View Full Version : Global Warming Propaganda
Eagleclaw68
24-Nov-09, 00:33
All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility, but if the predicted warming could be induced it would probably provide net benefits. However, there is a widespread imagined risk of the warming and politicians are responding to it. Responses to imagined risk are often extreme and dangerous. For example, somebody with a fear of mice may see a mouse and as a response try to jump on a chair causing damage to the chair and injury to himself. There is no point in telling the injured person that mice are harmless because fear is irrational so cannot be overcome by rational argument.
Widespread imagined risk is to be expected as the end of the twentieth century the end of the second millennium approaches. Prophets of doom have occurred when the end of each past century approached. They always proclaimed that the end of the world is nigh unless people changed their ways and accepted great hardship. So, history suggests that the global warming scare or something like it can be expected at this time.
Global warming proponents call for reduced CO2 emissions and this equates to a call for cuts in the use of energy, but the energy industries have done more to benefit mankind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. And global warming proponents often call for use of renewables to replace fossil fuels, but that is a call for a return to preindustrial society the industrial revolution occurred when fossil fuels replaced biomass and windpower. It is physically impossible for wind and solar energies to supply the energy needs of the developed world, and the peoples of the developing world are insisting on their right to develop too.
The past prophets of doom have all been wrong, so it is reasonable to expect today’s doom-mongers to justify their arguments. And this is especially the case when they attack something so clearly beneficial to mankind as the use of fossil fuels. But imagined risk is not rational, so reasonable expectations do not apply. The simple fact that it is physically impossible for CO2 emissions to cause man-made global warming has no effect on imagined fear of global warming.
Also, some global warming proponents are accepting a good financial income from the global warming scare and have become global warming propagandists to promote their interests. These include some researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental organisations who need donations. They are making a living by promoting fear of man-made global warming. Their behaviour is similar to that of the ‘snake oil salesmen’ in the nineteenth century. Snake oil salesmen sold snake oil that did not require real snakes to make it. Global warming propagandists are selling fear of man-made global warming and that does not require real man-made global warming to make it.
www.globalwarmingpropaganda.com
ShelleyCowie
24-Nov-09, 00:37
uh-hu...and whats this got to do with the price of cheese?
Sorry had to be said! Anyways, whats the question or was it just a statement?
Whitewater
24-Nov-09, 01:00
I can agree with you on man made global warming. However, global warming does occur, it is perfectly natural as far as the earth is concerned and its relationship with the sun, there are slight tips of the earths axis, this way and that, and in space this changes slightly the earths angle to the sun and other planets, all having effect the climate, these changes occur approx every 6 to 7 hundred years. Sometimes the changes can be very severe. There are also pole reversals which occur from time to time, (not so often a climate change) they cause complete chaos with the planet. I recall reading somewhere in the distant past that we are the 3rd civilisation to walk the earth, so sooner of later one of the prophets of doom will be correct.
To counter global warming the ancient Mayans used to sacrafice virgins, there are not very many of them around these days so we build windmills, equally futile. I know now how Don Quixote must have felt.
George Brims
24-Nov-09, 02:10
I really don't know where to start in answering such nonsense. The oil companies and their paid stooges have made such a great job of turning a scientific issue into a political one that it's probably impossible to have any kind of a reasoned debate about it any more.
The same thing happened way back in the early 1970s when people started to worry that CFCs in aerosol propellants and air conditioners would cause damage to the ozone layer. This too was hailed as "a physical impossibility*". The chemical industry was at least partially successfully in convincing people it wasn't going to happen. Roll the clock forward to 1985, and woops! there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole, and there's about 4% less ozone in the whole ozone layer every year. Sorry about that folks, seems we were wrong after all, we'll stop using those compounds now. Can we sell you some sun screen in the mean time?
*Please explain the physical principle behind this statement.
Is it coincidental that anti-global warming propagada is totally void of credible science and heavy on clever wordplay? :confused
The timing of all this is not coincidental on the eve of a major international agreement on Climate Change, to give this rubbish any airtime is totally irresponsible imho.
Eagleclaw68......where did you source that load of claptrap and do you honestly think it can be verified?
riggerboy
24-Nov-09, 11:10
Eagleclaw68......where did you source that load of claptrap and do you honestly think it can be verified?
the same place the rest of the twats on here get the information, they get kinda what they want then mutilate it until it is what they believe and hey presto """paste""""
globle warming is a natural effect
what caused the last ice age " i dont think it was emmission "
tonkatojo
24-Nov-09, 11:39
the same place the rest of the twats on here get the information, they get kinda what they want then mutilate it until it is what they believe and hey presto """paste""""
globle warming is a natural effect
what caused the last ice age " i dont think it was emmission "
Steady RB, your getting very close to talking common sense. :)
roadbowler
24-Nov-09, 11:53
little ice age coldest temperatures peaked with the peak of the maunder minimum. The inconvenient medieval warm period happened during the medieval maximum. What's the big mystery? I would have to agree with op and philll. Anthropogenic warming is a scam. It is a scam built on fear. CO2 is an essential part of the cycle of vitality of every living organism on this planet. Where would you be without it? Hadley centre who advise the metoffice have been hacked. Their deceit is apparent to anyone who wishes to download it. Besides, the metoffice people, cannot tell you an accurate weather forecast for tomorrow afternoon. What business do they have predicting climate 50 - 100 years from now?
