verecundiam or indeed as Arbee suggests above, the argumentum ad ignorantiam. All logical fallacies these, and always trotted out in support of a lack of empirical evidence. 

Cheers


----------



## Ed (May 1, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue May 01 said:


> Guy, like I said, science isn't independent chap, never has been. You imagine so-called academic science to be free from agendas, ideology and commercial interests? Think again.
> 
> Don't make the mistake of falling for the argumentum ad populum or the argumentum ad verecundiam or indeed as Arbee suggests above, the argumentum ad ignorantiam. All logical fallacies these, and always trotted out in support of a lack of empirical evidence.




There is a reason things like Creationism, homeopathy, anti-vaxx, paraspychology or 911 conspiracies have no mainstream scientific support. This may sound like "argumentum ad populum" but it really isn't, you certainly *can *look at the complete lack of support and make a reasonable judgement that there is a good reason behind this. To think there is another explanation is to require a huge global conspiracy, that is not a reasonable explanation. The GW "skeptics" have a few qualified adherents of course, just like all these other examples I gave also have, so thats nothing special. It must be remembered that if this does make a difference to you there are a whole lot more qualfied people saying those people are wrong. We might not 100% understand the science, after all we haven't spent years studying these topics like they have, what we can see is their behaviour and the defense of the people who believe the same things they do that lie and misrepresent in such a way that anyone can understand that they do it. For example if these people really cared about truth they would speak out against films like The Great Global Warming Swindle or people like Christopher Monckton or the "Oregon Petition", that even though they are global warming skeptics they despise these people for making them look bad with their lies, but you don't see that. If Global Warming really isnt happening, or isnt caused by humans then it requires a massive global conspiracy the likes of which we have never seen before. The skeptics are very loud and make it seem like there are more of them than there are, in reality they are a tiny minority in the climate scientific community and when you do not have the scientific knowledge to know exactly who is right there are other ways to make a judgement, and they lose. If someone is willing to defend GW skeptics' lack of support and demonstrably poor behaviour and ethics they have in effect also defended all those things I mentioned above at the same time for the same reasons.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 1, 2012)

> Don't make the mistake of falling for the argumentum ad populum or the argumentum ad verecundiam. All logical fallacies these, and always trotted out in support of a lack of empirical evidence.



You're the one falling for the logical fallacy that since the overwhelming majority of scientists know this is real, anyone who believes them must be falling for the argument to authority logical fallacy.

NBUK, unfortunately the merchants of doubt will lose just as badly as most of civilization. They haven't won.


----------



## José Herring (May 1, 2012)

The problem with the "Argument" is that it's become an argument and somewhat of a belief system. So now you're either a "believer" or your not. Both positions are absolutes and since there can be no absolutes in this universe both sides will pick each other apart trying to prove the other side wrong with very little real progress on the problem.

It's hard to imagine when confronted with a dichotomy like that that both sides can be right. The logical fallacy in solving human problems is that mankind to a large degree only thinks in black or white. Write and Wrong. True and False. Real or not real. Guilt or innocence ect... To a large part the scientific community falls into this category. 

To solve the problem then one must not think in absolutes one must think in degrees. Of course just by existing on planet earth we're fucking it up. Have been since the dawn of man. Any amount of construction or civilized progress is going to end up in destruction of something, races, animals, environment. It's a pipe dream to think that survival doesn't come at a price. Also, another pipe dream to think that the planet isn't going to become uninhabitable. It will some day.

So instead of climate change proponents trying to scare everybody about the inevitable and climate change deniers trying to deny the inevitable, we should be looking at ways in which we all come to realize that sooner or later this planet is going to get used up and finding ways to prolong the inevitable.

GW has been this whole umbrella that people have been trying to make change on a massive scale. Change rarely happens that way. That's the all or nothing approach. 

If we take up the factors that are destroying the planet one at a time then there could be a lot of progress made. But in today's political climate the idea of a nuanced type of thinking leading to a reasoned approach to solving problems is all but an impossibility.

Again, to solve the problem of GW we'll have to do it ourselves and to promote a culture that supports reducing the factors that are leading to our demise.


----------



## chimuelo (May 1, 2012)

The Atlantic Conveyor Belt is what is causing this weather trend we are seeing. It happened before we started keeping records, and seems to occur when excessive Ice melts and disrupts the Jet Stream. Excessive CO2 seems to connected to rising temps, so to deny these FACTS, is dangerous.
A powerful wealthy Nation with a Huge Industrial and Manufacturing base must work with Government in a united goal to lead the world away from Oil and Petroleum.
The USA started the Industrial age and IMHO, knowing the facts is responsible to lead us out of this dilemma by converting to Natural Gas and Clean Burning Coal.
Wind and Solar alone will never work, but can store and build their reserves for backup needs. 
I pay a relatively cheap price for Energy as we are using a Coal Plant I actually built back in 95 and was funded by the Federal Government. So while I cannot attest to the amount of CO2 it emits, I can say it is small in comparison to older Coal fired plants we are closing down, and certainly cleaner than Oil.

Whoever has a real energy policy that creates a new economy will get my vote.
Personally Obamas DOE, and EPA guys are killing us, and have too much power and too heavy of a hand as they shake down Industry for cash.
I am for the closing of the Coal Fired Plants that aren't designed like the one I built, thats common sense.
But this big bullying I see from DC these days must stop, as we are the ones getting hit at the pumps and grocery stores.
Perhaps Obama can get rid of George Soros appointees in a second term, as I don't believe he knew any of these clowns, and they were favors returned for campaign cash. 
Private Industry has so much more money than our broke down Government, so shaking them down will only send more money overseas.
Uniting in a way forward is what's needed.
Can we trust our 1%'r's' to do the right thing....?
I still have faith.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 1, 2012)

Well the thread is right on track.

Still, good post, Ed. Sadly Nick, I think those Merchants of Doubt will be among the very last to be affected, because they are very rich. The richest will last the longest.



josejherring @ Tue May 01 said:


> The problem with the "Argument" is that it's become an argument and somewhat of a belief system. So now you're either a "believer" or your not.



Let me stop you right there. I do see where you're coming from, but again actually this is part of the culture we're in now, where all is relative, and to take a position which accepts the overwhelming mainstream scientific consensus is seen as a "belief system", "divisive" and "taking sides" or even in some cases "extremist". They only side it is taking is that of overwhelming evidence, just as there is for - say - evolution. Is it reasonable to say that the arguments for and against evolution are both part of a belief system? Is the truth to be found somewhere in between?

No. The truth is that evolution is very very highly probable. That's not a belief system, it's an evidence based position.

Take something even less controversial - that the Earth is spherical. No joke - the modern variant was founded by a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Socity in 1956, according to their website. Yes, their website - the Flat Earth Society is a alive and well, and has "science" to back up their claims - http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/inde ... &Itemid=65 . So for those of us sphereists who think the world isn't flat - do we have a belief system?

No.

Meanwhile the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere goes up year on year due to anthropogenic origin, and the average temperatures keep rising, in line with experiments first conducted in the 1800s. It's pretty simple really, but people just don't want to accept it, usually for ideological reasons. Religion gets a hard time intellectually lately, but honestly I have more sympathy with many religious folks than those who - for whatever reason - continually cherry pick the science they believe in to suit their own ideological agenda. There are plenty of religious people who do not do that (and of course - in the interests of balance - it's worth pointing out that many more do precisely that, of course).

Still. Let's be positive for a moment. Australia has taken some pretty bold unilateral action. I'd love to know how they did it against what must have been some very stiff opposition. Maybe if the weather gets bad enough, people actually will be more convinced.. it's still hard for me to believe that they will be convinced enough to agree to an increased financial hardship as a result though. And belief based on weather is a double edged sword - observed phenomena can be very counterintuitive (v funny sketch here that has something for everyone - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQlHaGhYoF0 )


----------



## José Herring (May 1, 2012)

Ah, you're missing my point.

It's become a belief system because there's an overwhelming amount of data that gets thrown into the mix that is unsubstantiated and unverified or out right ignored or misunderstood. So anybody that even takes a look at the data empirically will come to the conclusion that there's a lot of phony stuff going on. And because people so "believe" in the "mainstream" scientific community it's easy for that community to cook data to support their view or their own pocket book. Get grant money so they can do more "research". So thus people argue, because the data isn't being accurately portrayed. NASA admitted as such and then when they did fix the data they didn't do a very good job. The graphs are not scaled correctly. But if you look at the graph carefully, I did, you'll see that in the past 100 years the mean global temperature has gone up less than 1 degree. If you break it up by region you'll see that GW is regional and that in some place the the mean GT hasn't gone up at all.

Not only that, but the NASA graph only tracks temperature anomalies (irregularities) rather than actual temperatures. I found a graph once that tracked mean temperatures for 100 years and it actually showed no warming at all. These where taken from a weather station in Utah.

Also GW proponents say that GW is accelerating. But, the graphs show a steady increase. So there's another lie.

But, if you try to tell some people these facts, they'll practically spit in your face or call you stupid. So I've come to the conclusion that in many cases you're dealing with zealots on the GW side. They'll believe anything that supports their "belief". Thus obfuscating the real facts. So then nothing will be done about it because you can't make satisfactory answers to problems without accurate data. The correct data is out there. But its not likely to be believed by people that can't suspend their beliefs and look at the facts unbiased. So right now with respects to GW we have a dichotomy of beliefs resulting in a stalemate.

I've found in the last few years that if you're dealing with a left wing ideology or a right wing one you're dealing with a person that can't really reason, but that holds certain things to be true and then reasons from those beliefs. But, rarely do they examine if the actual beliefs are correct in themselves. Thus a lot of wrong answers ensue from faulty data.

I actually believe in GW. I think the problem is real and though not too damaging at the moment, it will be in about 200 years and the time to act to fix it is now.



José


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 1, 2012)

> The richest will last the longest.



Right, but it's location that determines the ultimate winners and losers. Siberia will be a winner, and Southern California will be a loser (because we depend on snow from the Sierras). 

Wall St. will be underwater.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 1, 2012)

[quote="josejherring @ Tue May 01, 2012 1:29 pm

I've found in the last few years that if you're dealing with a left wing ideology or a right wing one you're dealing with a person that can't really reason, but that holds certain things to be true and then reasons from those beliefs. But, rarely do they examine if the actual beliefs are correct in themselves. 
José[/quote]

Yep.


----------



## chimuelo (May 1, 2012)

Exactamente.
I avoid the left / right freak show.
It's just the 1% creating Sheep fights...

But that average of 1 degree Jose spoke of was enough to change the weather though, so we really do live in a fragile world, and in the end when our time is up, it's up. Little Electric Cars that need Coal burned to drive aren't going to save us.

But still Natural Gas could make our economy scream. The true rulers of the USA and Europe surely must see this. My Roomie is making bank extracting it right now. He runs the water contamination trucks, but even that job is paying 1500 cash a week for 58 hours work...
It's actually the Federal Government and Big Oil investing in this from what I hear, but I have no data to support that other than water jockey talk.
But it wouldn't surprise me as I never hear about the Coal Burning Plants I built, ever.
But again, Nevada is a Federally owned State, 90% of the land is theirs, and even the IRS was running the Whore Houses in Story County for a while.
So the Feds just confuse me all of the time and leave me with a sense that somebody other than these assholes in Congress, the Senate and the White House are taking care of business, and they are just for show.......


----------



## Ed (May 1, 2012)

josejherring @ Tue May 01 said:


> Ah, you're missing my point.
> 
> It's become a belief system because there's an overwhelming amount of data that gets thrown into the mix that is unsubstantiated and unverified or out right ignored or misunderstood. So anybody that even takes a look at the data empirically will come to the conclusion that there's a lot of phony stuff going on. And because people so "believe" in the "mainstream" scientific community it's easy for that community to cook data to support their view or their own pocket book. Get grant money so they can do more "research". So thus people argue, because the data isn't being accurately portrayed. NASA admitted as such and then when they did fix the data they didn't do a very good job. The graphs are not scaled correctly. But if you look at the graph carefully, I did, you'll see that in the past 100 years the mean global temperature has gone up less than 1 degree. If you break it up by region you'll see that GW is regional and that in some place the the mean GT hasn't gone up at all.



And where do you get this information from Jose? You've obviously read some article on some website somewhere or watched some "documentary" like the Great Global Warming Swindle and believed it just because it seems to agree with your own politics. I find it highly unlikely you are a trained climate scientist so you have just believed whatever they said when what they said requries a massive conspiracy or all of them being complete idiots that cant figure out something an untrained composer can figure out with a few minutes of googling.

You believe the tiny minority that can be easily show to lie and defend liars, lies so obvious anyone can understand it. And yet all they can do to show fraud in GW climate science is the "climategate" emails, which show nothing except more lies from the "skeptics" that intentionally pretend they mean something they don't because like all these pseudoscientists they love to quote-mine.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 1, 2012)

Ed @ Tue May 01 said:


> josejherring @ Tue May 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, you're missing my point.
> ...



Ed, you have no idea how much or how little reading or research Jose' has done so just because he has reached different conclusions than you does not mean he is less informed. He may in fact be MORE informed for all you know and you are not a scientist yourself I believe, correct?


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 1, 2012)

The right wing reality deniers are at it again with women's pay. Data shows that women are paid 71 cents on the dollar, compared to men. You can break it down profession by profession and they consistently lose. The data is overwhelming.

I saw it close up. About 20 years ago, I started managing a group and when I saw one female's pay compared to her colleagues, I went straight to my boss to request an off-cycle raise for her. She got 20 percent and was still behind. Another on-cycle 20 percent raise got her back on track.

But now the right denies that women are paid less. Alex Castellanos claims that men work 44 hours while women work 41 hours. (Okay, that's 7 percent. Where's the other 14? And why isn't the boss offering women overtime?) He claims that men go into higher paying professions, like engineering. (But Alex, the data is broken out by profession and women lose out time and time again.)

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/04/top-gop-strategist-says-there-is-no-pay-gap-for-women.php (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/ ... -women.php)

I can understand somebody hearing something all their lives, buying into it, and having a hard time buying new data. But in the women's pay case, they just flat out deny the common wisdom as well as the data without significant data to make their case.

I have only one conclusion. They don't believe reality simply because they don't want to believe reality. This isn't a case of "I have a few facts against the status quo." This is a case of "I don't believe the status quo or the facts - and I can use nothing but confusion and doubt to make my case."

Some "analysts" aren't fit to analyze anything.


----------



## Ed (May 1, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 01 said:


> Ed, you have no idea how much or how little reading or research Jose' has done so just because he has reached different conclusions than you does not mean he is less informed. He may in fact be MORE informed for all you know and you are not a scientist yourself I believe, correct?



Actually I know for certain (as well as anyone can) that Jose is not a climate change expert, Jay. 

The point you miss (because you always miss the point) is that if what Jose said is true then he proposes a massive worldwide conspiracy within all climate science. How else would YOU explain why these experts cant apparently see something so obvious Jose, a composer with no climate science training, can destroy GW theory in a few lines on an internet forum?

Its like when 911 conspiracy theorists claim NIST is part of conspiracy to lie about the collapse of the towers, when it wouldnt just need to be NIST, it would need to be the entire engineering and scientiifc community of the world. Even if you know nothing about the subject you can see which side is proposing the most ludicrous unreasonable unlikely suggestions here and you can see who is defending the liars, quote-miners, and those that misrepresent on a habitual basis here.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 1, 2012)

Ed @ Tue May 01 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed, you have no idea how much or how little reading or research Jose' has done so just because he has reached different conclusions than you does not mean he is less informed. He may in fact be MORE informed for all you know and you are not a scientist yourself I believe, correct?
> ...



IMHO what Jose' is pointing out is that there is a huge mix of "experts" who write about this stuff and many have an agenda. Those on the left embrace the "science" that supports what they already believe and those on the right do the same thing. They are equally misguided.


----------



## Ed (May 1, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Tue May 01 said:


> IMHO what Jose' is pointing out is that there is a huge mix of "experts" who write about this stuff and many have an agenda. Those on the left embrace the "science" that supports what they already believe and those on the right do the same thing. They are equally misguided.



And you could just as ignorantly say the same about Creationism, anti-vaxx, 911 conspiracy theories or AIDS denialism and you'd be just as wrong for the same reasons.

As I added in an edit you replied to before I had a chance to post it, if its not a massive global conspiracy how else would you explain why these experts cant apparently see something so obvious someone like Jose, a composer with no climate science training, can so easily destroy GW theory in a few lines on an internet forum? Either its a huge conspiracy or they are all utter morons or apart of some mass delusion.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 1, 2012)

josejherring @ Tue May 01 said:


> Ah, you're missing my point.



Sadly I don't think I am. And the line "anybody that even takes a look at the data empirically will come to the conclusion that there's a lot of phony stuff going on" tells me so.

It's perfectly fine to adopt a position that holds all mainstream science to be fundamentally flawed, that any ordinary Joe can see obvious truths that elude the professionals in academia who have dedicated their lives to assessing such matters in their own areas of expertise - fine. I passionately believe you are wrong however, that whatever flaws that exist in the scientific method in the real world, they are immeasurably superior to any alternative. What must be true however, is that you must be equally sceptical of ALL scientific claims - that's a consistent position, not based on cherry picking facts to suit your own ideology.

And here come the various claims picked up and thrown around on the blogsphere, right on cue. I have absolutely no interest in following them - been there done that, T shirt worn until threadbare. It's a complete waste of time, and another victory for the merchants of doubt. But how can I be so cavalier?

Well, unlike you, I do believe in the scientific method. If there is an error in a peer-reviewed paper that makes it past peer review (it does happen), the scientific process will in due course find that error. That is the very essence of the scientific method. This is what happened in the high profile cases where the mainstream view was incorrect - science was done, and any incorrect assumptions were overturned. Facts ultimately win, errors ultimately lose.

That's what I listen to - peer reviewed science, and the institutions that support it. As and when any of them report a major error in their understanding of anthropogenic climate change, or even revise their confidence downwards, I'll accept it in a hearbeat - because that's science at work, not an ideaologically driven blogsphere. Instead, the reverse is the case - confidence increases, uncertainty decreases, as year on year more research is carried out. Not that anyone reading the blogsphere will know that.

Of course the stock answer to all that is that academia is now some liberal left wing club which produces self-sustaining papers to get its own funding. Which is why I say these are very dark days indeed for scientific progress. A huge percentage of the public no longer have either the basic trust or the critical faculties to differentiate between fact and fiction. They assess that an airport thriller tale of wild conspiracy at the heart of mainstream science is more plausible than diversionary tactics employed by the trillion dollar industries who see their profit margins under threat from any form of regulation. Exactly the same happened with cigarettes, CFCs, control of pollution for acid rain - never mind that all those, after decades were finally proven, all the "junk science" shown to be correct and the hysterical claims of attacks on democratic freedom shown to be alarmist nonsense. History is repeating itself yet again, only this time the stakes are higher than any of those cases, so the volume is turned up to ear-bleeding levels. And which is why now so few people care about climate change. All people hear is claim and counter claim, deduce that "nothing is settled" and switch off. All as a result of very highly funded, extremely well organised and targeted spin. People waste so much energy on dumb conspiracy theories such as 9/11, moon landings etc etc - yet ignore the real thing when it is staring them in the face.

Nick - the point is that when California has drunk the last drop of water dry, the rich will easily move to where they are most comfortable, and win any wars necessary to get there.

Jay - I'm afraid, again, this is the line of lobbysts. Someone has looked into the evidence and reached a different conclusion. It entirely misses the point. None of us here - unless I am mistaken - is a qualified, practicing climate scientist. So we should all seek the collective wisdom of the academic community, and in this case the result is absolutely, colossoly overwhelming, nearly hitting 100% confidence. The views of that tiny, microscopic, slender band of qualified men and women who have a contrary position are elevated to the status of equal plausibility, just as the president of the Flat Earth Society was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society, there will always be an esoteric voice to listen to for the curious. So Ed doesn't need to know the first principle of climate science - nor does Jose, nor you or I. All we need to do is when there is a consensus view of the most qualified academics in the world, have the humility to accept their collective wisdom.



JonFairhurst @ Tue May 01 said:


> I have only one conclusion. They don't believe reality simply because they don't want to believe reality.



Interesting parallel example, Jon - all news to me. Hard to disagree with your conclusion with regard to climate change - it wouldn't be a surprise to find it in other threatening areas of social policy like equality.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 1, 2012)

Understood NBUK.

Jay wrote:



> They are equally misguided.



I'm sorry, but that's frustratingly ridiculous.

This is the same argument we get into all the time about politics: even though you have the intelligence to agree with me 99.9% of the time - which is to say that you're almost always right - you want to pretend that idiotic opinions are equally worthy of respect.

Well, they're not, and for one simple reason: THEY'RE IDIOTIC!


----------



## Udo (May 1, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Tue May 01 said:


> .... How did Australia get their measures there, Udo? Is there more public support there now after the droughts and floods?


It was passed in Parliament last year. Don't think the floods were a significant factor. The policy development was completed before that. 

Substantial measures to eliminate the impact on low and middle income earners play an important part. Of course, the conservative opposition started a major scare campaign, distorting the facts, etc, e.g. they conveniently ignore that a large part of electricity price increases is due to major upgrades to the electricity grid (which had been neglected for many years).

[align=center]________________________[/align]
If you want to get a reasonably informed opinion based on available research yourself, look at:
- the scope of the research and calibre of the reserchers involved 
- the funding source(s) behind the research

By far the majority of scientists conclude that climate change is real and human factors have a significant impact. Most of the contrary findings are funded by "commercial interests".

BTW, I'm not a "Greeny".


----------



## Udo (May 1, 2012)

For some details and the impact of Australia's implementation check www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-chan ... 1lkpc.html (note that this was published last year, i.e. when they talk about next year, they refer to July this year).

From July 2015 things will change somewhat, as the a cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme will come into effect.


----------



## chimuelo (May 1, 2012)

At least Aussies are being honest and admitting they cant lower emissions, so the 23.85 per ton of C02 goes to building a new power grid.
We will be seeing this in the States as well, that's why so many 401k and Pensions are hedged now where as before they were strictly energy based investments.

Big Oil is actually the partner the Feds need, so instead of bashing them with wierdos from College like the moron who just resigned from the EPA, they need to partner up and move this economy away from Oil, while importing and using it until the proper time, which any person with small math skills can see is not now.

You got to give credit to the Aussies for at least having honest leaders who aren't falsifying data to push an agenda. but if you are emitting enough tons of C02 into the atmosphere to pay 200 Million+ in fines, and the CC rate is 23.85 AU per ton, I see that as a motivator to find a way to reduce emissions, and until then help build a new grid.

We still will never control the Earths Climate, but tempurature and C02 amounts seem to follow each other as Ice Cores from Antarctica reveal.
The problem with Al Gore's scam was he never showed the data from when the Ice Age actually ended, but rather the natural rise of tempuratures that always follow.

Let's watch Austrailia and try and find honest leaders that can show us the benefits of less C02 in the atmosphere. Then maybe some real representatives. I would love to see Bernie Sanders unleashed on the wealthy Liberals and Conservatives.
He calls himself a Socialist, and I don't see it that way. I see him as a real representive of the Middle Class, and not just the poor or the wealthiest donors like we see right now with the freak show that rips us off every year and fails at everything it tries to do.....

Hats Off To the Honest Leaders in Austrailia, that actually are solving problems. o-[][]-o


----------



## bdr (May 1, 2012)

The 'honest leaders' in Australia went to the election with a clear statement of 'there will be no carbon tax under a govt. I lead' only for them to introduce one immediately due to political expediency so they could grab power in a coalition with the Greens.

We are going to pay an insane tax that will do absolutely nothing to the environment. Even if we were to consider that one should be brought in, to quote from the Age newspaper 'Australia's policy would knock 0.0038 degrees off the global temperature rise by 2100.' Meanwhile the IPCC model is way off with it;s predictions for the last 13 years.

Wow! Our reduction of carbon over years will be offset by China's use in only a few weeks.

Most people in Australia are now turned off the carbon tax because it was brought in by a dishonest government, will cause further massive price rises in power and will do nothing.When China, India and the US does it, talk to us. I can barely afford my ridiculous power bill as it is. Companies are going to go to the wall, and plenty of jobs will be lost.

The other turn off factor is seeing the idiotic hyperbole of some of the pro-change advocates. We have a 'Climate Commissioner" who is paid $180,000 of taxpayer money and has made statements in that recent past that all Australia's cities will dry up, only for them now to have their dams comfortably full.

There is a poem called 'My Australia', written in 1904. Here is the 2nd verse:

"I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!"

Maybe climate change was happening back then? How else to explain the droughts and floods?


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 1, 2012)

I'll take a closer look at the Australian situation later, but bdr's response is what means that there won't be collective global action, and why Copenhagen really was the last chance at all - gone. I'm still genuinely depressed about it.

"China" is the one word answer that shuts down all debate, all attempts at turning this oil tanker around (if you will). The problem may be scientifically unarguable at this point, but equally unarguable is that the problem is so great it's too late to realistically do anything about it. The momentum in the system is colossol - we're already at the point where if were to collectively act now on reducing emissions, the year-on-year cuts are eye watering, and it's hard to conceive of how they could be implemented. With each year of delay, implausibility turns to impossibility. And with an apathetic public and zero motivation in the majority of the global political system, effective reductions are tragically in the realms of fantasy.

As I see it - and I say this with all reluctance - some kind of techno fix is the only hope, started at a time where the situation is becoming so dire that the current absurd manufactured debate is finally over (and people on internet forums like this stop misquoting Al Gore and believing that they know better than the world's leading experts). Most of the current propositions seem incredibly flawed and risk making things worse, but there are a few clever ideas out there. James Lovelock has what I think is the most promising:



> "We propose a way to stimulate the Earth's capacity to cure itself, as an emergency treatment for the pathology of global warming ... The oceans, which cover more than 70% of the Earth's surface, are a promising place to seek a regulating influence. One approach would be to use free-floating or tethered vertical pipes to increase the mixing of nutrient-rich waters below the thermocline with the relatively barren waters at the ocean surface ...Such an approach may fail, perhaps on engineering or economic grounds. And the impact on ocean acidification will need to be taken into account ... But the stakes are so high that we put forward the general concept of using the Earth system's own energy for amelioration. The removal of 500 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide from the air by human endeavour is beyond our current technological capability. If we can't 'heal the planet' directly, we may be able to help the planet heal itself."



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7161/full/449403a.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 9403a.html)

That's the sort of thinking that is required, because we're looking at the inevitability of sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere somehow, it's too late to reverse the amount we are putting in. Of course at some point this has to be addressed too, because we'll be in the situation of having the fan heater and the aircon switched on at the same time. The point is - we now need the aircon, switching off the fan heater isn't going to cool us down on its own any more.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 2, 2012)

You mean this James Lovelock Guy? 

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... hange?lite


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 2, 2012)

Just to address a few other points from BDR's post....

BDR raises a typical lobbyist technique of saying something completely false, but just saying it enough. The IPCC's projections have been consistently accurate. Reality has shown an upward curve pretty much bang on the median of the original 1990 projections - http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons ... c-far.html . and http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons ... pdate.html - pretty impressive, given how much more knowledge we have acquired in the past 20 years. None of this matters though, cos people can still type “IPCC projections have been way off” and that's all people hear. Nobody bothers to fact check, or even if by some miricle they do run a Google search they might inadvertently stumble into the blogsphere full of misinformation, rather than genuine academic / scientific sites. There are still absurd memes highly visible on deniar websites – such as volcanoes produce 500x more emissions than man per year etc etc – that are totally false and always have been. But once an idea is out there, it has traction, even if it has no basis in fact. That's one of the core tools of the professional doubt industry, and it's a reason why the problem with Climate Change is more severe than previous problems such as smoking / tobacco and ozone depletion - the internet naturally propogates myth more successfully than fact, it seems. If people believe whatever they want to believe - and they surely do - and you give them the tools to spread those beliefs, you get the Internet.

Also, bdr appeals to folk wisdom or fallible intuition rather than science. There have always been floods and drought in Australia. Of course there have. The issue is - will these get more frequent and / or extreme? The science says an unequivocal "yes". A useful analogy is the one of the loaded dice - you throw 6s with an unloaded die, and you still throw 1s occasionally with a loaded one. That leads to the Armstrong and Miller sketch, where every time there's a cold snap or a miserable day, people mumble "so much for Global Warming, eh?"

Another important point to note is that the current temperature rise is tiny - 0.8 degrees since pre-industrial levels (with most of that occurring since 1990). One of the problems, it's always seemed to me, is that this will take many generations to really bite. The problem there is that we don't care about many generations. Parents might worry about the world their children are born into. Some might even think about their grandchildren. But even the best parents couldn't give a toss about their great great great great great great great great great great grandchildren, who may be the ones living in a genuinely hellish climate. It's too remote for the human mind to empathetically comprehend.

But that said, that's why some of the current extreme weather has surprised me. The March record temperatures in the USA - including the frankly unbelievable stats that overnight lows broke previous record monthly highs, and records smashed by up to 30 degrees ("not just off the charts, but off the walls that the charts are pinned to") - have been linked to the jetstream, whose changing patterns are being linked to climate change. Significantly, the north pole has experienced the greatest increase in average temperature, and this appears to be linked to the behaviour of the jetstream. So the point is - if we're getting freakish 30 degree rises in a world of 0.8 degrees warming, one wonders what 4, 5 or 6 degrees average warming will bring. No doubt the scientific reality will be complex - it doesn't follow that the extremes will be THAT much more extreme due to the same single mechanism - but it certainly doesn't fill me with confidence.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 2, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:


> You mean this James Lovelock Guy?
> 
> http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... hange?lite



Yes indeed - and look at what he says there. Two things - 1) the extremes haven't happened in the way he though yet. But yet we have had 2 months ago 30 degree rises in record temperatures, so perhaps he was premature there? And 2) he says we will adapt by using the kind of technologies he discusses. In other words - things won't be too bad IF we change behaviour.

Lovelock is a great guy, I have loads of time for him. And I've definitely agreed that by playing up short term problems, people shoot themselves in the foot. My recent surprise - and why I started this post, partly - is that actually it HAS been worse than I thought already.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 2, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed May 02 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:
> 
> 
> > You mean this James Lovelock Guy?
> ...



How so? What has been the temperature increase over the past 15 years Guy?


----------



## Udo (May 2, 2012)

Yes, bdr seems to have been "sucked in" by the histeria, misnformation and outright lies of the opposition coalition in Australia, in particular by it's "leader without policies", Tony "no no no" Abbott.

With the compensation from the govt, most people will not be worse off and some will actually be slightly better off. Only about 10%, the top earners, will see some impact. That govt compensation is financed with the tax it receives from the roughly 500 big-emitting companies in Australia, who will pay for each tonne of carbon they emit.

@chimuelo, that money is not going to building a new power grid - see the paragraph immediately above (the grid needed to be fixed - that process started a few years ago and the opposition pretends that the cost increase caused by that is related to the carbon tax, which of course it isn't).

@bdr, if people are turned off by that tax, it's because they don't understand that they don't pay that tax, only the roughly 500 big CO2 emitting companies pay the tax. The money raised is used for various types of compensation the govt provides to the people to counter price increases - look/listen to the info in the link I provided earlier -


Udo @ Wed May 02 said:


> For some details and the impact of Australia's implementation check www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-chan ... 1lkpc.html (note that this was published last year, i.e. when they talk about next year, they refer to July this year).
> 
> From July 2015 things will change somewhat, as the a cap-and-trade Emissions Trading Scheme will come into effect.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 2, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Wed May 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Lovelock is a great guy, I have loads of time for him. And I've definitely agreed that by playing up short term problems, people shoot themselves in the foot. My recent surprise - and why I started this post, partly - is that actually it HAS been worse than I thought already.
> ...



0.67 degrees C between 1990 and 2007, I believe. Not much on the face of it. But as I've explained, that's already producing extremes where records are smashed by 30 degrees - because the north pole is warming fastest and affecting the jetstream. Honestly I'd have thought before it happened breaking a record by that much was practically impossible. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/04/feeling-the-heat-march-shattered-temperature-records-across-us.html (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/201 ... ss-us.html)

There's now been quite bit of peer reviewed work to see about attribution - can this be said to be caused by climate change? In terms of probability, it can, but not in absolute terms. Broadly we're already twice as likely to experience extreme weather as we were before 1990. Unlikely source for an interesting blog on this - Shell! - http://blogs.shell.com/climatechange/2012/04/extreme/ . More on a Nature paper here - http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110216/ ... 0316a.html


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 2, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed May 02 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:
> 
> 
> > noiseboyuk @ Wed May 02 said:
> ...




Why stop at 2007 Guy? Even Prof Phil Jones of the CRU states that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.


----------



## SergeD (May 2, 2012)

Guy,

Sorry for being a troublemaker. That was not the goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
At that time, a Jesus freak could have easily proclamed "Shame on you brothers, our father is mad and your gonna freeze for a while!"

That was the point. I do not believe the bubble makers (like Gore) debating what's true and what's wrong. They could relate the growing cows population in the US Midwest with the increasing twisters occurences. Are there cows in Alaska? Are there twisters in Alaska? 

The game is already over with the permafrost thawing in Artic. Our next step now is to replace petroleum with a clean energy supplier.


----------



## Ed (May 2, 2012)

bdr @ Tue May 01 said:


> There is a poem called 'My Australia', written in 1904. Here is the 2nd verse:
> 
> "I love a sunburnt country,
> A land of sweeping plains,
> ...



This is a joke right? This is making fun of stupid questions by GW skeptics right?


----------



## Ed (May 2, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:


> Why stop at 2007 Guy? Even Prof Phil Jones of the CRU states that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.



A great example of a quote-mine. I wonder where you read this, was it the Daily Mail or maybe some other GW "skepic" website?

I suggest you watch this video below about that quote by Phil Jones and find out what he really said and how the "skeptics" have intentionally taken him out of context to try and make out he said something he didn't. You also don't seem to know what statistical significance means. 

As I said before, gw "skeptics" have to end up defending liars in order to continue to make their arguments. Will you after knowing what Jones really said accept that the "skeptics" you heard this from are lying? A good hint that they are probably lying to you is when they try and make out a climate scientist has somehow done a uturn and said something that appears contradictory to everything else they have been saying for years, such is the case with the Phil Jones quote.


----------



## hbuus (May 2, 2012)

Climate change effects must not yet be sufficiently visible to the public at large, because if it was, people would start poking their politicians, wanting them to do something about it. Isn't that so?

Or maybe the effects are happening gradually. So slowly that we don't recognize them.
Or maybe the effects are as of yet mostly happening in places with very little "global interest", for example Africa, Greenland etc.?

I don't know. I just think that if people in Western countries and BRIC-nations could connect events in their every day life to the effects of climate change, people would demand action?

But I gotta say, those effects of climate change would have to be pretty bad for people to want to devote cash to preventing it instead of devoting cash to creating jobs in a situation with a bad economy. In the current situation, economy and job creation takes #1 priority for sure.

Best,
Henrik


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 2, 2012)

Ed @ Wed May 02 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Why stop at 2007 Guy? Even Prof Phil Jones of the CRU states that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.
> ...




BBC.


----------



## Ed (May 2, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:


> BBC.



At first I thought this was some internet slang I wasnt aware of. Who cares if its the BBC? Does that mean you read the quote in context and still implied he said something he never did?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 2, 2012)

Ed @ Wed May 02 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:
> 
> 
> > BBC.
> ...



I'm a bit busy writing music to be debating and engaging in this stuff at the moment, but I don't get what you're saying? Are you suggesting that the interview he gave to the BBC (here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm ) is false?


----------



## Ed (May 2, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:


> I'm a bit busy writing music to be debating and engaging in this stuff at the moment, but I don't get what you're saying? Are you suggesting that the interview he gave to the BBC (here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm ) is false?



I gave you a link to a video that explains it, find time to watch it. 

There is no way you can fit what Phil Jones said into any anti-GW theory. If you want to explain exactly why you think it can be it will very easily show that you don't know what you're reading or you cherry picked that one line.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 2, 2012)

Ed @ Wed May 02 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a bit busy writing music to be debating and engaging in this stuff at the moment, but I don't get what you're saying? Are you suggesting that the interview he gave to the BBC (here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm ) is false?
> ...



Whatever you say Ed.


----------



## Ed (May 2, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:


> Whatever you say Ed.



When you have some time and can actually explain what you meant with the Phil Jones quote rather than having only time for one line handwaves I'm sure people interested in the topic would appreciate it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 2, 2012)

Gore nailed six years ago: the truth is inconvenient.


----------



## chimuelo (May 2, 2012)

Gore is the reason that it is taking too long for the real data to be conclusive.
His politicizing and profitting, and the falsified data from hackers pretty much put the movement to a screeching halt.
Anyone who loves the outdoors and conservationalism actually do much more to help than these elites who fly to Global Warming Summits, then hop in Limos to the conference, where most likely they are talking about what to do with the rest of us.

Las Vegas had a terrible drought, but citizens actually are engaged with their local officials and cut back. The water cops started fining people who waste water, which actually were very few and we avoided rationing water.

Common sense and real leadership can make a big difference, but when you see people trying to turn this into a financial scam, and taking money from Enviromental groups and not using it to build anything, but rather buy more politicians, it's easy to become disengaged.

We have closed many Coal Burning Plants which was wise IMHO. If they want to make money now, they only need to invest in retooling their process.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/7318510/The-P ... le-Project

I built this place 16 years ago when I lived in Tahoe, and in the Winter you see steam coming from these stacks, not smoke. If it does emit C02 it must be a very small amount, and that plant actually powers much more than Reno-Tahoe.

So if private industry won't clean up their own mess, somebody else will do it for them, but their shareholders won't be happy.

http://www.fnno.com/story/52-week-high- ... igh-lows-1


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 2, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 02 said:


> Why stop at 2007 Guy? Even Prof Phil Jones of the CRU states that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.



I stopped at 2007 cos that's when the FAR was published, and the data for the first link I found. I did link earlier this - http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons ... pdate.html - which has the most recent years. 2010 was the 2nd warmest year on record, 2009 the 6th warmest, and the overall trend continues to rise.

As Ed pointed out, you seem to be seriously misquoting - or misunderstanding - Phil Jones.

But no-one's mind is ever changed by these discussions. People believe whatever they want to, and chose to interpret everything with that framework. I've said exactly when I'll change my mind - when the peer reviewed science shows any change, and the institutions such as the Royal Society, Met Office, NOAA, NASA etc change their position. Out of interest, Stephen - or anyone else for that matter - what would cause you to change yours?


----------



## snowleopard (May 2, 2012)

I would say there are a few other things at play here. 

First, an irresponsible media which is devoid of much investigative journalism. What I mean by this, is that shows like 60 Minutes or Frontline make up about 2% of all reporting or news. The rest of it is filled with news outlets focused on infotainment and profits for shareholders though sales. So they spend very little time looking hard into details or verifying anything. They also are paranoid about seeming biased and thus losing viewers, or having the screaming 2% from the extremes from each side blasting them for bias. So they'll hear a story from a press report, and to get a counter view they'll contact someone from "the opposing side" and give their view as well. Even if that view is not based in any factual or verifiable anything. 

I also blame the masses for not looking into issues like this more to understand them. 

I also blame the masses, and media, and politicians for not concentrating on solutions. 

I also blame the government for failing to provide good education in general. As the old saying goes, if you think education is expensive, try ignorance.


----------



## Arbee (May 2, 2012)

Lively debate, OK - one more dive into the pool o=< 

Why must people take sides and polarise this debate? Shouldn't it be a risk management debate, not a "right or wrong" thing. While much of the science may be accurate based on the data we have, the world has been around for a very long time and we can't be sure about the compound effects of the world's numerous natural climate cycles. We DO know however that we've dug up the world's carbon and sent it skywards in a very short time, and this MAY be a problem.

If we focus on clean energy instead of who's right or wrong, I think we'll be getting somewhere.


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 2, 2012)

Not only clean energy, but energy efficiency.

Anybody who claims to be for fiscal responsibility should be for getting the same performance out of less fuel or electricity. That stuff ain't free.

Hint: The next time someone pounds their fist and says they're for fiscal responsibility, ask why they drive a big truck or SUV.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 2, 2012)

Snow - you're right about the media. Investigative journalism is expensive, recycling PR is cheap. It's another tactic the lobbyists use very effectively. Also, much of the media isn't independent at all of course - the legendary Fox News has its own political agenda to pursue.

Arbee - the problem is that (sorry to say it again) people believe whatever they want to. Risk management assumes that you'll assess based on evidence. And people simply disregard the evidence they don't like.

Look at where we are. In the 19th Century, we know that CO2 was a warming gas, by experiment. We know our atmosphere contains greenhouses gasses - without them we'd have no life on Earth at all, we need them. We can measure how much CO2 is there, and we can measure global temperature. We can see that the concentration of a gas which warms is increasing rapidly, we know we're putting vast amounts of CO2 up there, we'd expect the world to warm accordingly and lo and behold - it is. It is straightforward cause and effect, with a predicted outcome that is measurable and verifiable in the real world.

But just in case Occam's Razor does not apply, all the cleverest minds in academia have produced literally thousands of scientific papers to measure, check and double check. They look at natural cycles, positive and negative feedbacks, uncertainties and go over every scrap of detail with a forensic toothcomb. With overwhelming confidence, they say that this is precisely what is happening. Since 1990 they've predicted how it will pan out, and they've been bang on accurate so far.

Meanwhile, they've also shown that as a result of this verifiable warming, the probability of our extreme weather events has already doubled. They've assessed that was warming increases, the extreme weather will further increase. Most alarmingly, they show that once the temperature rise goes above 2 degrees globally, positive feedbacks will kick in that will mean the Earth's own natural systems will cause that warming to increase on its own, even if we don't put another molecule of CO2 up there.

Indeed, the Stern report assess the economic implications, and deduced at that time that acting to mitigate the effects of climate change would be 5 times less expensive than business as usual. So one wonders - why are we not acting already based on risk management?

Because people believe whatever they want. It's clearly seen here on this thread, the old chestunts tirelessly repeated. "There's no recent increase in temperature, even Phil Jones says so". Will Stephen's mind now be changed now that I've linked the temperature graph of the last few years which show warming is still bang on track? I don't want to be presumptuous, but statistically it's unlikely - it appears that's not how most people work, we don't look at the best available scientific evidence from academia and form our opinions accordingly, we form them based on our politics, our fallible intuition - a hundred other very human and non-scientific reasons. In short, people make up their own facts because the truth really is inconvenient. Heads firmly buried in the sand.

Another critical tactic of the lobbyists, incidentally, is to suggest that acting on any environmental risk will be cripplingly expensive and bring about economic Armageddon. Historically they vociferously argued against acting on acid rain or ozone layer depletion. Every time they've been wrong, but successfully motivated right wingers to campaign against action. Climate Change is a far bigger problem, which will be far more expensive - but of course taking no action will be proportionately far more expensive too.

Jon - Absolutely.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 4, 2012)

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/ ... eptics/?hp


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 4, 2012)

I like how the Heartland Institute calls the billboard "an experiment." How scientific! I hope their "experiment" will be peer reviewed in a scientific journal. I'm sure that the results of their study will contribute greatly to mankind's understanding of our planet's climate.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 4, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 05 said:


> http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/a-new-tactic-for-climate-skeptics/?hp



That's pretty remarkable stuff. I guess it answers my question in the OP - only the world's most dangerous terrorists.

I guess the question this most obviously raises is "what the ****?" It comes from the Heartland Institute, the people who told us smoking wasn't dangerous, are behind annual conferences on Climate Change and are at the front of getting the message "out there" that we can't trust academia. So they are now literally equating acceptance of consensus mainstream science with suicide terrorism.

The most interesting thing of all is that they are delighted by their very shot lived campaign as it has "got people's attention". And I bet they're right - on a basic dog-whistle level, the ordinary Joe who reads no science might give a grim laugh cos he doesn't hear much mentioned in the media any more about Climate Change and assumes the scientific question is dead and buried. It's a simple policy that is at the core of their mission - lie loud enough, and it works. It's the opposite of reason.

I notice that no-one here who adopts a sceptical position (I'm using my terminology generously) has answered by challenge - "what evidence would it take to change your mind about climate change"? I have a good friend, far more intelligent than I, that says this is the only question worth asking, and I suspect he's right. I asked it of a family member - an otherwise smashing bloke - who is certain that all the talk of climate change is nonsense, and has repeated verbatim every contrarian argument out there. When I asked him "what evidence would convince you", he instantly replied "there isn't any". And of course I realised all our conversations were a waste of time - this was his belief system. There was literally no evidence that mattered. Surprisingly, he conceded this was true.

That's what we're dealing with, folks.


----------



## paulcole (May 5, 2012)

I was hoping there would actually be climate change. But it hasn't happened yet as far as I can tell. Bring it on though.


----------



## Ed (May 5, 2012)

paulcole @ Sat May 05 said:


> I was hoping there would actually be climate change. But it hasn't happened yet as far as I can tell. Bring it on though.



Why? Something tells me you don't really know what the consequences are, its not like it will be like a summer all year round paradise.


----------



## paulcole (May 5, 2012)

Ed @ Sat May 05 said:


> paulcole @ Sat May 05 said:
> 
> 
> > I was hoping there would actually be climate change. But it hasn't happened yet as far as I can tell. Bring it on though.
> ...



And how old are you? Do you remember the weather 55 years ago? Never mind 1000 years ago. Something tells me you don't. And we don't have climate in Britain btw. No such thing. You don't and never have had all year round anything in the UK. One, I say ONE of the reasons you get for instance drought, is over population and poor water usage education in certain areas. Another reason, is lack of infrastructure.

Something tells me you don't even remember 1976. Something tells me you're maybe around 12?

This is what makes me laugh. Very akin to people coming on TV and doing programmes about the 60's like they're suddenly expert, when in fact they were born 10 minutes ago.


----------



## Ed (May 5, 2012)

paulcole @ Sat May 05 said:


> And how old are you? Do you remember the weather 55 years ago? Never mind 1000 years ago. Something tells me you don't. And we don't have climate in Britain btw. No such thing. You don't and never have had all year round anything in the UK. One, I say ONE of the reasons you get for instance drought, is over population and poor water usage education in certain areas. Another reason, is lack of infrastructure.
> 
> Something tells me you don't even remember 1976. Something tells me you're maybe around 12?
> 
> This is what makes me laugh. Very akin to people coming on TV and doing programmes about the 60's like they're suddenly expert, when in fact they were born 10 minutes ago.




.... :shock: There are no words to express how dumbfounded I am that you typed with all seriousness that "we don't have climate in Britain btw. No such thing.". :shock: 

Do you have any idea what the word "climate" actually means? I have no idea what you think it means, but wiki givesa good definition.... _"Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological elemental measurements in a given region over long periods. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these elements and their variations over shorter periods."_ There is also an extensive Wiki entry on the climate of the United Kingdom.

As for the rest of your post, I don't know where to begin with how wrong it is so I think it best to just leave it at pointing out that you have no idea what any of the critical words you used mean.


----------



## FredrikJonasson (May 5, 2012)

hbuus @ Wed May 02 said:


> Climate change effects must not yet be sufficiently visible to the public at large, because if it was, people would start poking their politicians, wanting them to do something about it. Isn't that so?



I seriously doubt it. We live in a world where "more is more". And people are way to afraid to change their lifestyle and how they view the world - it's much easier to dismiss GW (et.c.), and continue to over consume and fly to the other side of the planet on holidays. 

However, to make things a bit easier, this is not just a question of GW. Since we probably wont find a substitute for oil in terms of effectiveness, we have to change the way we live before we're out of it. If we're not ready for it that change will be quite rough.


----------



## FredrikJonasson (May 5, 2012)

paulcole @ Sat May 05 said:


> I was hoping there would actually be climate change. But it hasn't happened yet as far as I can tell. Bring it on though.



This is the kind of post one shouldn't bother answering to. But still.

To deny there are climate change TODAY surely must be harder each day, if eyes and ears are open (?). But to say that you want climate change.. I can't really think of anything worse to say. Extreme watershortage, flooded cities, hurricanes tearing everything in it's way apart.. and the list just goes on and on. 

I don't believe you actually want disaster upon this planet and everything that lives here, so please at least TRY to understand the subject.


----------



## Ed (May 5, 2012)

Fredrik, its worse than that, Paul doesnt seem to have any idea what "climate" means.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 5, 2012)

I suspect what he was hinting at was the fact that the 'climate' in the Cairngorms does not in any respect resemble that of Cornwall for example, so the notion of a 'single climate' in the UK (and indeed if one extrapolates that to the whole planet) is something of a oxymoron.


----------



## Ed (May 5, 2012)

So because climate in the UK is different to the climate in South America, therefore "climate" doesnt exist and therefore climate change doesnt happen? If that's not representative of what he is saying or what you think he is saying i would love a clarification. If it is representative, do you really that that isn't at once a ludicrous understanding of this topic?

I would also still greatly appreciate it if you expanded on your use of the quote by Phil Jones and what you think it means for climate change.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2012)

Saying there's no climate somewhere is like saying a person doesn't have a height.

Time to move on to the next point!


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 5, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 05 said:


> Time to move on to the next point!



Quite. There's enough links on this thread to show exactly how much warming we've had, and how strong the calculated attribution to climate change is to recent extreme weather. Unless someone links some contrary peer reviewed information, there's really nothing to argue about in these matters really beyond "do I listen to science" or not. 

But speaking of points - third time of trying - any "sceptic" out there fancy answering the question of what evidence might conceivably change your mind? Three strikes and your out, I'd say - with no answer from anyone I'll just assume your problem with anthropogenic climate change is that it is against your personal belief system, and is nothing to do with science.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 5, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 05 said:


> Saying there's no climate somewhere is like saying a person doesn't have a height.
> 
> Time to move on to the next point!



Blimey you chaps have an interesting debating style. :mrgreen: Still at least you're not blowing children up in videos yet  

@Guy, to answer your question, we need a visible human signal in climate change *data*, simple as that. As the IPCC states in its WG1 Technical Summary, page 78: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and *therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible*. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions." 

These models, which to date do not include the role of clouds (poorly understood largely but thought to be a major factor), solar forcings (only recently been embraced - cf Svensmark), decadal and multidecadal ocean oscillations (PDO, AMO only fairly recently observed and still poorly understood), are always already flawed. The predictions of computer models are not equivalent to empirical and observed data, and indeed consistently model predictions are wrong on forecasting and backcasting. 

Beyond this problem there are so many epistemological issues in this area of 'science'. Remember, it is the IPCC itself that asserts that the 'long term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible ...'. But that has not stopped politicians and ideologues from claiming the earth will warm by x.x degrees by 2035, or sea levels will rise by x metres by 2100 et hoc genus omne. In the clamour for media attention and funding, it is always worse than previously thought. 

Ultimately, it comes down to one's belief system - faith if you like. However, as that venerable institution, The Royal Society, puts it rather neatly in its motto: Nullius in Verba. 

Cheers


----------



## chimuelo (May 5, 2012)

Some guys just know they're right and will never cave in.
I have no proof of anything but know whoever gets the conversion to Natural Gas, and CleanCoal first, while weening us off of Oil yet exporting it, will rule the future, as eventually India and China will have to cave in. My God you can smell the Coal from Hong Kong 30 miles south in Macau. Almost reminds me of when I played the Riverboats in St.Louis as a kid and held my nose as we floated by Monsantos stacks.
So I doubt we will save the Planet or anything noble like that, but good air will kill less people suffering from Heart & Lung Disease.
The Sahara Desert use to be a paradise, ancient carvings in stone show wildlife and even had the Nile flowing through there at one time. Some say the Earths axis tipped a little and changed the scenery. Some try and use C02 and Volcanic acticity as a reason, yet no scientist can proove why it became the largest Desert.

This could happen again and Volcanic Sulphuric Acid plumes could block out the sun.
Sure'd be nice if it happened when the air was a little cleaner, we might get through it.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 5, 2012)

I will never cave in when I know I'm right beyond any shadow of a doubt, and this is a perfect example.

Stephen, it's not a question of debating style, it's a question of what you're saying about predicting climate being - as they say in the art world - a steaming load of irrelevant bullshit.

Of course you can't forecast the climate exactly. It's chaotic. There are lots of things like that in nature.

And so what. You can still predict with total certainty that spewing massive amounts of greenhouse gases will trap heat and affect the climate, and you can tell that rise is going to be about .1 degrees a year on average (I believe that's still the current estimate), and that this subtle increase in temperature is going to have certain effects that won't be good.

You have to be a total buffoon to deny that.

There. I said it.

And this is happening whether or not you decide to shut your eyes. Faith has nothing to do with it. Either do solar flares or whatever it is you're talking about.


----------



## Ed (May 5, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Sat May 05 said:


> @Guy, to answer your question, we need a visible human signal in climate change *data*, simple as that. As the IPCC states in its WG1 Technical Summary, page 78: "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and *therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible*. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions."



I'm really sorry to have to point this out again Stephen, but this is another poorly understood and misrepresented quote just like the Phil Jones one you used on the previous page and still have yet to explain. In this case the word you seem to be missing above is the word "exact". In no way is the IPCC saying that predicting climate is not possible or that we don't have evidence in the data that humans are responsible.

From the http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/042.htm (IPCC Third Assessment Report in 2001) they say:



> A complex, non-linear system may display what is technically called chaotic behaviour. This means that the behaviour of the system is critically dependent on very small changes of the initial conditions. *This does not imply, however, that the behaviour of non-linear chaotic systems is entirely unpredictable*, contrary to what is meant by "chaotic" in colloquial language. It has, however, consequences for the nature of its variability and the predictability of its variations. The daily weather is a good example. The evolution of weather systems responsible for the daily weather is governed by such non-linear chaotic dynamics. This does not preclude successful weather prediction, but its predictability is limited to a period of at most two weeks. Similarly, although the climate system is highly non-linear, the quasi-linear response of many models to present and predicted levels of external radiative forcing suggests that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change may be predictable, although as discussed in Section 1.3.2 below, unpredictable behaviour of non-linear systems can never be ruled out. The predictability of the climate system is discussed in Chapter 7.



As I said, a sign of why the "skeptics" are dishonest or incompetent is that they will try and make out that people like Phil Jones or the IPCC suddenly say something that sounds surprisingly contradictory to everything else they've been saying for years. Their use of quotes shows they do not care about the truth of the matter. This is easily demonstrable like the case here and with the use of the Phil Jones quote on the previous page. I don't believe you got these ideas into your head by reading all the source material for yourself and just happen to be making the same mistakes the "skeptics" are, you are trusting one or more of these guys for your information. Wherever you are getting it from, I strongly suggest you look up their claims more carefully, especially when you see quotes like this.






> These models, which to date do not include the role of clouds (poorly understood largely but thought to be a major factor), solar forcings (only recently been embraced - cf Svensmark), decadal and multidecadal ocean oscillations (PDO, AMO only fairly recently observed and still poorly understood), are always already flawed. The predictions of computer models are not equivalent to empirical and observed data, and indeed consistently model predictions are wrong on forecasting and backcasting.



Not true climate scientists and the IPCC do take all that into account. Once again you have to believe all these scientists are too stupid to see something so obvious. You really think they are so sure about this when they haven't factored in something like cloud cover or solar forcing? Im not even sure you know what it is you're saying, it really feels like you're just parroting something you read somewhere. Solar forcing is a cause of climate change, no one ever said it wasn't. The point is we know its not the cause of the recent warming for the reasons you'd know about it if you knew more about this. 



> Beyond this problem there are so many epistemological issues in this area of 'science'. Remember, it is the IPCC itself that asserts that the 'long term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible ...'. But that has not stopped politicians and ideologues from claiming the earth will warm by x.x degrees by 2035, or sea levels will rise by x metres by 2100 et hoc genus omne. In the clamour for media attention and funding, it is always worse than previously thought.



Who cares what politicians think? Al Gore made plenty of errors in An Inconvenient Truth, but Al Gore is not a climate scientist or a scientist at all. You look to the peer reviewed science and consensus of the climate science community. It is absurd to point to a politician, such as like Al Gore, and say that because he got something wrong or was over specific in some detail that this means the science of GW is fatally flawed and we should throw up our hands and declare the whole thing unknowable. 





> Ultimately, it comes down to one's belief system - faith if you like.



No it most certainly does not take faith, maybe it does for you which is possibly why you seem so resistant to being corrected about about what you thought Phil Jones meant.


----------



## chimuelo (May 5, 2012)

:lol: You're OK Nick......

Hey this thread is starting to get that Left/Right Spark going. 
Next comes the name calling, but the good thing is we are all composers here, so I want to hear the results in a few days.

Something like " The Angry Red Faced Zealot Sonata in G# ", or the " Serenading of Al Gore Opus 1."
Anger is a great motivator.
So by all means apply the same fervor towards music and lets hear some dissonance, maybe even video of circling clouds with descending whole tone flute riffs, of course bathed in Native Reverb with 30 second tails............ o-[][]-o 

As You Were.


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 5, 2012)

Those who believe that man cannot affect the climate have never been in LA on a smoggy day - let alone Bejing.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 6, 2012)

Looks like Ed has done a good job and handling some of the detail, Stephen. I'd like to keep my reply to the real basics here, because in my experience it falls down at this level.

You quote the Royal Society approvingly - "take nobody's word for it". If you literally take that to mean you don't listen to anything anyone says ever no matter who they are, then I'd argue that isn't science at all, it's nihilsim. If, however, you mean "check, check again, do further research, get others to check for you, double check yourselves, verify and further check" - then YES that is science. And I'm sure we'd agree the Royal Society is an excellent example of an ancient institution that does precisely this. So I'm sure you'll be delighted to hear the Royal Society's summary on Climate Change, on this gateway - http://royalsociety.org/policy/climate-change/ . It's a terrific jumping off point for those who take the scientific view - "take no-one's word for it", and they have many resources there. But to summarise, with no hyperbole or hysteria:



> It is certain that increased greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and from land use change lead to a warming of climate, and it is very likely that these green house gases are the dominant cause of the global warming that has been taking place over the last 50 years.
> 
> Whilst the extent of climate change is often expressed in a single figure – global temperature – the effects of climate change (such as temperature, precipitation and the frequency of extreme weather events) will vary greatly from place to place.
> 
> ...



(I'm sure you're aware of the scientific definiteion of "very likely" - >90%).

As I'm sure you'll agree, they'll be well aware of the pros and cons of models and their continual refinement, as are all the other major scientific institutions, as is the community at large through peer reivewed research.

So I wonder if this has abated your concerns? I can only deduce that your own personal standard of evidence is higher than that of the Royal Society. I'd be interested in hearing more about this - why are the Royal Society and all other major scientific institutions so cavalier in their own acceptance of the glaring errors you point out in the scientific method, while you have a much better and more rigourous standard? The logical deduction is that you won't accept any scientific evidence unless the probability of error is reduced to 0%. Is that your position in other areas of science, Stephen? Is evolution merely a belief system equivalent with creationism, for example?

I'm not sure how you arrive at your non-sequitur regarding belief systems actually - how is meta scientific analysis resulting in something being >90% probable a belief system in the way Hinduism is, for example? Is Hinduism >90% probable? I have to be honest, it sounds like complete bollocks to me, but I'd be interested in hearing more about why all those great institutions are apparently unable in the final analysis to be anything more than a random religion.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 6, 2012)

It's been fun chaps, it really has, but I've got a game to finish. All I would say is, enjoy what looks like very much to be the onset of a solar minimum on the scale of Dalton. Time will tell. 

Back to the music :mrgreen:


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 6, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Sun May 06 said:


> It's been fun chaps, it really has, but I've got a game to finish. All I would say is, enjoy what looks like very much to be the onset of a solar minimum on the scale of Dalton. Time will tell.
> 
> Back to the music :mrgreen:



Ha!

In my OP I said I always regret starting these debates. It always gets to a point of futility. Doesn't matter how reasoned the argument, you never get to the bottom of anything. As I always say, people believe whatever they want to believe.

I'd hope at least though there would be a clear distinction between those who genuinely accept the best available evidence from the scientific community (at least when that evidence is overwhelming), and those who choose a different path. In a desperate bit to avoid hypocrisy, the moment that peer reviewed scientific consensus changes, the moment the Royal Society's own public position on climate change is revised, I'll be revising my own position too.


----------



## paulcole (May 6, 2012)

Ed @ Sat May 05 said:


> paulcole @ Sat May 05 said:
> 
> 
> > And how old are you? Do you remember the weather 55 years ago? Never mind 1000 years ago. Something tells me you don't. And we don't have climate in Britain btw. No such thing. You don't and never have had all year round anything in the UK. One, I say ONE of the reasons you get for instance drought, is over population and poor water usage education in certain areas. Another reason, is lack of infrastructure.
> ...



Oh Christ! Wiki says that!!!! Well that's fucked me and my 2:1 degree in geophysics and Masters in geography then. 

Guys like you are always dumbfounded lets face it. Your generation is dumbfounded by just about everything. 

I remember the summer of 1959 (and almost the winter of 1948) and believe it or not they all started saying the same thing then. And hollywood started making films like The Day the Earth Caught Fire or some such bloody tripe.

REPEAT: THE UK DOES NOT HAVE A CLIMATE> CLIMATES ARE SYSTEMS>THE UK HAS WEATHER!!!

