PDA

View Full Version : Climate change? Again!



DeHaviLand
26-Nov-11, 12:08
Seems the scientists may have been caught with their pants down, again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-climate-emails-Political-giants-weigh-bias-scientists-bowing-financial-pressure-sponsors.html#ixzz1el7f4gy5

The repercussions will no doubt be interesting!

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 12:19
Total fantasy perpetrated by the naysayers on the eve of the climate talks in Durban. The naysayers should have learned from last time after 3 independent inquiries on which Lawson was a part found the allegations against climate scientists to be unfounded.

Just treat everything that the Daily Mail, Telegraph and Lawson and his Global Warming Policy Foundation with a huge pinch of salt and you can't go far wrong. :)

It'll be another case of lies going around the world twice before the truth gets its boots on, and that'll be after the conference in Durban. And it will.

DeHaviLand
26-Nov-11, 12:39
Seems to me Rheggy, that those who believe in climate change will say these e-mails are not real. But those who deny climate change, will claim they are. Once the stooshie dies down, we will be no further forward. The believers will believe, the deniers will deny. And 'til the end of time, this will most likely be the case.

Personally, I'm happy to judge the climate scientists on their past record. Now, where did we put that mini ice age we were promised in the 1970's?

theone
26-Nov-11, 12:42
People will always 'spin' the truth to fit their own beliefs or agenda.

That some climate change scientists would do it, does not mean they all would.

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 12:45
Actually real climate scientists weren't promising an ice age in the 1970s, on the contrary, anthropological global warming dominated the peer reviewed publications at the time. How right they were.

ducati
26-Nov-11, 12:57
It's pretty academic anyway. If we were going to seriously do anything about climate change we should have started 50 years ago. As we are, as a race, not doing much even now, I doubt that we can now do anything about it.

I'll be dead before the really serious effects are experienced so not my problem. And as many can't see the abyss they are staring into, and believe a lot of conspirasy clap, I hope you enjoy living under water. :roll:

Alrock
26-Nov-11, 13:31
Scientist asks, 'What if they find that climate change is a natural fluctuation? They'll kill us all'

At the end of the day does it really matter if it's man-made or natural?
All that matters is whether or not it is happening....
If it is happening & the consequences of it are going to be detrimental to us as a species (the planet itself will survive, history shows us that) & we have the ability to prevent it happening then should we not try & do something about it?
That is what the real debate should be about rather than all this bickering over the cause.

bekisman
26-Nov-11, 13:37
DeHaviLand, at first I thought someone else had seen this one*

CO2 climate sensitivity 'overestimated'

'Global temperatures could be less sensitive to changing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels than previously thought, a study suggests.
The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7C to 2.6C (3.1F to 4.7F).
That is a much tighter range than the one produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2.0C to 4.5C.
The new analysis also reduces the expected rise in average surface temperatures to just over 2C, from 3C'

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15858603)
Right I'm off for a wee bit before I get lynched by pseudo-climate scientists!:eek:

weezer 316
26-Nov-11, 14:05
Lol! emails shemales!

The evidence is pretty clear. As is billions of tons of ice melting each year.

bekisman
26-Nov-11, 14:45
You're right there, the mile high ice-sheet above you in Thurso must have gone somewhere.

Something about Post-glacial rebound? does that not mean we're staying the same or rising and the south of England is sinking making it look like the sea is rising ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-glacial_rebound_in_British_Isles.PNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-glacial_rebound_in_British_Isles.PNG)

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 15:11
A reformed climate contrarian spills the beans on the anti climate change lobby


but just as important was the utter lack of intellectual rigor I detected in most of the contrarian arguments. So many of their arguments were obviously absurd, and yet I noticed that many contrarians were absolutely incapable of seeing any problem with them. To me, this was a strong indicator of a movement well on its way to intellectual bankruptcy.


Even out of context, however, I am baffled by the inclusion of some of the quotes in a list that is supposed to be damning to the mainstream scientists. Tommy Wills, for instance, wrote in one e-mail, “What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably….” The only possible reason for thinking this quote is damning is that Wills mentions the possibility that recent global warming is mainly due to natural fluctuations. But since the mainstream view is that this appears very unlikely, rather than impossible, given presently available data, I fail to see why this would impress anyone, aside from the sort of dullards who are incapable of understanding arguments based on probability.



http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/contrarians-file-for-intellectual-bankruptcy/

bekisman
26-Nov-11, 15:36
Rheghead why don't you put a signature along the bottom to admit YOU were questioning the thesis that global warming was man made.

You came to your own conclusion, why not let others do the same instead of treating those who 'wonder' as intellectual idiots. Why, even Barry Bickmore is a 'recovering climate change contrarian' OK he's a Mormon missionary and maybe allowed his zeal, but you?

mi16
26-Nov-11, 15:46
Well if it is in the newspapers then it must all be true...........................

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 15:48
Give over, I think it is either the volcanoes or the cows farting.

Alrock
26-Nov-11, 15:53
Give over, I think it is either the volcanoes
Natural


or the cows farting.
Man-made

So which is it, volcanoes or cows?