If the various govt's & science bods who "believe" were all doomed by CO2 emissions are really that bothered why don't they ban fossil fuels?
1st January 2010 Worldwide ban. Oilrigs stop pumping, cars can be scrapped, coal mines can be filled in.
Job done and we all live happy ever after and we plunge instantly into an ice age.
Oh, but what about the money?
tonkatojo
24-Nov-09, 12:10
If the various govt's & science bods who "believe" were all doomed by CO2 emissions are really that bothered why don't they ban fossil fuels?
1st January 2010 Worldwide ban. Oilrigs stop pumping, cars can be scrapped, coal mines can be filled in.
Job done and we all live happy ever after and we plunge instantly into an ice age.
Oh, but what about the money?
We certainly would be in an ice age in wor hoose without coal.
We certainly would be in an ice age in wor hoose without coal.
Oh you'll be fine. Y'can use the alternator off yer car ye' cannae use and fashion a windmill out of the front wings n bumpers, windpower see!
:eek:
justlooking
24-Nov-09, 12:16
Oh you'll be fine. Y'can use the alternator off yer car ye' cannae use and fashion a windmill out of the front wings n bumpers, windpower see!
:eek:
where thers a will theres a way [lol]
tonkatojo
24-Nov-09, 12:19
Oh you'll be fine. Y'can use the alternator off yer car ye' cannae use and fashion a windmill out of the front wings n bumpers, windpower see!
:eek:
Ahdaintseewhatwonalternatorwuddeetivkeepmawarmifyo riceagecumsivrywonwudneedwofthosemasivewonslikeBly thpeirsgot...;)
“We are convinced that ExxonMobil’s longstanding support of a small cadre of global climate change
skeptics, and those skeptics’ access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it
increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of
its diplomacy.”
Senators Rockefeller and Snowe Letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Oct 27, 2006
Just the sort of thing that gives flesh to the saying that a lie can travel around the world before the truth has chance to put its boots.
I'm not too well up on all the writings on the Global Warming issue and don't really know which side to believe.
However, I have wondered that if we are currently warming the planet up due to our indiscriminate use of fossil fuels emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, how is it that we are not currently in the middle of a heatwave due to the effects of the Industrial Revolution emissions which lasted a fair time?
Also how come the two wars which produced (albeit shorter but what appeared to be hugly more intense) bouts of pollution due to burning and the burning of forests around the world have had no apparent effect (or at least I haven't seen anything attributing the current increase in global warming to them)?
Just wondering :confused
What did justlooking do to upset the mods?
One post and their banned, crikey :eek:
Ahdaintseewhatwonalternatorwuddeetivkeepmawarmifyo riceagecumsivrywonwudneedwofthosemasivewonslikeBly thpeirsgot...;)
There's always solar power, you can camp round a pile o' pebbles and use a magnifying glass to heat 'em up one by one. Totally carbon neutral.
ShelleyCowie
24-Nov-09, 16:18
What did justlooking do to upset the mods?
One post and their banned, crikey :eek:
Thats what i was thinking. :eek:
Tubthumper
24-Nov-09, 18:47
This will be EagleClaw having a wee poke and stirring things up again. Not heard from you in a while EC, been away have you? Sober this time?
And this post, is it your own considered opinion? You haven't joined the debate, I wonder why?
Eagleclaw68
24-Nov-09, 19:08
This will be EagleClaw having a wee poke and stirring things up again. Not heard from you in a while EC, been away have you? Sober this time?
And this post, is it your own considered opinion? You haven't joined the debate, I wonder why?
Its great that someone remembers me so there's my opinion on this issue.
Many people believe that global warming is caused solely by the human beings that are on the planet. It may be surprising to know that global warming is also a naturally occurring event. It can easily be argued that whatever global warming occurs naturally on the planet is a fraction of what humans are capable of contributing.
The human causes of global warming have been occurring for many years. The various methods in which humans contribute to global warming include everything from driving cars to simply breathing. Natural causes of global warming can be on a much larger scale that could be from sources outside of our planet. Whether the cause is natural or human, global warming is a serious problem that everyone should be aware of.
One natural cause of global warming involves the sun. Overtime explosions are generated on the surface of the sun and the impact is felt all the way back on Earth. The impact comes in the form of higher temperatures which directly affect global warming. These eruptions occur quite normally on the sun and the planet can be regularly subjected to the increased temperatures that result.
As both the Sun and the Earth orbit there are certain times that the two come closer to one another. When this happens it is normal to see an increase in temperatures on the planet. This is a great example of a natural cause of global warming. There is nothing we can actually do to prevent this from happening as it is part of the natural course of the universe.
redeyedtreefrog
24-Nov-09, 19:24
Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info. Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.
Well most of us will be aware of solar flares and sunspots and although they can contribute to a warming of the earth's atmosphere they also cause other events to happen such as wiping out communications.
With regard to the human contribution to CO2 emmissions common sense tells us that although we had an industrial revolution that was largely powered by fossile fuels,the internal combustion engine must be a far greater emmiter of such gases.Just one generation back, owning a car was a luxury,now it is quite common to have three in a single family! Worked out pro rata to the ever increasing world population it would be a massive increase in volume of such gases.
The destruction of the tropical rain forrest must also be factored in, it's biggest job was to act like a huge sponge, soaking up the CO2 ,some 50% has been felled within a single life time!
NickInTheNorth
24-Nov-09, 20:49
Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info. Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.
Got to agree with redeyedtreefrog.
An Inconvenient truth is a very good starting point for anyone wanting an easy introduction to the science behind global warming. After watching it I dug deeper and found that Al Gore has presented pretty much what the scientific community worldwide are in agreement about.
Global warming caused by man ?
Yes sir, I believe so.
The scientific community are the ones who got us into this bloody mess, it's not as bad as we are told. They have to get funding from somewhere so come out with all the scare stories they can think of to get money from Governments to pay for half-assed research......in other words taxpayers money to keep themselves in employment. Every so often another story crops up along the lines of 'We were wrong, it's worse than we thought'. Reading between the lines, what they are actually saying is 'we need even more of your money to continue our research'.
The other side to the argument which is rarely heard, because Governments and those with an agenda will lose millions of tax £'s, is the fact that we are still coming out of a natural ice age, which takes quite a long time-so I'm led to believe, and one result of that is the seas getting warmer, which in turn absorb less CO2.
For sure, man-made CO2 levels don't help, but I don't buy all the claptrap from those with a vested interest. They can't be right all the time, can they? (Except when they want to scare us even more). [disgust]
I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now? :confused [disgust]
I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now?
But is it directly due to (man-made) global warming?
I don't KNOW the answer, but this is another bandwagon to jump on and to use as propaganda by those banging the drum.
We readily forget that most major towns and cities in the UK and the majority of the world are built up around rivers or their estuaries. Over the (hundreds) years these have flooded in the past, but they wouldn't have affected people so much or intensely because fewer folk probably lived there and it may have happened every year or two.
Then it doesn't happen for a while the floods get forgotten about and more people move in and houses built. Then there is a flood and everyone says me how did that happen when their living a few metres from a water course.
What about all the man-made ing about with water courses & dams? This area is in the run off from the Lake district, hasn't there been man made changes to use the lakes as reservoirs?
What impact does it have on an area when a dam fails, either controlled or uncontrolled. Or even just overflowing.
Again I don't know if this has any effect, a direct or indirect effect.
But I convinced it is not directly due to man made emissions.
I used to live in an area that had flood plains close by, huge expanses of prime greenbelt left for agricultural use and recreational use.
The councils made preservation orders to keep them as such. But then some councillors were a little more interested in the money that could be made (personally) by investment from property companies.
All of a sudden houses were popping up on the flood plains, well, they ain't flooded for a few years!
And then there was a bit more rain than usual and surprise, surprise. The houses got flooded!
Global warming they said, why 'avent council built flood defences' they said.
Now I'm not saying Cockermouth is a flood plain that has been ignored and built on. But it is not directly due to global warming from man made emissions either.
A warmer climate means more evaporation which means more rain, it doesn't really get any simpler than that.
Eagleclaw68
25-Nov-09, 00:16
Mexican scientist warn Earth will enter 'Little Ice Age' for up to 80 Years Due to decrease in solar activity
Excerpt: An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity.
roadbowler
25-Nov-09, 00:29
I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now? :confused [disgust]
actually, they mignt. piers corbyn, astrophysicist and agw sceptic could have told them 10 montns ago to brace themselves fOr.... water and gales.[disgust]
roadbowler
25-Nov-09, 00:37
i really should add that it is beyond criminal that the metoffice do not take his methods into consideration. Predicting a storm to hit where it did to the very day of when it happened 10 MONTHS in advance using forecasting methods based on solar activity cannot be sniffed at. btw.... Another one coming end of december!
What did justlooking do to upset the mods?
One post and their banned, crikey :eek:
Is this a new record for the org.? ;)
George Brims
25-Nov-09, 01:04
Its great that someone remembers me so there's my opinion on this issue.
<stuff snipped out>
It's a good thing you stated what followed that first sentence as your opinion. There was hardly anything accurate in what followed.
George Brims
25-Nov-09, 01:11
The scientific community are the ones who got us into this bloody mess
Nope. we just found it, like a turd lying on the carpet.
... is the fact that we are still coming out of a natural ice age, which takes quite a long time-so I'm led to believe,
It takes a long time, but it's done and dusted quite some time ago.
...one result of that is the seas getting warmer, which in turn absorb less CO2.
Warmer water holds MORE carbon dioxide. That might help in some respects. However the down side is the water becomes more acidic. Bye bye coral reefs.
For sure, man-made CO2 levels don't help, but I don't buy all the claptrap from those with a vested interest.
Vested interests like the oil companies?
Warmer water holds MORE carbon dioxide. That might help in some respects.
Actually I thought the opposite.
It's not going away people, despite the Sun being at a low ebb, 2009 is still expected to be the 5th hottest year on record.
Cool sun and hot years, funny that, very strange! :eek:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6645910/2009-on-course-to-be-the-fifth-hottest-since-records-began.html
tonkatojo
25-Nov-09, 12:08
It's not going away people, despite the Sun being at a low ebb, 2009 is still expected to be the 5th hottest year on record.
Cool sun and hot years, funny that, very strange! :eek:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6645910/2009-on-course-to-be-the-fifth-hottest-since-records-began.html
I heard this could be different if we had a very cold December, sounds a bit hit n miss to me these so called records.
Metalattakk
25-Nov-09, 12:57
From that same article:
They also come just a day after critics called for a independent inquiry into leaked emails which appear to suggest respected scientists were manipulating data to strengthen the case for global warming.
I don't think we have enough reliable data at all, never mind that which is twisted to gain the desired results.
We only really have reliable weather data for the UK since 1914, although some records go back to the 1650's this cannot be relied upon as accurate by today's calibrated standards.
I would imagine we have only really gotten any idea of global weather since WWII. The jet stream was only discovered at the end of the war.
How can we seriously think we have enough data when it's based on a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the time the planet has been in existence.
And during all that time the planet has constantly evolved and changed in many ways, and it will continue to do so.
We still don't have answers for what has happened in the past to the planet, how can we predict the future.
Yes man has had an impact, in many ways, that cannot be denied.
But change is inevitable, whatever we do. Part of the problem is the human psyche and our natural resistance to change.
The planet is changing and carving up the countryside to plant some windmills isn't going to stop the evolutionary/natural/godly process.
It's cyclical surely, as night follows day. The planet will go from heatwave to iceage and back again, one process creates the other.
tonkatojo
25-Nov-09, 14:16
Did they not get data from core samples from glaciers or the arctic that gave better indication of weather pattens, I'm not sure how far back in time they went, perhaps someone will give more info.
Metalattakk
25-Nov-09, 14:48
It's cyclical surely, as night follows day. The planet will go from heatwave to iceage and back again, one process creates the other.
Absolutely, and there's nothing we can do to stop it in it's tracks. The difference we, as a race, have made on the global climate change is negligible, and will continue to be negligible.
This whole Man-made Global Warming is a myth, perpetuated by money-hungry reactionaries in Government and their chosen 'advisors'.
Have a read here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/), and learn about Multi-Decadal Oscillation.
I've really no desire to get into another one of these debates, that being said:
As a fan of science and reason, I question Al Gore and his ilk; the environmentalist movement seems to have been taken over by political groups pushing social agendas, they doctor reports, intimidate and generally act like fundamentalists.
Just to be clear based on what I've read - I believe the climate is changing as it has done so naturally in the past and that human influence is negligible.
Rather than me paraphrasing I offer these as a rebuttal to An Inconvenient Truth.
Penn & Teller: Bullshit - being green (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5329857034306331360#) (Google Video - 28 minutes)
The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#) (Google Video - 1 hour 16 minutes)
EDIT: I should probably add that I do believe we should research alternative forms of energy and recycling, but thats just because research in itself is good and we may find something more efficient or cheaper.
I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish. :lol:
See now you're acting just like a creationist, its just like watching Stavro argue the existence of god.
My sources are proper science... not pseudo-science how can my sources sell stuff they basically say everything is all right. I never believed in it before the recent scandal and I'm so confident in my position and the evidence that I'll even give the guy a pass on that one situation.
It is your sources that use scare tactic headlines to sell
It is your sources where supposed teams of scientists are stacked with liberal arts majors
It is your sources, that when they do have proper scientists, doctor reports and then don't allow people to remove their names
It is your sources that have been peddling the same stuff repackaged since the 1900's
I take great offence that you assume I haven't researched and read and that your point is correct because you believe it, I look critically and skeptically on everything.
I'd personally like to stick it to large monolithic energy companies, but thats a political opinion, the science just isn't there.
the science just isn't there.
You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation? This has been known since 19th century. In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly. What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere? It isn't really rocket science.
Climate change clearly isn't tosh, the climate has consistently been changing. A fact I'm happy to accept.
The headlines and scandal I'm not subscribing too is that we need to handover more taxpayers money to large corporations under the guise of subsidies.
Even in Caithness we have residents brokering deals to cash in on subsidies, ahem, sorry, to make deals to save the planet.
And then fly off round Europe in a private jet.
Now if you take your headlines (based on scientific fact of course) aviation is apparently the single most contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and we're all gonna get taxed if we want to take a flight shared with a few hundred other people.
But, if you have your own windfarm subsidised from our taxes you can fly around in your own comfort tax free :cool:
Hmmmm
I'd go with the facts too. If you can actually find them.
You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation? This has been known since 19th century. In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly. What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere? It isn't really rocket science.
Wow I've been quoted out of context again, I was clearly talking about about a body of evidence designed to make a particular point and not the nature of CO2 - a vast majority of which comes from volcanoes, forest fire and plant decay ... so many parallels with another thread... I'm just bowing out at this point. I'm not qualified to deal with this particular level of stupidity.
a vast majority of which comes from volcanoes, forest fire and plant decay ... so many parallels with another thread... I'm just bowing out at this point. I'm not qualified to deal with this particular level of stupidity.
Completely wrong. Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year.
roadbowler
25-Nov-09, 18:33
between the turds on the carpet and 'fudge factors' in the computer climate model programs something is really beginning to hit the fan! Lmao. Lots of uncomfortable i told you sos' and job vacancies at the cru coming soon! Www.climaterealists.com
redeyedtreefrog
25-Nov-09, 19:05
I don't think we have enough reliable data at all, never mind that which is twisted to gain the desired results.
We only really have reliable weather data for the UK since 1914, although some records go back to the 1650's this cannot be relied upon as accurate by today's calibrated standards.
I would imagine we have only really gotten any idea of global weather since WWII. The jet stream was only discovered at the end of the war.
How can we seriously think we have enough data when it's based on a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the time the planet has been in existence.
And during all that time the planet has constantly evolved and changed in many ways, and it will continue to do so.
We still don't have answers for what has happened in the past to the planet, how can we predict the future.
Yes man has had an impact, in many ways, that cannot be denied.
But change is inevitable, whatever we do. Part of the problem is the human psyche and our natural resistance to change.
The planet is changing and carving up the countryside to plant some windmills isn't going to stop the evolutionary/natural/godly process.
It's cyclical surely, as night follows day. The planet will go from heatwave to iceage and back again, one process creates the other.
Seen An Inconvenient Truth yet? There's some nice graphs that show that process and theres a massive spike about the time we start fossil fuels.
Also, about the weather data, can't they measure stuff from long rods of ice from the poles?
arana negra
25-Nov-09, 19:32
I so wish my late husband was around to answer this thread. He was an environmental scientist. He often used to say that many people that 'talk' on the 'Global Warming' issue had it all wrong it was 'Climate Change' for a start and that many others simply failed to understand the subject and should not be allowed to speak on the subject in public. In his working life he was part if IPPC BAT and IPTS and JRC. If any is interested in his work mail me and I will give you his name to google. He did not blow his own trumpet, a shy man who left an amazing legacy to us all. ( These are not my words but those of work colleagues all over the world)
Seen An Inconvenient Truth yet? There's some nice graphs that show that process and theres a massive spike about the time we start fossil fuels.
The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph.
Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels.
Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever.
Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence.
How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth.
When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6651430/Climate-change-poses-real-and-present-danger.html
The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph.
Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels.
Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever.
Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence.
How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth.
When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.
Take it to the scientists since you know better, let the world know that we are ok, nothing to worry about. You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.
Take it to the scientists since you know better, let the world know that we are ok, nothing to worry about. You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.
I'm no that bothered about Global warming. I know this back end has been the mildest in caithness for a long time so I'm all for it. Whats interesting here though is how I am beginning to swing with the conspiracy theorists. Normally I wouldnt touch them with a barge pole against the scientists but I think the nos have it, the nos have it. ;)
Very sad or it's a wind up. :lol: And it's working... [para] [smirk]
You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.
I don't think anyone is shrugging it off as if nothing is changing and all is tickety boo.
The climate is changing and we all need to be aware of that. Humankind is spewing out all sorts of emissions and we need to do something about it also.
However I don't see myself as a conspiracy theorist but, as with many things, money is blurring the issue. And one thing I do know a little about is what happens when money becomes involved in research of any kind, for or against.
You pay for the results you want.
It's a long standing game in business, introduce "independent" research via politicians which suggest something bad is going to happen unless we throw money at it.
Where does the money come from? You, me, average bloke n' wifey getting taxed on something.
Where does the money go? To the corporations providing the equipment and services to prevent the bad stuff from happening.
Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can keep money moving and create jobs etc.
Being seen to be "Green" is fashionable and media friendly, so it's worth the likes of Asda Walmart to join the subsidy party and fly half way around the world in a nice big CO2 belching jet to look for prime chunks of Caithness & Sutherland to carve up so they can cash in on the grants from the govt to plant windmills.
They can then tell all their customers ('cept up 'ere) that they are a jolly nice company concerned about the planet.
Double bonus, they can count the windfarm twice to get more money from the gov'ts. Once in the UK and again in the US.
Funny, while out the other day out of 7 windymills I saw only 1 was turning, quite a windy day too.
The're not very reliable either.
Ooh yeah, Acid rain.
I did wonder what happened to that one.
Ooh yeah, Acid rain.
I did wonder what happened to that one.
Since the curative action for acid rain is the same for climate change, why should lobby groups run 2 campaigns to cure the same problem and outspend their budget? Seemples
Being seen to be "Green" is fashionable and media friendly,
It wasn't always that way. Being green was considered to be a crank position despite all the evidence. What is best? A spirit of the times which promotes a sustainable future for our children's children or one which keeps the short term interests of profit-making energy providers at an all time high? You decide which is most probable.
LOL!!
Aye.
But it's generally our money that's being spent and their not normally so shy with it.
Not bothered about about £6m on climate porn advertising are they.
You decide which is most probable.
Well my money is here on the most probable: (which in my view actual)
short term interests of profit-making energy providers at an all time high
But I agree with the sentiment of what we should be teaching our kids.
But I agree with the sentiment of what we should be teaching our kids.
Excellent point since the short term interests of today's profit-makers differ greatly from the longterm interests of those that don't have any political interest.....yet
Take it to the scientists since you know better, let the world know that we are ok, nothing to worry about. You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.
Which bit will they be laughing at? That is assuming the scientists concerned are not a carefully selected group with an vested financial or political interest in promoting Man Made Climate Change.
As for the comments about acid rain and it being caused by the same activities as Climate Change then the problem should be getting far worse as time has gone by. Three decades ago the lakes were supposed to be getting so acidic that they were dying along with trees. The news was full of pictures of fir trees in forests dying where they stood. According to the Global Warmists there as been a massive increase in CO2 since then which would obviously have made the situation far worse. The strange thing is that it simply hasn't happened. The forests up here are certainly not dying where they stand or the forestry would not be planting more trees for them to simply fall down dead. As for the Lochs in the Highlands, by now they should be so acidic there should be nothing living in them, at least if what was predicted three decades ago were true, but they too seem to have failed to have behaved as ordered. People seem to spend lot of time fishing in them considering all the fish are supposed to be dead by now. The reason the acid rain scare stories were dropped was because the dire predictions were obviously failing to materialise so that scare was quietly dropped.
Like I said global warning only interests me in the respect that it'll be warmer working on a roof in November. I'm fairly green naturally so my conscience is clear.
Global warmings the new bogeyman though and I just took it for granted that the present problems were caused by humankind mostly because I believe the scientists. I know about climate change over thousands of years but the claims being made by the scientific establishment seem pretty clear.
This thread is enlighening.:eek:
As for the comments about acid rain and it being caused by the same activities as Climate Change then the problem should be getting far worse as time has gone by. Three decades ago the lakes were supposed to be getting so acidic that they were dying along with trees. The news was full of pictures of fir trees in forests dying where they stood. According to the Global Warmists there as been a massive increase in CO2 since then which would obviously have made the situation far worse. The strange thing is that it simply hasn't happened. The forests up here are certainly not dying where they stand or the forestry would not be planting more trees for them to simply fall down dead. As for the Lochs in the Highlands, by now they should be so acidic there should be nothing living in them, at least if what was predicted three decades ago were true, but they too seem to have failed to have behaved as ordered. People seem to spend lot of time fishing in them considering all the fish are supposed to be dead by now. The reason the acid rain scare stories were dropped was because the dire predictions were obviously failing to materialise so that scare was quietly dropped.
http://www.miljostatus.no/en/Topics/Air-pollution-seksjonsside/Acid-rain/
changilass
26-Nov-09, 11:34
Rheggers, for those of us who really can't be bothered clicking a link and wading through a long spiel, would you please summarise what points you are making please.
I HATE links.
Rheggers, for those of us who really can't be bothered clicking a link and wading through a long spiel, would you please summarise what points you are making please.
I HATE links.
The point is that acid rain is still an issue and not something that was quietly shelved through no evidence. Jaws's false assertion just seems to be one of the lies myths that the climate change sceptics try to throw about to muddy the waters.
That was an impressive link Rheghead. Jaws has been left in your wake with his acid rain blurb but Im still dangling by the confidence of the other deniers.
Im still dangling by the confidence of the other deniers.
The climatologists are confident about their findings and are ready to go home, be made redundant or reassigned. It is the deniers that are keeping them at their posts to gather more information on what they already know about. The IPCC use 3 independent laboratories and they are all coming up with the same conclusions.
The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph.
Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels.
Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever.
Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence.
How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth.
When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.
Totally agree with this and would add the "coincidence" of dangers to us all from CFCs occurring at just the same time as the particular chemical company's patent on CFCs ran out (so others could have made the stuff and taken some of the market). :eek:
The main "greenhouse" gas is NOT CO2. The main greenhouse gas is H2O and since there has always been the same volume of that about the place ... Al Gore and Co., Inc. must have an alternative agenda.
The main "greenhouse" gas is NOT CO2. The main greenhouse gas is H2O and since there has always been the same volume of that about the place ... Al Gore and Co., Inc. must have an alternative agenda.
Who is increasing the amount of water then?
Who is increasing the amount of water then?