Go away and get an education in stuff you don't know anything about. PLEASE. Stop arguing instead of debating and DON'T under any circumstances quote wikishit in my direction again.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 6, 2012)

Can we just stop this pedant's corner? If the Met office has a "UK Climate page" - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ which begins with the words "These web pages are a source of information for those interested in the climate of the UK", can we just leave it that for all practical purposes? I appreciate there might be technical differences of terminology, but it sheds no light on the broad subject of climate change, or the phenomenon of extreme weather.


----------



## Ed (May 6, 2012)

paulcole @ Sun May 06 said:


> Oh Christ! Wiki says that!!!! Well that's [email protected]#ked me and my 2:1 degree in geophysics and Masters in geography then.
> 
> Guys like you are always dumbfounded lets face it. Your generation is dumbfounded by just about everything.
> 
> ...



If you have a degree in this I would say you're either lying to yourself and everyone else or you're at least being disingenuous and playing word games. You havent actually provided any new clarification or explanation or sources, all you've done is repeat exactly what you said more forcefully with caps lock turned on. Did they teach you to do that in your degree as well? What source do you have that says we don't have a climate in the UK? None, obviously. If you have a degree in science you'd know that you cant just assert something if you cant back it up with anything. I gave the wiki page primarily for the good definition it gave and btw, the "wiki shit" comes with sources, if you prefer I can quote the sources for you. I see Guy has given you a page from the Met Office, I wonder if you think they are ignorant 12 year olds as well.

If you don't want an argument perhaps you shouldn't have started this exchange by suggesting I was clearly only 12 because I didnt know something as obvious to you that climate doesnt exist in the UK. Perfectly happy to have a reasonable conversation, maybe you'd like to try again? 

Our exchange started with you saying you wish there would be climate change, I replied saying that you must not understand the consequences of climate change and that contrary to what some people seem to imagine global warming doesn't actually mean we're going to have a lovely all year round summer. You then tell me the UK doesn't have climate it has weather... I didnt even mention UK climate, you did. In what sense is that a sensible response to what I said? . Just for a start we do have a climate just as South America has a climate. It doesnt matter if its different in different parts of the UK, thats like saying that because the UK has a different climate to America and America has diffrent climate to India and they are all very different to Africa or Australia that climate change doesnt happen because climate itself doesn't exist. Secondly, are you somehow suggesting that the UK is some isolated part of the world who's weather systems are entirely unconnected to the earths climate systems?If not, then you have to accept your response is ridiculous. Now would be a good time to calm down, turn off caps lock off and explain yourself. If you're using some different definition of climate to everyone else, maybe you'd like to explain what that definition is and how it relates to what we're talking about, or what I was talking about.


----------



## Ed (May 6, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Sun May 06 said:


> All I would say is, enjoy what looks like very much to be the onset of a solar minimum on the scale of Dalton. Time will tell.



Its a shame you joined this discussion but don't have the time to defend any of your assertions or sources. Solar activity has a very small affect on the recent warming, this has been looked at in great depth, you said that they haven't even factored it into their data but thats just not true. Not sure why you are so resistant to being corrected, especially when you quote people out of context because you don't understand what they mean. If you have time to address the points I put to you, even if its just to explain what you meant by the Phil Jones quote I'm sure we'd all appreciate it.


----------



## chimuelo (May 6, 2012)

I went to SoCal every year just like the Chevy Chase movies, as my Mother grew up there and we still have family.
But it use to break her heart that in the 60's we would climb up through Deep Creek by Arrowhead and look down over Rialto and see this Pink layer of smog, made her very sad.
But every year it got better and better, although I haven't been there in years, I remember being there in '74-ish last time and it was so much better than when I was a child in the 60s, so IMHO as much I dislike regulatory commissions as it seems the Gietners and Madows of the world all pat each others backs, the EPA and State Of California should be proud of what they did. Now that the polulation has doubled imagine what it would look like today if nothing had been done.
So if I were the EPA I would use examples like the Hudson River, Erie Canal, SoCal, etc. They look ridiculous when they halt progress over a species of Sand Fly as an excuse to not develope land somewhere, but I guess that's the new form of " Progress."


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 6, 2012)

I went to the UK after emission devices had been required in cars in the US for some time, but before there were requirements in the UK. Driving on the motorway, it smelled like we were following a parade of old lawnmowers. You could smell the unburnt gas!

Things have definitely improved. But remember, CO2 is invisible and has no smell. 

My example with smog shows that when you have millions of people in an area, they can definitely affect the environment. We can make the groundwater cancerous. We can make lakes devoid of fish. We can make rivers catch on fire. With more than 6 billion people on the planet, our actions add up.

Regarding LA smog, you can't really measure it with short-term visits. One week you might have Santa Ana winds and think the valleys are beautiful. The next week, you might have a stagnant inversion layer and think it's worse than ever. I remember having visitors from Australia in the 80s and after a week, they were surprised to find there were mountains a couple miles to the North. The winds shifted, and, bam, there they were!


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 6, 2012)

Ed @ Sun May 06 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Sun May 06 said:
> 
> 
> > All I would say is, enjoy what looks like very much to be the onset of a solar minimum on the scale of Dalton. Time will tell.
> ...




Sadly or happily (depending on your outlook), I'm just too busy Ed - I'm working on 4 games and 2 films right now, so have little time to do anything but write. Rest assured that I have read a lot of the 'science' in this domain over the past 15 years. A lot and in understand the debates involved. 

Like I said, it will be very interesting to see what happens as the Sun possibly approaches a Dalton or Maunder type of minimum in the coming years. Might get a bit cold for while


----------



## chimuelo (May 6, 2012)

Since I am an elite, I will survive the Chemtrails, as I and my AFL-CIO brotha's will be spared the quick, humane, viral death from above.
We will be responsible for the removal of the corpses and are already building massive pits around every major population area.
It's a global thing so don't take it personal. And the virus is an accumulation of bacterial studies for decades that will leave all plant and animal life intact.

The whole time that the worlds elite were having these " Global Warming " summits where each 1%'r' arrived in their own private Plane, and had their own Stretch Limo and SUV caravan wisk them off to a big gathering.
Sure we saw them read a few scripts as if they were discussing Carbon Credits at the CME, etc.
But actually they were figuring out what to do with the rest of us....

I actually will be one the 550 million, so my dream of being a 1%'r will come to fruition.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 6, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Sun May 06 said:


> Like I said, it will be very interesting to see what happens as the Sun possibly approaches a Dalton or Maunder type of minimum in the coming years. Might get a bit cold for while



We seem waaaay off a Maunder minimum at the moment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum - unless I missed something, predictions of a new minimum similar to the one hundreds of years ago seem speculative at best. Why the fascination, I wonder? Solar activity has been low in the past few years, and now appears to be picking up again as part of the regular cycle. Yet we're still following the upward temperature curve as predicted by anthropogenic global warming... maybe it would be even higher without it, but I don't think it looks especially relevant.

The Dalton minimum was thought to be caused by an unusually high number of volcanic eruptions, which isn't relevant today either.

Again, it is curious as to why all this is so interesting whereas observable current anthropogenic warming appears not to be.

Still, all the best with the games, an excellent reason to not be debating science here...


----------



## George Caplan (May 6, 2012)

what i remember about over living for over 25 years in the uk was their weather. It definitely isn't a climate that's for sure. climates have system and there are generally no surprises. its predictable. boy in the uk you could get 4 seasons of weather in one day.


----------



## gsilbers (May 6, 2012)

judge by what you experience. 


in the USA its definitely true imo. 


some will not know but there are some hidden history interesting facts like in 1965 lady bird johnson made a few law changes that made USA more"beautiful". not really, but we see it nicer. 

http://www.pbs.org/ladybird/shattereddr ... eport.html


junkyards are away from public, there is big open spaces and most of us here in the US will see always green, suburbs and the other side of the tracks are years away for many. the ugly side is definitely there and in the US, the most wasteful country on earth, the ugly side is far from small. 

on the other hand, i went to italy one time and there was a garbage worker strike and thus, no trash pickup for 2 weeks. 

that equaled to 2 story pile high of garbage all over the city. 


now, 

who will be more aware and care more for what is going on in the environment?


"do you feel how cold this winter is? what climate change? "

its an easy phrase to sell to middle america from corporations that do not want legislation to pass which will make them spend more money on a cleaner way of doing business. 


ever seen this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBE5QAYXp8

some facts are a little off but the general jisp is good.


----------



## Ed (May 6, 2012)

George Caplan @ Sun May 06 said:


> what i remember about over living for over 25 years in the uk was their weather. It definitely isn't a climate that's for sure. climates have system and there are generally no surprises. its predictable. boy in the uk you could get 4 seasons of weather in one day.



I would still love to know what definition of climate it is that you are using and how you think this relates to global warming.


----------



## Ed (May 6, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Sun May 06 said:


> Sadly or happily (depending on your outlook), I'm just too busy Ed - I'm working on 4 games and 2 films right now, so have little time to do anything but write. Rest assured that I have read a lot of the 'science' in this domain over the past 15 years. A lot and in understand the debates involved.



I understand, but I would say its clear you do not understand the subject since you made (or at least were about to imply) the classic no warming in 15 years meme and predictably quote-mined Phil Jones who you didn't understand to prove it. Then you took the IPCC out of context and tried to make them sound like they were saying the opposite of what they actually think. Then you incorrectly said they do not factor into their assessments things like cloud cover or solar forcing, they do. You said they do not have empircal observed data, only computer models, when in fact they have multiple lines of empirical observed data from various sources that all coverage giving us the same conclusion. I have no idea how you could honestly have a good understanding of this and make such horrendously inaccurate arguments and statements.


----------



## SergeD (May 8, 2012)

There are so many factors to affect Climate stability... 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/ ... rming.html


----------



## chimuelo (May 8, 2012)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/17953792

Brilliant. Im quite sure these studies were meant to indoctrinate children at the Kindegarten level, so further theories could be hammered away as the child grows out of having small toy Dinosaurs to play with.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 8, 2012)

JonFairhurst @ Sun May 06 said:


> I went to the UK after emission devices had been required in cars in the US for some time, but before there were requirements in the UK. Driving on the motorway, it smelled like we were following a parade of old lawnmowers. You could smell the unburnt gas!
> 
> Things have definitely improved. But remember, CO2 is invisible and has no smell.
> 
> ...



Here is what I can tell you in my experience:

I moved form Boston to LA in 1972. There were far fewer cars then and yet in the summer,when I went outside in the San Fernando Valley there were days when pollution was so bad (level 2 smog alert) the mountains were invisible and my eyes literally would sting.

California put tougher emissions standards in place including requiring smog checks and catalytic converters for cars.

Now, even though there are millions MORE cars, even on a smoggy summer day I can at least see the outline of the mountains and my eyes do not sting. 

So I have to conclude, without drawing sweeping scientific conclusions based on contradictory evidence, that mankind certainly can make it better or worse.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 8, 2012)

Ed @ Sun May 06 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Sun May 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly or happily (depending on your outlook), I'm just too busy Ed - I'm working on 4 games and 2 films right now, so have little time to do anything but write. Rest assured that I have read a lot of the 'science' in this domain over the past 15 years. A lot and in understand the debates involved.
> ...



Whatever you say Ed.


----------



## Ed (May 8, 2012)

Good response Stephen. 

You act like Im so unreasonable. You are the one that started off using a quote out of context and then havent defended anything youve said on here. Don't you want to know why you're wrong to use the Phil Jones quote the way you did? Apparently not.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 8, 2012)

I moved to Los Angeles in 1962, and I was going to say what Jay says. The smog is way better than it used to be. Way better. It used to hurt to breathe sometimes, and it was much more visible.

However, that's not global climate change, it's something different.


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 8, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue May 08 said:


> I moved to Los Angeles in 1962, and I was going to say what Jay says. The smog is way better than it used to be. Way better. It used to hurt to breathe sometimes, and it was much more visible.
> 
> However, that's not global climate change, it's something different.



True. And it goes to show that humans have the power and scale to affect our environment strongly. It's first hand experience that counters the naysayers' belief that man's actions don't have consequences.

I think that the right wing think tanks are able to confuse people about science by baking things down to personal experiences...

Say I'm driving on the highway. My tailpipe is behind me. I don't experience it. Besides, I'm only burning two or three gallons per hour as I cruise along. How much difference can that make? It's a me, me, me, now, now, now perspective.

I'm likely to burn 25,000 gallons of gas in my life, driving. (This doesn't include my electricity use or what factories and suppliers do to support me.) If six billion people were to use 25,000 gallons apiece, it comes to 150 trillion gallons of gasoline burned.

How can the burning of trillions of gallons of fuel not have an effect? But it can be easy to ignore if all one thinks about is "me" and "now".


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 8, 2012)

Exactly. Whether global warning is or is not happening is almost irrelevant. We have the power and the duty to make our environment better as much as we can either way.

What we cannot change, we cannot change. What we can, we should,


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 8, 2012)

JonFairhurst @ Tue May 08 said:


> I think that the right wing think tanks are able to confuse people about science by baking things down to personal experiences...



Yes, that's a good observation. One example of this technique being used is the laughing, incredulous way they say "are you arrogant enough to believe that human activities on Earth can really affect the climate?" It's one of those conversational terrorism questions that seems reasonable but masks an insult - suggesting someone isn't level headed and rational if they accept a scientific consensus. And who doesn't want to be thought of as level headed and rational? So it's a reasonably successful psychological trick.

And then of course true that more people are inclined to believe that climate change is real after a spell of hot weather - it's really that basic...

I always love seeing the Earth from space at night... dark for 4 billions of years and overnight (in geological terms) we lit it up. COOOL!!!!

Or... err... not.


----------



## chimuelo (May 8, 2012)

Yeah those darn right wing me,me,me,now,now,now types.

They should be more like the Hollywood elites with their private planes to avoid being exposed to the filthy peasants in their Gridlock traffic jams.
Or maybe get an 8 million dollar beach house like the Planet Saver Al Gore. 
In his movie the beaches and all coastal areas are underwater, and millions die, etc.
I guess even he doesn't belive his own Bull Shit.
30k a month was his monthly energy cost last time I checked. What a Fine role model/Representative, and Americans actually voted for him since it was Bush or Gore.
Great choices we get from the bought and paid for primaries.
Could have been worse, John Edwards could be in there. What a freak show...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 8, 2012)

chimuelo, who freaking cares how much money he has.

He deserved the Nobel Prize for making everyone aware of the most serious issue facing humanity. Nobody knew about climate change before Inconvenient Truth, and now everyone does.


----------



## Diffusor (May 8, 2012)

Ed @ Tue May 01 said:


> And where do you get this information from Jose? You've obviously read some article on some website somewhere or watched some "documentary" like the Great Global Warming Swindle and believed it just because it seems to agree with your own politics. e.


\
And you and other believers didn't go and watch some documentary like "An Convenient Truth" and believed it because it seems to agree with your politics?


----------



## Diffusor (May 8, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 05 said:


> Either do solar flares or whatever it is you're talking about.



Oh yeah the sun has absolutely nothing to do with climate. Nonsense to say otherwise. It's the trace gas for sure. Co2 drives climate, climate doesn't drive CO2. Everybody knows that. Disregard those ice core samples.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 9, 2012)

CO2 and climate drive each other, from what I understand. And the point is...?

Solar flares are not the cause of the crisis. They may or may not have an effect on climate, but that doesn't get us out of hot water. Literally.


----------



## Ed (May 9, 2012)

Diffusor @ Tue May 08 said:


> And you and other believers didn't go and watch some documentary like "An Convenient Truth" and believed it because it seems to agree with your politics?



You assume too much. I have never watched An Inconvenient Truth, only clips, and it would be wrong of me to believe what he says without question especially as he is a politician not a climate scientist. It turns out he http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2B34sO7HPM&feature=plcp (got a few things wrong/overstated). But even if I had, the difference between me and someone like Stephen is I want to know when I'm wrong. If someone told me I was misquoting someone I'd want to know how and why they said that. (Creationists love quote-mining for example, so I would hate to accidentally be quoting someone incorrectly)


----------



## Ed (May 9, 2012)

Diffusor @ Tue May 08 said:


> Oh yeah the sun has absolutely nothing to do with climate.



No one says that. What climate scientists are saying is that the suns effect is minor and is certainly not the cause of the recent warming. Why is it necessary to misrepresent the position?



> It's the trace gas for sure. Co2 drives climate, climate doesn't drive CO2.



We positively know that Co2 causes warming. Are you denying that?



> Everybody knows that. Disregard those ice core samples.



Always implications but no one so far as actually elaborated on their points, much like that Phil Jones quote. The ice cores don't support you nor do the scientists who actually are working with the ice cores agree with you.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 9, 2012)

> And you and other believers didn't go and watch some documentary like "An Convenient Truth" and believed it because it seems to agree with your politics?



I for one absolutely went to see it because of Al Gore. Why would anyone go to a film starring Nick Batzdorf?

But my believing the central point - that we're warming the globe - has as much to do with politics as it does with basketball.

This appears to be yet another example of a conservative believing that liberals are just as irrational as they are, only on the other side. Not so. Conservatives are wrong about every single issue, and reality is reality.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 9, 2012)

And if my last sentence is an exaggeration, any exceptions prove the rule - just as errors in "Inconvenient Truth" are small exceptions that don't invalidate the central point.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 9, 2012)

Diffuser, even though your posts don't merit a serious response I'm weak and can't help myself. The issues you raise were widely covered in peer reviewed literature in the 1970s onwards. It never ceases to amaze me that people still come up with stuff like "it's the sun" or "the earth's climate has always changed", as if the idea has ever before occurred to the climate science community - they'd pretty much settled this 25 years ago. It was the process of determining the cause of the warming in the 1980s and concluding that only natural forcings plus anthropogenic satisfactorily explained the observations. The alarm caused led to the formation of the IPCC and several thousand more papers which have continued to study all the science in depth, reducing uncertainties etc. Basically doing science, rather than blasting out statements that were disproved decades ago.

I appreciate that if this post gets a response from you it'll likely be full of emotive terms, links to partisan blogs and broad sweeps to brush away the mainstream scientific community, but like I say - I'm weak and can't help rising to the bait. Once, anyway.


----------



## TheUnfinished (May 10, 2012)

Very very interesting thread. I nearly typed 'debate' but that would have been disingenuous under the circumstances...

Keep up the good work.

And thanks for the LOLs with that poem...


----------



## paulcole (May 10, 2012)

Diffusor @ Tue May 08 said:


> Disregard those ice core samples.



British scientists took ice core samples from one of the poles in the 1950s and they've used this as part of the approach to warming issues since then. 

When I say 'part of this approach' what I actually mean is FUNDING. Long Term Funding and a lot of it.

The UK has and had a drought alert in most parts of the UK in April. Since April 16th its more or less rained everyday. I'm looking out the window and its pissing down with rain right now and has been for hours. Funding.

Drought is is not caused by global warming. If the rain stopped hitting the UK especially from the Atlantic side the whole planet would be finished. There's plenty of rain. Drought is caused by waste, lack of infrastructure and water planning and over populated areas.
Incidentally, the Atlantic Conveyor is only *affected* by global warming and is a saline/water weight issue. A heat transporter in other words.


----------



## chimuelo (May 10, 2012)

Wise words indeed, but Ice Core samples do show that over hundreds and even thousands of years that tempurature trends and C02 trends are parallel the entire way through. This doesn't mean it will keep getting warmer, on the contray in Antarctica they have more ice for the last 4 years in a row than in decades, so it's too son for the funded ones to explain that fact, but you'll also see in the Ice Cores when the C02 levels drastically drop along with tempurature that dust levels spiked really high.
This is how Las Vegas cleaned it air up in a 2 year period. The population was 200,000 when I moved and climbed to 1.5 million in 10 years and the air from construction and just driving, raises tons if dust, as it is a Desert.
With proper regualtions of construction companys,' using Water Buffalos, and fining guys who race around in the thier 4 wheel pick ups raising dust, the dust has been 50% better. Which also means to the C02 can rise up higher without remaining at low levels where people are subject to higher levels of it.

I just wish someone would explain what caused the negative spikes on the Ice Cores. because if we can figure that out and replicate that it would self cure itself, at least for a while.
Otherwise I hope the HAARP arrays can poke holes in the ozone and allow the greenhose effect to reverse itself after a while.
THey can already bend the Ozone causing bulges that are as large as a small continent.
That would be great though, but I rather doubt the Government would share that infomation, as by then the profits and revenues for tacxng and regulating are not justified, and I never heard of a politician turning down the oppurtuniy to " manage " a revenue stream, for a small adminsitrative fee of course.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 17, 2012)

Just because several people discussed Australia's climate, thought I may as well link this - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/ ... ears-study - a new peer reviewed study looked specifically at Australian climate over the past 1,000 years and found a recent temperate increase of 0.75 degrees, in line with the warming globally and without precedent in the previous millenia.


----------



## chimuelo (May 17, 2012)

FWIW If you keep Al Gore in his Beach House that should have been undewater and costs 30k to keep his PLane and Limos running, you'll have a much better chance at re engaging.
Americans despise him, his children and wife despise him too.
That being said.

I believe the US is ppaying a good game and we wont yet know about it.
We have the Coal China needs, we can reduce its emmsions like we do here in Nevada at facilites that were built 16 years ago, they are probably some that are even better as I have been out of the Yucca Mountain, Area 51, Mercury Test Site, and AFB and NAS jobs for that long.
I bet once they beome totally addicted to Coal we will use is as Heroin.
Busineess in a legal form of warfare as lets face it, the USA has not stopped fighting since Europeans set foot on this continent.

Just keep politics and Al Gore on the sidelines, they are poisonous, this shoudl be the scuentific community not a burger eating FAT BASTARD liar, thief, cheat, silver spooner with Billions he made scamming folks.

Right now Facebbok has the people to bring Wall street back the billion sit has lost in recent years, but having Chuck Schumer and other walehty elites getting involved will turn this gold into quartz.

These worhtless regulators and camera kissers need to stay out of the way. This one IPO could re ignite the attitude and certainty that was lost by dirtbags in recent years.
A few indictments at the same time would show who's back in action in a big way, but letting these wealthy Liberals near anything is dangerous.

Clean Coal is at least the way to get China to heel.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 17, 2012)

Chimulos' posts do bring to mind one of the central problems of the whole subject of climate change. I appreciate this isn't (quite) the thrust of his argument, but here's some typical climate change debating logic:

Person A: Gee, scientists are over 90% sure this stuff is real and deeply troubling.

Person B: But Al Gore is such a hypocrite, he flies everywhere and eats burgers.

Person A: Yeah, but the issue is the peer reviewed science, and...

Person B: The environmental movement is just big government interfering, Communism by the back door. What happened to the so called Ozone layer anyway?

Person A: Well, funny you should mention that, because actually concerted ac...

Person B: And even if we all burned our cars tomorrow, China will do what it likes anyway.

Person A: But I thought you said communism was....

...and so on.

One of the core themes in Merchants Of Doubt (the book I mentioned in the OP which tracks the disinformation campagin against science back to the 1950s) is how it is so strongly driven by libertarians. Most of the most prominent figures in the denail community - Singer, Seitz etc - are on record as saying that environmentalism is a form of socialism, that it is anti-free market and must be resisted at all costs. And low and behold, whenever you try to raise an issue on, say, an internet forum as to what the state of the actual peer reviewed science is, with numbing predictability, you're soon up to your waist in anti-Gore vitriol and debating free market economics.

I don't care. Well, I do care, but the bottom line is - what does the science say? That's why we now have the very direct attack on science itself, and attempt to portray academia as ideology-driven crusading, as opposed to what it really is, which is science. And of course, the supreme irony is that there is plenty of ideology driving and steering this debate - but it sure isn't coming from academia.


----------



## Ed (May 17, 2012)

Its more like, 99% of scientists agree global warming is real and caused by humans, 1% say it isnt happening. I guess that means it probably isnt.


----------



## Ed (May 17, 2012)

chimuelo @ Thu May 10 said:


> Antarctica they have more ice for the last 4 years in a row than in decades, .



No thats just not true. The totality of Antarctica has been losing mass. You keep believing people who lie to you.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarct ... ng-ice.htm


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 17, 2012)

Ed @ Thu May 17 said:


> Its more like, 99% of scientists agree global warming is real and caused by humans, 1% say it isnt happening. I guess that means it probably isnt.



Well, it's only a mere 97% of climate scientists  And you just know that half the people hear that and think, "oh, so maybe the 3% are right? I'm sure it'll be fine."

To which I always think if 97% of structural engineers told me my house was about to collapse, I'd pretty much take their word for it.

BTW - that Skeptical Science website that Ed links in the post above is an excellent resource, for anyone who hasn't found it yet I strongly recommend it. It's just best summary of peer reviewed science when applied to all the questions that keep getting repeated ad nauseum. It's even an app on the iPhone for when I get involved in intellectual bar room brawls.


----------



## Ed (May 17, 2012)

3%? Thats me convinced! :D


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 17, 2012)

Ed @ Thu May 17 said:


> 3%? Thats me convinced! :D



Exactly!

You know that cliche dream? Not the naked-in-a-public-place one, or the flying one, I mean the one where you're screaming in a crowded room and no-one can hear you. I think that's what's behind this thread really. Scientists don't scream (well, I suppose they probably do if they throw the beaker of sulphuric acid over themselves, they are humans after all), they just do science. But the evidence we now have is the scientific equivalent of screaming - the warnings are so stark - and yet the crowded room is just shovelling in the chardonnay and canapes.

Here's the 4 basic reaction, together which what percentage of the population they represent (figures invented by me):

1 - Denial - 40%. "It ain't happening, it can't happen, it won't happen. And even if it does I don't care. F*** off."

2 - Boredom - 30%. "Yes, yes, yes, blah, blah, blah, oh look - the iPad 3".

3 - Defeatist - 29%. "Sure - but there's no realistic chance of anything changing that will make a difference globally, so why bother?"

4 - Motivated - 1%. "What the hell is wrong with the rest of you? Let's sign another online petition!"

Not a very encouraging picture, is it?


----------



## Ed (May 18, 2012)

There's also the % that really believe the "skeptic"'s lies and pseudoscience. Its basically the same argument I have with truthers and creationists.


----------



## zacnelson (May 22, 2012)

Hello, I actually just stumbled on this thread today and I have skimmed through the 4 pages of debate. I see that the thread is a few weeks old, so I’m probably entering the discussion too late now that it’s all over. Anyway, I just wanted to comment on a couple of points (and no doubt some of you will hate me now). I am from South-Eastern Australia (Melbourne) and as you can imagine the issue is very topical with our Carbon Dioxide Tax starting in 6 weeks. I have observed a few posts in this thread from people in other countries praising the Australian government’s action. You may be interested to get a local’s perspective on the reaction to the policy from Australians. Our prime minister Julia Gillard repeatedly promised in her election campaign that `there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead’. She promptly introduced a carbon tax within the first year after being elected. A lot has been discussed about her subsequent plummeting popularity, with some journalists claiming that the real issue is merely trust. However it is quite common for politicians from either side of politics in any country to break pre-election commitments as a matter of expediency, sometimes due to changes in budget forecasts. But it is hugely unpopular policies which are the true reason for the decline in popularity of our PM and the Labor party. Amongst these unpopular policies, the carbon tax is the most reviled by voters from the traditional Labor Party support base and also from many voters who support the alternative parties and independents. Australia’s 3rd largest state Queensland, which is also one of the 2 states which truly drive our economy with their wealth of natural resources and export potential, has exhibited the strongest aversion to the Labor party. Their State government election a couple of months ago resulted in a decimation of the reigning Labor party state government led by Ana Bligh. Bligh’s government, which previously had a healthy majority, was reduced to only 8 seats (out of a total of 89!). Recent polling has shown support for the federal Labor party in QLD as low as 23%. If this was reflected at the 2013 federal election, every single federal Labor politician in QLD would lose their seat, including the immensely popular Kevin Rudd. Rudd was our previous PM, who enjoyed phenomenal support and seemed to unite voters from all ends of the political spectrum. He was replaced by Gillard during his first term as PM due to internal friction in the Labor party. Nationally, the support for the Labor party in polling over the last 12 months has oscillated around 27% to 33%, which in historical terms are absolutely devastating figures.

I merely wanted to point this out to dispel the notion that Australia is some kind of utopia where we are all united in a noble attempt to change the climate, perhaps if you are another country you would not hear the full details. I was incredulous when I read one of the posts which suggested Australia has been affected far worse by GW than a lot of countries, and that our carbon tax was a response to this. I also read mentions of the natural disasters we have been suffering?! This is news to me!! There have been 2 `natural disasters’ in Australia that I know of, both of which were not `natural disasters’ at all. First of all, we had the bushfires in Victoria in 2008 (near Melbourne where I live... a friend of mine was burnt to death in these bushfires actually). A bushfire has nothing at all to do with climate, and bushfires are common in Victoria. There was a similar horrible bushfire in the early 80s where many lives were lost. One of the reasons this recent bushfire was so disastrous was due to the fact well over 100 hundred lives were lost, and many properties and livestock. However other bushfires in less populated zones do not gain the same attention. Recently a man was jailed for deliberately starting one of the fires that contributed to this catastrophe. I don’t understand how even the most ardent extremist could associate bushfires with GW.

The other disaster was the Brisbane flood in early 2011. Once again, this was not a `natural disaster’. The large Wivenhoe dam near Brisbane was not properly managed and therefore had to be opened, thus flooding low-lying parts of Brisbane surrounding the river which leads out of the dam. The actual rainfall at the time preceding the `flood’ was lower than the heavy rainfall periods in previous decades. This was a purely man-made catastrophe. Nobody in Australia is alarmed about the climate because a dam was mis-used! The years of alarmism which said that our dams would never be filled again resulted in the usual flood mitigation dam procedures not being followed until it was too late.

Australia occasionally has cyclones in it’s tropical extremes, as do other tropical countries. The most memorable was Cyclone Tracy which practically destroyed Darwin, our northern-most city, back in the 1970s. In terms of cyclonic activity, there has been absolutely no increase at all.

As far as drought is concerned, Australia has ALWAYS suffered from droughts, it is naive for people to look at periods of low rainfall early last decade and label them as catastrophes. In recent years our dams are all practically full, some are at capacity. None of them were ever completely dry. In the mad rush of excitement around 2005 (when GW alarmism was at it’s peak) Labor state governments in Vic and NSW decided to build hugely expensive water desalination plants. These have proven to be entirely unnecessary, and cost 4 times what it would cost to build a new dam, and yet provide a fraction of the water. In Melbourne we have not had a new dam for 2 or 3 decades, in that time our population has doubled. This is the real reason our dam levels were occasionally lower than usual when we had a couple of years of lower rainfall (which was NOT un-precedented historically!!)

There has been a change in the terminology now; a few years ago it was `global warming’ and now it is `climate change’... because we had no warming, we were told that there would just be a general `change’ in climate which is apparently a bad thing, and we were told that by around 2010 we would have no water at all in some of our major cities (the same cities that are now at capacity). 

Our carbon tax is starting at a price of $23/T (AUD). Certain European countries engage in schemes which involve trading carbon permits. However these schemes are by no means as comprehensive as the carbon tax in Australia, which influences the entire economy. The price for such carbon permits in Europe is currently the equivalent of around $8/T (AUD). As you can see, we are severely disadvantaged both in the price, and the scope of our carbon tax. And as ours is a fixed price it is not going down; in fact the national budget 2 weeks ago included forecasts in a few years where the carbon price would be $29/T! We are doubly disadvantaged in comparison to most countries which have no carbon tax at all. Obama recently visited Australia; he emphatically and un-apologetically announced that there would be no carbon tax or emissions trading scheme introduced in the USA. The struck a huge blow of course. The journalists were rather soft on him however; if a Republican had made a similar announcement the media would have launched into all sorts of derision.

Our PM constantly refuses to ask the one question that matters most; by how many degrees will the temperature decrease due to our carbon tax? Surely that’s the reason we are all doing this, right? The answer of course is zero. We have already got almost no manufacturing industry at all in Australia; what remains will simply be moved to China where they are building literally dozens of new coal-fired power plants every single year, without any intention of stalling their economy with useless carbon taxes and regulations. It appears the only reason our PM has committed our economy to this suicide is to satisfy environmental lobby groups, and to gain more tax revenue to fund other vote-buying programs. She wants to be seen to be `doing something’ but it is pointless and counter-productive. And the general public know this.

Our carbon tax actually only applies to the largest emitting companies, but it is ludicrous to suggest that it isn’t a tax on all of us. We all USE electricity. And we all buy products that require electricity and transportation, and all of those products are now more expensive. And unfortunately a large amount of the carbon tax revenue is being thrown straight back to lower income Australians to offset the higher cost of living. Surely the point of the tax is to spend that revenue on initiatives to provide alternative technology?!

Sorry for the long post! Just one last point... I notice a lot of posts talking about smog haze in LA, smelly exhaust from cars, etc. I’m afraid that is ENTIRELY UN-RELATED. That is POLLUTION – a separate issue which has in many cases been dealt with successfully, and will be increasingly dealt with. Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless gas which is essential for all life. Plants thrive on carbon dioxide, and when exposed to a greater concentrations of CO2 all plants, crops and trees produce a greater yield. The basis of the argument about GW is that using fossil fuels, in which carbon dioxide has been trapped beneath the earth, means that this carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere and supposedly un-settles a very delicate balance in the atmosphere. (Whether or not you agree with the resultant assumptions is a separate issue). I’m tired of media propaganda (at least here in Aust) where they show photos of smoke stacks and steam etc and try and link that to `carbon pollution’. The term `carbon pollution’ is an oxymoron.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 23, 2012)

Hi Zac - yes, I did find your post probably the most depressing of any here on the board! Why? A - you're an intelligent bloke and all round good guy and yet B - you therefore perfectly summarise why we're all screwed.

Here's the thing. No-one (or no sensible person or scientist) has ever claimed that Australia's climate is not more extreme than many. It always has been. Of course, while I'm on the subject, the world generally has always had extreme weather events. The greatest loss of life in weather-related events - by FAR - are floods in China that happened a looong time ago - nearly a million died in 1556! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_na ... death_toll

But it entirely misses the point. I actually posted a few posts back some very recent peer reviewed science on the Australian climate - the average temperature has risen by 0.75 degrees C compared to the historical average, and is now higher than at any point in the last 1,000 years. Now, that's AVERAGE. Some years will be especially high, some (we had 2 or 3 at the tail end of the last decade) will be on the lower side - this does not mean we've moved to global cooling, these are the squiggles you'll see in every temperature chart on earth. Climate change loads the dice (and there has been plenty of research on this) - it's currently calculated that in the northern hemisphere, we're twice as likely to experience extreme weather events as we were even 30 years ago. The loaded dice analogy is perfect - you still occasionally throw 1s on a loaded die, and you always used to throw 6s. It's just the probabilities that are changing.

So - according to science, not folk memory - Australia is experiencing the same average warming as the rest of the planet. Actually the one place that is experiencing FAR higher warming is the opposite end from you - the arctic circle. This is now thought to be driving some of the wilder weather in the northern hemisphere, as it is affecting the jetstream's behaviour (see OP).

Now, of course that means that if the average is slowly increasing in a place that is _already_ extreme, you're likely to get even more serious consequences, hence the particular concern on the part of some of your fellow countrymen - you've been living in a fragile environment the entire time, and it is getting even more fragile. Of course you are right about the flood and fire in that there was a huge man-made component that acted as a trigger in the former and an amplifier in the latter - but of course they both have their origins in natural phenomena. This is a classic misconception in public understanding of climate change - people seem to believe that those of us who accept the scientific position are saying ONLY anthropogenic CO2 drives the climate. Hansen et al back in the 1980s described three basic drivers of the average global climate - the sun, volcanic eruptions and anthropogenic CO2. People still talk about the sun affecting the climate like it's a new idea! It's all three, and always has been.

(tangent - the so-called reclassification of global warming to climate change. The IPCC - the body that collates the science - was named the Intergovermental Pannel on *Climate Change* back in 1990!)

So that's one side of it - despite a very clear analysis on exactly how the climate is changing, it is nevertheless disbelieved for whatever reasons. The second part reason why your post is so depressing is that it shows why the world won't act on climate change. It can only act together. Any one country's actions (even China) will be globally insignificant, and will economically disadvantage it. The reason why Gilard dodges the question is that you are right - the amount it changes the temperature will be pretty much zip. Only a uniform global response will be powerful enough to make any difference, and only then will a single country or group of countries not be economically disadvantaged. Well of course you can see this coming - everyone SAYS a global level playing field will be fine, but as Copenhagen 2009 definitively proved, this is a pipe dream. It's not going to happen. And Australia shows what happens when a brave country decides to take a lead, hoping others will follow suit. They'll be voted out of office. This is exactly the stale mate the world is now in.

With each passing year the reductions needed to keep the climate from eventually reaching an irreversible tipping point become ever more unrealistic. The CO2 cuts needed if we were globally act today are eye-watering. And politically we're far further away from anything like that than we were 5 years ago. As far as I can read it, a techno-fix (some way of actually extracting carbon from the atmosphere, on top of slowing down what we're shoving up there) is now a given, and the prospects there are uncertain at best.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 23, 2012)

Guy, before you get too depressed by the Guardian article, you may wish to take a closer, dispassionate look at the 'measuring' devices, their siting, their error margins and calibration, and indeed the statistical methods behind what you term 'averaging' in their modelled 'reconstruction'. You might also wish to examine the nature, reliability and accuracy of the proxies used to 'measure' and 'model' the temperature before thermometers were in use, especially for those centuries where the quality of reconstruction may be marginal. And finally, you may wish to ponder why their 'reconstruction' ends at 2001 - it might have something to do with the lack of warming since then of course.


----------



## chimuelo (May 23, 2012)

I mentioned the Ice in Antacrtica has increased over the last 4 years and was called a liar, so you can see by stepping outside of the narrow viewpoint, will draw name calling and personal attacks which means, the argument isn't going their way.

Actually the Arctic Ice is melting at a faster rate and the Altantic Conveyor Belt moves the water to the Southern Atlantic. It not conclusive data but the Scientists have tracked last years water to the Lattitudes below the Equator by Brazil, and believe further tests this year will prove their theory, which also expains how fresh water freezes faster than Salt water.

So some folks aren;t interested in the facts but rather politics as the typical copy/pasted links demonstrates a lack of research.

I am a believer that Humans have caused the imbalance we are seeing right now.
The Ice Cores from 15,000 year ago until now show the C02 and temps parallel each other through out the centuries. And when they plummet the dust spikes as high as the C02 and temp levels were.

But to mention extra Ice will drive the Global warming Gore types whacky as they had pictures of Polar Bears crying and floating w/o food, etc.
Yes, maybe in the Artic Circle, but the species is adapting. Penguins are benefitting from the larger beachfront areas as the Ice melting is new and takes hundreds of years to start actually incresing its height, so settle down Ed, your narrow view is duly noted.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Guy, before you get too depressed by the Guardian article, you may wish to take a closer, dispassionate look at the 'measuring' devices, their siting, their error margins and calibration, and indeed the statistical methods behind what you term 'averaging' in their modelled 'reconstruction'. You might also wish to examine the nature, reliability and accuracy of the proxies used to 'measure' and 'model' the temperature before thermometers were in use, especially for those centuries where the quality of reconstruction may be marginal. And finally, you may wish to ponder why their 'reconstruction' ends at 2001 - it might have something to do with the lack of warming since then of course.



Actually Stephen, I don't wish to take a closer look at the measuring devices, the statistical methods used blah blah blah. Why am I so cavalier? Because that's the job of scientists - it's not my job. Why do you believe that your analysis is better informed than those who do this professionally, and indeed the entire wider scientific community? I certainly don't believe that of myself - that's why I listen to the science, the statements of all the worlds major scientific institutions, and the summary of peer reviewed evidence.

Ditto Chimuelo. I don't know who's been name calling in this thread - I haven't seen any, so it sounds like a distraction tactic to me. Show me a respected institution that is pouring cold water on the scientific consensus, I'll change my views in a heartbeat. My suspicion for both of you is you are listening to the blogsphere and cherry picking the evidence you want to hear. Not my thing.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 23, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed May 23 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy, before you get too depressed by the Guardian article, you may wish to take a closer, dispassionate look at the 'measuring' devices, their siting, their error margins and calibration, and indeed the statistical methods behind what you term 'averaging' in their modelled 'reconstruction'. You might also wish to examine the nature, reliability and accuracy of the proxies used to 'measure' and 'model' the temperature before thermometers were in use, especially for those centuries where the quality of reconstruction may be marginal. And finally, you may wish to ponder why their 'reconstruction' ends at 2001 - it might have something to do with the lack of warming since then of course.
> ...



Guy, I admire your faith, but even a quick glance at the abstract reveals an error margin larger than the reported anomaly, which is rather 'interesting' to say the least. Also, we are not dealing with an 'average' as you put it earlier, rather some 'skilful' statistical manipulation and modelling to arrive at a conclusion which ignores solar forcings. Still best not let facts get in the way of a Guardian story. 

Also the term 'scientific consensus' is an oxymoron and a malapropism - science does not work by consensus and never has; consensus is a political term. The so-called consensus that you put so much store and faith in is an illusion. Your appeals to authority and to the majority are logical fallacies pure and simple. But the most important questions are these: where is the warming and where is the human signal. 

Cheers


----------



## chimuelo (May 23, 2012)

Your lack of comprehension is accepted, I understand the lengthy rants get tedious.

Being called a liar when I read the scientific results from the Norwegain and American teams on the ground simply tells me that someone has a narrow view and believes they are the end of all discussions, and then creationaism and other unrelated remarks enter the conversation. That's a distraction, so you missed that part too.

Remarks like " everyone knows " as if any opinion or facts outside of this narrow view are to be ridiculed.

Then to assume incorrectly I read blogs...? I prefer Plublished documents where the editors validate the material to avoid lawsuits. Losing funding is a serious matter to Scientists, unless their hired by Al Gore and have an agenda. Even those guys eventually admitted their flawed models. So there's another distraction full of Cherrys to pick.

Ice Cores. Thats the action, not some office schumck with a QWERTY and a guy like Al Gore standing over his shoulder with a fistful of cash.

So sorrry if the truth is a distraction, you should maybe change the name of thread to "Does anyone even care about my version and beliefs of Global warming, Climate Change."

Then I would have not have discussed the topic, as I can see it's politically motivated Again by the Carbon Credit scammers who seem to fly Jets more than I drive.
Those are the folks you worship........?? Fine by me.

I worship those who really care and dont hold fundraisers to save the Planet and buy 8 million dollar homes. The guys who are bringing us the evidence and living in those dangerously cold enviroments are worth worshipping, not the Carbon Credit whores in the House Of Lords, or Lords of Mailbu, or Austrailia where consistent lies must be told to get a seat at the " Green " table.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Guy, I admire your faith, but even a quick glance at the abstract reveals an error margin larger than the reported anomaly, which is rather 'interesting' to say the least. Also, we are not dealing with an 'average' as you put it earlier, rather some 'skilful' statistical manipulation and modelling to arrive at a conclusion which ignores solar forcings. Still best not let facts get in the way of a Guardian story.
> 
> Also the term 'scientific consensus' is an oxymoron and a malapropism - science does not work by consensus and never has; consensus is a political term. The so-called consensus that you put so much store and faith in is an illusion. Your appeals to authority and to the majority are logical fallacies pure and simple. But the most important questions are these: where is the warming and where is the human signal.
> 
> Cheers



Ok, let's nip this nonsense in the bud. It's favourite debating technique of those who seek to deny the scientific consensus to say that a) those who subscribe to it are doing as as an act of faith (cue lots of loaded terminology about high priests etc) and b) that there's no such thing as a consensus. Both of these are completely, totally and demonstrably false.

First principles - the scientific method. That's all we have. Either you subscribe to it as a methodology or you don't. The basics are simple enough - you do science by experiment and testing, you write it up, others who are eminent in the field and qualified check it for errors etc, then issue notes if necessary. If it passes this process, it gets published in a recognised journal.

If there are then subsequently errors that come to light, then more work is done, and that in turn is published. Hence nothing is cast in stone - that's scientific progress.

What ISN'T part of the scientific method is cherry picking and publishing papers that LOOK like peer review, but aren't.

So that's how it works. If any one paper has an error in the methodology, if it is an any way significant, this then gets corrected in the course of further work within the peer review framework. Of course, a thousand people can write blogs and what LOOKS like science criticisng anything they like with as much formula and impassioned argument as they can muster, but it has very limited worth if it exists outside the scientific method. NOTE - this is how ALL science works, not just climate science.

BTW - I don't know why you keep going on about Guardian stories - the source is what matters, the peer reviewed paper the story is based upon.

So that's what science is and how it works. As for the issue of "there's no such thing as a scientific consensus" - I'm afraid that just bollocks. A consensus is what you're left with with the arguing stops. When all the research that can be useful done on a given area has been done, when a single outcome is achieved and there's no useful new work to shed new light on it, then that's the consensus view. Evolutionary theory, in its broad sense, is a consensus view among scientists. There are, of course, thousands of other examples.

Stephen - these arguments are just pointless and innacurate debating techniques, used to create the false impression that there is any significant controversy in this subject among the scientific community. Consider these facts:

97% of climate scientists accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf - http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/ ... 7.abstract)

In a 2004 study of all academic literature during the previous 6 years (over 900 papers), 0% found against the consensus view
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 5702/1686#

Every major scientific institution has issued either a joint or solo public statement endorsing the consensus view, including:

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 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
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
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

That, Stephen, is what a scientific consensus looks like. It is also what faith does NOT look like, as this is all based solely upon scientific evidence. That does not make it beyond any possible doubt, that is not the nature of science (note the difference between this and consensus). Work is always ongoing. But thus far, none of it has shown any significant doubt in the consensus.

So understand this. If you choose to believe something other than the scientific consensus, you are of course perfectly free to do so. But it is - at best - an extreme minority position from a scientific perspective. Unless you are highly qualified in the field, I think it could accurately be termed a faith position (and if you ARE highly qualified - get something published quick and claim your Nobel prize). Indeed, this is the precise position of a dear family member of mine. When I asked him "what possible evidence could convince you that anthroppgenic climate change is real?" He replied "there isn't any". That is literally placing your beliefs above evidence, which is clearly only a position of faith.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 23, 2012)

Scientists perform scientific experiments. Non-scientists thinking that they can then read the contrasting results and draw sweeping scientific conclusions either way are giving themselves way too much credit.

At a certain point, we should recognize that we are NOT scientists (unless we are) and rely on some common sense.

Simple common sense says that you cannot have billions of human beings on a planet using a tremendous amount of resources, some of which are a natural part of the ecosystem and some of which are man-made, spew the waste products of all this stuff into the atmosphere and not have it have a deleterious effect on the atmosphere and the environment.

So it behooves us not to get all knotted up fighting as to whether it is is actually "global warming", cyclical climate change, or Armageddon and sim[ply do what we can to reduce the amount of damage we do.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 23, 2012)

Guy, I'm not sure what 'nonsense' you think you're 'nipping in the bud', but anyway that is hardly the way to engage in reasoned debate chap. So, I shall leave it there.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Guy, I'm not sure what 'nonsense' you think you're 'nipping in the bud', but anyway that is hardly the way to engage in reasoned debate chap. So, I shall leave it there.



Well here's the thing, Stephen - if you goad those of us who are basing our views on the scientific consensus by saying we have a "faith" position - and then deny that there's even such a thing as a consensus - you gotta expect a reaction. Every part of my post I stand by - those are the facts I strongly suspect you have no answers to. Feel free to post your own list of academic institutions (not industry or political "institutions") who have published statements not endorsing the consensus, and there will be something to talk about.



EastWest Lurker @ Wed May 23 said:


> Scientists perform scientific experiments. Non-scientists thinking that they can then read the contrasting results and draw sweeping scientific conclusions either way are giving themselves way too much credit.
> 
> At a certain point, we should recognize that we are NOT scientists (unless we are) and rely on some common sense.
> 
> ...



Jay, I agree with you on your first point. My entire argument is that we are not qualified, so when those who are most qualified speak with one voice, we are foolish in the extreme to ignore them.

Common sense is a tricky blighter though. In science it can serve you well, but it can be counter-intuitive. Ultimately, common sense should also be testable. Happily, in this case it is. In the 19th Century we discovered in a simple experiment that CO2 has a warming effect on the atmosphere. We know it's a greenhouse gas, we know that the greenhouse gasses warm the Earth (and a good thing too - otherwise we'd be more like the moon), and we know that we're shovelling vast amounts of CO2 up there - and exactly how much. Common sense dictates what will happen next - the Earth warms up. But the reality may be more complex, so scientists test and retest, ad infinitum. And guess what - your hunch is right, and common sense is right. It DOES warm the planet, just a scientist over 100 years ago would have guessed.

(pollutants, as Zac pointed out, are another matter of course - but your principle about common sense here has also been proven correct under scientific scrutiny)

However, your last sentence confuses me... if you accept what scientists say, then there is no question as to whether or not it is natural. It isn't. Ask anyone in any of those scientific institutions I listed above. That is precisely what every one of their public statements says - not just that the Earth is warming, but that we are the primary cause. If it were natural, we could figure out whether or not it would just swing back in time and not worry about doing anything. However it isn't, we know the cause, and it won't.

Here's the problem. A casual reader of this thread would probably conclude I'm some kind of fanatic. How intolerant of me not to accept that it could be man made _or not_. Maybe the Earth really isn't warming at all. That would SEEM to be a tolerant and sensible view. And that's the exact problem. This view is NOT reflected in the science community, the people at the coalface of this issue. Overhwelmingly they speak with one voice - the consensus. Yet if 97% of climate scientists are convinced, only 58% of Americans are, according to a poll in 2009 after a relatively cool year (it's jumped back a little now to 62% after some heatwaves - but still a lot less than 97% - link here http://tinyurl.com/7mxthbc ). Here's a big clue - only 47% of Republicans think AGW is real - less than half - while 75% of Democrats do. Why is this issue affected by political affiliation at all? It's just science. Answer - because of the phenomenal amount of cash ploughed into disinformation by libertarian and other right wing groups, who have successfully planted the insane seed in peoples minds that science has been subverted by some kind of communist anti-free market plot.

There is no controversy. These kinds of discussions do not happen in climate science - they are always working, always reasearching to find out more, there is so much work to do. But the origins of the warming? That's been done, and a consensus has emerged. The controversy entirely exists here on forums, the blogshere, in pubs and bars. Now, you can argue that scientific community has totally failed to get its message across, and that's a live debate. But arguably this really isn't their job - it never has been in the past. The reason we are where we are is that the scientific community has come under sustained attack from powerful - and extremely rich - vested interests. The appeal to "tolerance" is as hollow in the field of climate change as it is with Intelligent Design - "teach the controversy" is an attack on core scientific principles.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

chimuelo @ Wed May 23 said:


> I mentioned the Ice in Antacrtica has increased over the last 4 years and was called a liar, so you can see by stepping outside of the narrow viewpoint, will draw name calling and personal attacks which means, the argument isn't going their way.




I didnt say you were a liar, I said you believe liars and are repeating lies with seemingly no regard for accuracy or caring whether what you say is true or not.

Did you actually go look at the resource I posted? No, because if you did you'd see that you ARE wrong. Antarctica is NOT gaining ice. That is the lie you have been fed by denialists. It is in fact losing ice, the part they are misrepresenting is that the sea ice has increased however Antarctic land mass is still decreasing which is what they intentionally do not tell you about. If you go to the link I posted you can see indepth why climate scientists believe the sea ice has increased in spite of this. The totality of Antarctica is losing mass, that is the opposite of what you claim. 




> So some folks aren;t interested in the facts but rather politics as the typical copy/pasted links demonstrates a lack of research.



Yet you keep proving to me you are just repeating verbatim things you'd read on denialist websites/films. You cant be reading the actual science because the science doesnt actually say what you claim it says. You also keep talking about ice cores and yet the climate scientists working with the ice cores do not believe what you believe.

You seem to have a thing about Al Gore, as if he has been able to pay off 97% of the worlds climate scientists yet you claim you're somehow not biased politically to deny climate change. The idea that the majority of climate scientists are either stupid or in on a conspiracy is nuts and the fact that you cant see that shows how deep *your *political biases have taken you down the rabbit hole.



> so settle down Ed, your narrow view is duly noted.



Please do quote some actual sources that show the totality of Antarctica has gained mass. But you won't, I suspect, for the same reason Stephen won't explain what he believes Phil Jones meant on the second page of this thread and how it helps prove something on the skeptics position.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 23, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed May 23 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy, I'm not sure what 'nonsense' you think you're 'nipping in the bud', but anyway that is hardly the way to engage in reasoned debate chap. So, I shall leave it there.
> ...



My point Guy is that whether there is "global warming" or not, whether it is 100% or 2% man-made, whether e are doomed or we can solve it, our course of action needs to be exactly the same, which is to take all possible actions to reduce our role in it so why waste time squabbling about it? 

I know because it is a forum and we can, but it is a colossal waste of time.

This is Tom Friedman's argument in "Hot, Flat and Crowded" and once again the common sense of it IMHO is irrefutable.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

zacnelson @ Tue May 22 said:


> There has been a change in the terminology now; a few years ago it was `global warming’ and now it is `climate change’... because we had no warming, we were told that there would just be a general `change’ in climate which is apparently a bad thing, and we were told that by around 2010 we would have no water at all in some of our major cities (the same cities that are now at capacity).



Im sorry Zac, but everything you said shows a lack of understanding based on half rembered news stories and popular press articles. It was always global warming and climate change, the popular press have been saying climate change more than global warming today? So what? They've been talking about climate change and global warming at the same time since at least the 50s. I strongly recommend (if you want to get a better idea) is read some climate change websites (proper ones like the one I linked to previously) and good YT channels that specifically debunk skeptic claims such as user potholer54 (I linked a video of his on page 2 or 3 responding to Stephen on the Phil Jones quote.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Also the term 'scientific consensus' is an oxymoron and a malapropism - science does not work by consensus and never has



Remember that next time you're looking for medical treatment. You going to go with the consensus that says you aught to have an operation to get rid of some tumour or something, or believe that one random doctor that says nah its fine its not really a problem? My guess is you'd go with the consensus, if not I really hope you never get a serious illness.

Oh and btw the exact same argument you made above is made to support Creationism, 911 conspiracies, homeopathy and just about every fringe claim you can imagine. You have to believe that all bar a few tiny fringe minority of mostly nobodies are either too stupid or are in on a conspiracy to coverup the "truth", and not only that these scientists cant help blabbing about it in public, like Phil Jones. He didnt of course, but since skeptics believe he did then he would have to be a very incompetent conspirator.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Guy, before you get too depressed by the Guardian article, you may wish to take a closer, dispassionate look at the 'measuring' devices, their siting, their error margins and calibration, and indeed the statistical methods behind what you term 'averaging' in their modelled 'reconstruction'. You might also wish to examine the nature, reliability and accuracy of the proxies used to 'measure' and 'model' the temperature before thermometers were in use, especially for those centuries where the quality of reconstruction may be marginal. And finally, you may wish to ponder why their 'reconstruction' ends at 2001 - it might have something to do with the lack of warming since then of course.



Why do you keep making these claims and not providing any sources? 
You may want to ask yourself why so many skeptics websites only show you selected data from the last 15 years trying to pretend the temperature has been quite consistent or even gone down (hint: we are looking at much longer periods than 15 years), or only show you data up until, say, 1980 or something and then intentionally snipping off the extreme temp rise in the part they removed like the makers of Global Warming Swindle. Climate scientists dont just use one data point to show warming, they have multiple lines of data from various sources, as i said above you have to believe they are all either stupid or in on a conspiracy there is no other option for all of them to get this so wrong.

Do you intend to tell me what you think Phil Jones meant in that quote you gave and how that proves some point of yours? Maybe you realise how ignorant you'd look if you attempted to explain it and try and make it seem like Phil Jones just admitted him and all his colleagues were wrong in public as if it were nothing. If you cared about the truth of this situation you'd care that you just severely misrepresented him, but you don't seem at all bothered or interested in finding out.


----------



## chimuelo (May 23, 2012)

When a shepherd wants the flock to move to a new pasture, he uses dogs. Not one dog, because one dog will run at the sheep, the sheep will move aside and let him pass and then close ranks again. A dog from the right and a dog from the left puts pressure on the flock to stick together. Then, when an opening is left for the flock in the direction that the shepherd wants it to go, the flock flows in the proper direction.

The other comparison to our everyday life of dealing with experts that I really find amusing is the way that a couple of chimp tribes that each live with a baboon tribe act.
It seems that the chimps have grown fond of baboon meat, but they don't want to tip off the less intelligent baboons that they are hunting them. If the baboon being killed panics and makes a racket, the peaceful coexistance will end. 
What the chimps do is pretty devious. They quietly surround the target baboon, who is slightly seperated from his tribe. One chimp in front of the victim baboon starts acting silly, rolling around and goofing off. 
Then, one of his buddies sneaks up behind the victim and WHAM!, smashes the poor baboon's skull into the ground killing him instantly with no fuss. everyone can then eat baboon meat to their heart's content. 
The baboons know that something must have happened, they just don't know what it is...


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 23, 2012)

EastWest Lurker @ Wed May 23 said:


> My point Guy is that whether there is "global warming" or not, whether it is 100% or 2% man-made, whether e are doomed or we can solve it, our course of action needs to be exactly the same, which is to take all possible actions to reduce our role in it so why waste time squabbling about it?
> 
> I know because it is a forum and we can, but it is a colossal waste of time.
> 
> This is Tom Friedman's argument in "Hot, Flat and Crowded" and once again the common sense of it IMHO is irrefutable.



I agree that makes complete sense. The problem is that a lot of people genuinely don't buy your common sense approach, nor the scientifically validated equivalent. One popular denilist meme is to chortle and say "are you REALLY so arrogant as to believe that we humans can affect the planet's climate?" There are, sadly, far too many people who believe that we can do whatever we like and either there are no consequences or they don't matter.

These people tend to hide behind the nearest convenient argument, picking up their corpses as shields. So without pausing for breath, they say "there's no warming" yet when proved that there is, say "we're not causing it - it's natural" (the next step by the way is to say that somehow it's good for us - "CO2, we call it life"). The reason for all this lack of logical consistency is that it requires NO ACTION. That's the primary driver of the denialist agenda, because any form of action is communism, obviously, and impedes free market economics.

So I'd love to believe that people are sensible enough to see things the way you do - your argument makes total sense. Sadly, a great many people don't see it this way, and the hoops some of us jump through to try to explain what the science actually says is the result. I agree though that's it's largely futile, because... hmm. Time to change my sig to reflect this reason why I think - I quote it in every other post here anyway.


----------



## EastWest Lurker (May 23, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed May 23 said:


> EastWest Lurker @ Wed May 23 said:
> 
> 
> > My point Guy is that whether there is "global warming" or not, whether it is 100% or 2% man-made, whether e are doomed or we can solve it, our course of action needs to be exactly the same, which is to take all possible actions to reduce our role in it so why waste time squabbling about it?
> ...



Agreed Guy, but by now surely you know that you are not going to change people whose mind is set that way no matter how many good arguments you make if the scientists who agree with you cannot, so it is simply better IMHO to lead by example and work with like-minbded people.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed May 23 said:


> So without pausing for breath, they say "there's no warming" yet when proved that there is, say "we're not causing it - it's natural" (the next step by the way is to say that somehow it's good for us - "CO2, we call it life").



Speaking of the "Co2 is good" sillyness, since Zac brought it up.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 23, 2012)

Ed @ Wed May 23 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy, before you get too depressed by the Guardian article, you may wish to take a closer, dispassionate look at the 'measuring' devices, their siting, their error margins and calibration, and indeed the statistical methods behind what you term 'averaging' in their modelled 'reconstruction'. You might also wish to examine the nature, reliability and accuracy of the proxies used to 'measure' and 'model' the temperature before thermometers were in use, especially for those centuries where the quality of reconstruction may be marginal. And finally, you may wish to ponder why their 'reconstruction' ends at 2001 - it might have something to do with the lack of warming since then of course.
> ...



I don't intend to do anything Ed, let alone anything at your behest thank you very much. Believe whatever you want to, that is your prerogative.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> I don't intend to do anything Ed, let alone anything at your behest thank you very much. Believe whatever you want to, that is your prerogative.



I dont get you. You make a claim, someone says 'tell me what you think this means' (Phil Jones quote) and you refuse to. You make claims of gross scientific incompetence/dishonestly on a massive scale and when asked for sources you refuse. It certainly can't be a time issue since you've posted several times since you claimed you didnt have any time.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 23, 2012)

> So it behooves us not to get all knotted up fighting as to whether it is is actually "global warming", cyclical climate change, or Armageddon and simply do what we can to reduce the amount of damage we do.



Thass right.

But Guy's post does point out the problem. There's limited political capital available for dealing with this, so maybe it's futile taking fractional measures; maybe we should wait until the right technologies are available for everyone in the world to get behind.

I don't like that argument and don't believe it, but it might be the reality.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 23, 2012)

Ed @ Wed May 23 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't intend to do anything Ed, let alone anything at your behest thank you very much. Believe whatever you want to, that is your prerogative.
> ...



Believe it or not I am very busy and I'm not desperately trying to win an argument - I've more important things to be worrying about frankly. Like I said, believe what you want to believe.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Believe it or not I am very busy and I'm not desperately trying to win an argument - I've more important things to be worrying about frankly. Like I said, believe what you want to believe.



Well just a friendly suggestion then that maybe the next time you find the time to write another two paragraphs on this thread you can devote one of them to explaining what you think Phil Jones meant and in what way you think this supports the idea that GW isnt happening instead of making new claims you also arent prepared to defend or support.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 23, 2012)

Just a friendly suggestion Ed, give it a rest, there's a good chap. 

But just as a pre-buttal to your inevitable, frothing-at-the-mouth, rejoinder (which will no doubt include all manner of hyperbolic references to creationism, 911 conspiracies, big oil, anti vaxx et hoc genus omne): yes of course I understand what Phil Jones said in that BBC interview, and I understand the principles of statistics rather well thank you very much - I don't need a You Tube video to teach me such simple concepts. But let's not go down the route of comparing academic credentials Ed. 

Now, please, do give it a rest Ed, as I have to earn money to pay for windymills and other pointless contraptions which are a monument to political stupicide.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Believe it or not I am very busy and I'm not desperately trying to win an argument - I've more important things to be worrying about frankly. Like I said, believe what you want to believe.



In the nicest possible way, if you've no interest in seeing anything through, why post here at all? You make claims, some of us point out that they make no sense / are factually innacurate / made up, then you try to claim the high ground by saying "believe what you want to believe". Um, right. Nothing backwards there then.

It's a fact - not opinion - that the views you've expressed are contrary to the mainstream scientific position, and I've made clear the basis for that statement. If someone believes the world is flat and asks others to believe them, it's not unreasonable to ask for something to go on. If however you believe it is a sphere, then it's unlikely someone will roll their eyes at you can call you a Sphereist. Therefore onus is in this case is on you to demonstrate WHY mainstream science has got this one so badly wrong, whereas you have it right. To do that, you'd need really to demonstrate either that there is no consensus by showing mainstream contrary views - which you have not - or evidence of some colossal conspiracy that makes the fake moon landings pale into insignificance as at this stage it will embrace academia in its entirety. Again, the implication that those of us who accept mainstream science are in some way deluded and just believing something cos - well, it's our thing ya know - is not only patronising, it's _inappropriately_ patronising. We are saying what we do based on the mainstream scientific consensus, which is based on best rigorous evidence.

Let's face it, people are perfectly free to believe that in 5 years time we'll all be consumed by red hot macaroni cheese that will burst forth between the tectonic plates of the world. Just don't pretend it's science.

Actually, since you raise it, outside my own small world, I don't have anything more important to worry about. That's kinda the point.

Oh, just seen your reply to Ed. Being as you've accepted that Phil Jones point and not countered with anything, I'll take that as throwing in the towel, then we can all move on. I'd far rather be debating what on earth - if anything - can be done than endlessly rehashing the same old discredited ground. On that, I'm with Nick - I do think we've got no option now other than hope for a techno fix, however much I dislike that reality.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Just a friendly suggestion Ed, give it a rest, there's a good chap.
> 
> But just as a pre-buttal to your inevitable, frothing-at-the-mouth, rejoinder (which will no doubt include all manner of hyperbolic references to creationism, 911 conspiracies, big oil, anti vaxx et hoc genus omne): yes of course I understand what Phil Jones said in that BBC interview, and I understand the principles of statistics rather well thank you very much - I don't need a You Tube video to teach me such simple concepts. But let's not go down the route of comparing academic credentials Ed.



Fine then, since you refuse to defend the points you make, this is for anyone else thats still reading this....

You made out that there has been no significant warming in the last 15 years and Phil Jones admitted it, thus indicating the evidence for GW to be lacking. If this is not representing your position feel free to clarify. 

That is not what Phil Jones said at all. What he agreed with is that there had been no _"statistically" _significant warming since 1995. If you cant see the difference, there's your problem. So what does Jones mean when he says statistically significant warming? Well he tells you, in the very same paragraph. He goes *right on to say* that the data was quite close to the significance level but not quite. He says a level of *95% significance was necessary *to say that something was statistically significant. So assuming Phil Jones had data that at the time was of 90% significance level (since he says its close *EDIT: Actually was even closer, 93%*), this means that there is only 10% chance we would see this result if GW is NOT happening, BUT he would still have answered that the data was not statistically significant! And this isnt even talking about how this is just data since 1995 (randomly chosen for a loaded question) and also doesn't point out that Phil Jones has in fact now said it is statistically significant 1 year on.

He quite literally, in the very paragraph you try and quote, says the *opposite *of what you tried to argue he was saying. That is why it is not possible for you to have read what he said in context, or you did so without understanding anything you read. You defend blatant quote-mines, thats what most of the GW "skeptic" arguments involve. Thats what gets me pissed off, especially when you don't seem to give a crap. You are in no position to be so patronizing when anyone can see you took him out of context, simply by reading that sentence in context. He - simply - did - not - say - what - you - claim - he - said.

I'll even throw it open to the board: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

Does anyone else agree with Stephen's interpretation of this? Be sure to explain why Jones saying that their results show that they are very close to being 95% statistically significant, actually means the* complete opposite.*



> (which will no doubt include all manner of hyperbolic references to creationism, 911 conspiracies, big oil, anti vaxx et hoc genus omne):



Im sorry but if you're going to use arguments against climate science that are practically word-for-word arguments Creationists use Im going to point that out. If its a bad argument for them, its a bad argument here as well. I wonder why you think its different when you do it.

And as I said I hope you dont ever get a serious illness like something like cancer, some will tell you just take some vitamins and you'll be fine. Or HIV, there's several fringe "experts" that claim that doesnt even exist. What about vaccines? Do you vaccinate your kids? I wonder why, since there's a fringe that says its poison. Some even say germs don't exist and the flu itself is a myth!.... I am going to go out on a limb and suggest you will probably decide to ignore the fringe at these points.


----------



## chimuelo (May 23, 2012)

I've read some new links and now am a firm believer that C02 levels are tied to our national debt.
If we stop spending, tempuratures will drop, then the Feds will buy back worthless Electric Cars as a new form of stimulus.

Additional money can be used to cast Massive tents over Greenland and the Artic Ice fields, and this will save California and Florida from going underwater.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 23, 2012)

Thanks Ed you're an absolute star, and indeed you're right on cue again - I predicted - sorry projected with 95% certainty using my magic casino stats - that you'd comply. However, you did miss out homeopathy on that celebrated list of yours - I'm slightly disappointed to be honest. Still you can't win them all.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Thanks Ed you're an absolute star, and indeed you're right on cue again - I predicted - sorry projected with 95% certainty using my magic casino stats - that you'd comply. However, you did miss out homeopathy on that celebrated list of yours - I'm slightly disappointed to be honest. Still you can't win them all.



None of which makes the truth of Ed's words any less so, of course.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Thanks Ed you're an absolute star, and indeed you're right on cue again - I predicted - sorry projected with 95% certainty using my magic casino stats - that you'd comply. However, you did miss out homeopathy on that celebrated list of yours - I'm slightly disappointed to be honest. Still you can't win them all.



Oh certainly homeopathy! Have you never tried to argue with someone who promotes that before? Perhaps sometime you should try it as their arguments about scientific consensus and implications of conspiracies everywhere may sound familiar. So yup, its true there's plenty of fringe beliefs your argument has been used word-for-word to defend, I'm sorry I didnt have time to list them all for you or the post would have been rather a lot longer than it was, but I think you get the point.

I must say I am still quite surprised you won't even try and defend your use of the Phil Jones quote, maybe I'm naive like that. Probably not worth asking the following questions but even if you do choose to ignore them through being too busy, or just evade them like before, at least they will serve as rhetorical testament to just how stubborn a "skeptic" like you apparently is:

_

1. Do you accept that Phil Jones *never* said there has been no significant warming since 1995?

2. Do you now understand that Phil Jones said the warming trend from 1995 was *very close* (it turns out just 2%) off the 95% statistically significance level?

3. Do you also now accept that 1 year on Phil Jones has now said that the warming trend since 1995 *has *reached 95% statistical significance?

4. Do you accept that choosing* the data point 1995 was arbitrary *chosen for no other reason than that it was the earliest date they could use to ask the loaded question about statistical significance so Jones would have to honestly answer that the data doesnt show statistical significance, even though their data was *only 2% off statistical significance* anyway? (Meaning that at the time, there is only 7% chance its NOT due to GW. )

....Or to summarise all four ... QUESTION: Do you accept you were wrong about Phil Jones in every_ conceivable_ way?_



Also a worthwhile mention while we're on the subject, Richard Lindzen is probably the most credible expert the "skeptics" have on their side, though of course thats not saying much, even he is too dishonest to stop lying about this, saying in an email to fellow "skeptic" Anthony Watts of WhatsUpWithThat.com... 

_"There has been no warming since 1997 and no
statistically significant warming since 1995. _" - Richard Lindzen

Which also includes the similar lie, that there has been no warming since 1997. Yes, there has.

Like it or not Stephen, it is wrong to insist someone is saying the complete opposite of what they actually said, all anyone need do is read the paragraph in full to see that. It is quite simply a complete lie to say that Phil Jones says what you and other "skeptics" claim he said. Im not saying you're necessarily dishonest, you could have been mistaken, but your amazing insistence to - keep - ignoring all this actually says more than anything I could. If all you have are short patronising evasions, then I think everyone can see how committed you are to truth. I'll give you one thing, it does take a certain kind of balls to keep defending a point so fractally wrong as this one is.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 23, 2012)

I'm in favor of homeopathic marriage.


----------



## Ed (May 23, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Wed May 23 said:


> Oh, just seen your reply to Ed. Being as you've accepted that Phil Jones point.



Did he? I didn't see Stephen concede anything.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 23, 2012)

Ed, talk to Prince Charles, he's very much into homeopathy and believes in man made up global warming. Maybe there's a connection there for you to ponder? Like you, he probably pours over the Skeptical Science blog too. Probably.


----------



## chimuelo (May 23, 2012)

Well here's a new way to help raise revenues without using Earth ending strategies that require punishing users of C02.

http://www.freiewelt.net/video-29/eu%3A-treaty-of-debt---stop-it-now%21-%28engl.-version-von.html (http://www.freiewelt.net/video-29/eu%3A ... n-von.html)

Pretty brilliant really. Gangsters lend out money and charge extra points ( the Vig ) for the cash, our Gangsters give it for free but demand payback via legal means, like campaign contributions and Citizens United.
But this scam is brilliant as Ponzi Scheme administrators can absorb some hits and make them up later, similar to when the Cartels lose a big load, they just take the hit and raise their tax, politicians are no different.

But for this plan to pay back double rates...............??? There must be a serious advantage to being a politician across the pond to suffer this kind of pressure.

I suspect we won't see the proceeds go to save the Planet or infrasructure, or even tax relief for the endentured servants. Too bad, thats a seperate tax reserved for the serfs.

Ice Cores.........more study, and continued research on solutions, not windymills and useless Solar Panels. They're only good for nightime laptops and some tunes while camping.


----------



## zacnelson (May 23, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> Ed, talk to Prince Charles, he's very much into homeopathy and believes in man made up global warming. Maybe there's a connection there for you to ponder? Like you, he probably pours over the Skeptical Science blog too. Probably.



Hehehe maybe Ed IS Prince Charles, I'm pretty sure I've never seen them in the same room at the same time.... and I don't think I saw many posts from Ed during the royal wedding.... just sayin'...... :lol:


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 24, 2012)

Bottom line is - Jay is right. No-one's mind ever gets changed in these sorts of debates. It gives me no pleasure to say that my OP was 100% correct, and the thread went in exactly the way I suspected it would.

The inescapable and unbearably depressing conclusion for me is that, as a species, we are incapable of responding rationally to a global problem. Individuals can react to individual and local problems - and countries can react as one when threatened. But the world? Nope, it sure doesn't look like it - the vested interests are simply too strong.

Besides, I think our own brains work against us. We have the intellect and the systems in place to make a rational appropriate response, but as human beings we're not equipped to use the amazing tools we built for ourselves. There has been interesting research on this - the bottom line is that we're just not rational creatures. It says it all that the public's reaction to the presentation of the evidence by scientists depends on their politics. People believe in evidence or not depending on their POLITICS. Why is that relevant? How on earth did that happen? Because those Merchants of Doubt have managed to frame the debate away from science, and equate the scientific method in people's mind with a political or economic agenda. That is profoundly disturbing.

And after all - why deal with stuff like science, data, peer review and meta analysis when we can point and laugh at Prince Charles' funny ways or giggle at Al Gore's love of hamburgers?

My guess is on this particular issue, the only way there will ever be a global response wil be to wait for some horrendous climactic catastrophe, which in truth is a long long way off. All the best available evidence suggests it'll be a very slow burn process - bit by bit things will slowly get worse, with good years and bad years for any one place in the world. Scientists will continue to accurately describe what is happening, the attribution to man made climate change will gently increase, and people will continue to believe whatever they want and act accordingly, because they are not rational. Eventually a tipping point will be reached where the consequences are so dire, a basic survival instinct kicks in for pretty much everyone, and we might suddenly pool remaining resources and desperately try apply a techno fix. But we're talking many decades, probably even over 100 years until we reach that point imo, at which point the Earth's natural feedbacks to amplify the problem will have kicked in.

Lord knows what future generations will make of us, but there we are.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 24, 2012)

Guy, it's because science IS politicised, systemically. There is absolutely no escaping that. 

There is a rather apposite quote from Mencken which may help salve your conscience as you drive your car, switch the lights on, breathe out etc:

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."


As the years go by and more and more of the alarmist predictions from doom mongers are proven incorrect, future generations will surely say of us, how could you have been so gullible. 

Like I said before, buy Damart and candles.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> Guy, it's because science IS politicised, systemically. There is absolutely no escaping that.



OK, this is fruitful line of discussion. Before going any further, tell us you view of science AS A WHOLE. Is all of it politicised? Has it always been so? Is the scientific method fundamentally flawed as inevitably political?

If your answer to any of these questions is "yes", it would be useful for us to know a better way of advancing knowledge.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 24, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu May 24 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy, it's because science IS politicised, systemically. There is absolutely no escaping that.
> ...



Like I said one page 1, science is not, and cannot be, independent. For as long as you have human beings undertaking research, and governments, NGOs, universities and other organisations funding it and promoting it, you will have politicisation and political advocacy; science serves politics, that is - sadly - the way it is. This politicisation can, of course, manifest itself in a variety of ways. 

Where the scientific method is concerned, much of the modelling and Casino stats that are used to prop up the ailing CAGW hypothesis, for example, is always already flawed and riven with epistemological issues. However, those kinds of issues are of little or no concern for political advocates, hence the clamour for 'consensus' and the closure of and censure of any debate. 

Alarmism in any form is a very bad thing, and many scientists, egged on by NGOs and the media, and encouraged by advocacy groups like the IPCC and governments keen to reap the rewards of tax dollars, have been rather alarmist. They have admitted as much (cf James Lovelock); some have admitted that even if the science is wrong, the political objectives are what really matter anyway (cf Mike Hulme). 

It's a sorry state of affairs really. Fact is, we cannot predict the future, that is our lot as human beings. To imagine that we can somehow, like Canute, limit the warming (which has stopped of course of its own volition) to 2 degrees C is just laughable folly. The claims of Prince Charles, Gordon Clown, Gore, Pachauri or whoever else declares we have x number of days/weeks/years to 'save' the planet are utter hogwash. We will look back at these people in decades to come and lambast them for their stupidity and their hubris. 

Perhaps the most depressing aspect of this, to use your term, is that bonafide environmental issues are being ignored, and that is a tragedy.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Thu May 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:
> ...



Whoa whoa whoa, slow down. You're adding 2 and 2 together and making 4,338,257. One by one, just starting with first principles.

We need to stop to reflect on your bold view that "science serves politics". Let's for a moment put climate change to one side. How, I wonder, was science servicing politics when electromagnetism was discovered? How about quantum mechanincs? What political motivation revealed dark energy or chaos theory?

I think you've run with the notion that because things cost money - no university is "free" - that this means that academia itself is politically motivated, despite it being completely independent of political decision-making.

But let's just forget that and say for a moment you are right - acedemia is nothing more than the politician's playground. So let's return to climate change - phew, that explians all this alarmist nonsense, doesn't it? Only... hold on a minute... China endorses this science. And America. And Russia. So... I'm confused. Which political agenda is being followed here? In countries from far right to far left, the scientific institutions have all said the same thing - that anthropogenic warming is occuring.

Now, you appear to be convinced that nevertheless academia has all this totally wrong. I'm now interested to hear you theory to explain the political motivation that spreads from far left to far right.


----------



## paulcole (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> noiseboyuk @ Thu May 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:
> ...



Imagine if 535 AD happened today. These guys would be all over the place. And that was 1500 years ago AND without funding!


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 24, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu May 24 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:
> 
> 
> > noiseboyuk @ Thu May 24 said:
> ...



Sorry if I'm going too quickly for you.  

Your concept of politics is rather limited and narrow Guy. So, let's just consider that venerable institution the Royal Society for a moment. Where do you imagine its money comes from?


----------



## Ed (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 23 said:


> Ed, talk to Prince Charles, he's very much into homeopathy and believes in man made up global warming. Maybe there's a connection there for you to ponder? Like you, he probably pours over the Skeptical Science blog too. Probably.



So I see you chose the short patronising evasion method. You seem to be trying to make a point above, but even I cant believe you could be that stupid to be saying that what Charles thinks matters to climate science.

I guess theres no choice but to call you a liar then, I wouldn't do that lightly, I gave you ample chance to accept you're wrong about Jones. Somehow you turn him saying there's less than 7% chance the warming since 1995 is NOT due to global warming, into there has been no significant warming since 1995. Impressive. You sure have big balls to try and still take the high ground.



Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> [They have admitted as much (cf James Lovelock); some have admitted that even if the science is wrong, the political objectives are what really matter anyway (cf Mike Hulme).



Got an actual quote this time?_ (strange also how you found time to write such a long post yet dont have time to defend your lies about Jones)_ Amazing how you guys throw around these libellous and slanderous accusations as if it were nothing you need to back up.


----------



## Ed (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> Sorry if I'm going too quickly for you.
> 
> Your concept of politics is rather limited and narrow Guy. So, let's just consider that venerable institution the Royal Society for a moment. Where do you imagine its money comes from?



Out of interest to see just how delusional you are...

Are you honestly under the impression that there are no lobbying groups funding the GW skeptics? Do you really believe there is more money in renewables and cap and trade than oil? Do you really believe that 97% of the experts are in on a conspiracy?


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> Your concept of politics is rather limited and narrow Guy. So, let's just consider that venerable institution the Royal Society for a moment. Where do you imagine its money comes from?



Again, hold on - before we start laying into our venerable institutions, can we deal with the existing questions? Perhaps you can explain how my limited and narrow appreciation of politics allows for a situation where political influence from far left and right regimes has resulted in the same outcome among every single national scientific institution? I know my thinking is a little retarted on this point, so I need some help. It's also terribly confusing to silly old me how those institutions in right wing regimes (eg NASA) STILL come up with these identical conclusions, despite certain administrations political interference attempting to suppress their reports being a matter of public record.

You seem to be leaning towards a global scientific conspiracy. I genuinely don't understand how that might work, so you need to answer this before we can move on to the next stage.


----------



## Ed (May 24, 2012)

@Guy:

You can always tell the really dedicated conspiracy theorists when they will claim a massive global scientific fraud as if it were nothing, when the truth is so simple anyone see it, and when the conspirators cant help blabbing about it to the public and even be stupid enough to be unaware they have done it. When you see that magic trinity of stupid, you know you're going to be in for a wild ride.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 24, 2012)

'Liar' and 'delusional' Ed. My, my you have excelled yourself today. I think you should learn how to debate in a reasoned manner before you start shooting your mouth off in that puerile and belligerent fashion in public. Grow up. 

Bye, bye.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 24, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu May 24 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Your concept of politics is rather limited and narrow Guy. So, let's just consider that venerable institution the Royal Society for a moment. Where do you imagine its money comes from?
> ...



Guy, your view of politics (as it is manifested) seems to be quite narrowly defined - it seems to be confined to party politics and conventional concepts of left vs right. It's generally more complex than that in this debate I would suggest; at times more subtle and covered and at times far less so. It has often to do with incumbent leadership, institutional policy and relationships between said institutions and governments. I think a good maxim here - well there are two: turkeys don't vote for Christmas; and don't bite the hand that feeds. 

Interesting you mention NASA, you will no doubt have been following their recent controversy with interest?


----------



## Ed (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> 'Liar' and 'delusional' Ed. My, my you have excelled yourself today. I think you should learn how to debate in a reasoned manner before you start shooting your mouth off in that puerile and belligerent fashion in public. Grow up.
> 
> Bye, bye.



Such hypocrisy from someone who has only ever handwaved everything Ive said to them.

Yes Sir, the one thing I cant stand is lying about what people said, quote-mining.

You started off claiming Phil Jones said something he actually said the *opposite *of and there's absolutely no possible way you could ever honestly interpret any other way. I spend some time giving you benefit of doubt that you hadn't read it in context, but now there's no doubt anymore. You won't even try and defend the point all you make is snarky short arrogant patronising evasions, then blame me when I get more and more pissed with you? What respect do you deserve? What reasonable debate do you think we can have if you refuse to acknowledge such a simple point? Since it was explained several times_ you know_ that Jones *never *said what you claim he said, you just don't care and Im sure you'll repeat this lie that he said there's no significant warming since 1995 some other time somewhere else to someone else. Asserting something you know isn't true is a lie.

To debate in a reasonable manor does not include strawmen and quote-mines. Im truly sorry you cannot see that.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 24, 2012)

Okay, I got reported posts to the administrators.

Unless there have been edits, I see nothing out of bounds. Stephen is eloquent and smug about his faulty logic  while Ed and Guy are taking his bait without insulting his manhood. That's a normal debate, right?

Meanwhile I suggest that everyone who hasn't done so already read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. It's all about how civilizations throughout history have made the choice whether to survive or fail (usually they made the choice not to make a choice, actually). The subtext is its relevance to today, of course, and I think it's the most important book there is. Every high school kid should read it, and every adult as well.

It also gives you an insight into world affairs that you don't get by reading the news.

And no, it's not at all political, it's historical, anthropological, geographical, sociological...scientific.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> Guy, your view of politics (as it is manifested) seems to be quite narrowly defined - it seems to be confined to party politics and conventional concepts of left vs right. It's generally more complex than that in this debate I would suggest; at times more subtle and covered and at times far less so. It has often to do with incumbent leadership, institutional policy and relationships between said institutions and governments. I think a good maxim here - well there are two: turkeys don't vote for Christmas; and don't bite the hand that feeds.



Ummm....

So ok, it's nothing to do with a classic political agenda.... right... given your "turkey's don't vote for Chrsitmas" comment, is the conspiracy here that scientists invent facts out of thin air to simply keep themselves in a job? And sub-question - is this ALL scientists, or is this something unique to climate scientists? I am making some slow progress here on getting where you're coming from, but before I go any further, I want to nail this down - I need to get exactly what you are suggesting before effortlessly demolishing it, it would be rather a waste of time otherwise...

BTW - Nick - Collapse is a storming book, and yes, highly pertinent. There's an insufferable smugness from some folks who assume that just because nothing REALLY bad has happened in a while (and especially if some other folks are a bit over-exciteable about suggesting they would in the short term), nothing really bad can POSSIBLY happen. I believe the phrase is "if we do not learn the mistakes from history, we are bound to repeat them".


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 24, 2012)

Just that it's much more subtle than any 'classical' political dichotomisation allows for Guy. 

Take a look at the ongoing controversy at NASA for example. This has primarily to do with the leadership taking a position that not every illustrious 'member' agrees with or is happy to countenance. It's rather like what happened last year with the Royal Society - they were forced to re-frame their 'position' on CAGW because a significant proportion of their membership, quite rightly, did not agree with their 'official' stance on such matters. 

What do you do, however, if you are at the helm of such organisations and are dependent upon the incumbent government of the day for your oxygen? Like I said, it's advisable to not bite the hand that feeds. 

Let's put it another way, if a director were offering you a very hefty music budget and a rather luxuriant fee for your compositional services for a film, would you turn down the gig because it contradicted your belief that (for example) polar bear populations were dwindling? 

Cheers


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 24, 2012)

Of course, politics affects funding. Funding enables research on certain topics over others. There is the possibility of self-censorship.

But how exactly is this unique to science? It affects many aspects of human endeavor including education, media, religion, etc. Just try to get funding to produce an atonal, 21st century, Gregorian chant opera for Broadway or the West End.

But the fact is that there are many funding sources for science. More importantly, there are scientists who are obsessively dedicated to their fields. Many are super nerds who are barely aware of social pressures, let alone driven by it.

Of course, major policy statements from large organizations are political by definition. But don't confuse policy statements with the practice of science and the publication of papers. No matter how much money is spent to suppress science, the truth generally prevails. The well-funded "science" that said tobacco was healthy was eventually steamrolled by empirical evidence.


----------



## Ed (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> It's rather like what happened last year with the Royal Society - they were forced to re-frame their 'position' on CAGW because a significant proportion of their membership, quite rightly, did not agree with their 'official' stance on such matters.



Not that you will actually respond to any of this of course, but you misrepresent the issue. The disagreement was over wording that was seen by some to imply or suggest that questioning any aspect of AGW is always malicious and the science is all settled. Many complained on principle. Your position is that the earth is not warming, for you to say that the Royal Society had to revise its position because many of their membership didn't agree implies that a significant proportion of their membership dont believe or are unsure about if whether global warming is even happening like you. This is not the case. Believing the earth isnt warming at all (_in fact you said its going to get colder, right?_) is the YEC version of climate denial..sorry, "skepticism", and you arent going to find a lot of support for that. Its like a Creationist pointing to disagreements within Evolutionary scientists and saying, _see! Many scientists disagree with evolution like we do!_ No, not like you do.

You claimed on the previous page that people like Mike Hulme have said that the political objectives matter more than whether the science is real or not . I dont know about anyone else but I'd sure like to see a source on that one. I suspect its just as fictional or distorted as your use of the quote from Phil Jones' BBC interview.

*EDIT:*



> Let's put it another way, if a director were offering you a very hefty music budget and a rather luxuriant fee for your compositional services for a film, would you turn down the gig because it contradicted your belief that (for example) polar bear populations were dwindling?



I'm going to re-frame this for you. You believe that powerful oil companies arent paying any of the fringe "skeptics" to lie for them, that carbon tax is going to be SO much more lucrative than anything oil can bring in that world governments have managed to pay off 97% of climate experts to join their conspiracy to convince the world of global warming and we need to reduce our need for oil. This isnt just 1 single guy like your example requires, its not even a hundred. You believe a massive world wide conspiracy. You think this is all happening right now, but you dont believe its likely your fringe "skeptic" experts couldn't be bought by the powerful billion $$$ oil companies. I think your Occams Razor gage is working backwards.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> Just that it's much more subtle than any 'classical' political dichotomisation allows for Guy.
> 
> Take a look at the ongoing controversy at NASA for example. This has primarily to do with the leadership taking a position that not every illustrious 'member' agrees with or is happy to countenance. It's rather like what happened last year with the Royal Society - they were forced to re-frame their 'position' on CAGW because a significant proportion of their membership, quite rightly, did not agree with their 'official' stance on such matters.
> 
> ...



But I'm still fundamentally confused. You seem to suggest that publishing research that is contrary to received wisdom is itself damaging, and so people don't do it. Yet this is precisely the nature of science, this is how breakthroughs and advancements are made the entire time. It is of course true that remarkable claims require remarkable evidence (the weight of current evidence being so overwhelming), but there are many, many examples of science doing exactly this - when someone has done good, repeatable, scientific work.

So I don't see the mechanism. How does this operate? What suppression is at work to stop the REAL research you clearly believe is out there? If someone has sat on research that shows its all nonsense, why has it never been published in a peer reviewed journal? Moreoever, where is the evidence that there is someone out there who has done this? I'm not talking about blog posts that are routinely debunked, but actual academic research which keeps getting rejected for political reasons.

Clearly there has to be a conspiracy at work here for you to be right. You need to provide some evidence of some....


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 24, 2012)

Guy, did you pause to consider the ongoing controversy with NASA? And indeed what do you make of the Royal Society's reframing of their position?


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 24, 2012)

There is no science-wide conspiracy. Funding for science has thousands of independent sources in the US alone.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 24, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:


> Guy, did you pause to consider the ongoing controversy with NASA? And indeed what do you make of the Royal Society's reframing of their position?



I can and will have plenty to say on that as and when we get that far! I don't want to go on and on (heaven forfend) but I do think it's worth establishing the basics before we get onto any specifics. I tend to find that contrarians love to debate any small and relatively trivial detail rather than the big picture, and I'm very much a big picture kinda guy with climate change. The big picture is REALLY big.

As Jon points out, you do have some real problems to address in terms of credibility when alleging an overpowering global scientific conspiracy, and indeed I do sense a reluctance to engage with that particular question. In which case, if you don't fancy that thorny little challenge above, I propose a far easier alternative, which still stays in the realm of the big picture.

A dear friend of mine who is infinitely more intelligent than I am said that there's only one question worth asking a contrarian with regard to climate change, and it is this - "what evidence would it take to convince you that anthropocentric climate change is real?" Feel free to give that one a shot instead, but please be honest with yourself and us as to your answer, whatever that may be, as succinctly as possible. If it helps, I'll get the ball rolling and answer the opposite question which applies to me - "what evidence would it take to convince me that antrhopogenic climate change is NOT real?" - my answer is when this is reflected in the peer reviewed literature, and hence ultimately policy statements from major scientific academic institutions. If that should happen, I'll change my view without hesitation. I've shown you mine, now you show me yours!


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 25, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Thu May 24 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Thu May 24 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy, did you pause to consider the ongoing controversy with NASA? And indeed what do you make of the Royal Society's reframing of their position?
> ...



These are paradigmatic cases, and go right to the beating heart of the politicisation of science.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 25, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:


> These are paradigmatic cases, and go right to the beating heart of the politicisation of science.



I disagree. As I've already said, 97% of climate scientists accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change. That means 3% DON'T. Even among 1,000 climate scientists, 30 don't subscribe to the consensus, apparently. 30! You could fill a room with 'em, and they're QUALIFIED! But the question is very simple - why believe the 30 and disbelieve the 970? And that's all your examples are pointing to - asking us to believe a very small minority, which is a) a group we already know exists and therefore b) changes nothing.

Here's why I'm wary. All these threads, all over the internet, degenerate into a blizzard of links and blogs and "so and so said such and such". I know you're not fond of Ed's comparison with 9/11 conspiracies et al, but he certainly has a point. How conspiracy theories work is that they ignore the macro - the big, obvious, overwhelming stuff - and elevate the micro. So the ironically self-named "Truthers" point to puffs of smoke coming out of the WTC on its horrific way down, and say "see? Looks just like a controlled demolition, doesn't it?", and they'll put it side-by-side with a controlled demolition. And you know what? It DOES look like that!

Of course, you then have to not only ignore the simple physics that explains that particular phenomenon (pressure), but then go on to remove your brain and jump through so many absurd hoops to ignore the plot holes you could drive a bus through and colossal, overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was what it was - a very well planned but disturbingly simple suicide terrorist attack that exploited deficiencies in security.

I choose that example because this is how conspiracy theory works in any area. I know you'd like to discuss this proxy record, or one particular model, or - in this case - a particular argument in a particular organisation. These, I suggest, are equally trivial to the example above. Why? Because if there were substance to supposed flaws in the consensus position, the scientific method itself would reveal it. The scientific method, as practiced by academia, by its very nature ultimately draws towards truth, so deficiencies in data, statistical analysis etc will inevitably rise to the surface. That is what the scientific method is, and I don't believe that there is any known better way of advancing human knowledge (again, feel free to correct me).

Now, I'm quite happy to do that, to argue over the small band of Royal Society contrarians and the effect they had (spoiler - very little), but not yet. I want to first of all far better establish why you don't believe what I do about the scientific method. I need to see how a conspiracy might work, and additionally understand if you are saying that ALL science is political and always has been, or if there is something unique about climate science. Do you have unorthodox views on other areas of science such as evolution, for example, or is Climate Change an isolated case?

I notice, however, that you have not answered my other and - I suspect - far more revealing question, which really does go to the heart of the matter. "what evidence would it take to convince you that anthropocentric climate change is real?" If you choose to continue to ignore that perfectly straightfoward question, I'll have to conclude that the real answer is exactly the same as the one my family member Andy gave me - "there isn't any". He KNEW it wasn't true. And he's no fool - Andy's a great guy and we get on perfectly well! Since he had the good grace to admit that his was a faith position, we just both now know it's a waste of our time to discuss climate change...

Faith (whether driven by religion, political ideology or anything else) is a very powerful thing. If there is no possible evidence that could convince you, you have a faith position, and all other debate would at a stroke become futile. It's perfectly fine and normal to have a faith position on this, but absolutely pointless to debate any of the science as it is all secondary to your faith - the science has to meet your own belief system first, which is of course fundamentally unscientific. As I've already explained, my position is based on evidence, not faith, and I will always change my view in the light of the best available evidence, as presented as the sum conclusion of the scientific method in this area. You could score a few cheap points by saying that I too have faith - in the scientific method - but I'll get in ahead of you there (we could open that tedious door, but the outcome would be very predictable).

You see why I'm asking the question. If this ISN'T your answer (and I hope it isn't), then we need to see what is. I'd HATE to think I was wasting my time here :wink:


----------



## Ed (May 25, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Fri May 25 said:


> So the ironically self-named "Truthers" point to puffs of smoke coming out of the WTC on its horrific way down, and say "see? Looks just like a controlled demolition, doesn't it?", and they'll put it side-by-side with a controlled demolition. And you know what? It DOES look like that!



I'd offer a more pointed example...

--- _Creationists _believe famous evolutionary scientists like Stephen J Gould admit there are no transitional fossils.
--- _911 Truthers _believe Larry Silverstein casually admitted to demolishing WTC7 and complicity in mass murder in a pre-recorded documentary.
---_ GW "skeptics"_ believe that scientists like Phil Jones casually admit in public there has been no significant evidence of warming, going against everything else he has ever said, but for some reason doesnt notice he did that.

Or...

--- _Creationists _believe there's an atheist conspiracy to keep Creationists out of mainstream science and schools, many are too scared to speak out because they are afraid for their jobs.
--- _911 Truthers _believe there's a government conspiracy to suppress any suggestion that the towers were blown up by bombs/thermite/energy weapons etc in mainstream science and everyone is just too scared to speak out or the rest are all paid off.
---_ GW "skeptics"_ believe... the same thing... only its the governments of the world that thinks there's a crap ton of money in carbon tax, way more than oil, and so have paid off 97% of experts and respected institutions.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 25, 2012)

Ed @ Fri May 25 said:


> --- _Creationists _believe there's an atheist conspiracy to keep Creationists out of mainstream science and schools, many are too scared to speak out because they are afraid for their jobs.
> --- _911 Truthers _believe there's a government conspiracy to suppress any suggestion that the towers were blown up by bombs/thermite/energy weapons etc in mainstream science and everyone is just too scared to speak out or the rest are all paid off.
> ---_ GW "skeptics"_ believe... the same thing... only its the government that thinks there's a crap ton of money in carbon tax, way more than oil, and so have paid off 97% of experts and respected institutions.



I must admit, that's pretty much the dynamic. There is always a supposedly fearful cowering group of poor souls who know the truth but are repressed by the all powerful Elite Who Control All. A minor correction - the only thing is that with the repressed GW scientists, it's not that they are paid off as much as they simply get to keep their own jobs as long as they keep lying. Bizarrely, this is also typically conflated with incredulous statements of "do you know how much money there is to be made by the green energy industry?" as if a) they had control over academia and b) the fossil fuel industry - who are benign of course - didn't dwarf it massively.


----------



## Ed (May 25, 2012)

Ah but thats not a correction, ie. They are either actively paid off to join the mass conspiracy, or they are too scared to speak out through fear of losing their jobs. 

What I find interesting is they will tell you there is money to be made in the green industry with green tech and carbon tax etc, as if this going to be SUCH a HUGE amount more than the money that can be made with oil AND the tax on that oil. That its going to be SO lucrative that world governments have come together in secret to actively suppress all these scientists and scientific institutions and they are SO good at their deception that the only evidence of this "skeptics" can find is in blatant misquotes and pretending people and reports say things they dont and we already know the oil industry is a multi billion dollar industry, probably one of if not the most profitable industry in the world.

I mentioned it before but its amazing that someone can think that 97% of experts can be forced/persuaded to tell such obvious lies (according to "skeptics") and yet the 3% apparently aren't. So Stephen will and is trying to give you lots of reasons why we should think that scientists can lie and twist the evidence to support the people paying them, but doesnt realise that the first reasonable conclusion is that the 3% that disagree are more likely to be paid off since it doesnt require a massive conspiracy of epic proportions. Its much more logical to think a small % can be convinced to lie.

For the record though I dont think the 3% are all paid off, I know some of them are clearly shills with money coming from Exxon for example heavily involved with anti-GW propaganda.The others are just dangerously incompetent like the 911 truthers who just happen to be or are retired structural engineers, architects, or physicists etc.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 25, 2012)

Ed @ Fri May 25 said:


> For the record though I dont think the 3% are all paid off, I know some of them are clearly shills with money coming from Exxon for example heavily involved with anti-GW propaganda.The others are just dangerously incompetent like the 911 truthers who just happen to be or are retired structural engineers, architects, or physicists etc.



I just googled "percentage of scientists who believe in evolution". Funnily enough, in this poll from 2009 - http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/ ... er-issues/ (which is the most recent I found), it puts the figure at 97% also. Also spooky, the percentage of the public who accept it is also practically identical to the AGW stats - 61% (nb - these AGW figures relate specifically to climate scientists, among the broader scientific community the figure is a mere 84% of support).

I think you're right, there's a number of reasons why the 3% are there. I presume in the case of creationism it's mostly religious, with AGW its probably a more complex mix of politics and business affiliation.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 25, 2012)

Guy, there is no visible human signal in climate change data. None. Nada. Zip. If there were, there wouldn't be any scientific debate. But there is plenty of scientific debate. 

You seem to be constantly seeking refuge in 'numbers of scientists' assumed to be in agreement with their institution's formal position. I've alluded to just two recent and indeed on-going cases where the official position differs from the actual position of some of its key membership. This is, as above, a perfect example of politics in play and at work. So it would be useful to get your views on the above, since we are talking about politics. 

Worthwhile also drilling down into this magic '97% of all climate scientists' that is being bandied around. I'm not going to refer to some more recent critiques of this figure, instead I'll take the figures cited in your link above:


"With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the 
survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]. Of our survey participants, 90% were from U.S. institutions and 6% were from Canadian institutions; the remaining 4% were from institutions in 21 other nations. More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common areas of expertise reported were 
geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5–7% of the 
total respondents. *Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, 
and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change.* While respondents’ names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions. 

My emphasis. 


So, by my calculations, out of the 3,146 who responded to the questionnaire, only 157 were climate scientists. And only 8.5% (267) indicated that more than 50% of their published research had been on the subject of climate change in the past 5 years. 126 of all respondents were from outside of the US and Canada. Interesting figures I'm sure you will agree. So out of 10,257 'earth scientists' polled, only 157 were climate specialists. 

Now, let's turn to the actual questions themselves, since they are crucial here. Question 1: When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

The answer to that is self-evidently, 'generally risen' since pre 1800s was a cold period (successive solar minima, LIA etc). Temps have risen since then - no one seems to dispute that. Temps were at least as high as they were today though in the MWP, but the question didn't solicit that response. 

Question 2: Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The issue with this question is clearly *how significant* a contributing factor. For example, if one thought that human contributions were 25% or 35% - is that to be deemed 'significant'? Or is significant 5%? Or 80%? You can see the issue. The question wasn't are humans responsible for climate change, it was is human activity a contributing factor. You can see the difference. And that difference is important. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 25, 2012)

> Guy, there is no visible human signal in climate change data. None. Nada. Zip. If there were, there wouldn't be any scientific debate. But there is plenty of scientific debate.



If you believe that then it doesn't matter what else you say.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 25, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 25 said:


> > Guy, there is no visible human signal in climate change data. None. Nada. Zip. If there were, there wouldn't be any scientific debate. But there is plenty of scientific debate.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe that then it doesn't matter what else you say.



It's not a question of belief, it is a question of fact. Period. There is no signal in the data. 

Now, whether there will be a signal at some stage is another question, but there is no signal as yet. If there were, there would be no debate.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 25, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > > Guy, there is no visible human signal in climate change data. None. Nada. Zip. If there were, there wouldn't be any scientific debate. But there is plenty of scientific debate.
> ...



Well, that's the game-over statement for me. All those insitututions I named and the the hundreds of peer reviewed papers that were analysed in the Oreskes study find find the opposite to your supposed statement of fact, and - guess what - they're qualified. To make your claim as a FACT - not even opinion - and twice no less, when it categorically cannot possibly be one as we stand here in 2012 ends the debate.

Please understand that it is pointless trying to show why your anaylsis is better than theirs - the issue is that professionals in very large numbers and every major scientific establishment on earth disagree with you. Logically, therefore, your statement cannot possibly be a fact, unless you can prove that the statement from every institution, and every single peer reviewed paper that supports the AGW consensus does not, in fact, really exist.


----------



## Ed (May 25, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:


> It's not a question of belief, it is a question of fact. Period. There is no signal in the data.
> 
> Now, whether there will be a signal at some stage is another question, but there is no signal as yet. If there were, there would be no debate.



No Stephen, it is not a fact and there *IS* no debate that the earth is warming significantly. You believe the YEC version of climate denial, the idea that it isnt warming at all and is actually going to get colder (is what you suggested earlier).

You make claims and fail to even ATTEMPT to back them up either with anything at all. Seriously, out of all of the claims you have made on this thread, which of them when challenged have you *EVEN ATTEMPTED* to defend? 

You made a claim earlier that GW scientists have said that the science doesnt matter, evidence? You claimed Phil Jones said that there has been no significant warming, evidence? Now you say there is no evidence whatsoever that the earth has warmed, none at all. That not just denial thats absolutely delusional. Multiple lines of evidence all show the eath is warming and warming that is consistent with human causation. You wont even accept the former, thats grave A level denial. Id love to know which websites you've been reading because its clearly not the scientific literature.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 25, 2012)

Perhaps you'll find this useful, Stephen.

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

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


----------



## JonFairhurst (May 25, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:


> Guy, there is no visible human signal in climate change data. None. Nada. Zip.



Hmmm. I thought that it was generally accepted that one cannot prove a negative.

Then again, this is why Atheists don't need to (and can't) prove that God does not exist. Instead, it's up to religious scientists (as compared to those who go on faith) to provide evidence that God, in fact, exists. It would be easy if we could see some giant hurling down lightning bolts from the sky.

Nick has shown the NASA links. It's pretty simple. Man has been burning fossil fuels at an accelerating pace. CO2 levels are spiking beyond historical levels. CO2 levels and global temperature correlate. The correlation has a basis in theory (the greenhouse effect.) Finally, global temperatures are rising.

If this doesn't demonstrate a human signal (or more specifically, a humans-burning-carbon-based-fuels signal) then please tell us what evidence you would need to demonstrate the human signal in the data.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 25, 2012)

Interesting someone should cite NASA. You mean that institution that I referred to earlier that is going through a crisis right now because a significant number of its (well decorated) membership disagrees with its leadership about its position on global warming? Or are we talking about a different NASA? Politics, surely not...


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 25, 2012)

JonFairhurst @ Fri May 25 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy, there is no visible human signal in climate change data. None. Nada. Zip.
> ...



Well, Jon, you're adding 2+2 and making 3 to the power of 10. You're getting ahead of yourself in several respects. CO2 and temperature do appear to correlate, but the correlation is temperature rises first, CO2 follows (obviously not what Gore suggested in his film). The lag is approx 5/600 years. CO2 levels have been substantially higher in past (and indeed lower); temperature has been substantially vastly higher in the past and indeed lower. The reality is that there has been no warming for the past decade, and yet CO2 emissions continue to rise apace. And we can deduce from that ...? 

Don't just take my word for it or anyone else's for that matter, do the research, look at the data.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 25, 2012)

noiseboyuk @ Fri May 25 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Fri May 25 said:
> ...




So you're not willing to address the magic 97% issue that you have been promulgating? The fact that out of 10,000 odd earth scientist polled, only 157 were climate scientists? What about the current NASA issue or the Royal Society issue? These are surely issues which underpin your complete confidence in the official positions of numerous venerable institutions... 

Thus far you have sidestepped these crucial questions. Perhaps you might address them now?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 25, 2012)

Stephen. Once again:

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

There are two graphs. One shows carbon dioxide concentration over time, the other one shows global surface temperature over time.

You can prattle on all you want about politics or anything else you want, but there isn't a sentient person on the planet who will dispute those data.


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 25, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Sat May 26 said:


> So you're not willing to address the magic 97% issue that you have been promulgating?



No, sorry Stephen, it's a total waste of my time. As it would be having to defend NASA. or the Royal Society, or NAS, or NOAA or any of the other 60 institutions I mentioned, or any of the 100s of peer reviewed papers. Nothing any of us can say will affect your view, because you believe something to be a fact, whereas it is literally impossible for it to be so. To be clear - even if that entire body of scientific evidence is proven to be wrong in the fullness of time, it is still wrong to declare it as a fact now.

I don't mean to be rude or difficult, but rational debate is impossible with that as a given.

Jon - actually this example is a lot more clear cut than the classic "proving a negative" argument. This issue is not the data itself or its interpretation - it is that by declaring the conclusion a fact, when there is a large body of available evidence suggests the opposite, the only logical interpretation is that we're being asked to deny the very existence of other people! If the argument was "I don't think that data shows any human fingerprint, and here's why", then that would be trying to prove a negative and we'd all no doubt still be arguing now. But when declared as a fact, that's something itself that is instantly disprovable. In summary - it isn't a fact, and that's a fact!

Nick - time to quit drilling. There's no use in linking NASA, in Stephen's eyes everything they've ever published is now worthless because of a conspiracy (or maybe complete incompetence, I'm not sure which it is in their case). I suggest linking one of the huge number of alternate authoritative sources would be equally fruitless - if NASA and the Royal Society are now to be discounted, you won't find other institutions that pass the test instead. We're at the end of the road here.


----------



## Ed (May 26, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:


> Interesting someone should cite NASA. You mean that institution that I referred to earlier that is going through a crisis right now because a significant number of its (well decorated) membership disagrees with its leadership about its position on global warming? Or are we talking about a different NASA? Politics, surely not...



Once again you misrepresent the facts, just like you did with the Royal Society. I already replied to that, but never mind I already assume you ignore all my posts.

The former NASA employees, most of which hold no degrees in atmospheric sciences or fields related to climate change and many are not scientists at all.

Climate scientist Michael Mann put it well:



> _“NASA has always been about looking out to the skies and beyond, not burying our heads in the sand,”.. “This is an old ploy, trying to cobble together a small group of individuals and make it sound like they speak with authority on a matter that they have really not studied closely. In this case, the effort was led by a fossil fuel industry-funded (climate change) denier who works for the Heartland Institute, and sadly he managed to manipulate this group of former NASA employees into signing on to this misguided statement.”_



And Waleed Abdalati, NASA Chief Scientist said



> _As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, *we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse*,” _



But they have no intention to debate in the scientific literature because the exercise was to cast doubt into peoples minds regarding climate change. Headlines like, _ Top NASA scientists take a stand against the official story of global warming!!_ Or, _NASA in crisis over global warming controversy!!_ Might sound good for newspaper headlines, but its not true. Most of these ex employees arent even scientists let alone trained in climate, but we mustn't let facts from getting in the way of a good headline right?

What you still fail to grasp is the absurdity of your conspiracy theory. Even if NASA and the Royal Society could be assumed to be paid off and lie, how do you explain all the other climate scientists in the world? NASA and those at the Royal Society would be very small by comparison and they would be shouted down all over the place, they would *be *the minority. It is not NASA that came up with this data its data from lots of different researchers all over the world, it is them that you also require to be in on a conspiracy as well. Its the same reason why 911 truthers cant just implicate NIST or FEMA in lying about the collapses, they would have to implicate just about everyone else as well.

And always remember, you are not just saying that warming isn't due to humans but that the earth isnt warming at all and is in fact going to get colder. That is the YEC version of climate denial.

On the other page you made a potentially libellous statement regarding people like Mike Hulme who you claimed said the science being real doesnt matter as much as their political objectives. Got any source for this? Im not sure why you feel its okay to go around accusing people of fraud and dishonesty while not thinking you need to back any of it up with anything other than your smug insistence.


----------



## Ed (May 26, 2012)

Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:


> The issue with this question is clearly *how significant* a contributing factor. For example, if one thought that human contributions were 25% or 35% - is that to be deemed 'significant'? Or is significant 5%? Or 80%? You can see the issue. The question wasn't are humans responsible for climate change, it was is human activity a contributing factor. You can see the difference. And that difference is important.
> 
> Any thoughts?



Almost forgot to reply to this.

While it is true that not all surveys are as well done as each other, there have been various surveys and they all show consistently that around 97% of climate scientists accept AGW. 

Having said that I'm going to quote the *conclusion* from the same paper you posted those quotes from:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ssi/DoranEOS09.pdf (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ ... nEOS09.pdf)




> It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played
> by human activity is largely nonexistent
> among those who understand the nuances
> and scientific basis of long-term climate
> ...


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 27, 2012)

Nick Batzdorf @ Sat May 26 said:


> Stephen. Once again:
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
> 
> ...



Nick, can you explain to me what that temperature graph is indicating?


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2012)

I think this is relevant right about now. I think Michael Mann's testimony is a good overview.


----------



## Resonator (May 27, 2012)

I care about it, but I do sometimes think that we flatter ourselves believing we have any control over the planet and it's climate.
Climate change happened before many,many years ago when we didn't even exist.


----------



## Ed (May 27, 2012)

Resonator @ Sun May 27 said:


> I care about it, but I do sometimes think that we flatter ourselves believing we have any control over the planet and it's climate.
> Climate change happened before many,many years ago when we didn't even exist.



Of course it did, but it has been demonstrated that the *recent warming* is *unprecedented *and the most likely explanation is that it is caused by humans.

I dont believe you when you say you dont think we have any control over the planet, how much do you really believe that? We can pump all kinds of polution into lakes and rivers, destroy entire ecosystems or an oil spill can have a devastating effect in the seas for years to come. Is that not having some control over the planet? The idea that Co2 is a known greenhouse gas, that we have been pumping so much into the atmosphere that its causing temperatures to increase, what is so different about this that you find so difficult to believe we have control over?


----------



## noiseboyuk (May 27, 2012)

Hi Resonator - I'm sure we're all guilty from time to time of commenting on threads without reading much - or any - of them! Probably worth at least a scan of this one though. Or indeed, watch the video Ed linked here as a start:



Ed @ Sun May 27 said:


> I think this is relevant right about now. I think Michael Mann's testimony is a good overview.




Thanks for the link, Ed. Gee, I was worried that horrific music was going to continue throughout. Fortunately it stops when Mann starts properly...

The sheer amount of time and energy spent by contrarians attacking Mann - sometimes highly personally - has been extraordinary. All those efforts have resulted in absolutely nothing - the results Mann and his co-authors found over a decade ago haven't changed a jot. Mann wrote a terrific op-ed piece for the Washington Post here - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/07/AR2010100705484.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05484.html) where he goes over some of the attacks he's been subject to, and how there is rarely interest in actual science in any of them.

There's a really interesting bit of history Wikepedia references on his page, which was prior to his seminal work which gave birth to the Hockey Stick:



> In May 1998, Jones, Briffa et al. published a reconstruction going back a thousand years, but not specifically estimating uncertainties. As Bradley recalls, Mann's initial reaction to the paper was ""Look at this. This is rubbish. You can't do this. There isn't enough information. There's too much uncertainty."



That's what science is, right there. I strongly dislike the term "sceptic" when applied to contrarians, because that term is rightly applied to genuine scientists. Mann was and is a scientist, and therefore a sceptic. Faced with some new work, he was full of bluster and criticism, then went away to do some work on it himself - presumably to prove its lack of worth. Instead he discovered it was far more robust than he thought. And that was over a decade ago - since then the evidence has got ever stronger (and most recently it appears the Southern Hemisphere has gone through the exact same thing as the Northern).


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 16, 2013)

Ah look, I've brought our old thread out of retirement for the same reason I like shoving chilli-coated broken glass in my eyes - I'm clearly a glutton for inflicting self-harm and will never, ever, learn.

There is a new report out which has come to the exact same conclusion of at least 2 previous reports - 97% of peer reviewed scientific literature agrees with the hypothesis of anthropocentric climate change. 2.2% of papers are unclear, with 0.7% taking a contrary view. This contrasts with popular polls which show that 50% of the public believe that science is divided on the subject.

I've no doubt that this research will be swiftly dismissed by the contraraians just as the others have (even though there has been no basis for doing so), and the reason why is in my sig. There are a couple of interesting dimensions to this new report - first, the data is publicly and freely available so contrarians can do all the checkin' and dissin' they like faff-free, and secondly they asked peer-reviewed report authors to summarise their own papers position to avoid any taint of bias. The team analysed 12,000 papers, of which 4,000 papers had a position, and found 97.1% backed ACC. Report authors contributed their own views to 1,400 papers and found 97.2% backed it (stastically insignificant from the work done by the team).

I like the report in the Guardian. It quotes sources at the end who effectively say "this will make no difference cos people aren't really interested in what the science says anyway - it's an ideological issue". Seems like an honest summary to me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ans-causes

The report itself is here

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

And there's a piece by one of the authors here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... matechange

I apologise in advance for the retread of all the same arguments that will now follow this post and occupy the remaining pages of the thread.


----------



## Inductance (May 16, 2013)

Old thread! But new to me.



Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 25 said:


> Guy, there is no visible human signal in climate change data. None. Nada. Zip. If there were, there wouldn't be any scientific debate. But there is plenty of scientific debate.



Hm, I think there is more evidence in favor of evolution than there is of anthropomorphic climate change (ACC), yet there is continual "debate" over evolution. So debate and disagreement doesn't really say much. 

Also, I don't think there's as much disagreement in scientific circles over ACC as some lead us to believe...


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 16, 2013)

Ker-wowzers. Wanna hear something REALLY scary?!

Meet Paul Broun. He is a republican senator who sits on the Committee on Science and Technology, chairing the subcommittee on investigations and oversight. An important fella in the world of science, then. He's no fan of this Global Warming croc, he's unequivocal:



> Scientists all over this world say that the idea of human induced global climate change is one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated out of the scientific community. It is a hoax. There is no scientific consensus



But the really scary thing is some of his other views on science. Take this for example:



> All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2 ... tion-video

Let me recap. This man chairs the subcommitte on investigations and oversight on the US government committee on science and technology.

Terrifying.


----------



## Kejero (May 17, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri May 17 said:


> This man chairs the subcommitte on investigations and oversight on the US government committee on science and technology.
> 
> Terrifying.



I've always found it astonishing how so many people get to be the decision makers in politics without ANY experience in the subject. Positions like that should require exams.

In Belgium, our current Minister of Culture has flat out admitted she doesn't care much for art or culture. She has hardly even attended a play. She's been heaviliy criticized, but apparently we just have to take it for granted that obviously unqualified people get to make the calls. I guess that's why they call it... politics.


----------



## chimuelo (May 17, 2013)

The lady is simply showing her disdain for being put in the position she feels unchallenged by, but like most Crime Families, you always start off at the bottom doing meaningless, often degrading chores before you start getting rich from lobbyists telling you what to do.

But in Europe I don't think bribes for legislation is legal, only in the USA are criminals in charge of the legislative process.

The UN is also a pathetic joke. Having Iran as Head of the Nuclear Disarmament Committee is a joke.
These Governments and useless bodies are merely a way to maintain the status quo.

And when these massive Global Warming gatherings in Cozemel, or Rio are held where each wealthy member flies a seperate private jet, and then is driven is a seperate stretch Limo, they give a few speeches for the cameras, then reporters have to leave so they can get down to the business of what to do with the rest of us.


----------



## Udo (May 18, 2013)

*It's true, 97% of research papers say climate change is happening*

Sorry people, haven't read the whole thread, but this may be relevant ...

https://theconversation.com/its-true-97 ... ning-14051

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 18, 2013)

*Re: It's true, 97% of research papers say climate change is happening*



Udo @ Sat May 18 said:


> Sorry people, haven't read the whole thread, but this may be relevant ...
> 
> https://theconversation.com/its-true-97 ... ning-14051
> 
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024



Indeed it is very relevant - I posted the same links 2 days ago at the bottom of the previous page to revive the thread...

So influential ideologically-motivated individuals in government can keep the anti-science myths alive. Here's a great new article about the media's role in doing exactly the same thing:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/p ... spapers-tv

Sorry to quote my own sig again, but people really do believe what they want to believe. Right now we're having a compeltely rubbish spring in the UK weather-wise, coming cold off the heels of a completely rubbish winter. All it takes is for professional fop and London Mayor Boris Johnson to splutter a few little quips and quote his bonkers chum Piers Corbyn and people believe it - they want to believe it cos it's massively more convenient, Global Warming has more than a whiff of political correctness gone mad about it and, besides, it's FREEZING today. Never mind that globally in our Freezing March the overall global temperature was still well above the historical norm with other, bigger, parts of the world experiencing massively warm conditions, and never mind that only 0.7% of research papers agree with the conclusions that AGW isn't real, it _sounds_ real and that's more than good enough.

Of course, these techniques apply to far more than climate change, indeed the entire political system is now driven by PR management through the media, reducing complex issues to dog whistle soundbites that will resonate with good ol' Joe The Plumber on Main Street and bear no relation to reality. The anti-science culture I find extremely disturbing - the scientific method is our best hope, as a species, going forward and it's all at the mercy of Evangelical zealots in government and a media lazy at best and deliberately deceitful at worst. There is a sense that scientists themselves are realising this and are just tipping their toes in the water of trying to mount a defence of the scientific method in a world that disregards it, but there's a helluva long way to go.


----------



## Udo (May 18, 2013)

Guy, FYI, as a side note, just noticed that the publication I linked to above, The Converation, has just a released a Beta version in the UK - https://theconversation.com/uk The original is based in Australia. I find it a very good source.

To quote part of the "Who we are",

"The Conversation is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public.

Our team of professional editors work with university and research institute experts to unlock their knowledge for use by the wider public.

Access to independent, high quality, authenticated, explanatory journalism underpins a functioning democracy. Our aim is to allow for better understanding of current affairs and complex issues. And hopefully allow for a better quality of public discourse and conversations.

We aim to help rebuild trust in journalism ...... "


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 18, 2013)

Interesting on The Conversation, Udo - anything attempting rationality in the field of journalism is to be applauded.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 24, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 16 said:


> Ah look, I've brought our old thread out of retirement for the same reason I like shoving chilli-coated broken glass in my eyes - I'm clearly a glutton for inflicting self-harm and will never, ever, learn.
> 
> There is a new report out which has come to the exact same conclusion of at least 2 previous reports - 97% of peer reviewed scientific literature agrees with the hypothesis of anthropocentric climate change. 2.2% of papers are unclear, with 0.7% taking a contrary view. This contrasts with popular polls which show that 50% of the public believe that science is divided on the subject.
> 
> ...



Oh No Dude!

Dana Nucitelli and John Cook are absolute idiots and the survey has no validity at all! What's been happening lately is scientists quoted in the report having been coming out and saying that the report completely misrepresents their papers. Honestly those two - I hardly know where to start. They are as delusional as they come. You are often on about credibility - for gods sake Cook is a cartoonist and Dana is at least physicist - but he's gotten himself into hot water over this.

Cook has been supporting Lewandowsky - I don't know if you have heard of him, but he made up a survey got rabid alarmists to fill it in pretending they were 'deniers', and then tried to equate skeptics with moon landing conspiracy theorists.

That report you are getting excited about has set off other warmists against them. Richard Tol and Richard Betts (from the MetOffice) have been savaging him on twitter. Eg:

1. Richard Tol @RichardTol

The Cook paper comes further apart http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... tists.html …

7:01 AM – 21 May 13

2. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol You might want to actually read our paper before claiming it’s ‘coming apart’ based on ignorant and wrong claims.

10:22 PM – 22 May 13

3. Richard Tol @RichardTol

[email protected] Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.

10:48 PM – 22 May 13

4. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol Have to say I’m disappointed. Didn’t have you pegged as a denier before. Fine to dislike our paper, but don’t lie about it.

11:04 PM – 22 May 13

5. Richard Tol @RichardTol

[email protected] I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm

11:31 PM – 22 May 13

6. Richard Tol @RichardTol

[email protected] I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4.

11:40 PM – 22 May 13

7. Richard Tol @RichardTol

[email protected] Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.

...skipping some general back and forth:

21. Richard Tol @RichardTol

[email protected] Not at all. You generated data. The data that I understand are all wrong. The errors are not random. But now tell me about my lie



...and on it goes. But check the link: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... tists.html

Honestly - it's the most bullshit way imaginable to try to do 'science'.


----------



## stevenson-again (May 24, 2013)

While we are at it - all the major players are now having to revise what they understand climate change and specifically climate sensitvity - the main issue with AGW - which is being revised down.

This new paper is really important, not because of what it says, behind the scenes most climate scientists are acknowledging this already, but WHO the authors are. They are all major players at the IPCC or lead authors...eg Gabi Hergerl. But the paper was instigated by a skeptic Climate Scientist Nic Lewis - and by skeptic, a stastician who simply checked that the climate scientists had done their sums right.

the paper is published in Nature, another significant developmet:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop ... eo1836.pdf

"_First, using what is probably the most robust method available, it establishes a well-constrained best estimate for TCR *that is nearly 30% below the CMIP5 multimodel mean TCR of 1.8°C* (per Forster et al. (2013), here). The 95% confidence bound for the Nature Geoscience paper’s 1.3°C TCR best estimate indicates some of the highest-response general circulation models (GCMs) have TCRs that are inconsistent with recent observed changes. Some two-thirds of the CMIP5 models analysed in Forster et. al (2013) have TCRs that lie above the top of the ‘likely’ range for that best estimate, and all the CMIP5 models analysed have an ECS that exceeds the Nature Geoscience paper’s 2.0°C best estimate of ECS. The CMIP5 GCM with the highest TCR, per the Forster et. al (2013) analysis, is the UK Met. Office’s flagship HadGEM2-ES model. It has a TCR of 2.5°C, nearly double the Nature Geoscience paper’s best estimate of 1.3°C and 0.5°C beyond the top of the 5–95% uncertainty range. The paper obtains similar, albeit less well constrained, best estimates using data for earlier periods than 2000–09.

Secondly, the authors include fourteen climate scientists, well known in their fields, who are lead or coordinating lead authors of IPCC AR5 WG1 chapters that are relevant to estimating climate sensitivity. Two of them, professors Myles Allen and Gabi Hegerl, are lead authors for Chapter 10, which deals with estimates of ECS and TCR constrained by observational evidence. The study was principally carried out by a researcher, Alex Otto, who works in Myles Allen’s group."_

What it means is that climate sensitivity is much lower than previously thought. At the very least it means that even if you think that anthropogenic emissions are a problem or a factor in climate change, we have much more time to manage the change to alternative energy sources, rather than insane and largely counter-productive policies that seem in any case to be falling out of favour around the world.

Here is a graph that illustrates the issue, showing modeled temperature change as a result of climate sensitivity to CO2 and observations:







http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/global-warming-graph.jpg (Larger Image of Graph)

You can see observations just about to fall outside of the 95% confidence range - which is the range that they expected to 95% confidence to have occurred as a result of the climates sensitivity to CO2.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 24, 2013)

....and we're back.

I see your link found three papers out of 12,000 that looks like they may be misclassified. Clearly that wasn't part of the 1,400 papers where the authors already did their own classification.

Then there's a twitter spat.

Have to say, all as predicted - there has to be a reason to discredit every study. Although this analysis wasn't peer reviewed itself, its conclusions align with others that have been. And since the data is open on this one, I'm sure once others have poured over it for a while, the final results may change by a percent or so.

As to climate sensitivity, before rejoicing too much best read what the paper's author you approvingly quote makes of the contrarian's embrace - 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... ate-debate

In summary - situation normal. The work of science goes on, using the scientific method and not ideology, which draws conclusions that refine the overall picture. The world's scientific institutes maintain their position that the weight of evidence backs AGW. The blogs (of all sides) cherry pick the things that they like. Nobody's mind gets changed, people believe what they want to believe.

Still Rohan, we agree on Star Wars


----------



## Udo (May 27, 2013)

*RE uncertainties in projected warming*

RE uncertainties in projected warming: http://theconversation.com/uncertainty- ... ange-14634


----------



## yellowstudio (May 28, 2013)

I just want to say that I have only read the first two pages of this thread so far. The Flat Earth Society, the Heartland institute billboard and the claim that there is "no climate" in the UK, served up with a side of "were you there?", apparently borrowed from the Creationism School Of Argumenteering have taught me to wear a helmet with a chinstrap for reading the rest of this thread, lest I break my jaw when it hits the floor, respectively my desk. This is me reading this thread: >8o , I just remember there being another emoticon where the mouth opens much much wider. 

so long
Andreas


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 28, 2013)

So exactly how much warming has there been in the past 17 years?


----------



## bdr (May 28, 2013)

'The Conversation' is precisely NOT that, it has a view to push and it is funded by the government.


----------



## Udo (May 28, 2013)

bdr @ Wed May 29 said:


> 'The Conversation' is precisely NOT that, it has a view to push and it is funded by the government.


That's nonsense, as you can see in a link I posted some time ago. 'The Conversation' is an independent source of news and views, sourced from the academic and research community and delivered direct to the public. They publish a wide variety of well reasoned views/opinions (and, of course, opposing ones). The research quoted/referred to is reputable and usually peer reviewed.


----------



## bdr (May 29, 2013)

You're right, they are partly funded by the academic and research community. As well as the government.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/05/15/bro ... her=mobile
There's no doubt they are left of center however.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 29, 2013)

bdr @ Wed May 29 said:


> You're right, they are partly funded by the academic and research community. As well as the government.



I love this little meme that is increasingly used to subtract credibility from all academia - rebrand it as the insidious-sounding "government funded". :D


----------



## Udo (May 29, 2013)

bdr @ Wed May 29 said:


> (....)There's no doubt they are left of center however.


That's probably just as well.  It's rather ironic, but even a study funded by the conservative Bush govt. came to the conclusion that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity". 

"This intolerance of ambiguity can lead people to cling to the familiar, to arrive at premature conclusions, and to impose simplistic cliches and stereotypes," the authors argue in the Psychological Bulletin.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 29, 2013)

Very good article by the recent 97% paper author, which looks at the familiar characteristics of the denialism campaign (witnessed, yet again, in the response to the paper).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... cteristics


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 29, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue May 28 said:


> So exactly how much warming has there been in the past 17 years?


----------



## chimuelo (May 29, 2013)

Earthquake Magnitudes, Solar Flares, and Tsunamis are larger than ever before because of Global warming.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 29, 2013)

Stephen - I suggest anyone wanting to revisit that particular cherry-picked trick just search this and Rohan's climate change thread, no need to repeat another 5 tedious pages. If it were really that simple, I think some of that 97% who dedicate their lives to the academic research might have noticed.


----------



## chimuelo (May 30, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ Wed May 29 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Tue May 28 said:
> 
> 
> > So exactly how much warming has there been in the past 17 years?



I am seeing great weather for the last 3 years here Vegas. 
But nobody seems to notice this except us.
Out tires and windshield wipers last longer, and hoses for the radiator don't need replacing.
So yes there's Climate Change. We are usually well over 100 degrees by now, the closest we have seen was last weeks high of 97 degrees.
If this Climate Change is hurting others, I feel sorry for them, it can't be beneficial everywhere, and Al Gores 9 million Dollar beach home hasn't lost an inch of sand since he bought it.
I guess it's just the Atlantic that sees a rise in Sea Level.

What gets me is why the Chinese aren't on board with all of these scientific studies. They have serious issues with Coal Burning power plants over there, even in Hong Kong on the coast the smog evaporates, but the valleys directly behind the City remind me of the the 5 and highway 99 hwy from Modesto to Fresno every year.

I sure hope the wealthy guys can save us, but if I were them I'd be quiet, and happy with the planes, limos and beach houses they made convincing us we're doomed.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

chimuelo @ Thu May 30 said:


> I am seeing great weather for the last 3 years here Vegas.
> But nobody seems to notice this except us.
> Out tires and windshield wipers last longer, and hoses for the radiator don't need replacing.
> So yes there's Climate Change. We are usually well over 100 degrees by now, the closest we have seen was last weeks high of 97 degrees.
> ...



Local weather is a tricky beast, it's hard to make a direct correlation to climate change. Hard, but not impossible, at least in terms of probability. In my OP, I mentioned the jetstream, and there's been a flurry of research in this area. In truth, what we've been witnessing AFAIK it wasn't too well predicted by the science and a reminder that uncertainties work both ways. It wasn't clear just what a major effect the immediate consequences of extreme arctic warming would be, but the jetstream has been the cause of an awful lot of the freak weather we've been getting in the northern hemisphere from floods and cold snaps right through to heatwaves.

For example, look at the last monthly temperature anomaly map that is availble, for April 2013 - http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/ . Much of the US and the UK is colder than average, in contrast to almost all of the rest of the world. But look up at the top - the entire arctic region (except Alaska) is yet again through the roof, in the deepest red colour the charts show. The science says that this is the mechanism for determining the behaviour of the jetstream, weakening the windspeed, causing it to fracture or just stay in one place for protracted lengths of time.

Typically for the UK, it's given us an awful few months!


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

chimuelo @ Thu May 30 said:


> I am seeing great weather for the last 3 years here Vegas.
> But nobody seems to notice this except us.
> Out tires and windshield wipers last longer, and hoses for the radiator don't need replacing.
> So yes there's Climate Change. We are usually well over 100 degrees by now, the closest we have seen was last weeks high of 97 degrees.
> If this Climate Change is hurting others, I feel sorry for them, it can't be beneficial everywhere,



LOL wow....


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri May 24 said:


> ....and we're back.
> 
> I see your link found three papers out of 12,000 that looks like they may be misclassified. Clearly that wasn't part of the 1,400 papers where the authors already did their own classification.
> 
> ...



Surely you have to concede that their "models" were grossly incorrect when compared to the observed changes. Science is about observation, not models and consensus. When models can predict behavior then they are valid. IMO they haven't proven AGW, just climate change which has happened all throughout the history of this planet. And it has been flat for the past 10 years and is projected to remain so through 2018 or even later. Nothing has happened as they have predicted with their CO2 driver-biased climate models.


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Surely you have to concede that their "models" were grossly incorrect when compared to the observed changes. Science is about observation, not models and consensus. When models can predict behavior then they are valid. IMO they haven't proven AGW, just climate change which has happened all throughout the history of this planet. And it has been flat for the past 10 years and is projected to remain so through 2018 or even later. Nothing has happened as they have predicted with their CO2 driver-biased climate models.


 
You want to reject all the evidence of AGW and focus only on the past 10 years, that is not actually how science is done. 

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/fil ... 152857.jpg


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Surely you have to concede that their "models" were grossly incorrect when compared to the observed changes. Science is about observation, not models and consensus. When models can predict behavior then they are valid. IMO they haven't proven AGW, just climate change which has happened all throughout the history of this planet. And it has been flat for the past 10 years and is projected to remain so through 2018 or even later. Nothing has happened as they have predicted with their CO2 driver-biased climate models.



Congratulations! That's bang in there at no 6 in the top 10 climate myths:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm (click the intermediate tab if you want the heavy stuff).

Yup, we're back alright... it's like deja-vu all over again...


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... rming.html



> Humans may not be responsible for global warming, the MP who oversees government policy on climate change has said. Tim Yeo, the chairman of the Commons Energy and Climate Change committee, said he accepts the earth’s temperature is increasing but said “natural phases” may be to blame. He said: “Although I think the evidence that the climate is changing is now overwhelming, the causes are not absolutely clear. There could be natural causes, natural phases that are taking place.” Mr Yeo has previously spoken with great certainty about the science of climate change. He said in 2009: “The dying gasps of the deniers will be put to bed. In five years time, no one will argue about a man-made contribution to climate change.”


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Surely you have to concede that their "models" were grossly incorrect when compared to the observed changes. Science is about observation, not models and consensus. When models can predict behavior then they are valid. IMO they haven't proven AGW, just climate change which has happened all throughout the history of this planet. And it has been flat for the past 10 years and is projected to remain so through 2018 or even later. Nothing has happened as they have predicted with their CO2 driver-biased climate models.
> ...



On the inverse, the alarmist want to forget the past 10 years.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Surely you have to concede that their "models" were grossly incorrect when compared to the observed changes. Science is about observation, not models and consensus. When models can predict behavior then they are valid. IMO they haven't proven AGW, just climate change which has happened all throughout the history of this planet. And it has been flat for the past 10 years and is projected to remain so through 2018 or even later. Nothing has happened as they have predicted with their CO2 driver-biased climate models.
> ...



So if it stays flat for another 10 years will you still stick to your guns?

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/global-warming-graph.jpg (http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-cont ... -graph.jpg)


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n ... o1200.html

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum. A rapid warming event about 55.8 Myr ago started with warm climate conditions with a smaller difference between temperatures at the Equator and the high latitudes. Complex climate models do not adequately simulate the warm climate before the abrupt change set in.

The desertification of northern Africa. Between about 9,000 and 5,500 yr ago, the region that is now the Sahara was much wetter and supported a steppe-type vegetation. The transition to the current desert state occurred in decades to centuries. Complex climate models fail to simulate the vegetated state, and can not therefore capture this event of rapid change.

Collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. During the glacial period between about 120,000 and 12,000 yr ago, the meriodional overturning circulation in the Atlantic Ocean collapsed during six Heinrich events, most probably in response to fresh water entering the North Atlantic. Complex climate models simulate such a shut-down — but only in response to a freshwater injection as much as ten times the magnitudes estimated for the past.

Dansgaard–Oeschger rapid warming events. Between Heinrich events, 25 incidences of rapid warming, by up to 8 °C within a few decades in Greenland, are consistently recorded in the ice cores. We don't even fully understand the mechanisms for such changes and simulating the final one of these events required an injection of fresh water into the ocean that was large and many thousand years longer than is thought realistic.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

Yes, quoting Conservative MPs and using the absurd terminology like "alarmist" is exactly how these debates always end up. I revived the thread on yet another academic study to show 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW, not that Tory MPs or contrarian blogs are suddenly convinced. (though, to be fair to Tim Yeo, he does make it clear post the Telegraph piece that he too accepts the reality of AGW - http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/intervi ... tic-stance )

I've linked it dozens of times now so I've no idea why I'm bothering again, but you can cherry pick all sorts of periods over the past 40 years that show a downward trend, it's a technique called "going down the up escalator":

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

The animation at the top explains it so well, you hardly need the words.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor - as I've repeatedly said, if climate scientists and the world's scientific institutions say "er, maybe we got it wrong", I'll take that in a heartbeat. Thus far there's no evidence to support that.

You can quote all sorts of cherry picked facts to fit your case - doesn't matter one jot to me. You're not qualified, neither am I. My philosophy is terribly simple - if 97% of the most highly qualified scientists agree on something, I'll agree with them too. Works for evolution too.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 30, 2013)

Climate scientists and scientific institutions are saying, "er, it's looking even worse than we thought."

So are the victims of the increasing number of extreme weather events.


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/global-warming-graph.jpg (http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-cont ... -graph.jpg)



wow, even in a presumably cherry picked distorted graph they still managed to show current temp data being within predicted parameters. 




> On the inverse, the alarmist want to forget the past 10 years.



No they dont, they just recognise that the study of climate is about long term trends not a virtual eye blink, as you can see in the graph I posted, the temp fluctuates but the trend is still up. You could choose a point and look back 10 years and say the temperature is not increasing, but it did.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 30 said:


> Climate scientists and scientific institutions are saying, "er, it's looking even worse than we thought."
> 
> So are the victims of the increasing number of extreme weather events.



Guess you are referring to more and worse tornados as a result of AGW. Check out this charts on the reality.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ ... F1-EF5.png

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ ... F3-EF5.png


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/global-warming-graph.jpg (http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/wp-cont ... -graph.jpg)
> ...




I think you missed the point of the article which did appear in Nature btw. They are admitting they over estimated CO2. I don't know where Nick is getting the "it's getting worse" thing from.
The past 100 years have been an eye blink.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Climate scientists and scientific institutions are saying, "er, it's looking even worse than we thought."
> ...



This is sensational stuff. Nick says "increasing number of extreme weather events", and you pick one that isn't directly attributable, and tell him that's what he meant. Classy debating technique.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:


> Yes, quoting Conservative MPs and using the absurd terminology like "alarmist" is exactly how these debates always end up. I revived the thread on yet another academic study to show 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW, not that Tory MPs or contrarian blogs are suddenly convinced. (though, to be fair to Tim Yeo, he does make it clear post the Telegraph piece that he too accepts the reality of AGW - http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/intervi ... tic-stance )
> 
> I've linked it dozens of times now so I've no idea why I'm bothering again, but you can cherry pick all sorts of periods over the past 40 years that show a downward trend, it's a technique called "going down the up escalator":
> 
> ...



I don't "deny" climate change. I don't deny "AGW" either. I just don't think they have proven it's human induced and if it is, how much of the warming is caused by humans.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> I don't "deny" climate change. I don't deny "AGW" either. I just don't think they have proven it's human induced and if it is, how much of the warming is caused by humans.



..which is precisely where 97% of climate scientists, the most qualified to know, disagree with you.

And round and round we go....


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 30 said:
> ...



Well what increased weather events with victims are we talking about then? Earthquakes?


Hurricanes? Well how about this...



http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin ... 008.02.pdf


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't "deny" climate change. I don't deny "AGW" either. I just don't think they have proven it's human induced and if it is, how much of the warming is caused by humans.
> ...



Well that number is even in dispute


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 30 said:
> ...



And if you don't like my debating style I will just bow out of it and leave you guys to your echo chamber.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

Yes that number is in dispute by those who don't like it very much.

...and round... and round...

As luck would have it, just read news of a report out today on extreme weather costs.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/ma ... ate-change


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> I think you missed the point of the article which did appear in Nature btw. They are admitting they over estimated CO2. I don't know where Nick is getting the "it's getting worse" thing from.
> The past 100 years have been an eye blink.



As i said what you showed was that temp data is still within predicted parameters. Do you understand that you can pick various other places on the graph I posted showing general temperature increase and say temperature has stopped increasing?


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick says "increasing number of extreme weather events", and you pick one that isn't directly attributable, and tell him that's what he meant. Classy debating technique.
> ...



Well no, I don't much like that technique. Why do that? Why pick on something Nick isn't saying?

So let's look at the broad picture and do a quick google search. Are extreme weather events increasing or not? Here's a World Meteorological Report:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/news/documents/1075_en.pdf (http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/ne ... 075_en.pdf)

They conclude:



> The scale of increase in weather extremes is becoming more and more visible





> the extent of regions affected by droughts has also increased



and



> the magnitudes, frequency and duration of extreme events are likely to be altered as the earth’s atmosphere warms



Or try NASA from earlier this year:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/sci ... _2012.html



> Temperatures, rainfall, droughts, high-intensity hurricanes and severe flooding events all are increasing and projected to continue as the world's climate warms, according to the National Climate Assessment



Now that may not convince some because, I dunno, both of those organisations are part of some great left wing conspiracy or something, but my whole argument is based on mainstream science, and I include those organisations in that. I'm kinda quirky that way.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:


> Yes that number is in dispute by those who don't like it very much.
> 
> ...and round... and round...
> 
> ...



Wait I thought you said tornadoes didn't directly relate now it does. It's hard to keep up with all the goalposts moving. Please look back at those huricane/tornado frequency/intensity charts I posted.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes that number is in dispute by those who don't like it very much.
> ...



Aaaaargh, you doing it again! It's the whole picture, not any one thing - tornadoes are a (small) part of extreme weather, the overall pattern is increasing. See my post above for more detail from genuine scientific institutions about the big picture. Any comment on that?


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:
> ...



And the graphs I posted were done by government and university studies, well outside mainstream I guess.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Thu May 30 said:


> and severe flooding events all are increasing and projected to continue as the world's climate warms, according to the National Climate Assessment



Now that may not convince some because, I dunno, both of those organisations are part of some great left wing conspiracy or something, but my whole argument is based on mainstream science, and I include those organisations in that. I'm kinda quirky that way.[/quote]

the tornado graphs I posted are actually from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/tech ... tr9902.pdf

This was during the period of the biggest climb in the warming no? Should †here have been steadily more violent tornadoes?


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Great, now look up a graph for atlantic tropical storms, like thisone, or http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png (this).


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Great, now look up a graph for atlantic tropical storms, like thisone, or http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png (this).



lol First you guys criticize me for not having reputable sources and yet I provided you with reputable sources (NOAA) and then you counter with images posted on blogs. I can't keep up with the goalpost changes.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

This sums up my thoughts on the "modelers" nicely. And it comes from an actual respected scientist/researcher who has decades of experience ACTUALLY OBSERVING atmospheric and oceanic events, not programing some computer for a desired result. Oh no he dudunt! He must be bought by big oil!



> A number of my colleagues and I have discussed the physics of Atlantic THC variations in our seasonal hurricane forecasts and in various conference talks for many years. Those who are convinced that greenhouse gas increases provide the only plausible explanation for the recent increases in hurricane activity are either unaware of our work, or don't want to consider any alternative.
> 
> One reason may be that the advocates of warming tend to be climate modelers with little observational experience. Many of the modelers are not fully aware of how the real atmosphere and ocean function. They rely more on theory than on observation.
> 
> ...



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118541193645178412.html


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Ed @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Great, now look up a graph for atlantic tropical storms, like thisone, or http://policlimate.com/tropical/north_atlantic_hurricane.png (this).
> ...



Um the problem with your graph was not the source, it was that it was only looking at Tornado's. (edit: and only of a certain type)

Do you have a graph for Atlantic tropical storms that is different to the graphs I posted? If you'll accept NOAA you'll be disappointed.

edit: here I'll even help google it for you


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> ACTUALLY OBSERVING atmospheric and oceanic events, not programing some computer for a desired result.



So you must accept AGW then! Because more scientists that actually are working in the fields, such as Richard Alley, agree with it. Go on take back your capslocked logic and move those goal posts.

(As an aside a responseto the guy you quoted)


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > ACTUALLY OBSERVING atmospheric and oceanic events, not programing some computer for a desired result.
> ...



Yeah, Richard Alley has had quite a successful career in the global warming market. Congrats to him.


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Yeah, Richard Alley has had quite a successful career in the global warming market. Congrats to him.



Uh huh so just for clarification, what were you saying about people "actually" working in the fields?


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Thu May 30 said:
> ...



I couldn't find any "reputable" source on just tropical storms but there is this on actual hurricanes.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/hurricanes/fig1-atlantic-all-and-major.gif (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... -major.gif)


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> I couldn't find any "reputable" source on just tropical storms but there is this on actual hurricanes.
> 
> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/hurricanes/fig1-atlantic-all-and-major.gif (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/re ... -major.gif)



Gosh, you didnt try very hard did you? All you had to do is type into google images "atlantic tropical storms" and these are the first 2 hits:

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/gav/historical_storms/simplified_tser3_lg.png (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem ... er3_lg.png)

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/gav/historical_storms/simplified_tser_fiveyr_lg.png (http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem ... eyr_lg.png)


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > ACTUALLY OBSERVING atmospheric and oceanic events, not programing some computer for a desired result.
> ...



Science is not democracy or consensus, even if the 97% bullshit was true and if "survey/opinion polls" were peer-reviewed science.



http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... ml#Update2

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... us-claims/

Just a sample...



> Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the ‘consensus’ position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, “Nope… it is not an accurate representation. The paper shows that if cosmic rays are included in empirical climate sensitivity analyses, then one finds that different time scales consistently give a low climate sensitivity. i.e., it supports the idea that cosmic rays affect the climate and that climate sensitivity is low. This means that part of the 20th century [warming] should be attributed to the increased solar activity and that 21st century warming under a business as usual scenario should be low (about 1°C).”


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I couldn't find any "reputable" source on just tropical storms but there is this on actual hurricanes.
> ...



Hell, you mine as well include "Rainstorms" and "Sprinkles" frequency too. Okay I will concede you this. Tropical storms have increased in violence and violent hurricanes have decreased. You win! AGW is real. lol


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Oh and btw, regarding your Tornados. Your graph did not take into account all tornados, it was those of a specific class that were declining in that data

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/gld/Tornado/1950-2012%20Annual%20Tornadoes.png (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/gld/Torna ... nadoes.png)
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collec ... 80x379.png


Compared to the data you quoted:

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/200 ... .graph.gif


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Science is not democracy or consensus, even if the 97% [email protected]#t was true and if "survey/opinion polls" were peer-reviewed science.



You've already been shown a response to that. But this where your goal posts now are, right?


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Hell, you mine as well include "Rainstorms" and "Sprinkles" frequency too. Okay I will concede you this. Tropical storms have increased in violence and violent hurricanes have decreased. You win! Global warming is real. lol



Aright no need to be snarky about it. Maybe you should question why you believed otherwise when its so easy to see how they misrepresented it, and maybe if they are people you really want to find credible enough to base your opinions on.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 30, 2013)

So how much warming has there been in the past 17 years?


----------



## bdr (May 30, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Wed May 29 said:


> bdr @ Wed May 29 said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, they are partly funded by the academic and research community. As well as the government.
> ...



Sorry, I thought it was quite clear that it was funded by academia. And the research community. And also government. Don't see where I lumped them together.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 30, 2013)

> Guess you are referring to more and worse tornados as a result of AGW.



No. Those links don't let me in, but I heard on the endless news about the Oklahoma tornado that we haven't had more of them because of global warming.

We have had more extreme "once in a century" events, though. You can't point at, say, Sandy and know it's because of climate change, but you can point at the frequency with which climate disasters are occurring and say that it's following the predicted model.

Produce data showing that's not the case and I'll show you a pile of goat custards.

Time to remove heads from asses. This is real and it's happening.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu May 30 said:


> > Guess you are referring to more and worse tornados as a result of AGW.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I actually posted this awhile back. THis is from the NOAA and reveals the amount of major hurricanes has stayed flat for the past 60's years, if not lessened. There were a lot more in the 1945 to 1970 range. Can I have my goat custards now? 


Also it has to be said that weather detecting technology has quite advanced over the years and just more weather phenomena are being reported than before.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Hell, you mine as well include "Rainstorms" and "Sprinkles" frequency too. Okay I will concede you this. Tropical storms have increased in violence and violent hurricanes have decreased. You win! Global warming is real. lol
> ...



So I shouldn't find find the NOAA credible?


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> So I shouldn't find find the NOAA credible?



If I dont assume you're being obtuse, then I have to think that your poor understanding of the graphs you posted and what they meant was just plain ignorance rather than someone planting the idea in your head.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Oh and btw, regarding your Tornados. Your graph did not take into account all tornados, it was those of a specific class that were declining in that data
> 
> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/gld/Tornado/1950-2012%20Annual%20Tornadoes.png (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/Image/gld/Torna ... nadoes.png)
> http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collec ... 80x379.png
> ...



Your first link seems to show tornados for some regional counties?

Your second llink goes to a non-NOAA website, and it conflicts with the NOAA graph I showed. This chart (actually from the NOAA includes all EF-1+ tornados) http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/ ... F1-EF5.png


Can I have some goat custards from you too? thanks


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

> Ed @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> ...


[/quote]

Not being obtuse and with my next response after yours you should actually re-evaulauate how you misrepresent things and the credibility of your links. Enjoy the crow.


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> Ed @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and btw, regarding your Tornados. Your graph did not take into account all tornados, it was those of a specific class that were declining in that data
> ...



Ah yes, the graphs were likely regional. Climate scientistshttp://blog.ucsusa.org/evidence-to-date-does-not-show-clear-link-between-tornadoes-and-climate-change-135 (dont see a link between tornado's and climate change anyway). 

My point in questioning them was as an aside we just got done talking about ""atlantic tropical storms" and you accepted you were wrong about them not getting worse. Now who was it that gave you the idea that... 
1. AGW predictions say tornados have to show an increase 
2. That tropical storms have not increased.


----------



## Diffusor (May 30, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Thu May 30 said:
> ...




I see what you did there. 

I actually never said tropical storms decreased or increased, saying I couldn't find any reputable sources. I only talked about hurricanes staying relatively flat and extreme hurricanes declining.

And come on, every time there is a bad tornado there's frenzy in the press about climate change. Just google it and you will find countless discussions just on the Moore tornado. For example, Senator Boxer on the Moore tornado:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/stunning-ignorance-on-display-from-barbara-boxer-over-tornado-outbreak/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/s ... -outbreak/)
“This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather. Not just hot weather. But extreme weather. When I had my hearings, when I had the gavel years ago. -It’s been a while – the scientists all agreed that what we’d start to see was extreme weather. And people looked at one another and said ‘what do you mean? It’s gonna get hot?’ Yeah, it’s gonna get hot. But you’re also going to see snow in the summer in some places. You’re gonna have terrible storms. You’re going to have tornados and all the rest. We need to protect our people. That’s our number one obligation and we have to deal with this threat that is upon us and that is gonna get worse and worse though the years.”


----------



## Ed (May 30, 2013)

Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:


> I see what you did there.
> 
> I actually never said tropical storms decreased or increased, saying I couldn't find any reputable sources. I only talked about hurricanes staying relatively flat and extreme hurricanes declining.



You made a big deal out of trying to prove something that you didnt understand. That tornados are not what is considered important factors to watch for in climate change in the way you were talking about, ignoring Guy's point to look at the whole picture which I eventually got you to do a little more when looking at the atlantic tropical storms.



> And come on, every time there is a bad tornado there's frenzy in the press about climate change. Just google it and you will find countless discussions just on the Moore tornado. For example, Senator Boxer on the Moore tornado:



A frenzy in the PRESS. Think about that for a moment. 

Maybe we should criticise evolution based on stupid things politicians say about it.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 31, 2013)

Well how predictably dull and verbose the past 24 hours have been. Just like a million other boring climate change threads.

Diffusor, let me ask you to take a flight of fancy for a moment. Suppose - just suppose - that all those studies and papers that say that 97% of climate scientists agree on AGW is correct. Even give yourself a little margin of error of +/- 2%. That's all I ask. 

Now consider this - all it took for you to be convinced that AGW was a crock was to look at the official charts for Tornadoes from the NOAA. I wonder why the 97% of people who spend their entire lives pouring over this stuff didn't see that chart? Perhaps they interpreted it differently or derived a different conclusion?

It's endlessly frustrating to see so many armchair climate scientists who apparently can see just how obvious all this stuff is without all those boring years spent understanding their science and all those even more boring decades researching it in academia. As far as I'm aware, no other branch of science is quite this disregarded, even evolutionary biology.

There's plenty of science out there that it unsettled / speculative. There is a rich history of mainstream scientific thought being overturned by new evidence and new theories. But progress in every single one of those cases happens within the scientific method, by researchers doing their job and making breakthroughs which are themselves challenged and - eventually - move the scientific understanding forward. There's no rational reason to suppose climate science should be treated differently to any other branch of science - scientific institutions across the globe have endorsed the work of climate scientists (as opposed to complaining that they are not doing their job properly).

And all this is why I try my damndest to avoid these pointless back and forth on any one given supposed "chink in the armour". If it's obvious to you or I, it must be insultingly obvious to the professional community. There's a dumb misconception in the loaded terminology used that the entire scientific discipline is a lobby group, by the use of the terms "warmist" / "alarmist" which is actually laughable. "Ssceptic" has been redefined to mean "contrarian". In truth, real climate scientists are all sceptics. They proceed on evidence, test, test and test again. If there is any real evidence that AGW as a theory is flawed, then it will out.

Click on the advanced tab here - http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm. It lists all the different studies, including peer reviewed, that meta analyse all the other studies. They pretty much all arrive at the same number by totally different methods - 97%. It also lists the institutions that support the premise of AGW - there's no alternate list because, afaik, there aren't any of that professional standing. That is the reason why I'm bored and uninterested by these silly and petty distractions.

One of two here on VI-C spend many hours as a hobby trying to understand the nitty gritty. I'm afraid I don't really take their "research" particularly seriously, any more than I'd listen to a mate's advice on heart surgery who spends their evenings reading up about the techniques and has their own ideas of why the professionals are all wrong. But at least they try and I sure respect the hours that are put in - more irritating are those who pose the same cherry picked questions time and again without ever engaging with the answers.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 31, 2013)

How much warming has there been in the past 17 years?


----------



## chimuelo (May 31, 2013)

Here's an answer to the 17 years pattern, even while Greenhouse gases have risen 7.5%, yet we emit less C02 than the last 45 years.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... 5HchrGSNLw

Mother Nature doesn't get paid to draw conclusions, and these truths also apply to the health of our Oceans.


----------



## Diffusor (May 31, 2013)

Ed @ Thu May 30 said:


> Diffusor @ Thu May 30 said:
> 
> 
> > I see what you did there.
> ...



You made a big deal about it and argued with me over multiple posts until you finally got totally served.. If there wasn't a connection in your mind why would you try to argue that tornados have become more frequent concurrent with climate change? I already know there is not a direct connection between global warming and tornadoes but obviously people like you do, and countless others who listen to the misinformation put out by the "press" and politicians.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2013)

Diffusor @ Fri May 31 said:


> You made a big deal about it and argued with me over multiple posts until you finally got totally served..



Um no, go back and read the conversation. I only mentioned tornados after you already accepted that tropical storms had increased. Guy was talking about extreme weather, told you to look at the big picture, you chose to pick tornados saying they should increase and therefore Guy is wrong, though they are not considered to be part of that/too difficult to track.



> If there wasn't a connection in your mind why would you try to argue that tornados have become more frequent concurrent with climate change?



Because I simply googled graphics about tornados and they didnt show a decline, then I realised your graph showing a decline didnt take all of them, so jumped to conclusions and assumed your poor understanding of the big picture extreme weather involved cherry picking specific tornado type's as well.

You said that tornado frequency should go up, which means you dont know what AGW predictions say should happen. You then told me you said this because some politician said something ignorant in THE PRESS and WhatsUpWithThat implied this was a belief shared by AGW climate scientists. Again, should we criticise evolution based off what some people say about it in the press? I've seen people trying to defend evolution and still misunderstanding how it works.


----------



## Guy Rowland (May 31, 2013)

Quote A



Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 31 said:


> How much warming has there been in the past 17 years?



Quote B



Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 31 said:


> How much warming has there been in the past 17 years?



Quote C



Guy Rowland @ Fri May 31 said:


> more irritating are those who pose the same cherry picked questions time and again without ever engaging with the answers.



Quote D



Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 31 said:


> How much warming has there been in the past 17 years?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (May 31, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri May 31 said:


> Quote A
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Indeed, and you still haven't provided an answer. But of course, we all know what that answer is, including the Met Office.

o[])


----------



## Diffusor (May 31, 2013)

Ed @ Fri May 31 said:


> Diffusor @ Fri May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > You made a big deal about it and argued with me over multiple posts until you finally got totally served..
> ...



You should be concerned with morons like Boxer, ignorance with power is dangerous. And I never said AGW scientists believed tornados were caused by GW but a lot their "disciples" in the "civilian" left do. And it sure seemed like you did too.


----------



## Diffusor (May 31, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 31 said:


> How much warming has there been in the past 17 years?




Crickets.


----------



## Ed (May 31, 2013)

Diffusor @ Fri May 31 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > How much warming has there been in the past 17 years?
> ...



Stephen doesnt understand the complexity of the answer necessary, so keeps spamming it as if he has found some single thing that brings down AGW theory. Just as you show me a graph showing temperature data is still within predicted parameters and act like its the opposite and a big problem, and how you also dont understand that there are other 10 year or more points you can pick that also appear to show little warming but the trend still goes up and up.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 1, 2013)

Ed @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> Diffusor @ Fri May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen Baysted @ Fri May 31 said:
> ...



So provide the answer Ed (just like the Met Office did).


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 1, 2013)

Stephen, as you well know this has been done to death. As I said previously, I suggest you (and any interested readers) go back over this and Rohan's thread to stop a still greater colossal waste of everyone's time - it would be quicker for someone to just cut and paste around 70 posts from last year to save us all going through the motions again, as I've no doubt whatsoever that anyone's position will have changed. If you'd prefer a shorter version, In the links I and others have provided over the past couple of days, there's plenty of science to answer this, were the question asked in a spirit of honest enquiry (hint: "going down the up escalator").


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 1, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> Stephen, as you well know this has been done to death. As I said previously, I suggest you (and any interested readers) go back over this and Rohan's thread to stop a still greater colossal waste of everyone's time - it would be quicker for someone to just cut and paste around 70 posts from last year to save us all going through the motions again, as I've no doubt whatsoever that anyone's position will have changed. If you'd prefer a shorter version, In the links I and others have provided over the past couple of days, there's plenty of science to answer this, were the question asked in a spirit of honest enquiry (hint: "going down the up escalator").



It has not been done to death! You are either avoiding answering the question because it undermines your belief and faith in the AGW hypothesis or you are simply *denying* the observational data. 

There has been no warming for at least 17 years. The Met Office was forced to admit the same recently (much to their chagrin). The question is Guy, do you admit that there has been no warming for 17 years?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 1, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> [It has not been done to death! You are either avoiding answering the question because it undermines your belief and faith in the AGW hypothesis or you are simply *denying* the observational data.
> 
> There has been no warming for at least 17 years. The Met Office was forced to admit the same recently (much to their chagrin). The question is Guy, do you admit that there has been no warming for 17 years?



It has, most absolutely definitely, been done to death - nothing to add to my last post, it's all there.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 1, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Sat Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > [It has not been done to death! You are either avoiding answering the question because it undermines your belief and faith in the AGW hypothesis or you are simply *denying* the observational data.
> ...



Er... it's not; the Met Offices revised predictions only came to light in January; and they were only forced to answer a parliamentary question in the past 2 weeks. It just seems as though you are ignoring the o=? in the room. Conveniently. 

Indeed, if you were not willing to debate further observed evidence and data, why resurrect the thread?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 1, 2013)

Sigh....

OK, what are we talking about here? Revised predictions or the past 17 years? Provide us with a non-blog link.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 1, 2013)

Bit bored today, so I just did a search - did you mean this? (news / context article from New Scientist)

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... -halt.html

If so, I've no need to add anything to what they said, nothing affected in the big picture.


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 1, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Sat Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > [It has not been done to death! You are either avoiding answering the question because it undermines your belief and faith in the AGW hypothesis or you are simply *denying* the observational data.
> ...



It has? The MET just released that data not too long ago Here's a good overview from both sides. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html

This is a interesting bit (goalposts!):



> Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told (Phil Jones) a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
> But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.
> 
> Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.
> ...


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 1, 2013)

New peer reviewed paper out you might find interesting.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... --+Climate)


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 1, 2013)

Diffusor @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> New peer reviewed paper out you might find interesting.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... --+Climate)



I will await the scientific community's response of the "controversial new study" with great interest :D 

I may have missed why the experimentally proven warming effect of C02 isn't actually doing anything at all (as opposed to why CFCs ARE doing something).

EDIT: Incidentally, though the CFC theory is a new one on me, I see it's old news. Don't know if this paper has much to add on this - http://www.skepticalscience.com/CFCs-global-warming.htm - but (as I suspected) it looks like the CFC influence is, unfortunately, relatively small.


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 1, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> Diffusor @ Sat Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > New peer reviewed paper out you might find interesting.
> ...



None the less, it's a peer-reviewed paper and another theory. The science is very much not settled.


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 1, 2013)

Deconstruction of the 97% consensus. (Note: this requires some reading, rather than just believing). 

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

"I think this sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.”
-Dr. Richard Tol

Credentials:

M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect“), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-Present); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 1, 2013)

Congressional Budget Office says US carbon tax will generate $1.2 trillion

“Without accounting for how the revenues from a carbon
tax would be used, such a tax would have a negative effect
on the economy. The higher prices it caused would
diminish the purchasing power of people’s earnings,
effectively reducing their real (inflation-adjusted) wages.
Lower real wages would have the net effect of reducing
the amount that people worked, thus decreasing the overall
supply of labor. Investment would also decline, further
reducing the economy’s total output.”
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...3_Carbon_0.pdf


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 1, 2013)

Diffusor @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> None the less, it's a peer-reviewed paper and another theory. The science is very much not settled.



Wrong. I mean, there's plenty more papers out there from a contrarian perspective that look promising that you can quote if you're really keen. Since 97% back AGW, there's 3% that don't, which equals a fair few papers. Thus far, none of those papers have gained traction. That's not to say that they have no worth, but when further analysed by the community and been subjected to further peer-reviewed research, they've come to nothing. Rohan is keen on quoting Richard Lindzen's work for example, though for the life of me I've never been able to work out why - he last big bombshell of a paper he produced that I'm aware of which blew the whole theory out of the water turned out to be "full of stupid mistakes" (his own words).

So this CFC thing isn't new. Every once in a while a new Cosmic Rays paper pops up again too. Now, maybe one day there will be some extraordinary new evidence that is compelling - but there's no real sign of any based on past performance. In the meantime, more than 19 in 20 scientists and papers that take a view agree on the basics of AGW. Some people, of course, find that conclusion uncomfortable for whatever reason, and so they jump on any shred of evidence that comes along - conveniently forgetting about it when it subsequently falls by the wayside. Every week there's a new "nail in the coffin" for AGW, and yet, here we are in 2013 with 97% of climate scientists still backing it. Curious, isn't it?

Believe me, I'll be utterly delighted if this all turns out to be crock. But so far, the denialist community just looks like a huge amount of wishful thinking to me.


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 1, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> Diffusor @ Sat Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > None the less, it's a peer-reviewed paper and another theory. The science is very much not settled.
> ...




The 97% thing is a huge crock. See my previous post.

History and actually observational data is starting to prove the "alarmists" wrong.

Science is not democracy and consensus.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 1, 2013)

Diffusor @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> Deconstruction of the 97% consensus. (Note: this requires some reading, rather than just believing).
> 
> http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
> 
> ...



Eh? You've just linked the original paper and given a 9 word quote by a known contrarian?


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 1, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> Diffusor @ Sat Jun 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Deconstruction of the 97% consensus. (Note: this requires some reading, rather than just believing).
> ...



I see. Any person that doesn't match your confirmation bias is a "contrarian"? So you believe John Cook, an "activist" who runs a blog who did a non-scientific survey. And like I said, science is not democracy or consensus.




http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/0 ... tists.html

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?
"It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming." - Dr. Idso
"What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun." - Dr. Scafetta
"Nope... it is not an accurate representation." - Dr. Shaviv
"Certainly not correct and certainly misleading." - Dr. Morner
"I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake." - Dr. Soon
"No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper." - Dr. Carlin


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 1, 2013)

Ah, a new link. Or rather an old one, we did this two pages ago. I've already linked this response by the author but what the hell, it's good stuff:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/c ... cteristics

Well worth a read. And don't forget, this is just the latest in many papers. Another old link (hey it's a day for that), click intermediate here for the others:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global- ... ediate.htm

But the circular nature of this debate speaks volumes. We've been here before. But some people, for whatever reason, always cling to the long shots, the remote possibilities, the margins, the 3%. I've said repeatedly - the moment NASA or Royal Society or NOAA or any mainstream scientific institution say "wow, maybe we got it wrong", I'll change my mind in an heartbeat and declare all bets are off. By contrast, sounds like there's no evidence that will ever change your mind, diffusor - which is a faith-based position.


----------



## chimuelo (Jun 1, 2013)

The Columbian Ice Field of the Rocky Mountains has pictures from Geologists dating back to 1860 and every year even before the industrial age came along it has been melting.
Most Geologists will even tell you that there's no data to support that this natural occurance is due to humans or rising CO2 levels.
We are seeing Climate Change but new taxes aren't going to fix anything. We give billions towards education and infrastructure yet the more money they rake in the worse everything gets.
At that rate we could melt the Glaciers and add tempurature by giving these Al Gore types any more money.
According to a simple text book my son gets it talks about temperatures changing after the mini ice age that ended in the 1800s.
So naturally since then temps would rise after the end of an Ice Age.

The only thing I am concerned about is the ferocity of Tornados and Hurricanes, and midwestern flooding.
It was pretty bad in the 50s, and we are seeing that same trend again, but seems new records show that the number of Torns/Hurricanes has dropped, but they are more powerful, and new records are being set every year.

BTW, Why do they name Hurricanes after women.........?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Answer: They come in fast and wet, and when they leave they take your house and car.....

Ankyu


----------



## Diffusor (Jun 2, 2013)

chimuelo @ Sat Jun 01 said:


> The Columbian Ice Field of the Rocky Mountains has pictures from Geologists dating back to 1860 and every year even before the industrial age came along it has been melting.
> Most Geologists will even tell you that there's no data to support that this natural occurance is due to humans or rising CO2 levels.
> We are seeing Climate Change but new taxes aren't going to fix anything. We give billions towards education and infrastructure yet the more money they rake in the worse everything gets.
> At that rate we could melt the Glaciers and add tempurature by giving these Al Gore types any more money.
> ...




Actually the statistics have shown extreme hurricanes and tornados have become less frequent. The difference is possibly that the news media sensationalizes and dramatizes every storm event. Armageddon is good for business.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 2, 2013)

But that argument is beyond pathetic. Diffusor.

We sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives and pay trillions of dollars for "defense" to keep oil flowing. Our entire economy is based on it. Energy companies have billions and billions and billions of dollars invested in oil infrastructure, for example there's something like 30,000 miles of pipe in the Gulf of Mexico.

I'm not directing this at you personally, Diffusor, but one can argue anything. Anyone who still believes at this late date that this isn't real is simply a fool.


----------



## park bench (Jun 2, 2013)

> The Columbian Ice Field of the Rocky Mountains has pictures from Geologists dating back to 1860 and every year even before the industrial age came along it has been melting.



The little ice age had something to do with it being big on account of the colder temperatures. Warming afterwards was the least of the world's worries.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 2, 2013)

> We are seeing Climate Change but new taxes aren't going to fix anything. We give billions towards education and infrastructure yet the more money they rake in the worse everything gets.




Yes, yes, the less you spend on infrastructure and education the better our roads and bridges get and the more kids learn. And of course a carbon tax makes no economic sense. We should pay people to burn as much oil as possible.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 2, 2013)

You know, when I was a child I used to think the dog next door's throat would get sore and he'd stop barking at me.

I guess it's too much to hope that will happen with the stuff people are barking today.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 2, 2013)

Here's another way of looking at all this.

Let's start by looking at 3 non-controversial facts. These are as I've just described them - are no more controversial to anyone than water being comprised of hydrogen and oxygen:

1. *CO2 is a warming gas*. In 1861, John Tyndal proved that Carbon Dioxide is a warming gas in a simple laboratory experiment, which has been replicated ever since in high schools around the world (and here, for fun, in mythbusters - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I ).

2. *The Earth's ability to support life is enabled by greenhouse gasses, of which CO2 is one*. Without a layer of gasses in the atmosphere that radiate heat back to earth, our average temperature on Earth would be much colder, around 40 degrees C. Without the greenhouse effect, it is unlikely there would be life on earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect .

3. *The rate of CO2 in the atmosphere has dramatically increased due to industrialisation*. Over the past 200 years, it has risen from 280 parts per million and just broke the 400ppm barrier last month. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dio ... atmosphere

Now, a bright 10 year old might come up with their own theory based on those 3 non-controversial facts.... C02 warms... it is partly responsible for warming the whole earth... we've put way more of it up there... gee, do you think it might warm the earth more, then?

In essence, that's the theory behind anthropogenic global warming, it's that simple and based on these three non-controversial facts. Since we've observed a warming world, occam's razor suggests that CO2 might be a primary driver in that. But of course - that's waaaaay to simple a conclusion to draw without an entire scientific discipline behind it. Why isn't the warming in a dead straight line? What about aerosols? What about natural fluctuations in long and short time scales? What about CFCs? What about cosmic rays? What about volcanoes? What about solar activity? What about heat in the oceans?

All pertinent questions, and climate scientists have been working hard on every single one of them. What 97% of them tell us, along with all the world's major scientific institutions, is that when you've factored all those things in, what we're left it is is precisely what our bright 10 year old thought of - the increased about of the warming gas CO2 is warming the planet. Occam's Razor indeed.

So why go through all this again now, on page 10 of our little thread? Because it's fundamental to understanding people's _attitudes_ towards AGW. As a basic theory, it is very simple, and based on compelling non-controversial facts. Given our scientific knowledge, we would _expect_ the world to warm. Guess what? It does! Now, if either the world isn't warming after all, or if some other agent is primarily responsible for warming, we have a new problem - we need to explain away why our vast new quantities of an atmospheric warming gas aren't doing their job.

All of which is why I have become cynical when some folks here (and everywhere else on the planet) reference every theory and lone paper that comes along that shows a different agent responsible for warming, or that the whole thing is of no consequence for some reason (and happily switch between the two for no logical reason). Why, I wonder, do they only reference THOSE few papers that invariably hsitorically have passed by the wayside under further research? Why do they ignore the many thousands of others? Most pertinent - what's wrong with our 10 year old's theory, what is so preposterous about it, that so many people KNOW it must be wrong? Where's the obvious logical flaw, and why can't 97% of the most qualified people in the field see it?

Hence my scepticism. Meanwhile, there's another lengthy post to be made about how science is accepted in varying amounts depending on somebody's political persuasion. Gravity works on Democrats and Republicans alike, and they'd all happily accept it... so why is it different for any other branch of science? Easy answer - gravity has no economic or policitcal consequence, unlike other branches of science. People believe what they want, I personally conclude, depending on their own spiritual, political and economic beliefs. The answer is found first "I don't want to believe this", and so data is sought to back up that conclusion. This is the opposite from the scientific method where hypothesis are tested, accepted and rejected purely on the basis of evidence.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 3, 2013)

> Why isn't the warming in a dead straight line?



Because climate is chaotic and there's a lot of noise mixed in with the signal.

The rest is just a massively twisted logical flaw with synapses misfiring in all directions: faith doesn't rely upon the scientific method; the scientific method is complicated; climate is complicated; a 10-year-old's understanding of climate is simple; correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming is simple; therefore the scientific method and the simplicity of the conclusion prove that this particular correlation does not equal causation and anyone who believes it is reliant upon faith.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 3, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> > Why isn't the warming in a dead straight line?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eh? Either I don't get your post or you sure has heckfire don't get mine Nick (or both?)

Like many scientific (and mathematical) theories, AGW is fundamentally a very simple one. To test it experimentally and explore it thoroughly, it gets massively complicated, which is why it needs an entire branch of science to explore it (something beyond any of us at VI-C to have a truly informed view on by our own miserly study and understanding). But, again as is often the case, the simple theory at the heart of appears to be both correct and very easily comprehensible. Not my view - the view of those 97% of climate scientists tell us. Strip away the noise, factor in all those myriad of other factors, we are left with a very simple reality understandable by a 10 year old - it's simple as saying "more of a warming greenhouse gas is warming the earth". A scientific theory, no faith required, and confirmed by the scientific method.

What has got almost entirely lost - and the reason for my post - is that this very simple theory has to be explained AWAY if any other theory is to be correct. This is what we'd expect it do, this is what appears to be happening. If something ELSE is causing it, why isn't the warming gas doing any warming?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 3, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Jun 03 said:


> > Why isn't the warming in a dead straight line?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think someone must have hacked Nick's account. Or maybe he's being funded by Big Oil these days? :mrgreen:


----------



## park bench (Jun 3, 2013)

+1 nick.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 3, 2013)

Guy, I got it backwards. Sorry, I thought you were a denier using twisted logic.


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 4, 2013)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> Guy, I got it backwards. Sorry, I thought you were a denier using twisted logic.



He is: everyone admits there's been no warming for at 17 years, the Met Office suggests there'll be none for another 4 years, but Guy is still in denial about it. :mrgreen: :wink:


----------



## TheUnfinished (Jun 4, 2013)

Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> He is: *everyone* admits there's been no warming for at 17 years, the Met Office suggests there'll be none for another 4 years, but Guy is still in denial about it. :mrgreen: :wink:


My boldening. How have you come to THAT conclusion?


----------



## Stephen Baysted (Jun 4, 2013)

TheUnfinished @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > He is: *everyone* admits there's been no warming for at 17 years, the Met Office suggests there'll be none for another 4 years, but Guy is still in denial about it. :mrgreen: :wink:
> ...



Ah good chap, you saw what I did there.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jun 4, 2013)

No worries, Nick!



Stephen Baysted @ Tue Jun 04 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Jun 04 said:
> 
> 
> > Guy, I got it backwards. Sorry, I thought you were a denier using twisted logic.
> ...



Yes, pure denial, along with the 97% of scientists working in the field. We're all hopelessly deluded, desperately willing Armageddon into action due to a sinister hippy cult plot... or... er... something...

Care to take on the thrust of my post above? I'm genuinely curious to know what is wrong with the basic premise of AGW that leads you (and many others) to assume it can't possibly be true. Does CO2 not warm? Are all those experiments of 150 years wrong? Is more CO2 not out there - are we measuring it all wrong? Is CO2 not a greenhouse gas? Those basic facts would lead one to presume that we're in a warming world. You seem to believe we aren't (as already posted, the met office certainly do not believe this, nor do any other major scientific institution in the world - anything you've linked is purely an arbitrary cherry picked example to score a rhetorical point). So - since you clearly believe we're not warming... why not? What is wrong with this picture?


----------



## Jimbo 88 (Jun 4, 2013)

Funny thing...I might have posted this before, i scored many documentaries for The Weather Channel (before NBC bought it).

The Weather Channel was warning of Global Warming (Climate Change) long before it became a political issue. Around the time of Hurricane Katrina it became too hot a political issue and they dropped it. 

All the predictions they where making are becoming true. Not " slowly but surely", but very quickly.

They warned to watch for historically violent storms hitting the east cost of the USA. Storms to become increasingly more violent, droughts and wild fires to hit with historically high frequency. Snow storms to increase and much colder winters. 

These predictions where being made by the small group of scientists that actually are paid to monitor the global climate. Not people with any political motivations. 

i've noticed some people mistakenly point to the fact that the Earth's core is actually cooling to disavow global warming. The two are not totally related.


----------



## stevenson-again (Sep 17, 2013)

We meet again old friend mwahahaha!



> Care to take on the thrust of my post above?



I would. 



> I'm genuinely curious to know what is wrong with the basic premise of AGW that leads you (and many others) to assume it can't possibly be true.



No one (apart from the sky dragonners maybe) thinks there is anything wrong with the premise. It is a sound theory, based on proven physics. However the phrase 'trivially true' applies. Like all theories it has to be tested.



> Does CO2 not warm?



No it doesn't. It delays cooling. However I realize this is splitting hairs so we can agree on this point.



> Are all those experiments of 150 years wrong?



Nope they are quite correct.



> Is more CO2 not out there - are we measuring it all wrong?



Yes there is more CO2 out there, but we may actually be measuring it in a simplistic way. The carbon cycle is extremely complex. But broadly speaking, yep.



> Is CO2 not a greenhouse gas?



It's a misnomer, but yes.



> Those basic facts would lead one to presume that we're in a warming world.



We are, or were. But those 'facts' shouldn't lead you to presume anything until you have measured whether the world really is warming.



> You seem to believe we aren't (as already posted, the met office certainly do not believe this,



The Met Office certainly DOES believe this: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/ne ... in-warming)

....and furthermore think that we are not likely to see anymore warming for at least another 5 years. The irony is, their flagship model HadGEM3 which predicts this would invalidate itself since it hindcasts warming. One has to laugh.

Don't worry - the MetOffice aren't ready to give up on their models just yet, but it's getting harder and harder.



> So - since you clearly believe we're not warming... why not? What is wrong with this picture?



Well I can't speak for Stephen or Nick, but Nick was exactly right to suggest not to confuse causation with correlation. What is wrong with this picture is that we are in the insanity of trying to mitigate a non-problem, with the attendant costs and pain it causes to the environment and the poor (the two being inextricably linked).

All of the above points are all true - trivially true. The case for alarm rests solely on the amplification effect of feedbacks, most especially water vapour - which has a much greater 'greenhouse' effect than CO2. The warming that occurred from roughly 1970 to 2000 was attributed to this feedback, but the climate scientists supporting this theory neglected natural variability and over-stated the importance of the sensitivity of the climate to CO2, which was fed into the models which projected warming we haven't seen.

Additionally, and crucially, it is important to understand how warming would affect the tropics, since that is the most important influence on our climate. The models and the theory predicted that the tropopause or the top of the atmosphere should see significant and faster warming than the surface, but when they looked, and they looked really hard, they couldn't find anything (ie the 'hotspot'). The theory should really have been cast into doubt then (seriously revised or abandoned), but once politics, hubris, and a lot of vested interests got involved things got complicated (to put it mildly). It's taken nearly 15 years of no discernible temperature rise that just can't be ignored for the consensus to start to come apart.

And don't forget that the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere is logarithmic - that is to say you have to DOUBLE the amount to get a 1 degree rise. In general, the small amount of warming we have had, the extra warming we might possible contribute to, and the extra CO2 should be of net benefit to the both us and the biosphere more generally.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Sep 17, 2013)

Oh hello Rohan!

Well, I would say not much has changed, but actually a little HAS changed. As you linked, there's a broad acceptance that the past 15 years has seen a slow down in the warming of surface temperature. As you also sort of point out, however, it hasn't changed much in terms of the mainstream scientific view - in fact, by all accounts the upcoming IPCC report will actually increase confidence in the basic precepts of AGW. How so? Before rushing to the obvious conclusion that almost the entire scientific establishment is unable to accept the change in evidence, it's worth spending just a moment to look just a little closer before throwing the whole lot of them down the toilet. And, helpfully, you've provided a very good link at the met office site, which itself links to their three recent reports on the subject and are an excellent place to start.

As a layman with absolutely no credentials or pretense to expertise, I tread on dangerous ground when it comes to explaining anything. I've always sought to point to the experts, not pretend to be one. However, if I've at least understood the very basics, two aspects seem particularly important to me:

1. The total amount of energy absorbed by the earth has remained steadily increasing - only 2% actually heats the atmosphere. This steady total energy increase would not be the case if warming had "stopped", so the evidence does not support this. Rather, it suggests that, more recently, the extra heat has been transferred elsewhere (such as the oceans), rather than average surface temperatures.

2. Models have predicted periods of slowed surface temperature warming of a decade or more - in an of itself, it's expected behaviour (though the details of how, when and why this occurs are poorly understood).

I'm glad at least that we agree on the basics of the physics. I continue to side with the ever-increasing scientific establishment which is the combined most qualified wisdom on the subject, while of course you draw different conclusions from your own rather more modest studies (if you'll forgive). Should any part of the establishment break ranks (by which I mean a significant institution's policy statement), I'll be all ears and will change my views accordingly. Since, however, the evidence continues to support overall warming, I suspect things are unlikely to change.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Sep 27, 2013)

Well it seems remiss not to post here today on the new IPCC report. 95% confidence of mankind being mostly responsible for global warming so far (up from 90% in 2007).

This is the work of 2,000 scientists from 154 countries. It distills research from "many thousands" of papers. None of this, of course, matters. For those who are inclined to disbelieve it, it's not a scientific body at all but a governmental one, and all scientists with dissenting views are barred, so the report is conveniently irrelevant.

The governmental accusation I've always thought is an odd one. Despite all the hundreds of lead authors and contributors being scientists (the government reps only get involved in the final vetting), it still makes no sense. If it were the work of, say, a left-leaning government, or an alliance of them, then the accusation might have some potency. However, the political side of it represents ALL world governments, from far right to far left. Rather than this aspect hyping any results, historically its led to watering down of the final conclusions. This is also relevant to the supposed suppression of dissenting voices - if there is an agenda to hype results, its odd that many complain precisely the opposite is occurring.

Sadly, I really do wonder if it's all worth the bother at this point. The tiny minority view of the Judith Currys of the world get vastly more media exposure than their small numbers would warrant, and they preach a message folks are desperate to hear - "we don't REALLY know" (or often "it's all just made up"). I wish I could see this report making any difference, but it's hard to imagine it will.

As ever, I think the hugely unscientific personal weather experiences of individuals is most likely to sway opinion, if anything will. Today's report says "It is now very likely that human influence has contributed to observed global scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes since the mid-20th century, and likely that human influence has more than doubled the probability of occurrence of heat waves in some locations". All very well, but if it's been a chilly winter in the UK, it counts for nothing. If you are a midwest American farmer whose crops have failed due to heatwaves and floods, then you might come to a different view. Neither is scientific, but we're just not built that way, it seems.


----------



## Ellywu2 (Sep 27, 2013)

There's a funny quote I stumbled across regarding climate change, which I think gives us a bit of perspective and really puts all these lobbyists and business people in their place.

'If you really think the environment is less important than the economy, try holding your breath while you count your money."

Sorry I don't have anything more scientific to refute any denial which may or may not be going on this thread. The whole notion of climate change denial is patently absurd to me - classic frog in a pot syndrome, but applied to the Human race writ large.


----------



## snowleopard (Sep 28, 2013)

Guy Rowland @ Fri Sep 27 said:


> Sadly, I really do wonder if it's all worth the bother at this point. The tiny minority view of the Judith Currys of the world get vastly more media exposure than their small numbers would warrant, and they preach a message folks are desperate to hear - "we don't REALLY know" (or often "it's all just made up"). I wish I could see this report making any difference, but it's hard to imagine it will.



I find myself completely agreeing with you Guy. Especially your point listed above. 

But there's another political angle at play here. The report could say 100% accurate, and still a certain small amount of very selfish, greedy people would still not give a damn and only care about themselves, and give money to politicians in power who keep any real legislation from passing that would fix the problem. 

So again, you're right. It is hard to imagine this report will make any difference at all.


----------