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 16:05
which do you want it to be?

Alrock
26-Nov-11, 16:19
which do you want it to be?

Extra-terrestrial....

Those damn aliens are blasting us with their heat ray again.....

DeHaviLand
26-Nov-11, 16:23
Actually real climate scientists weren't promising an ice age in the 1970s, on the contrary, anthropological global warming dominated the peer reviewed publications at the time. How right they were.

Actually Rheggy, http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

Should be enough in there to refresh your memory

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 16:24
Extra-terrestrial....

Those damn aliens are blasting us with their heat ray again.....

Not such a silly suggestion actually. Interstellar dust is considered as a means of seeding high altitude clouds which have a positive feedback on global temperature.

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 16:31
Actually Rheggy, http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

Should be enough in there to refresh your memory

It seems to be at odds with this article (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf) but then climatedepot is written by someone who is sponsored by Exxonmobil.

DeHaviLand
26-Nov-11, 18:06
It seems to be at odds with this article (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/Myth-1970-Global-Cooling-BAMS-2008.pdf) but then climatedepot is written by someone who is sponsored by Exxonmobil.

Thats a pretty poor argument Rheggy, but I accept that its the best you can come up with.

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 18:19
Thats a pretty poor argument Rheggy, but I accept that its the best you can come up with.

No it is very relevant because Exxonmobil are on record for spending millions into casting doubt and uncertainty over climate change just so they can avoid green measures in their practices.

DeHaviLand
26-Nov-11, 19:17
And Thomas C. Peterson is paid by the American Meteorological Society, an organisation that supports the idea of anthropomorphic climate change. Theres absolutely no difference. Thats why your argument is poor, everyone gets their funding from somewhere, and that funding comes from organisations who share the same beliefs.

Mystical Potato Head
26-Nov-11, 19:27
But of course there are no companies who would benefit from false positives exaggerating the effects of climate change.
No company on earth would ever benefit from technology and manufacture to combat climate change.
There would never be anything political where governments would gain financially from taxing companies to death for not
meeting "green" demands.

People on BOTH sides of the argument have vested interests,not just those from Exxonmobil,to deny that fact means you really do have your head in the clouds and you dont need to be a scientists to see that. Governments probably stand to gain more than anyone at the taxpayers expense.
Those with most to gain and most to lose will do whatever it takes to persuade people that they are right.Thats only natural,whether its an oil company trying to avoid green practice expenses or
renewable energy companies trying to benefit from their clean energy.Every company wants to make a Big Buck.

There is huge financial gain to be made from it,to admit that its natural and there's nothing you can do about it is like killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 19:53
And Thomas C. Peterson is paid by the American Meteorological Society, an organisation that supports the idea of anthropomorphic climate change. Theres absolutely no difference. Thats why your argument is poor, everyone gets their funding from somewhere, and that funding comes from organisations who share the same beliefs.

There is a huge difference.

The American Meteorological Society would still be in existence to publish articles on climate change regardless if there was no link between fossil fuels and climate change.

Exxonmobil is threatened by the growing body of evidence of the case against fossil fuels and climate change and it resorts to spreading of lies and half lies to convince congressmen that there is no need for green incentives.

Thomas C. Peterson is a member of the AMS, he isn't paid by them. He is employed by the NOAA which is funded by the US Government, don't try to convince me that the USA has a vested interest in proving fossil fuels cause climate change.

DeHaviLand
26-Nov-11, 20:26
There is a huge difference.

The American Meteorological Society would still be in existence to publish articles on climate change regardless if there was no link between fossil fuels and climate change.

Exxonmobil is threatened by the growing body of evidence of the case against fossil fuels and climate change and it resorts to spreading of lies and half lies to convince congressmen that there is no need for green incentives.



Exxonmobil is a huge corporation with massive amounts of capital. I'm quite sure its not beyond their wit to diversify into other fields, should they ever feel that they need to. Much in the same way as your beloved scientists diversified from mini ice age to global warming.

DeHaviLand
26-Nov-11, 20:28
Dammit Rheggy, I wish you wouldn't edit your posts when I'm in the middle of replying.

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 20:30
sorry, I'm always doing that.

Rheghead
26-Nov-11, 20:35
Exxonmobil is a huge corporation with massive amounts of capital. I'm quite sure its not beyond their wit to diversify into other fields, should they ever feel that they need to. Much in the same way as your beloved scientists diversified from mini ice age to global warming.

Exxonmobil has a huge commercial interest in selling oil and gas at increasing levels of profit and not entering into other fields where they are certainly behind the rest of the game.

ywindythesecond
26-Nov-11, 23:28
Dammit Rheggy, I wish you wouldn't edit your posts when I'm in the middle of replying.
He never says why or what the edit was. Re-writing history as he goes. The management should insist on a reason for an edit.

ducati
26-Nov-11, 23:49
He never says why or what the edit was. Re-writing history as he goes. The management should insist on a reason for an edit.

You need to edit your reason for editing. :eek: