Global warming

[j4bberw0ck]

Another theory (http://bp0.blogger.com/_2BeisBTjuhA/RdCFZzEzsLI/AAAAAAAAAE0/9zeLckKY0a4/s400/index_500.jpg). Well, strictly speaking I think we're talking about another hypothesis, since the global warming observed can't be reliably explained by any of the current models; no one can produce an explanation which accounts for the Little Ice Ages and Medieval warm period, or the similar experiences occurring back through history.

Perhaps there's some mileage in the idea of cosmic rays?

[fred]

Another theory (http://bp0.blogger.com/_2BeisBTjuhA/RdCFZzEzsLI/AAAAAAAAAE0/9zeLckKY0a4/s400/index_500.jpg).

All I'm getting is a picture of Gleber2's atic.

[scotsboy]

LOL..........me to :)

[Errogie]

This picture of some sort of exotic tree in motion remands me of a rather attractive and possibly non scientific explanation for wind and sometimes gales.

Why, such weather phenomena are of course caused by trees waving to each other and creating a "ripple" effect throughout the world! Well I kind of like the logic of this theory.

[cliffhbuber]

Trees waving to each other to cause a rip in the climate.....lolol
A dandy!

Reminds one of President Reagan back in the 80s who said that trees cause pollution.

Perhaps the climate patterns relate to where the Earth is in the Sagittarius Arm of the Milky Way.

On a personal note, has anyone been feeling the burning of the sun on a summer day? Above Lake Superior in Canada, the ozone layer has been considerably depleted, possibly the largest gap after that of the Antarctic.
Almost instantly, when skin is exposed to the sun, one feels like your flesh is in the oven.

The real issue may not how to stop gobal warmimg, but how to prepare for it.

[Metalattakk]

This picture of some sort of exotic tree in motion remands me of a rather attractive and possibly non scientific explanation for wind and sometimes gales.

Why, such weather phenomena are of course caused by trees waving to each other and creating a "ripple" effect throughout the world! Well I kind of like the logic of this theory.

No hid isna...the wind is caused by trees sneezing. Prove me wrong. ;)

[canuck]

No hid isna...the wind is caused by trees sneezing. Prove me wrong. ;)

Trees cause allergies, not have them. Histamine causes the sneezing and histamine is a chemical of the "animal" world.

[j4bberw0ck]

Well, well......... there's a good reason to check links after posting them :lol: . Sorry 'bout that: here's the right link! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml)

I chanced on that picture of the marijuana plant and copied the URL, forgetting it would overwrite the URL for the cosmic rays article. The marijuana picture was a hoot and I posted it on another forum I use - the caption was that the Conservative Party had redesigned their logo again, following the "revelations" of the use of cannabis by a juvenile David Cameron.

Well, I thought it was funny, anyway; matter of fact, I think Cameron must still be stoned but that's another thread for another day.

So, peeps, my apologies. Hopefully the cosmic rays hypothesis will cause the determined CO2 self-flagellators some amusement :lol: .

[Whitewater]

Interesting link. Not a theory that I have come across previously, but one which makes good sense. All through the history of planet earth there have been many catostrophic events due the natural cycles. I read something in the distant past which claimed that the present civilisation on earth was actually the third civilisation.

Have to agree with you about Cameron, always struck me as belonging to another world. The marijuana plant was interesting, got me thinking out of the box as to why it should be causing climate change, perhaps we should be using more of it, then we wouldn't notice any climate change.

[j4bberw0ck]

Culled from a blog, this morning. Interesting to read. Any thoughts, Rheghead? (I ask that not in sarcasm, but out of interest).

---------START---------

Global warming and CO2

http://www.independencehome.org/pages/posts/global-warming-and-co2105.php
Posted by Mark Warren (markw) on Feb 15 2007 at 11:12 pm
(http://www.independencehome.org/pages/blog.php?g=11)

A tiny bit of background about me - I have a degree in Mech Engineering from Liverpool University. I guess that makes me kind of a scientist. I did a lot of number crunching for my degree, and I am familiar with the idea of scientific progress and how it is achieved.

I therefore have a lot of problems with the current debate of Global Warming. First off it is two arguements rolled into one. What people confuse is a) whether the climate is changing and b) what is causing the change assuming (a) to be true?

a) Is the climate changing?

Well yes, the climate has always been changing. At school you were no doubt taught about ice ages. Were you taught what caused them? What stopped them? How they were in fact regular (every 100000 years or so)? How can this be? Man has only really been burning fossil fuels for 250 years or so in any quantity at all. The Sahara wasnt always a desert. Land masses went always were they are now and hence airflow and sea current patterns were totally different to today. So again yes climate always has been changing, and always will.

b) Its Mankinds CO2 that's changing things!

So says the Green lobby, and I use that word advisedly. They are a pressure group formed to change the way the world works. Anyway, lets look at the facts and some claims:-

i) Atmospheric CO2 has never been higher!
ii) Global temperatures have never been higher!
iii) 6.4C rise:Most of life is exterminated....methane fireballs tear across the sky....deserts extend to the arctic..... hypercanes circumnavigate the globe....humnaity reduced to a few survivors eking out a living in polar refuges.....most of life on Earth snuffed out.......

That last one was from the front page of the Independent newspaper 3/2/2007

Could me driving my car really cause all that? Well lets look at a graph.

http://www.clearlight.com/%7Emhieb/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif

Here we see what happens to temperature as the CO2 levels change. The enviro-weenies will complain that this is over hundreds of thousands of years, but that doesnt change the physics Im afraid. If CO2 traps heat, it traps heat. Therefore the time that has the most CO2 will be hottest and least CO2 coldest - ASSUMING that CO2 is what is important.

So we have the cambrian period when CO2 levels were 20 times the level of today (Oops there goes claim (i) ). What was the temp doing? Rising? Nope it did sod all.

Then we have the ordovician period. Oh my God its cold! About as cold as it is today infact! (Damn thats claim (ii) in tatters) But hang on, the temp has plunged 10C (!!!) and yet CO2 is 13 times higher than today. How can that be?

It goes on and on, Jurassic period temp falling , CO2 rising. 30 million years ago, the planet is 10C warmer than today (pity those dinosaurs having to live in a scenario like claim (iii), they all must have been eking a living at the poles - or maybe not).

So what can we conclude from all this? I'm not going to tell you how to think, but for me the evidence of some basic details doesnt not support the claims about CO2.

-----------------FINISH------------------

[cliffhbuber]

An interesting commentary extracted from Mark Warren's views of global warming as posted by J4abberw0ck.

Indeed, climate is always on the change.
Causes and affects are variable.

Shifting of land masses (continents) must have created drastically different wind and water currents.

The amount and type of vegetation relates to the input of CO2 and the output of oxygen.
Volcanic activity can contaminate the atmosphere blocking out the sun for years.

Some agents of climate change are often neglected or put on the back pages. The rapid destruction of the northern boreal forests and the tropical rain forests may be one of the greatest inlfuences on climate.
Recent studies suggest that methane from peat bogs and farm animal manure destroy the protective ozone layer.

It may be more of managing the environment we have rather than an hysterical reaction to doomsday predictions.
Is that called getting bogged down in our own waste-ful thinkig?

[cliffhbuber]

Fossilized alligators and remains of redwood trees are found on Ellesmere island in the Canadian Arctic waters...dated c 40 million years ago.
Did the Earth tilt?
Did the land masses shift?
Or was it that warm under an Arctic sun?

Maybe modern day musical rockers like Chubby Checker, the Beatles, or Cliff Richard need to invent dances like , "The Shift", or the Tilt".

[Rheghead]

Any thoughts, Rheghead? (I ask that not in sarcasm, but out of interest).

I think the author of the article should read more about the chemistry of global warming and geological processes then he may have a clearer idea of how to interpret the graph, assuming that it is correct that is.

His simplistic notion that temperature will increase directly in relation to Carbon dioxide falls flat on its face immediately due to the changing composition of the atmosphere in respect of other GHGs present at various times.

Due to the logarithmic(sp) nature of the energy emitted in the infra-red region of the EM spectrum, temperature is not directly in proportion to the CO2 concentration, in other words, less temperature rises will occur as the concentration increases, therefore, temperature rises as a result of CO2 is ultimately self-limiting over a wide range of atmospheric concentrations as is clearly shown in the graph.

In relation to present day GW, the range is quite small (270-380ppm) at the lower end of concentration, therefore the temperature rises will be significantly large in relation to concentration. And observable over our short timescale of scientific study.

Also, tectonic processes over the graph's timescale will have a significant part to play in Global temperatures as well as planetary wobbles, variations in the Sun's output etc.

At the present day, we can safely assume that over the last 150 years since records have began, planetary wobbles and tectonic effects can be assumed to be neligible.

So we are looking for another explanation?

The sun's output has changed but thought to contribute about 10-30% of the warming. Without any alien heat rays to blame then Mankind and his desire to pollute seems to be the only thing that seems to be causing GW. As well as land changes to albedo which also occurred naturally over the graph's timescale.

I am sure I've missed somethings out but there you go!:Razz

[cliffhbuber]

Good comments by Rheghead!

As others have mentioned recently, the shifting of the magnetic field of the Earth may be affecting climate change more than realized.
Every now and then, (millions of years) the North and South magnetic fields reverse. During this process of reversal, estimates are that only 10% of the protective force of these fields keeps the nasty gamma and X-rays from space away from the planet.
At a low point of protection from these killing rays, species either mutate or die off.

[j4bberw0ck]

His simplistic notion that temperature will increase directly in relation to Carbon dioxide falls flat on its face immediately due to the changing composition of the atmosphere in respect of other GHGs present at various times.

Due to the logarithmic(sp - A+) nature of the energy emitted in the infra-red region of the EM spectrum, temperature is not directly in proportion to the CO2 concentration, in other words, less temperature rises will occur as the concentration increases, therefore, temperature rises as a result of CO2 is ultimately self-limiting over a wide range of atmospheric concentrations as is clearly shown in the graph.

So do you mean that CO2 isn't the problem, then? Or not all the problem? If that's so, why the hysteria about it now?


In relation to present day GW, the range is quite small (270-380ppm) at the lower end of concentration, therefore the temperature rises will be significantly large in relation to concentration. And observable over our short timescale of scientific study.

I'm sorry. I'm not meaning to be stupid but are you suggesting that the effect of CO2 on global warming follows homeopathic principles? A little of it boosts temperatures lots, while more of it has little effect? Where's me V8 gasguzzler?

It seems strange to me that we're all running round at the behest of the government and the BBC talking about CO2, carbon footprints, carbon tokens, carbon allowances, the contribution of transport to the CO2 problem with the atmosphere, windmills, solar cells and heaven knows what else - and suddenly, the effect of CO2 is only due to the concentrations of other greenhouse gases. But perhaps I misunderstood. Wouldn't be the first time, and certainly not the last. And I know methane is a carbon-based greenhouse gas before you start on me :lol: .


Also, tectonic processes over the graph's timescale will have a significant part to play in Global temperatures as well as planetary wobbles, variations in the Sun's output etc.

OK, two points. How do tectonic processes affect global warming? Please note I'm not saying they don't - just how some slabs of land floating across the magma can be responsible is not clear to me unless you mean that as the land area ceased to be a single large unit the earth's albedo changed.

But presumably, since water has a higher specific heat than land (AFAIK) and reflects more light, then that would be global cooling?

And if it's down to plate tectonics, how can carbon taxes influence that process? :Razz


At the present day, we can safely assume that over the last 150 years since records have began, planetary wobbles and tectonic effects can be assumed to be neligible.

So we are looking for another explanation?

I thought we had it - it's the CO2! And man-made CO2 at that..........


Without any alien heat rays to blame then Mankind and his desire to pollute seems to be the only thing that seems to be causing GW.

There's an awful lot of hysteria (both governmental and social) being invested in something that only seems to be the only thing causing global warming, isn't there?

[Rheghead]

So do you mean that CO2 isn't the problem, then? Or not all the problem? Yeah it's not all the problemIf that's so, why the hysteria about it now?The hysteria is because the problem is political as well as scientific



I'm sorry. I'm not meaning to be stupid but are you suggesting that the effect of CO2 on global warming follows homeopathic principles? A little of it boosts temperatures lots, while more of it has little effect? Where's me V8 gasguzzler?Nice analogy, yes it would seem to be the case

It seems strange to me that we're all running round at the behest of the government and the BBC talking about CO2, carbon footprints, carbon tokens, carbon allowances, the contribution of transport to the CO2 problem with the atmosphere, windmills, solar cells and heaven knows what else - and suddenly, the effect of CO2 is only due to the concentrations of other greenhouse gases. But perhaps I misunderstood. Wouldn't be the first time, and certainly not the last. And I know methane is a carbon-based greenhouse gas before you start on me :lol: .If we can crack the CO2 problem then we crack a whole load of other GHGs that are emitted in association with CO2, like SO2, NOX,



OK, two points. How do tectonic processes affect global warming? It doesn't affect recent GWPlease note I'm not saying they don't - just how some slabs of land floating across the magma can be responsible is not clear to me unless you mean that as the land area ceased to be a single large unit the earth's albedo changed.The land masses determine how the ocean currents circle the Earth. Ocean currents carry heat eg Gulf stream. Surely there is no more explanation needed?



There's an awful lot of hysteria (both governmental and social) being invested in something that only seems to be the only thing causing global warming, isn't there?

If we crack the GW then we crack our dependence on foreign countries for energy. Nuff said?

[j4bberw0ck]

Thanks for that; yes, I'd missed the stuff about currents circulating heat.

But I'm glad we seem to have agreed at last that (a) the fuss about global warming is political, and (b) the human influence on it may well be peripheral.

The Stern Report has been fairly comprehensively trashed (http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20061104_stern.pdf) by learned academics of all persuasions. Basically, it's a work of fiction intended to scare, and even many of the academics Stern references have distanced themselves from wht he has to say. Perhaps we should just get down to believing that things change, including climate; species die out as a matter of natural order and not necessarily because they've been murdered by the human race.

So, where does this leave us with wind turbines? The rationale is CO2 emissions, and the control thereof. If even you, Rheggers, have joined the ranks of the people who are sceptical (and you'll forgive me reading that into your various responses), what on earth are these oversubsidised renewables companies doing? Absorbing several billions of pounds a year for no good purpose, perhaps?

[rambler]

...what on earth are these oversubsidised ... companies doing? Absorbing several billions of pounds a year for no good purpose, perhaps?

Now that really sounds like UKAEA, NDA et al doesn't it?

[crayola]

Love yer unbiased source (http://www.ff.org/about/tentenets.html) w0cky. :roll:

Would ye buy a used planet from this organisation? Ye'd eat fred alive if he tried to sell you one of theirs.

[j4bberw0ck]

Now that really sounds like UKAEA, NDA et al doesn't it?

Well, it might well indeed, but unless you want to start decommissioning nuclear reactors by towing them up onto a beach somewhere and turning 10000 Bangladeshis loose with hammers - which is what they do with unwanted shipping tonnage when the environmentalists have turned them away from legitimate solutions - I'd say each of those is contributing something at least. Wind turbines contribute a fractional percentage of the UK's power and ONLY because of ROCs, not efficiency.


Love yer unbiased source (http://www.ff.org/about/tentenets.html) w0cky. :roll:

Good grief. Is it in there? Nope, I got it from another source entirely (actually a UK-based political / economics blog, since I'm interested in both) but I guess that's the wonder of a multi-connected internet.

[fred]

But I'm glad we seem to have agreed at last that (a) the fuss about global warming is political, and (b) the human influence on it may well be peripheral.


I'm sure you will believe what you want to believe no matter what the evidence.

The latest IPCC report leaves little doubt, I know that because if it didn't ExxonMobil wouldnt be offering $10,000 each to academics who can find a little doubt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11

[j4bberw0ck]

I'm sure you will believe what you want to believe no matter what the evidence.

And I follow in your illustrious footsteps on that one, assuming it's true; anyone who thinks that the Bush Administration caused / engineered / approved of / connived with 9/11 is way out on the wild and wacky edge!


The latest IPCC report leaves little doubt, I know that because if it didn't ExxonMobil wouldnt be offering $10,000 each to academics who can find a little doubt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11


Yes, if I were Exxon I'd think it was a splendid investment of a small amount of money. Despite thinking that Greenpeace are largely a bunch of closet loonies, I was a paying member for many years because I believe it's always worth encouraging an opposing voice....

And >>>this<<< (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bjrn_lomborg/2007/02/climate_hysteria.html) remains one of the most sensible commentaries I've seen about IPCC. It's political. What a wonderful way of taking control of everything. The UN as Messiah; the only organisation able to coordinate a world response.

Except experience with the UN is that it can't coordinate its choice of sock colours.

[fred]

And I follow in your illustrious footsteps on that one, assuming it's true; anyone who thinks that the Bush Administration caused / engineered / approved of / connived with 9/11 is way out on the wild and wacky edge!

All I have said is that the official explanation for the events of 9/11 is physically impossible and that the Bush administration has an apalling record of lying to the public. There is nothing new about false flag operations, what makes you think this wasn't one of them? It certainly was a convenient and timely excuse to go in and try to take control of the worlds major oil producing regions.



Yes, if I were Exxon I'd think it was a splendid investment of a small amount of money. Despite thinking that Greenpeace are largely a bunch of closet loonies, I was a paying member for many years because I believe it's always worth encouraging an opposing voice....

And >>>this<<< (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/bjrn_lomborg/2007/02/climate_hysteria.html) remains one of the most sensible commentaries I've seen about IPCC. It's political. What a wonderful way of taking control of everything. The UN as Messiah; the only organisation able to coordinate a world response.

Except experience with the UN is that it can't coordinate its choice of sock colours.

Your link didn't say the IPCC was political, it seemed to be agreeing with them and criticising Al Gore to me. All the IPCC does is collate the findings of thousands of scientists in lots of countries around the world, they don't control what the scientists say.

I expect it does make financial sense for ExxonMobil to try and cast any doubt they can on CO2 emissions causing global warming just as it made financial sense for the tobacco companies to bribe scientists to cast doubt on cigarets causing cancer, from a humanitarian point of view it is still a nasty trick.

[j4bberw0ck]

All I have said is that the official explanation for the events of 9/11 is physically impossible and that the Bush administration has an apalling record of lying to the public.

Actually, I think you said more than that - including long discourses on thermite bombs planted throughout the Towers, but let's let it pass.

What I've pointed out is that no one has yet managed to make a single hypothesis match all the recorded data, but we're all scrambling hysterically down a single path. And what's more, the political window-dressing comes about from politicians and meejah types picking on things like 4x4s as a major source of carbon emissions - they simply aren't. If all 4x4's disappeared overnight it would barely be possible to measure the difference in CO2 emissions. There aren't enough of them to make a difference that counts.

Find me the politician brave enough to stand for election on a platform of compelling people to stop taking their cheap flights, and doing without imported foods, and cheap goods from China, and having their power switched off overnight, and I'll show you a politician who may be misguided but is at least brave enough to tell it like it may be - if man-made CO2 emissions are the problem.


I expect it does make financial sense for ExxonMobil to try and cast any doubt they can on CO2 emissions causing global warming just as it made financial sense for the tobacco companies to bribe scientists to cast doubt on cigarets causing cancer, from a humanitarian point of view it is still a nasty trick.I don't understand why. Governments and special interest groups seem to be pouring money into carbon emissions research on the premise that that's the problem; if Exxon can put modest amounts of money into incentivising scientists to check results and conduct their own research into global warming, it can only add to the body of knowledge. And it's the body of knowledge and free markets, not the UN, that will get us out of whatever we've got in to.

[fred]

Actually, I think you said more than that - including long discourses on thermite bombs planted throughout the Towers, but let's let it pass.

Well at least that hypothesis fits the known facts and the official story comes nowhere near.



What I've pointed out is that no one has yet managed to make a single hypothesis match all the recorded data, but we're all scrambling hysterically down a single path. And what's more, the political window-dressing comes about from politicians and meejah types picking on things like 4x4s as a major source of carbon emissions - they simply aren't. If all 4x4's disappeared overnight it would barely be possible to measure the difference in CO2 emissions. There aren't enough of them to make a difference that counts.

Find me the politician brave enough to stand for election on a platform of compelling people to stop taking their cheap flights, and doing without imported foods, and cheap goods from China, and having their power switched off overnight, and I'll show you a politician who may be misguided but is at least brave enough to tell it like it may be - if man-made CO2 emissions are the problem.

There is no doubt that man made CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming, the rise in sea temperatures, the melting of glaciers and the ice caps which is happening now was predicted 40 years ago. I haven't heard anyone saying that abolishing 4x4s would solve the problem, the only solution is for everyone to produce less CO2 and the best place to start is with those who produce it needlessly. If a farmer needs a 4X4 to run his farm that's one thing but using one to take the children to school in a city is another, it is producing more CO2 than neccessary, I think that is the sort of 4X4 use which is getting the bad press.



I don't understand why. Governments and special interest groups seem to be pouring money into carbon emissions research on the premise that that's the problem; if Exxon can put modest amounts of money into incentivising scientists to check results and conduct their own research into global warming, it can only add to the body of knowledge. And it's the body of knowledge and free markets, not the UN, that will get us out of whatever we've got in to.

Most governments just finance research, they don't tell the scientists what to find. The exception is the American government which has tended to finance institutions which would deny global warming and penalise those who support the theory.

If things were left to free trade there would be adverts for Senior Service in childrens comics, white asbestos in every building and they'd be spraying crops with DDT. When public welfare conflicts with profit free trade goes for the profit every time.

[j4bberw0ck]

There is no doubt that man made CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming, the rise in sea temperatures, the melting of glaciers and the ice caps which is happening now was predicted 40 years ago.

I Googled "earliest prediction of global warming" and came up with predictions made in 1896 by Arrhenius, the Swedish chemist. 40 years ago, if you remember, was the 1960's, approaching the 70's - we were all convinced there was going to be an Ice Age.

According to NASA (who, of course, have the fatal flaw of being American):



To predict climate change, one must model the climate. One test of the validity of predictions is the ability of the climate models to reproduce the climate as we see it today. Elements of the models such as the physics and chemistry of the processes that we know--or think we know--are essential to represent in the models. Therefore, the models have to embody the characteristics of the land and the oceans that serve as boundaries of the atmosphere represented in the models. Models also have to take into account the radiative characteristics of the gases that make up the atmosphere, including the key radiative gas, water vapor, that is so variable throughout the atmosphere.
Global records of surface temperature over the last 100 years show a rise in global temperatures (about 0.5 degrees C overall), but the rise is marked by periods when the temperature has dropped as well. If the models cannot explain these marked variations from the trend, then we cannot be completely certain that we can believe in their predictions of changes to come. For example, in the early 1970's, because temperatures had been decreasing for about 25 to 30 years, people began predicting the approach of an ice age! For the last 15 to 20 years, we have been seeing a fairly steady rise in temperatures, giving some assurance that we are now in a global warming phase.

They acknowledge the point - taught to generations of kids in physics classes - that if mathematical modelling can't explain the observed data (which they can't), then you can't rely on the outcome of the model - that's why I referred to us all hurtling hysterically down a single path. The idea of reason seems to have vanished.


I haven't heard anyone saying that abolishing 4x4s would solve the problem, the only solution is for everyone to produce less CO2 and the best place to start is with those who produce it needlessly. If a farmer needs a 4X4 to run his farm that's one thing but using one to take the children to school in a city is another, it is producing more CO2 than neccessary, I think that is the sort of 4X4 use which is getting the bad press.

Fact remains that the total CO2 produced by 4x4s is so close to unmeasurable, it's irrelevant. It's just a convenient way for some people to express their envy, and for the media to sell advertising, and to whip up more hysterical frenzy.


If things were left to free trade there would be adverts for Senior Service in childrens comics, white asbestos in every building and they'd be spraying crops with DDT. When public welfare conflicts with profit free trade goes for the profit every time.

Nope. Wrong model. The freedom to exploit opportunity comes with the freedom to suffer the consequences of it, in the universe I live in. The consequences - financial - would have dealt with those problems fairly smartly.

If the establishment / government can't treat people for cancer, what the hell hope is there that they'll be able to manage any aspect of any climate change? They tinker round the edges, and get in the way. If there's a commercial justification for avoiding global warming, someone will find it and exploit it - and more power to their elbow.

[j4bberw0ck]

Well, I suppose that's it, then. No case to answer............

Proven? Like WMD was proven? Like global warming due to human activity is proven? Oh puhleeese.

[fred]

Well, I suppose that's it, then. No case to answer............

Proven? Like WMD was proven? Like global warming due to human activity is proven? Oh puhleeese.

Yes proven like WMD was proven. The American government said they knew Iraq deffinitely had WMD, all the genuine evidence pointed to them not having WMD, experts who pointed to the evidence were victimised by the American government and media.

The American government says they know that the planes caused the WTC buildings to collapse, all the genuine evidence points to that not being possible, experts who point to the evidence are victmised by the American government and media.

WMD, WTC, it's exactly the same.

[j4bberw0ck]

I think the current consensual assumption by scientist and layperson alike that climate change is due to human activity is simply ridiculous & I think the government is riding this assumption like a dangerous, scary & threatening bull at the rodeo so they can tax you and me

Up to this point we're on common ground... well said, that man.


in order to able themselves more high tech weaponry to murder more of our innocent desert dwelling neighbours to the east.

Ah. At this point our opinions diverge.


Climate change happens <snip> history tells us otherwise or that the above factors perhaps play a much larger role in the causes of global warming. But, this is only the tip of the iceberg. (excuse the pun).

In agreement again.

As for the rest of it - WMDs. thermate residues and giving everyone cancer so money can be made out of looking for a cure........ first, it's somewhat off-topic, but second, let me introduce you to Hansen's Razor:

"Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".

I simply can't accept that governments are clever enough to coordinate all this stuff. Or is it David Icke's reptiles behind it all? Or the Rothschilds? And how on earth has the government managed to secure the silence of the tens of thousands of people who must know what's really going on across all these fields of endeavour? When you stop to think of information that gets leaked to the media about the most trivial things, it's extraordinary to think that really internationally serious amorality can stay quiet.

But doubtless you've got an explanation for that too. Conspiracy theorists always do.


do u think ExxonMobil would one day say Hey! we found out how to produce FREE energy... here's how to do it.. now we can just shut shop!No, of course not. The Law of Conservation of Energy says they can't, is the first point - you can't make energy from nothing or lose it to nothing. You can only change its form. So if Exxon did discover how to change energy from one form to another cheaply and easily (and discovered in the process how to drive a coach and horses, potentially, through other considerations like entropy), then they'd have costs for operating the process and huge R&D to recover. So, short answer..... would they shut up shop? Nope, they'd make bucketloads of money and continue to be a good investment for whoever looks after your pension scheme - or if not yours, the pensions of millions of others.

Let's hear it for good old capitalism and free markets!:lol:

[Ricco]

Trees cause allergies, not have them. Histamine causes the sneezing and histamine is a chemical of the "animal" world.

Very true. Plants have gibberellins and auxins - perhaps they are suffering from auxamine? ;)

[Margaret M.]

It's a pity that some posting on this thread were not invited to be part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Perhaps the hundreds who authored the report concluding that human activity was more than 90% likely to be the cause of global warming would have been greatly enlightened by your stint at the podium.

[j4bberw0ck]

I'm sure they would have enjoyed taking a pop at it, Margaret. Just as a sceptical audience whose funding didn't depend on proving global warming is entirely man-made might find it amusing to hear the IPCC delegates explaining the Middle Age Warm period, Little Ice Ages, global warming on Mars and a number of other anomalies entirely unexplained in their diligent work and in the fairly extensively discredited Stern Report which preceded it.

You, on the other hand, sound as though you might have something other than sarcasm up your sleeve. Do you? Can you contribute here?

I've said it before and I'll say it again...... I'm always happy to admit my mistakes and change my mind, where I'm shown to be wrong. Not a problem - if someone can just show that global warming is truly and wholly the result of man's activities. Not everyone agrees..........

[Rheghead]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...... I'm always happy to admit my mistakes and change my mind, where I'm shown to be wrong. Not a problem - if someone can just show that global warming is truly and wholly the result of man's activities. Not everyone agrees..........

Does the IPCC Report state that GW is truly and wholly the result of Man's activities? If it doesn't then what is the reasoning behind your scepticism?:confused

[fred]

I've said it before and I'll say it again...... I'm always happy to admit my mistakes and change my mind, where I'm shown to be wrong. Not a problem - if someone can just show that global warming is truly and wholly the result of man's activities. Not everyone agrees..........

So if we act to reduce carbon emissions and the scientists are wrong what have we lost? All it means is that a finite resource will last longer and we won't be squandering fuel our grandchildren will need for transport on SUVs.

If we don't act and the scientists are right? Then we have a lot to lose, man might be able to survive with the use of technology but the rest of nature takes a long time to adapt to climate change.

[j4bberw0ck]

Oooh. That got the wasps out, didn't it? :lol:


Does the IPCC Report state that GW is truly and wholly the result of Man's activities? If it doesn't then what is the reasoning behind your scepticism?:confused

No. It claims that global warming is almost entirely a man made problem. I don't doubt that man has made some contribution to the situation but until the paradigms being used can explain the observed resulkts - whuch they can't - I think a hysterical "Oh-my-god-it's-all-mans-fault" reaction is ridiculous.


So if we act to reduce carbon emissions and the scientists are wrong what have we lost? All it means is that a finite resource will last longer and we won't be squandering fuel our grandchildren will need for transport on SUVs.

Not true. Once again your simplistic interpretation has worked against you. What we stand to lose is a global economy as well as a local one. The economy that keeps you warm in winter and cool in summer; that provides you with a pension and an income, puts food on your table and clothes on your back.


If we don't act and the scientists are right? Then we have a lot to lose, man might be able to survive with the use of technology but the rest of nature takes a long time to adapt to climate change.

Nature has been coping with climate change forever. 99.9% of all species which ever existed are extinct, and nature shed not one tear about them.


jabberwock.. your childish wabble really takes away from any of the knowledge nuggets you have absorbed from a television documentary and have decided to regurgitate here. what a shame.

Oh, boy, here we go again. Roy, are you familiar with the word "puerile"? You should be. Judging by the way in which you've ramped your output to include some stuff which has three syllables or more, you're attempting to demonstrate some particular, maybe professional knowledge.


Nevermind the SUV's & their effect as far as carbon emissions here in Scotland.

My point exactly. The effect is minute. I claim no knowledge at all of forestry management, neither have I at any time in the past, though I could probably give you a fair rundown on why the sort of planting you're talking about has happened, has continued to happen, and why people have made rather a lot of money out of it.

For your information, the "knowledge nuggets" I have, few as they are, come from a passion for reading and thinking, not watching dumbed-down documentaries on the TV. Of the two, retaining the ability to think is the more valuable because otherwise one gets dragged down into a sort of tabloid newspaper version of science and believes just whatever semi-researched garbage was the last thing printed on the front page of the Daily Mail.

I commend it to you.


This is MINUTE compared to the damage inflicted on the environment through the extremely poor land management that goes on in this country.. namely these dastardly conifer plantations the Forestry Commission is raping our beautifully rich soil we have. All these conifer trees evapotranspire huge amounts of water, nearly around 60% of rainfall landing on them, especially in the first 20-40yrs of growth. Peaks at 20 then goes down from there. And conifers are worst type of tree for this as they intercept and evapotranspire almost two times more water than deciduous trees. So... now you've got conifer trees that are growing even faster because of climate change causing a vast increase in the amount of evapotranspiration contributing again to climate change. Then what? The Forestry Commission cut down these overcrowded monoculture conifer plantations. The same monoculture conifer plantation that is causing all the loss of groundwater through evapotranspiration is also decreasing biodiversity for the obvious reasons when looking at any type of monoculture. After the trees are cut.. they drag them away to the sawmills instead of letting them follow their natural cycle of growing and feeding from the nutrients in the soil and falling, dying and decomposing to return the nutrients to the soil. The grave effect of this type of large scale land management is seldom thought of and dwarfs any other human activity that could possibly affect climate change, especially here in the UK.

Any thoughts on this?

No, not really. It's largely irrelevant to the arguments I'm making. If you're suggesting that monoculture (yes, I know what it is, thanks) is responsible for global warming, or that loss of biodiversity is responsible, I think you're up a gum tree, monocultured or otherwise. If you're suggesting that "carbon neutrality" as a concept has been hijacked by politicians and political interests, I'd agree entirely. If you're suggesting that a lack of governmental "joined up thinking" gives tax breaks for behaviours which directly contradictcommon sense, good land management and other initiatives on things like global warming, I agree with that too.

Now, how about we get away from things like this:


jabberwock.. your childish wabble really takes away from any of the knowledge nuggets you have absorbed from a television documentary and have decided to regurgitate here. what a shame.

and back to some sort of sensible debate? Grow up, Roy. I don't think sarcasm is your strong point.

[golach]

Any thoughts on this?
Aye ...What have you got against the Forestry Commission?

[j4bberw0ck]

Q.E.D. :lol:

[fred]

Not true. Once again your simplistic interpretation has worked against you. What we stand to lose is a global economy as well as a local one. The economy that keeps you warm in winter and cool in summer; that provides you with a pension and an income, puts food on your table and clothes on your back.


Don't be silly.

You've completely lost the plot now.

[Rheghead]

No. It claims that global warming is almost entirely a man made problem.

The IPCC are not saying that and they are the official voice on GW. You are reading too much into the report or listening to too much of environment fundamentalists' propaganda.


On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:[4]:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal"
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Footnotes on page 4 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement", are over 90% and 66% respectively.


'Most' usually means 50+%, not 'almost entirely' like you claim. The 90% only appertains to the certainty of their findings.


I've said it before and I'll say it again...... I'm always happy to admit my mistakes and change my mind, where I'm shown to be wrong. Not a problem - if someone can just show that global warming is truly and wholly the result of man's activities. Not everyone agrees..........
You may want to reassess all your waffle and your misinterpretation due to me correcting you?;) It is ok to be wrong sometimes...

[j4bberw0ck]

Don't be silly.

You've completely lost the plot now.

Fred, coming from you, that's almost a compliment! It was you who said that "all we have to lose" is that "things will last longer", wan't it? Simplistically, you're right; economically, you're naive.


The IPCC are not saying that and they are the official voice on GW. You are reading too much into the report or listening to too much of environment fundamentalists' propaganda.

Rheghead, you say I'm reading too much into what's reported; I say they can't explain all the observed effects and therefore their model is doubtful when it comes to underpinning the hysteria with which global warming has become invested.


'Most' usually means 50+%, not 'almost entirely' like you claim. The 90% only appertains to the certainty of their findings.and your point is............? We're moving into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory, here.


It is ok to be wrong sometimes...

Yes, I know, and I thank you for your condescension, though I note that the possibility of being wrong doesn't seem to be something that troubles you - you seem happy enough to run with the crowd. It's why I said what I said about being wrong, and about the importance of opposing views. And the value of thinking, rather than being just another lemming.

I may end up leaping over the cliff edge with the rest, but at least I'll have examined some options first. To me, it's the only intelligent route, especially when something - like global warming - becomes the latest political fascination.

[Rheghead]

And the value of thinking, rather than being just another lemming.

I may end up leaping over the cliff edge with the rest, but at least I'll have examined some options first. To me, it's the only intelligent route, especially when something - like global warming - becomes the latest political fascination.

Well the intelligent thing to do is look at the over-whelming evidence and make up your own mind. Do the sceptics have any evidence that stands up to scrutiny?

The only room for manouvre is that they have to make a judgement that most warming is non anthropological and that their certainty matches that of the IPCC. Shouldn't be too hard if they are soooo certain eh?

BTW, i think sceptic point of views consist primarily of angels dancing on pin heads.

[fred]

Fred, coming from you, that's almost a compliment! It was you who said that "all we have to lose" is that "things will last longer", wan't it? Simplistically, you're right; economically, you're naive.


And you were the one saying it doesn't matter if we wipe out half the worlds species in the the next hundred years because species become extinct eventually anyway. That's like saying there's nothing wrong with murdering someone because death is natural.

A lot of people in this world manage very nicely without squandering huge amounts of resources and producing large amounts of CO2, if your precious economy can't survive without wasting our decendants share on our opulence then we are better off without it.

[j4bberw0ck]

Well the intelligent thing to do is look at the over-whelming evidence and make up your own mind. Do the sceptics have any evidence that stands up to scrutiny?

By definition, sceptics are sceptical of the explanation put forward for global warming. No one seriously doubts the climate is changing, but the case for it being almost entirely human-driven is flawed because it can't (for the third or fourth time) explain the observed data.

300 years ago it was accepted as a theoretical explanation of observations that phlogiston - a colourless, odourless, weightless and undetectable substance - existed in everything combustible and was lost when the substance was burned. It "explained" fire and oxidation. At other times, Man believed the stars rotated about the earth - it explained what they could observe at that time. And that the earth was flat. And that volcanoes were gods. And that people would die if trains exceeded 15 mph. And that powered flight was impossible.

In other words, what's accepted as scientific fact from time to time can be shown to be wrong as further information or greater understanding is gathered. The existing climate prediction models can't explain some aspects of climate change and some historical aspects of climate change. the whole of science is full of explanations for observations which have later proved faulty and even though equipment and models of huge power can be used these days, if the output of the models doesn't match observations, then there's a doubt.

My only point is that to rush off, having grabbed the first convenient explanation as God's Honest Truth and so not open to question, is rather like phlogiston, planetary motion and dozens of other scientific assumptions which were shown to be wrong after the event. Measure twice, cut once, as joiners would say. Climate change linked to man-made CO2 has become politicised up to its armpits and we're entering a phase where even to suggest that it might not be right opens the doubter to howls of derision and being a social pariah.

It's a good job I don't lose sleep over being a social pariah, eh? :cool:


BTW, i think sceptic point of views consist primarily of angels dancing on pin heads.

Maybe so; but are you saying that all sceptical views on all subjects are therefore pointless? Lemmings come to mind again. All scurrying busily in unison, unquestioning, unwilling to consider anything different because it involves thought.

[j4bberw0ck]

And you were the one saying it doesn't matter if we wipe out half the worlds species in the the next hundred years because species become extinct eventually anyway. That's like saying there's nothing wrong with murdering someone because death is natural.

Did I say that? Wow. You must show me where.

Much would depend on whether it's right to say "we wipe out". If man-made CO2 is overwhelmingly responsible, that sort of philosophy has a place. If it doesn't, there's little or nothing we can do. I think the jury's still out; you've taken hook, line and sinker. Either position is an honourable one - they're just different , is all.

[fred]

Did I say that? Wow. You must show me where.

Much would depend on whether it's right to say "we wipe out". If man-made CO2 is overwhelmingly responsible, that sort of philosophy has a place. If it doesn't, there's little or nothing we can do. I think the jury's still out; you've taken hook, line and sinker. Either position is an honourable one - they're just different , is all.

The jury's still out? Where have I heard that before? I remember, that's what George Bush said about evolution back in 2000. It's just another way of saying ignore the overwhelming evidence you can't prove it 100%.

[j4bberw0ck]

It's just another way of saying ignore the overwhelming evidence you can't prove it 100%.

Then I think we must agree to differ.

[Rheghead]

By definition, sceptics are sceptical of the explanation put forward for global warming. No one seriously doubts the climate is changing, but the case for it being almost entirely human-driven is flawed because it can't (for the third or fourth time) explain the observed data.Yeah and as I pointed out earlier, no climate scientists are claiming that mankind is almost entirely to blame, where did you get this notion??

300 years ago it was accepted as a theoretical explanation of observations that phlogiston - a colourless, odourless, weightless and undetectable substance - existed in everything combustible and was lost when the substance was burned. It "explained" fire and oxidation. At other times, Man believed the stars rotated about the earth - it explained what they could observe at that time. And that the earth was flat. And that volcanoes were gods. And that people would die if trains exceeded 15 mph. And that powered flight was impossible.Your actual criticism is actually directed to the scientific thought process itself rather than climatology

In other words, what's accepted as scientific fact from time to time can be shown to be wrong as further information or greater understanding is gathered. The existing climate prediction models can't explain some aspects of climate change and some historical aspects of climate change. the whole of science is full of explanations for observations which have later proved faulty and even though equipment and models of huge power can be used these days, if the output of the models doesn't match observations, then there's a doubt.Yes, and the scientific process takes that into account, what is unscientific in having a hypothesis then creating a model and testing that said model objectively and then readjusting the model??

My only point is that to rush off, having grabbed the first convenient explanation as God's Honest Truth and so not open to question, is rather like phlogiston, planetary motion and dozens of other scientific assumptions which were shown to be wrong after the event. Measure twice, cut once, as joiners would say. Climate change linked to man-made CO2 has become politicised up to its armpits and we're entering a phase where even to suggest that it might not be right opens the doubter to howls of derision and being a social pariah.That is not what is happening, the findings fit the theory and model, unknowns don't necessarily mean the theory is flawed.



A scientist is by nature a sceptic, that is how theories are tested. Credible climate sceptics are just like any other scientist, they get it wrong, it is the media that give them the label sceptic.

Have you got a sceptical alternative model for climate change we can have a look at? Because nobody else as.

[j4bberw0ck]

By definition, sceptics are sceptical of the explanation put forward for global warming. No one seriously doubts the climate is changing, but the case for it being almost entirely human-driven is flawed because it can't (for the third or fourth time) explain the observed data.Yeah and as I pointed out earlier, no climate scientists are claiming that mankind is almost entirely to blame, where did you get this notion?? I didn't. The claim is made that human activity is >90% responsible for global warming. And it still doesn't explain the data.

300 years ago it was accepted as a theoretical explanation of observations that phlogiston - a colourless, odourless, weightless and undetectable substance - existed in everything combustible and was lost when the substance was burned. It "explained" fire and oxidation. At other times, Man believed the stars rotated about the earth - it explained what they could observe at that time. And that the earth was flat. And that volcanoes were gods. And that people would die if trains exceeded 15 mph. And that powered flight was impossible.Your actual criticism is actually directed to the scientific thought process itself rather than climatology Exactly. And I'm questioning the scientific thought process that decrees that human activity is >90% responsible. Because it doesn't explain climatic changes in the past and doesn't produce any consensus on what'll happen in the future. It's a lucky dip of contradicting outcomes.... do you like sea levels rising at 0.4mm a year, of 90 metres by 2600?

In other words, what's accepted as scientific fact from time to time can be shown to be wrong as further information or greater understanding is gathered. The existing climate prediction models can't explain some aspects of climate change and some historical aspects of climate change. the whole of science is full of explanations for observations which have later proved faulty and even though equipment and models of huge power can be used these days, if the output of the models doesn't match observations, then there's a doubt.Yes, and the scientific process takes that into account, what is unscientific in having a hypothesis then creating a model and testing that said model objectively and then readjusting the model??
Absolutely nothing at all, me old beauty. That's science. But traditionally, scientists haven't rushed off to change the world on the basis of a hypothesis that hasn't yet proved itself.

My only point is that to rush off, having grabbed the first convenient explanation as God's Honest Truth and so not open to question, is rather like phlogiston, planetary motion and dozens of other scientific assumptions which were shown to be wrong after the event. Measure twice, cut once, as joiners would say. Climate change linked to man-made CO2 has become politicised up to its armpits and we're entering a phase where even to suggest that it might not be right opens the doubter to howls of derision and being a social pariah.That is not what is happening, the findings fit the theory and model, unknowns don't necessarily mean the theory is flawed. Awww Rheggers, c'mon, you know better than that. A theory is a construct that explains observed data in some considerable detail and makes accurate predictions about future outcomes from known data or influences. There is no theory about global warming. There are conflicting hypotheses, all of which seem to need some tweaking before they can explain what has happened and what is happening, let alone what will happen. But governments everywhere, desperate to be seen to be acting decisively and under media pressure to do so, are determined to throw squillions at this before we even know it's the right explanation.

Science used to be objective. This is a circus.



Have you got a sceptical alternative model for climate change we can have a look at? Because nobody else as.

Don't be silly. As you observed, my beef here isn't with climate change, it's with the way that governments and politicians have grasped the first glimmerings of a hypothesis and decided that the issue du jour is going to be climate change, because they all want their legacy to be as mighty leader who stopped it.

We surely haven't descended into the bear garden so far that in order to question an entrenched position, you have to have a more convincing one fully worked out? I'm assuming that you're taking the urine.....

[Rheghead]

The claim is made that human activity is >90% responsible for global warming. And it still doesn't explain the data.
Incorrect.
How many times do I need to tell you that you have completely misunderstood the claim.

The IPCC claim that MOST of the warming is very likely to be anthropological in origin. And 'very likely' means that they are ~90% certain that that is the case. It does not mean that 90% of the warming is anthropological!!!!!

[Bobbyian]

j4bberw0ck and Rheghead I have been reading along with interest haven`nt commented sofar but also parrallel to this had a look at other sites and found this little beauty

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/cold-case-vs-csi/#more-404

but in general the Realclimate site is very interesting a bit heavy but if you take your time very revealing and confusing.....
I think the Poloticians have found a real money machine with this stuff
and their going to fleece us ..

[fred]

Then I think we must agree to differ.

Interesting documentary on CBC last week on this subject called "The Denial Machine".

You can watch it at http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/ and see just where these arguments you've been coming up with came from.

[j4bberw0ck]

The IPCC claim that MOST of the warming is very likely to be anthropological in origin. And 'very likely' means that they are ~90% certain that that is the case. It does not mean that 90% of the warming is anthropological!!!!!

Rheghead, do you crack your boiled egg and the big end or the little end? This is like the wars in Gulliver's Travels, or as I observed earlier, like the angels jockeying for position on the head of a pin. It isn't relevant to my argument that it's "90% certain that more than half of global warming is man's responsibility", or that it's "100% certain that 90%" is. Or whatever. The proportion of global warming attributable to man isn't relevant to this simple argument:

1. Eminent scientists and climatologists cannot explain climatic variations in the past with their various models yet are applying those models to forecasting the future.

2. I do not have a better explanation for climate change. I know sweet Fanny Adams about climate change (but I hope it might make Orkney as warm as it was 5000 years ago :D ).

3. But I do know something about politicians and the power of offers of funding, and I strongly believe that the various hypotheses have been mixed up in a media bucket, averaged out by the politicians and the media, and seized upon as the Gospel Truth. This has now gone so far that no one may legitimately question the politically-decreed response to climate change without being labelled a loony or a capitalist bar steward.

4. In this regard the principles at work are not at all dissimilar to the hypothesising about WMD in 2001/2, and I'm surprised fred hasn't leapt on it with a vengeance. Neither is it dissimilar to people believing that for showing disrespect to the Prophet, you should be beheaded / shot / burned / bombed, or whatever.

Free speech is dead or dying and the reason is the media.......


j4bberw0ck and Rheghead I have been reading along with interest

Thanks for that, Bobbyian. It is interesting. It goes some way towards addressing my questions about the sort of reasoning / political process that's behind the response to global warming.


Interesting documentary on CBC last week on this subject called "The Denial Machine"

Haven't watched it. Maybe will when I get a chance. I'd wager a modest 10p (based on the title alone, and your fact of your recommendation) that the conclusion is that anyone denying global warming or the arguments for it and its cause are murderous bye-blows of that well-known 21st century bogey-man, George Bush, and his big-business cronies.

Open mind time, though, because the last time I bet the same modest 10p was in 2000 on a bet that the first country to drop out of the euro and re-adopt its old currency would do it by end 2007. And time is passing by :lol:.....

[Rheghead]

Rheghead, do you crack your boiled egg and the big end or the little end? This is like the wars in Gulliver's Travels, or as I observed earlier, like the angels jockeying for position on the head of a pin. It isn't relevant to my argument that it's "90% certain that more than half of global warming is man's responsibility", or that it's "100% certain that 90%" is. Or whatever. The proportion of global warming attributable to man isn't relevant to this simple argument:If you can't read the simple conclusion of the IPCC correctly then how can you persuade me that the whole business of Global warming is a shambolic scientific process? BTW, if the conclusion is that most of warming is attributable to man's activities then that would lend a huge scope of 49% of the warming to other sources. Perhaps the uncertainty lies here, there is no attempt to hide this fact. I can think of a few sources like land use changes and Sun output that could account for it.

1. Eminent scientists and climatologists cannot explain climatic variations in the past with their various models yet are applying those models to forecasting the future.see above comment

2. I do not have a better explanation for climate change. I know sweet Fanny Adams about climate change (but I hope it might make Orkney as warm as it was 5000 years ago :D ).

3. But I do know something about politicians and the power of offers of funding, and I strongly believe that the various hypotheses have been mixed up in a media bucket, averaged out by the politicians and the media, and seized upon as the Gospel Truth. This has now gone so far that no one may legitimately question the politically-decreed response to climate change without being labelled a loony or a capitalist bar steward.OK then. Have you any evidence to suggest the findings of the IPCC are politically motivated? I know the Bush admin have tried to gag certain scientist in the IPCC but that is not what we are talking about is it?

4. In this regard the principles at work are not at all dissimilar to the hypothesising about WMD in 2001/2, and I'm surprised fred hasn't leapt on it with a vengeance. Neither is it dissimilar to people believing that for showing disrespect to the Prophet, you should be beheaded / shot / burned / bombed, or whatever.

I agree mostly but the problem lies with media not the IPCC.

Just go with the flow of it all, I think the problem that you have is that the IPCC use such prosaic language to motivate Governments and the media use such sensationalist language to sell newspapers.

[j4bberw0ck]

If you can't read the simple conclusion of the IPCC correctly then how can you persuade me that the whole business of Global warming is a shambolic scientific process? BTW, if the conclusion is that most of warming is attributable to man's activities then that would lend a huge scope of 49% of the warming to other sources. Perhaps the uncertainty lies here, there is no attempt to hide this fact. I can think of a few sources like land use changes and Sun output that could account for it.

Gee whiz, are we still stuck way back here? I'm trying to show ONLY that the global warming scenario has been leapt on and commandeered. I do NOT doubt that the climate is warming, but:

FACT: there is only a partial understanding of global warming, how the mechanism works, and what the causes are.
FACT: the hypotheses so far presented do not explain past and present to any significant degree of accuracy.
FACT: therefore, any prediction of the future based on those hypotheses is likely to be unreliable.
FACT: there are serious economic consequences for countries like ours likely to go along unquestioning with any future limitations on CO2 and other GHG production (like the as-we-have-seen, unworkable Kyoto protocol)
FACT: there are possible serious political, social and economic consequences for countries like ours in ignoring global warming.


CONCLUSION (1): the problem is considerably too serious for politicians to go off at half cock and fling money at scientists who will of course (human nature) line up to spend it. And it's in the nature of things that the scientists who most closely echo the accepted position will get most money. Therefore we start veering towards pre-selected conclusions and might miss something pivotal. Hardly the stuff of "double-blind" testing, is it?
CONCLUSION (2): the media (and I particularly point the finger at the BBC who've made something of a sub-industry of filming melting ice and concocting scare stories) are setting the agenda by influencing people and feeding them dumbed-down information - painting half a picture which people believe to be the whole picture. Politicians then react to messages coming from the people to be seen to be doing something and saving the world - Our Blair to the rescue! (shame they don't react when the topic is road pricing but that's by the bye).


OK then. Have you any evidence to suggest the findings of the IPCC are politically motivated?

None whatever. Where on earth would I get from? But the IPCC were appointed by politicians, overseen by politicians, and reported to politicians. It's politicians who are now desperate to show the size of their concern. I tend to the view that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might just be a duck.... and so, yes, I suspect there may be a political dimension in their report but I don't and never will know enough to accuse them of being self-serving.


agree mostly but the problem lies with media not the IPCC.

Then I hope in conclusion (2) above I've managed to link them, to your satisfaction. :D

[Rheghead]

[COLOR=Black]
None whatever. Where on earth would I get from? But the IPCC were appointed by politicians, overseen by politicians, and reported to politicians. It's politicians who are now desperate to show the size of their concern. I tend to the view that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it might just be a duck.... and so, yes, I suspect there may be a political dimension in their report but I don't and never will know enough to accuse them of being self-serving.

[COLOR=Black]


To understand the political make up of the IPCC then you need to know a little history of how it came into being. When the news really broke re climate change then Governments were really shocked via the stories that were in the media iow it was a feeding frenzy. The country that was most affected was the US who insisted that the make up of the IPCC was of politicians and scientists instead of just the latter. This was an attempt at watering down the stark reality of climate change, if anything, the IPCC as a result of this make very conservative conclusions instead of what the scientists really think or calculate.

[j4bberw0ck]

Then I think that bears out my concerns and argument more than just a little, wouldn't you say? :lol:

[j4bberw0ck]

As does >>>this article<<< (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/01/do0102.xml) which makes exactly the point I was making about being driven down a single path because it's become politically incorrect and socially unacceptable to question the "reasons" for "global warming".

It's a political gravytrain.

[fred]

As does >>>this article<<< (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/03/01/do0102.xml) which makes exactly the point I was making about being driven down a single path because it's become politically incorrect and socially unacceptable to question the "reasons" for "global warming".

It's a political gravytrain.

And no doubt Martin Livermore is staking his claim to his share of the gravy.

He's a PR man who usually works for the giant food corporations promoting GM foods, here (http://www.aschamassociates.com/4871.html) is his web site.

[KittyMay]

The ‘consensus’ have a model that proves climate change is ‘very likely’ caused by anthropogenic pollution. I don’t see anyone disputing that fact.

It seems to be the data used, the missing data and how it was used that’s at the root of the dispute.

Can’t models be used to disprove theories as well as prove them? Are the ‘consensus’ still debating the theory?

Why don’t the consensus just explain why the climate hasn’t behaved as their model predicted. Over the years they’ve tweaked it to fit in with their theory – rightly or wrongly, who knows.

Why don’t they experiment a little and tweak it again (to include sceptics theories) and disprove what the sceptics are saying?

[JAWS]

I will admit that whilst I am convinced Global Warming is occurring I am very dubious of the “Science” behind it.

When it was first decided that Global Warming should be considered a major problem many years ago it was decided to develop computer programs with respect to it.
The programs were run but it was found that if the temperatures long coastal regions made sense then the temperatures at the interior of Continents were impossibly cold. When they managed to get the interiors of Continents to temperatures which made sense the costal fringes were ridiculously hot.
The programs were then refined and refined until the displayed the information which was believed to be going to occur.
In other words a conclusion had been decided and a search was made to find facts which fitted that conclusion.

That is fine when you are searching for a solution to explain something which has already reached a conclusion and the end result is known. When that method is applied to predicting what will happen in the future you might as well resort to reading sheep’s entrails or going to Greece to consult the Oracle.

With respect to whether Funding follows Science or Science chases the Funding then that question is easily answered.
The hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. Anybody still remember the Predictions of Doom about it?

At the turn of the Millennium the scientist who discovered it did a tem minute recording about how he came to discover it for the Radio.
He had spent many annual seasons in Antarctica doing research into the atmospheric conditions there.
He explained that, as he was finding very little which was not already known, he received a call from the people providing his funding that it was going to cease at the end of that particular season.
The next thing was that, within a very short period of time he had found a disastrous problem with the atmosphere over Antarctica which would need lengthy study to prevent horrific repercussions for Humanity.

His version, not mine. Now about the Hole in the Ozone Layer? How convenient!

[KittyMay]

This might be interesting -

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html

[JAWS]

Now that people have refused to be bludgeoned into abandoning aircraft as a means of going on holiday the “Doom and Gloom Merchants” have moved on, Now it is the turn of shipping.

It has now been “discovered” that shipping produces twice as much CO2 as the Airlines do.

Perhaps we should go back to the days of wooden sailing ships, after all wind-power is the solution to all our CO2 problems so why not shipping? Bring back the Press Gang and Splice the Mainbrace! :roll:

[darkman]

It's just something that happens naturally nothing to do with mankind. Mother nature cleaning up after us.

[MadPict]

This might be interesting -

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html


And indeed it was - makes you think is the GW movement really just about protecting jobs?.......

[The_man_from_del_monte]

And indeed it was - makes you think is the GW movement really just about protecting jobs?.......

No, it's about introducing new taxes ;)

[KittyMay]

And indeed it was - makes you think is the GW movement really just about protecting jobs?.......

Mmm. Could Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth actually be very convenient?

Do increases in carbon emissions lead or follow increases in temperature?

Do the oceans release increasing levels of carbon when they're warmer? etc etc

Are polar bears safe?

Am no scientist so don't have a clue but one thing that strikes me is that those guys on that programme have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by taking part in the making of that documentary. They've set themselves up to be ridiculed (probably slaughtered) by the believers.

Was sickened by the suggestion that Africa is being prevented from developing. God, I hope that's not true.

[j4bberw0ck]

At last. Some media coverage that suggests global warming might be nothing whatever to do with mankind and everything to do with the sun.

Hallelujah! Should get the CO2 junkies howling "heresy!" in short order.

[Rheghead]

There was nothing in last night's programme that I didn't know already. The Sun accounts for a large part of Global Warming as does all sorts of things from Greenhouse gases to land changes. I found the programme very biased but all Dispatches programmes are biased towards controversy, that is the raison d'etre of the programme. I found it very amusing when the programme was trying to make the point that the whole reason for the pseudo-science and dramatic language in climate reporting was to cause controversy (and so secure funding for science projects) when they were exactly doing the same thing to raise the viewing profile of the Dispatches programming.

[j4bberw0ck]

Thirty years ago, of course, we were all going to die in an Ice Age:


Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.—Peter Gwynne, Newsweek, April 28, 1975.
[T]he threat of the new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.—Nigel Calder, International Wildlife, July, 1975.
The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations… If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.—Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, 1976.
The continued rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased global air pollution associated with industrialisation, mechanisation, urbanisation and an exploding population.—Reid Bryson, Global Ecology: Readings Towards A Rational Strategy For Man, 1971.
An increase by only a factor of four in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 degrees Kelvin… sufficient to trigger an ice-age.—Dr S I Rasool and Dr S H Schneider, Science, July 9, 1971.
[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.—Dr S H Schneider, quoted by Jonathan Schell in The Fate Of The Earth, 1982, about getting the message across to Joe "Dumbo" Public.

[j4bberw0ck]

Yes, Rheggers, I know Nigel Calder was one of the people in the programme last night speaking against human responsibility for global warming.

But it's intriguing that you learned nothing from the programme. If you were fully aware of the poor correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, and yet conversant with the excellent correlation between solar activity and temperature, it's surprising you've jumped so hard onto the CO2 bandwagon, if you'll excuse my saying so.

If you're aware that models of greenhouse gas-based atmospheric warming predict warming in the troposphere that isn't there in reality, ditto.....

If satellites can identify global warming on Mars (ice caps melting) and even Pluto (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200607/s1697309.htm) is getting in on the act along with Triton (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml) and Neptune (though I grant you that in Triton's case, orbiting a big planet might have something to do with it), are we to assume lots of LGMs enjoying an Industrial Revolution of their very own?

As for the excitable nature of the programme (which actually, I hadn't thought that bad), it paled into insignificance compared with the excitability of the pro-CO2 lobby, and of course, I'd have to refer you again to Dr Schneider's quote above and his simplified, dramatic statements trading off honesty against impact when he was intent for his funding on proving that the ice man cometh.

I thoroughly enjoyed the programme. It may be true, it may be partly true, or it may be the biggest load of dangly bits seen in years - but at least, and at last, it put an opposing view on the air where hopefully, some people at least will start to see that the eco-loonies and funding hunters haven't got it all proven.

[Rheghead]

It may be true, it may be partly true, or it may be the biggest load of dangly bits seen in years - but at least, and at last, it put an opposing view on the air where hopefully, some people at least will start to see that the eco-loonies and funding hunters haven't got it all proven.

Yeah but how can we reduce fossil fuels for political reasons without the eco-crowd on board, we must believe in Global Warming, it is the only thing that unites zee vorld...


But it's intriguing that you learned nothing from the programme. If you were fully aware of the poor correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, and yet conversant with the excellent correlation between solar activity and temperature, it's surprising you've jumped so hard onto the CO2 bandwagon, if you'll excuse my saying so.


CO2 only increases temperature in the atmosphere because of the presence of the Sun. It does not give out energy without it. So any increase in solar energy and CO2 will exacerbate increase in the Sun's output. If the Sun stabilised and CO2 levels increased, we would still get temperature increases. Similiarly, if CO2 levels stabilised and the Sun's energy continued to increase then temperatures around the world will continue to increase, but at the moment we have both that are exacerbating eachother. The programme failed to illustrate this.

I have read The Role of the Sun in Climate Change by Douglas V. Hoyt & Kenneth H. Schatten, have you? They have been predicting that the Sun may be more responsible for climate change than GHGs for years. Frankly, we can't tell or know for sure while living in vitro, neither can the IPCC be 100% sure that GHGs are more responsible, hence the 'most likely' terminology. They have been putting fwd good arguements but they still say that CO2 levels do need tackling.

It was easy for Dispatches to put forward the idea that CO2 is a symptom of temperature increases but that doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a GHG. They said that CO2 follows temperature increases, but that is not what is happening now naturally, we are contributing or exacerbating what is happening naturally.

[j4bberw0ck]

we must believe in Global Warming, it is the only thing that unites zee vorld...

There's less truth in that than there is in suggesting man made CO2 is responsible for global warming....... haven't noticed China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia, the US - or indeed most of Yurp, who have their Kyoto targets but blithely ignore them- being united because of it. Except in rhetoric, of course.

[dozerboy]

Has anyone seen, "An Inconveniant Truth?"

Excellent film. Certainly a thought for the up and coming generation to worry about.

[JAWS]

Good point jaws. And we should not forget that the manufacture of a car produces more carbon emissions and pollution in general than running it for it's lifetime on petrol or diesel.Yes, but, contrary to the impression given, vehicle production is only a tiny proportion of manufacturing. The average office block will have more similar materials in it than a thousand cars.
The amount of metal in a car would not be sufficient to equal one steel girder in such a block. The average small office in such a block probably contains more plastic and electrical components.

The simple truth is that cars are very visible and so are an easy target for politicians and others to aim at. Cars now have to be made of recyclable materials. Take a look round any home and see how many products there will end up being recycled.

Why should there be a difference? Well, slapping punative taxes and huge additional costs on things like the bed you sleep on and the chairs you sit on would be ever so slightly unpopular and no politician could sell that as a "vote-getter".

[j4bberw0ck]

The Inconvenient Truth about An Inconvenient Truth is that it's rubbish; it's based on scenarios discredited even by the IPCC, whose conclusions were well short of Al "this should get me back on the political stage big time!" Gore's little fantasy.



An article from April 1975 in Newsweek magazine (http://claudiarosett.pajamasmedia.com/documents/Global%20Cooling%20-%20Newsweel%201975.pdf) forecasts doom and gloom about the coming Ice Age......



In this article in National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data (i.e. that the Martian Ice Caps are melting) is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. "The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."


Not long to wait, then! Be interesting to see who's right.

[MadPict]

Like JW I found the programme interesting. I will feel less guilty as I pollute my way to Singapore in a few weeks time - I will still buy a few trees to offset my emissions (the carbon ones, not methane) but will not treat an African family to a solar powered light bulb as I would not wish to keep the peoples of Africa locked in the shabby existence they currently endure...

I'm amazed that Rheghead had access to all that info about how the Earth warms up then 800 years later the CO2 levels increase (that correct?) - why didn't you share these facts with us? I might have argued against wind farms from a different prospective...;)

[KittyMay]

Are both sides in agreement that solar activity (sun spots) causes the heating with increases in carbon following?
I hadn't seen the graphs plotting solar activity against warming before. Very neat fit.

I thought the IPCC stated that the temperature increase followed a rise in CO2.

So, what's different now? I mean, why is this solar activity considered so threatening now? Have there been occasions when the sun has stabilised yet CO2 has still increased? There didn't seem to be any evidence of that on the graphs.

I just can't get past the convenience of man-made carbon emissions suddenly being the cause of catastrophic climate change just at the time our dwindling supplies of fossil fuels start receiving major political/media coverage.

Too much of a coincidence for me.

[KittyMay]

Anywho, the Kyoto Agreement is a product of the Agenda 21/sustainable development crew and is one of the most scariest movements the planet has ever adopted. If most people bothered to read up and learn the full scale of Agenda 21 they'd be begging for the big asteroid.:eek:

Have had the misfortune to read this. As you say, chilling!! Isn't this where the 'Precautionary Principle' took root? - can't remember. The roots are spreading down and down - through to local community level. It's all quite surreal.

[Rheghead]

RealClimate.org have made an explanation in relation to the Channel 4 programme.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414

[JAWS]

What Realcimate.org have to say sounds just like any other pressure group trying to make their claims sound important. They seem to be more interested in rubbishing the people rather than the science.

The indication that they said nothing new can also be said of the Global Warming Brigade although I must admit, the concept of battery acid oceans is one I have not heard before.

"Keep the funding coming and I'll prove anything you want!" Now that's a prediction I really can believe. It's one I've heard all to often on previous occasions and one of the few which has invariably proved to be very accurate indeed.

If you really want to know what the future holds I can recommend a good Fortune Teller on Blackpool's Golden Mile. You will get a prediction which is just as accurate and and have a few laughs into the bargain.

[crayola]

Does the .org have anyone who works on climate change? We seem to have experts in most things.

[j4bberw0ck]

RealClimate.org have made an explanation in relation to the Channel 4 programme.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414

CO2 propaganda machine caught on the hop, huh? :lol::lol:

All these slightly patronising sounding "yes, but...." websites sound like evangelical Christian ones which assert that the Earth id 6000 years old.....and isn't it interesting that the good old academic bitchiness surfaces right away in relation to "multiply amended" reports and thae fact that someone's changed their mind? Ad hominem attacks from the start is a poor tactic because it always manages somehow to look as though someone touched a nerve.

And when you pause to consider how the man-made global warming CO2 lobby can't explain what's gone before and and have no idea what's coming next, it seems a little rich to pooh-pooh alternative explanations which seem to fit the empirical observations at least as well - and to the layman's eye, somewhat better - than their own!

[j4bberw0ck]

Does the .org have anyone who works on climate change? We seem to have experts in most things.

Hell's teeth, crayola, I thought YOU were running the climate........ :lol:


Eye of newt and toe of frog.........

[Rheghead]

Hell's teeth, crayola, I thought YOU were running the climate........ :lol:


Eye of newt and toe of frog.........

Yeah with all the anti-americanism surrounding Global Warming I wouldn't be surprised if it was 'toe of frog, twig of Bush and eye of Newt Gingrich...

[_Ju_]

Science has and always will depend on funding. Funding is controlled by the politicians ... the math is partisan. Science will sing from the same hyme book as the guy holding the purse strings.

You can use what sounds like very credible science to prove anything at all. I read a Fred Hoyle (?) book once that proved unequivocally that evolution ocurred due to viral like particle floating down to earth from space that spliced with flu bugs that upon having a useful mutation for the right species caused an evolutionary jump. The reading was interesting, but because all the pieces fit comfortably, it does not make it a scientifically sound theory.

I believe we impact this world. I believe that 6 billion of us are creating an imbalance. I also believe that, like any system, there is a balance and that outside a certain limit, the system cannot absorbe changes and maintain a balance.

[KittyMay]

Would this be a very simple but fair assessment of the global warming science?

Billions have been spent in an attempt to discover why the earth is warming. The result of much scientific deliberation and modelling is detailed in a report produced by the IPCC stating that manmade CO2 emissions might have a minor part to play. They’re not certain but we should apply the precautionary principle just in case.

The consensus state that the debate is now over – no further scientific research is required.

The skeptics state that now the debating begins and the theory must be proven by rigorous scientific research.

The public have been subjected to major media hype, Al Gore and C4’s Great Global Warming Swindle.

Surely, regardless of global warming we need replacements for dwindling reserves of fossil fuels and must use cleaner and more efficient energy.

IMO if governments/politicians/environmentalists were honest and suggested that the jury was still out on the cause of global warming but that in the meantime we had to attend to research and development of sustainable energy they would receive a favourable response.

Global warming is acting as a distraction to getting on with actually ‘doing’ something. Or do we need a global scare (real or not) to attract interest and investment in the alternatives?

[j4bberw0ck]

No, Kitty May, it wouldn't. Simple it may be - over-simple, in fact - but it's in no way fair. Please see >>>here<<< (http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=192813&postcount=59):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead
If you can't read the simple conclusion of the IPCC correctly then how can you persuade me that the whole business of Global warming is a shambolic scientific process? BTW, if the conclusion is that most of warming is attributable to man's activities then that would lend a huge scope of 49% of the warming to other sources. Perhaps the uncertainty lies here, there is no attempt to hide this fact. I can think of a few sources like land use changes and Sun output that could account for it.




Gee whiz, are we still stuck way back here? I'm trying to show ONLY that the global warming scenario has been leapt on and commandeered. I do NOT doubt that the climate is warming, but:

FACT: there is only a partial understanding of global warming, how the mechanism works, and what the causes are.
FACT: the hypotheses so far presented do not explain past and present to any significant degree of accuracy (edit) -with the possible exception of the solar activity / cloudcover model (/edit)
FACT: therefore, any prediction of the future based on those hypotheses is likely to be unreliable.
FACT: there are serious economic consequences for countries like ours likely to go along unquestioning with any future limitations on CO2 and other GHG production (like the as-we-have-seen, unworkable Kyoto protocol)
FACT: there are possible serious political, social and economic consequences for countries like ours in ignoring global warming.


CONCLUSION (1): the problem is considerably too serious for politicians to go off at half cock and fling money at scientists who will of course (human nature) line up to spend it. And it's in the nature of things that the scientists who most closely echo the accepted position will get most money. Therefore we start veering towards pre-selected conclusions and might miss something pivotal. Hardly the stuff of "double-blind" testing, is it?
CONCLUSION (2): the media (and I particularly point the finger at the BBC who've made something of a sub-industry of filming melting ice and concocting scare stories) are setting the agenda by influencing people and feeding them dumbed-down information - painting half a picture which people believe to be the whole picture. Politicians then react to messages coming from the people to be seen to be doing something and saving the world - Our Blair to the rescue! (shame they don't react when the topic is road pricing but that's by the bye).

[j4bberw0ck]

Are polar bears safe?

Polar bears are thriving, apparently!
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml)

[j4bberw0ck]

Does the .org have anyone who works on climate change? We seem to have experts in most things.

I wondered whether (as an avid reader (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=197299#post197299) of Physics World), DrSzin might be persuaded briefly to lay down his Moderator's Cloak of Invisibility and make an observation? :cool:

[golach]

Polar bears are thriving, apparently!
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml)

An alternative view j4bberw0ck, Oh my!! do I sound like Fred? :eek:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,,2022566,00.html

[fred]

I believe we impact this world. I believe that 6 billion of us are creating an imbalance. I also believe that, like any system, there is a balance and that outside a certain limit, the system cannot absorbe changes and maintain a balance.

I think that is obvious, we are burning 84 million barrels of oil a day. 50 years ago Ghawar was a sea of oil 175 miles long and 12 miles wide and we have bled it dry. Saying that that doesn't have an impact on the environment is just wishful thinking.

There is a lot of politics involved on both sides of the debate but at the end of the day facts are facts, we are living beyond the world's means.

[MadPict]

Polar bears are thriving, apparently!



You'll know things are bad when there is a Polar Bear on every corner of Kirkwall selling "The Big Ice-ue"......

"...help the floeless, get your Big Ice-ue..."

[j4bberw0ck]

<groan>

I like a good pun. And that isn't bad. Floe-less? :lol::lol:

Mind you, the Bad Taste Monitor will be round to rap your knuckles.

[peter macdonald]

The global warming “swindle”

"It was good to see a group of scientists go over the top and ask some of the questions that should be asked about global warming theory in yesterday’s documentary. Things are not entirely as the “consensus” supposes. A recent news item has told us visits to Mars by space probes detect “global” warming there, but have not yet discovered the 4 x 4 s causing it, leading people to ask if the sun is currently hotting up affecting all of the solar system. We do need to know more about cloud formation, water vapour, sun flares and spots and volcanic activity to be sure what is causing the phase of warming that started in 1975 after 35 years of cooling.

I have always thought we should remain sceptical about all scientific theories, for that is the way that science advances by constantly submitting theories to test. Meanwhile we are living in a period when things are warming up, so we should manage any unhelpful consequences of that and welcome the good effects it will have. We do need to increase the water supply in the drier south of the UK and make sure we have enough water stored in case we have longer drier periods, and we do need to improve sea defences in case there is going to be a combination of small rises in sea level and higher storm and tidal surges. We will benefit from the better weather for tourism, agriculture and outdoor sports. Fewer people will die of the cold and from snow and ice in the winter.

It also makes sense to work away at cutting the amount of energy we burn, and at reducing the amount of waste gas that our systems push out. Oil and gas is getting scarcer and dearer, and comes mainly from troubled parts of the world. We should reduce our dependence on it. The UK should try to lead in green technology, showing how we can maintain a good lifestyle, whilst burning less hydrocarbon, and burning what we need more efficiently.

So let’s be greener and cleaner, but let’s stop pretending mankind is in control of the natural world, or understands everything that lies behind changes in average temperatures. "


Taken from an ex cabinet ministers web diary Ineteresting stuff !!!!

Could it be Gordons green taxes are not really needed??? It wont matter because they are not set against "green" issues but merely thrown into the treasure chest with VAT I come tax etc etc
PM

[Rheghead]

It appears that a scientist is playing pop about being misquoted and taken out of context in 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'. It appears that the art of editing has reached new depths...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=417

[darkman]

In the 70s the same climatologists, who are now screaming about global warming were prophesising a new ice age. There were plans of covering Antarctica with coal dust to decrease albedo. They were wrong then, why should they be right now?

[j4bberw0ck]

Conspiracy, Rheggers? I don't suppose it's the first time on either side that there's been a slip of the editing.

The sea-level thing is needlessly emotive anyway; it's not as though we're going to wake up next week or next month or even in 2100 and find that the UK has shrunk to a few little islands and Holland or even Bangladesh has disappeared utterly. Estimates of sea level rise vary between a few inches and a few feet over the next hundred years; of the 4mm or so that the sea is said to be rising each year round the UK, it seems that 2mm may well be due to the land sinking. Still I suppose if that's true we could start a "Save the Planet! Stop Land Sinking!" movement.

Since it doesn't much matter what really causes global warming over the next say 20 year timescale (because it seems it's going to happen regardless of why) and if we assume that the world won't start cooling again around 2015 as forecast by the leading proponent of the solar activity hypothesis, it seems to me we might be better off diverting attention to what to do about Bangladesh and possibly, having to move its people. It would be a better use of resources than rushing round strangling economic activity in a completely pointless exercise; pointless because there is no sign at all that the EU is any more serious than China, Brazil, Russia, India or indeed the USA about reducing carbon emissions.

And please don't tell me about the EU flying large numbers of ministers, MEPs and scores of hanger-on left, right and centre to conferences about climate change. What a bunch of two-faced self-important gits they are. Hoi-polloi, stay at home while we save the world!

Catastrophic estimates (Al Gore / Stern) of sea level rises of 110ft (sorry to mix my imperial and metric) were looking ahead to the year 2600, which is so far beyond the bounds of any reliable forecasting as to be a nonsense. When you pause to consider that the sum of human knowledge is roughly doubling about every 25 years and the pattern of economic growth over the last 100 years has averaged 2% p.a. worldwide, the resources available to meet that challenge - if it ever arises - will be whole orders of magnitude greater than we have available today.

I listened to Cameron getting kebabbed on Radio 4 this morning; the man is clueless on global warming, as is Gordon Brown. As a result we face a couple of years until the next General Election while these two otherwise intelligent people (I hope) try to outbid each other (with supporting howling from Menzies Campbell, Alex Salmond and every other mendacious, twisted, devious politician) on how much they're going to tax us all in the name of saving the planet - and throttle businesses - if / when they're in power. If it wasn't so desperately serious, it'd be laughable.

[Rheghead]

In the 70s the same climatologists, who are now screaming about global warming were prophesising a new ice age. There were plans of covering Antarctica with coal dust to decrease albedo. They were wrong then, why should they be right now?

The scientist that predicted that was a guy on his own who was just out of University. He wrote one scientific paper and did a PR self promotion job on TV and was the instant drama 'expert' on climate. Things snowballed a bit from there All his hypothesis was based on extrapolatiing the trend in climate from the 1940s to the 1970s. But in truth, research into proxy climate was really in an infancy. That was it.


The Ice Age that never was.There was a chill across the world, and it wasn't just the cold war. From the 1940s to the mid-70s, the planet seemed to be in the grip of a global cooling. For a while, almost every outbreak of extreme weather was blamed on it. Some members of a new scientific discipline, climatology, predicted a new ice age. Yet before the 70s were out, temperatures were rising and many of the soothsayers for a new ice age were warning of global warming instead. It is a strange, and now largely forgotten episode. Some say it shows climate scientists are scaremongers and shouldn't be believed, whatever they are predicting. So what happened three decades ago? And why should we believe the climatologists now?

Global cooling was a real phenomenon - and it changed global history. In the winter of 1941, it stopped the German army's advance on Moscow: grease froze in German guns and thousands of soldiers died from cold. Hitler's failure to take Moscow marked a turning point in the second world war. Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed. But by the 1970s, no one was giving thanks for global cooling. As snow banks built across the Canadian Arctic and pack ice grew in the North Atlantic, there was concern bordering on panic about where this might be leading.
"Without the freezing 40s, Hitler might have triumphed"

In July 1971, Stephen Schneider, a young American climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in New York, made headlines in The New York Times when he warned of a coming cooling that could "trigger an ice age". Soon after, George Kulka, a respected climatologist from the Czech Academy of Sciences, warned on TV that "the ice age is due now any time".

The US National Academy of Sciences reported "a finite probability that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years". As a hint of the horrors in store, weird weather in Africa led to a drought in the Sahel that starved millions.

Many climate scientists, such as Fred Singer, now a well-known contrarian, called for action to halt the cooling. US government advisers proposed putting giant mirrors into orbit to direct more sunlight onto Earth. Others suggested sprinkling Himalayan glaciers with soot to absorb heat and maintain the ice-melt that feeds the region's rivers.

What prompted this panic? Three decades of evident, if mild, cooling had set the scene, but there was also genuine concern among climate scientists based on predictions of both natural and human-made climate change.

For one thing, the atmosphere was becoming dustier and filling with pollution. Fine, light-scattering particles in the air were shading the planet's surface and, some suspected, causing the cooling. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison argued that dust storms caused by farms spreading into more arid lands were mostly to blame. Meanwhile, Schneider tried to calculate the likely cooling effect of anthropogenic air pollution and compared it with the possible warming effect of carbon dioxide emissions, which it was now clear were accumulating in the atmosphere.

In Schneider's early calculations, published in Science in 1971, the cooling effect was dominant. He said aerosols might have doubled since 1900 and could double again in the coming 50 years. Even allowing for warming from CO2, this could still mean a 3.5 °C drop in global temperatures, which "if sustained over a period of several years... is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age".

At the same time, research into the history and timing of past ice ages made it clear that there had been many more than the four originally guessed at, their appearance driven by regular planetary wobbles. Worse, it was now clear that ice ages were the norm rather than the exception. According to Kulka, the most recent interval between ice ages appeared to have lasted only 5000 years. Our present interglacial had already lasted 10,000 years. An ice age was long overdue.

The early 1970s also saw the first analysis of Greenland ice cores and with it the suggestion that climate could change very fast: the last ice age may have taken hold within as little as a century. So the cooling in the mid-20th century might not have been a short-term blip but the start of a rapid slide into the next global freeze. The cooling caused by aerosols could kick-start the process, argued Kulka.

It is often claimed today that the fad for cooling was a brief interlude propagated by a few renegade researchers or even that the story is a myth invented by today's climate sceptics. It wasn't. There was good science behind the fears of global cooling. So why did the prognosis prove so wrong?

Short memories were partly to blame. A generation of researchers had virtually forgotten the work of Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius, who predicted at the end of the 19th century that increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would cause significant warming. This meant few took much notice when in the 1960s Charles Keeling began to show that concentrations of the gas had been rising since at least the mid-1950s.

Mistakes also played a part. Some of the calculations published with great fanfare were simply wrong. Soon after his 1971 paper came out, Schneider realised he had greatly overestimated the future cooling effect from human-made aerosols. He had assumed that the increased levels of aerosols in the air that he had measured applied globally. They did not; they related only to small areas close to their source. Moreover, much of the aerosols turned out to be natural, so that even if emissions from human sources did quadruple, their effect would be much smaller than he had calculated.

Schneider also realised that he had underestimated the likely warming effect of CO2: it would be three times as great as he first calculated. When he redid his sums, he concluded that the balance between warming and cooling now tipped strongly towards warming. In 1974, he published a retraction of his earlier prognosis - "just like honest scientists are supposed to do", he says.

The science of ice ages has also advanced since. The planetary wobbles that periodically tip the world into ice ages are not identical, so some interglacial periods last longer than others. Good theoretical work now shows that the current one is likely to be unusually long.

Finally, far from cooling, since the middle of the 1970s the planet has been warming exceptionally rapidly. The link between this and the accumulation of greenhouse gases is almost universally accepted.

Most now agree that the cold decades from the 1940s to 1970s had little to do with either anthropogenic pollution or planetary wobbles. The mid-century cooling, Bryson now agrees, was associated with the eruptions of a cluster of medium-sized volcanoes that pumped sunlight-scattering sulphate aerosols into the upper air.

All this raises an alarming question. If climatologists were so wrong then, why should we believe them now? As those who played a part in the cooling scare now readily admit, those early studies were based on flimsy data collected by very few, often young, researchers. In 1971, when Schneider's paper appeared, he was instantly regarded as a world expert. It was his first publication.

Today, vastly more research has been done into how and why climate changes. The consensus on warming is much bigger, much broader, much more sophisticated in its science and much longer-lasting than the spasm of concern about cooling.

Celestial forces may one day have the final say on climate change, eclipsing any warming we have caused. But that is likely to be thousands of years away, and unless we cut our emissions of greenhouse gases soon, the next ice age might never happen at all. Tim Lenton of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Norwich, UK, recently calculated that global warming could reach 13 °C in the coming centuries, double the difference between today and the depths of the last ice age.

The influence of aerosols should not be underestimated, however. Most climate modellers agree that aerosols are currently protecting us from some of the impact of greenhouse warming. At the extreme, says Dutch atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, they could be offsetting as much as three-quarters of warming. This has led him to suggest that we may one day need a global programme to inject sulphate aerosols into the upper atmosphere to shade the planet from the worst excesses of global warming.

Those sulphates would have the same optical effect as the mid-century volcanic eruptions. Before the 21st century is out, he argues, the forces that shaped global cooling half a century ago will have to be used to rescue us from global warming.

From issue 2582 of New Scientist magazine, 15 December 2006, page 46-47

[j4bberw0ck]

.......... Things snowballed a bit from there All his hypothesis was based on extrapolatiing the trend in climate from the 1940s to the 1970s. But in truth, research into proxy climate was really in an infancy. That was it.

Really? "Things snowballed a bit"? Just like global warming, global cooling had scientists of the day jumping aboard the gravy train to be published and invited to speak. Leaving aside the obvious pun about cooling and snowballs, I wonder if the whole global warming thing hasn't ('scuse me) "snowballed a lot", fed by billions of research dollars and everyone wanting their share all over again.

Except now, of course, anyone who was promoting the message of global cooling back then has to be dismissed - "just out of university". I grant you that knowledge has increased dramatically, as well as our ability to measure and observe, but point out again that the hypotheses (NOT theories) (except the solar activity hypothesis) DO NOT bear out what has happened in the past, and not even in the recent past.

[Rheghead]

Really? "Things snowballed a bit"? Just like global warming, global cooling had scientists of the day jumping aboard the gravy train to be published and invited to speak. Leaving aside the obvious pun about cooling and snowballs, I wonder if the whole global warming thing hasn't ('scuse me) "snowballed a lot", fed by billions of research dollars and everyone wanting their share all over again.

Except now, of course, anyone who was promoting the message of global cooling back then has to be dismissed - "just out of university". I grant you that knowledge has increased dramatically, as well as our ability to measure and observe, but point out again that the hypotheses (NOT theories) (except the solar activity hypothesis) DO NOT bear out what has happened in the past, and not even in the recent past.

Don't you think it is folly to say the scientists do not know what they're on about just because they were wrong before when they have admitted their evidence was wrong at that time or even non-existent? They will admit that the present day evidence is incomplete but that doesn't mean they are wrong but it is fair to say they were wrong when they did didn't have any evidence to support their cooling claims at all except a cooling trend over 3 decades. We all know the Earth's climate changes over time what is relevent is whether Mankind is having a real discernable effect on it and the evidence points to that we are.

[j4bberw0ck]

Don't you think it is folly to say the scientists do not know what they're on about

I think I'd have a bloody cheek even suggesting such a thing, since I'm not a climate scientist. Well, not even a scientist. Well, certainly not since I was at school, anyway, unfortunately. Always wanted to be a marine biologist.......

BUT if you look back that isn't quite what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that since the climate models on which all the hysteria is based cannot explain what has happened in the past to any particular degree of accuracy - even before the human race got busy on emissions - there's a huge amount of faith that this time, they've got it right. But really, for "faith", substitute "hysteria" and "reward" and "media" and "political correctness"; three of those four things were not present in the seventies - the media in particular was restrained by comparison with the current day, and politicians didn't have to be seen running round saying the Right Things to appease the media and the eco-loonies.


just because they were wrong before when they have admitted their evidence was wrong at that time or even non-existent?The evidence now is largely faith that - although no models even roughly show what has happened in the past, pointing to a fundamental flaw in understanding - nonetheless, it's human CO2 and GHG emissions. It's not solar (despite data correlations), it's not warming on Mars and Triton and Pluto, oh no, it's those nasty humans. And I dare say in thirty years when we understand more again, there's a good chance they'll be admitting:


their evidence was wrong at that time or even non-existent?
They will admit that the present day evidence is incomplete but that doesn't mean they are wrong but it is fair to say they were wrong when they did didn't have any evidence to support their cooling claims at all except a cooling trend over 3 decades.Look, Rheggers, I accept that the world is heating up. No problem. No argument. But if their evidence as to the cause is "incomplete" and they can't come up with a theory that works, only hypotheses that don't in a number of important ways - why the hell are governments and politicians charging off at a tangent, seizing on this incomplete understanding and determining that They Shall Save Us All? The most important question here in many ways is "why are politicians doing it?" - is the agenda a little one (i.e. they have to be seen to do something to get elected, so they'll spend billions to see that they are), or a big one (we can scare people into using less energy and through that by its economic effect, taxation and travel limits we can control them more)?

I don't know, and I don't really take the control issue literally, but something's going on, sure as eggs are eggs.


We all know the Earth's climate changes over time what is relevent is whether Mankind is having a real discernable effect on it and the evidence points to that we are.Yes, the evidence does. But the big question is HOW MUCH of an effect and when you look at carbon emissions from human activity against carbon emissions from all other sources it's tiny. There's something implausible in all this, and maybe a question even bigger than the political angles is:

whatever happened to scientific rigour?

because right now, as a race, we're hand in hand with our politicians and our scientists all grasping for money and funding and reputation, and we're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz...............

Or we might as well be.

Can you tell me, Rheggers, whatever happened to scientific rigour? Why the first half-baked answer is grasped as being the Holy Grail? 40 years of cooling was just a few scientists grabbing for celebrity and funding, and they were wrong (of course), but 40 years of heating is somehow God's Own Truth?

Until something better comes along, by which time we stand a good chance of having not changed the climate not one jot, but having totally screwed the economy - remember the economy? The thing that generates wealth to pay for the public sector - health and benefits, education, and millions of wealth-consuming jobs, and pensions, and wages and the stuff that governments spend like water - money?

It's all interconnected.

[j4bberw0ck]

Marvellous! Just seen on the BBC Scotland news, the Scottish Executive is going to teach kids in secondary schools about global warming...... by showing Al Gore's discredited work of fiction "An Inconvenient Truth".

If they can't even be bothered to show a serious summary of the problem, what hope is there? A whole generation of school kids brainwashed into believing Al Gore's version as truth.

Maybe it IS a conspiracy, after all.

[j4bberw0ck]

Anyone in the queue yet to do away with their car(s), domestic electrical equipment, central heating and foreign holidays / internal flights to reduce their "carbon footprint" by 60%? :lol::lol:

[Rheghead]

Marvellous! Just seen on the BBC Scotland news, the Scottish Executive is going to teach kids in secondary schools about global warming...... by showing Al Gore's discredited work of fiction "An Inconvenient Truth".

If they can't even be bothered to show a serious summary of the problem, what hope is there? A whole generation of school kids brainwashed into believing Al Gore's version as truth.

Maybe it IS a conspiracy, after all.

Have you actually watched it yourself?

[MadPict]

J4bberw0ck,
I have removed all the light bulbs in my home, replacing them with oil lamps, I have sold the cars to be replaced with a pony and trap, disconnected all my gas appliances to be replaced by a wood burning stove and am currently trying to find clothing to complete my transition from 21st century man to 18th century luddite.....

[JAWS]

The scientist that predicted that was a guy on his own who was just out of University. He wrote one scientific paper and did a PR self promotion job on TV and was the instant drama 'expert' on climate. Things snowballed a bit from there All his hypothesis was based on extrapolatiing the trend in climate from the 1940s to the 1970s. But in truth, research into proxy climate was really in an infancy. That was it.There were predictions of the world being on it's way to the next Ice Age as early as the 1950s.

I'm still waiting for current Climate Scientists to decide if I should be studying how to grow Coconut Palms or how to survive under a mile of ice. You listen to all the predictions and, after giving them all careful thoughts, you simply choose the one you like. You are never disappointed because there's a prediction to suit everybody.

At the moment the Environmentalists have a good game going, the one who creates the biggest panic wins the prize. Subject to the necessary Environmental Taxes of course.

Of course, the Politicians are on to a good thing whatever happens. The remind me of the religious fanatics who told people that whipping themselves would prevent them dying of the plague. If you lived it proved that it worked, if you caught the Plague and died then it was because you hadn’t whipped yourself hard enough.
Whatever happened they claimed they were right and that the cause was all their prior Sins.

Surprising how far we haven’t advanced in nearly 700 years.

[mareng]

Anyone in the queue yet to do away with their car(s), domestic electrical equipment, central heating and foreign holidays / internal flights to reduce their "carbon footprint" by 60%? :lol::lol:

Funny how it is only resident population that are being urged to give up their foreign holidays?

Why not ban foreign tourists that arrive by air? - oh no - (that wouldn't be good for our economy)

It's all about TAX, with this government. They should be strung up!

[j4bberw0ck]

Can you tell me, Rheggers, whatever happened to scientific rigour? Why the first half-baked answer is grasped as being the Holy Grail? 40 years of cooling was just a few scientists grabbing for celebrity and funding, and they were wrong (of course), but 40 years of heating is somehow God's Own Truth?

Until something better comes along, by which time we stand a good chance of having not changed the climate not one jot, but having totally screwed the economy - remember the economy? The thing that generates wealth to pay for the public sector - health and benefits, education, and millions of wealth-consuming jobs, and pensions, and wages and the stuff that governments spend like water - money?


Have you actually watched it yourself?

You answer mine, and I'll answer yours............. :lol::lol:

[j4bberw0ck]

Rheggers - and maybe a few others - you'll enjoy this. Found by accident, but it goes a long way to explaining the reasoning behind the global warming hysteria. Not the global warming, I hasten to add, but the sudden rushing around for no proven reason:

The Sorites Paradox. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sorites-paradox/)

I knew I should have taken philosophy more seriously :lol::lol:

[JAWS]

What all the predictions totally ignore is that as Global Warming continues people will use less oil, gas etc. for heating, thus reducing the Carbon Emissions from those sources.

All that is needed then is to convince the Architects that windows which open and allow fresh air into buildings are not a new an untried technology. Once they have been made to accept that then they can dispense with energy wasting Air Conditioning systems, which are totally unnecessary in any case. Result, massive reduction in the use of Fossil Fuels, less production of CO2 and no need for knee jerk panic measures.

That only leaved two massive problems. Those who wish to harangue us about our evil ways and tell us how terrible we are have lost one of their mainstays and Governments will have to "invent" a whole new series of reasons for grabbing our money and trying to contol our lives.