You've lost me there, Rheghead, I thought that I had stated it was remaining the same? :)
As Ive already said up until yesterday i had little interest in the climate change debate. This thread though is beginning to tread a familiar path. I was kinda swung by Jaws thread but Rhegheads comeback with the Norwegian environmental link and its research about acid rain cant be ignored. Can it?
You've lost me there, Rheghead, I thought that I had stated it was remaining the same? :)
Bingo! So what's changing the temperature since we've discounted water as the culprit.
Bingo! So what's changing the temperature since we've discounted water as the culprit.
Changes in Earth's climate are primarily caused by the Sun.
By the way, if you agree that "we've discounted water as the culprit," and since water is far more important as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, then we have also discounted CO2 as the culprit. :)
Changes in Earth's climate are primarily caused by the Sun.
Can you convince me of that?
By the way, if you agree that "we've discounted water as the culprit," and since water is far more important as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, then we have also discounted CO2 as the culprit. :)
No we haven't because the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing with temperature in accordance with the hockey stick model.
Can you convince me of that?
Don't be ridiculous. Do you think that I'm going to waste my time again, just to be greeted with some silly response? I'd have more success teaching sharks to roller skate. :lol:
No we haven't because the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing with temperature in accordance with the hockey stick model.
See what I mean!
"Acid rain restricts global warming by reducing methane emissions from natural wetland areas, suggests a global climate study."
Well that's alright then...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6231-acid-rain-limits-global-warming.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6231-acid-rain-limits-global-warming.html)
Don't be ridiculous. Do you think that I'm going to waste my time again, just to be greeted with some silly response? I'd have more success teaching sharks to roller skate. :lol:
Well we keep coming back to that inconvenient evidence thing. Not everyone is happy to accept dogma, there's a thing called natural curiosity, the conclusion may not be to our liking but we should accept it non-the-less otherwise we get accused of being deniers.
The Copenagan conference will be underway early next month.
What would constitute a successful outcome?
Or, come to that, a lousy outcome?
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on Channel 4 a couple of years ago said it all.
Its all a conspiracy to fill the pockets of windmill manufacturers...
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on Channel 4 a couple of years ago said it all.
Its all a conspiracy to fill the pockets of windmill manufacturers...
It would be easy to think that, in fact that was why that BS was made to make you think that way.
It would be easy to think that, ...
It would be easy to think that, because it is true.
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514
It would be easy to think that, because it is true.
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514
No it was total rubbish.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
This "debate" is classic thud and blunder ORG.
Each side is hunkered down in their particular trench shouting nasty things at each other.
(The powers that be should take the lot of you off the subject until you have calmed down.)
You cant have science without evidence.
Could somebody out there start providing statistics.? Once we have the stats we can link them up as we see fit according to our beliefs.
And then, Gleeber, you could choose a safe time to get back on your roof (which I suspect you of converting into a wnd machine) without being reduced to a cinder or swept away by a hurricane.
The same thing happened way back in the early 1970s when people started to worry that CFCs in aerosol propellants and air conditioners would cause damage to the ozone layer. This too was hailed as "a physical impossibility*". The chemical industry was at least partially successfully in convincing people it wasn't going to happen. Roll the clock forward to 1985, and woops! there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole, and there's about 4% less ozone in the whole ozone layer every year. Sorry about that folks, seems we were wrong after all, we'll stop using those compounds now. Can we sell you some sun screen in the mean time?
The "hole" in the ozone layer was discovered in 1974. There is evidence that the "hole" in the ozone layer is healing itself.
New Church, M J et al, Evidence for slowdown in stratospheric ozone loss: first stage of ozone recovery, J Geophys Res, 108(D16) 4507, doi:10.1029/2003JD003471. [AGU]
We have now identified a number of cyclic behaviours exhibited by the ozone layer. What we don't know, is how was the ozone layer behaving prior to first noticing the "hole" in 1974. For all we know, the "hole" is normal.
I keep putting "hole" inside quotation marks, because it is not a hole. It is a thinning of the ozone layer.
Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.
Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info. Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.
Oh yes, the piece of work that earned a Noble Prize for nine scientific errors. It is now a worthless award.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
Did they not get data from core samples from glaciers or the arctic that gave better indication of weather pattens, I'm not sure how far back in time they went, perhaps someone will give more info.
Well yes they did Tonkatojo.
Unfortunately I can't seem to insert the graph derived from the Vostok icecore, as produced by Petit, et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429 - 436.
What this shows, is a temperature record that goes back more than 420,000 years. It begins with a warm period and ends with the current warm period. There are five warm periods in total and four ice ages. The warm periods are all brief and the ice ages are all long term.
All of the previous warm periods, known as interglacials, are approximately 2 degrees centigrade warmer than the peak of the current warm period. The peak for this period is in the past.
I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish. :lol:
I daresay the majority of people, myself included, find the thought of trawling through scientific papers tedious in the extreme, plus the 'evidence' will be so full of waffle that the man in the street won't be able to understand it, which is the result Government wants anyway. Governments rely on advice from the scientific community, which in turn needs funding, so where will they get the money from?
Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.
I think the drum has been banged for so long and so loud by the 'green supporters' that the two are now inextricably linked.
Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003. They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey. These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.
I have taken a keen interest in Greenhouse Theory and the subsequent Global Warming, Climate Change and Antropogenic Global Warming since I first discovered the theory in Environmental Chemistry around 1981.
Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.
My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.
I have a great many friends, colleagues and associates who are scientists and engineers at all levels from graduates to Professors Emeritus. On the whole, I have to report that more of the scientist I speak to, also disagree that carbon dioxide causes global warming.
When I meet scientists who agree that carbon dioxide cause global warming, I find that many have not investigated the available evidence and cannot sustain a logical debate.
Of those who can argue beyond the basics, there are two groups. One group go off to try and find better arguments. The other group avoid arguing over the real evidence, but rather decide to agree to disagree and cling to the theory and models. More about models later.
Rothman D H, 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167 - 4171. Was able to show not only that carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times as high as they were today, but also that carbon dioxide history "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geological record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."
If Greenhouse Theory was correct, carbon dioxide at four times the levels of today, would cause rapid warming, increasing carbon dioxide, even more rapid warming and so on. This means that we humans are living proof that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming, since we would not be here to discuss the issue.
Many other research teams have found historical instances when carbon dioxide and temperature did completely different things.
For example,
Fischer H Wahlen, et al 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712 - 1714.
Mudelsee M, et al 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583 - 589.
Pagani et al 2005. Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the paleogene. Science 309: 600 - 603.
If you want more, please message me and I can supply several more references on this theme.
Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. History shows us that there are many such events.
Many more research teams have published findings that show past temperature changes have led changes in carbon dioxide levels by periods of hundreds to thousands of years.
Oh yes, the piece of work that earned a Noble Prize for nine scientific errors. It is now a worthless award.
Albert Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" should be re-named, "A Convenient Lie." :)
Aaldtimer
28-Nov-09, 04:16
Originally Posted by Through http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=626091#post626091)
Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.
Jox..."I think the drum has been banged for so long and so loud by the 'green supporters' that the two are now inextricably linked."
Of course Jox, everything about climate is inextricably linked!:(
Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003. They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey. These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.
I have taken a keen interest in Greenhouse Theory and the subsequent Global Warming, Climate Change and Antropogenic Global Warming since I first discovered the theory in Environmental Chemistry around 1981.
Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.
My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.
I have a great many friends, colleagues and associates who are scientists and engineers at all levels from graduates to Professors Emeritus. On the whole, I have to report that more of the scientist I speak to, also disagree that carbon dioxide causes global warming.
When I meet scientists who agree that carbon dioxide cause global warming, I find that many have not investigated the available evidence and cannot sustain a logical debate.
Of those who can argue beyond the basics, there are two groups. One group go off to try and find better arguments. The other group avoid arguing over the real evidence, but rather decide to agree to disagree and cling to the theory and models. More about models later.
Rothman D H, 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167 - 4171. Was able to show not only that carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times as high as they were today, but also that carbon dioxide history "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geological record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."
If Greenhouse Theory was correct, carbon dioxide at four times the levels of today, would cause rapid warming, increasing carbon dioxide, even more rapid warming and so on. This means that we humans are living proof that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming, since we would not be here to discuss the issue.
Many other research teams have found historical instances when carbon dioxide and temperature did completely different things.
For example,
Fischer H Wahlen, et al 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712 - 1714.
Mudelsee M, et al 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583 - 589.
Pagani et al 2005. Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the paleogene. Science 309: 600 - 603.
If you want more, please message me and I can supply several more references on this theme.
Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. History shows us that there are many such events.
Many more research teams have published findings that show past temperature changes have led changes in carbon dioxide levels by periods of hundreds to thousands of years.
What will be the effect on global temperatures by doubling the amount of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels?
Plus I don't believe that water is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't have the effect of raising temperatures either.
Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.
My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.
That was a good post Through. Very authoritive and comes with enough scientific reference for your opponents to challenge you.
I have little scientific knowledge concerning this issue but I trust science.
Why, if your opinions are correct, do others come up with a different scenario for global warming?
Surely it's not that difficult for science in a modern world to say that mans pollution is having an effect on the climate of the planet? Well, the truth is they do say it's a problem but then you and others on this thread say different.
Whats really going on?
Is it all down to prestige and how many Nobel prizes can be won? Are the opponets of human induced global warming so cynical in their reasoning that they would rather condemn the results of fellow scientists for deeper personal reasons not too far removed from prestige and Nobel prize envy?
There's a similar impasse in the evolution/creation debate where a small minority of scientists, because they believe in the Bibles interpretation of creation, are blinded to the argument for evolution and throw a number of small spanners into the works to muddy the weaters. They are not necessarily dishonourable and I'm sure some of them believe it, but throwing the baby out with the bath water does nothing to help anyones case.
Is that what's happening here?
Is the amount of pollution being pumped into the earths atmosphere having absolutely no effect on the ecology of the planet?
Also, cherry-picking bits out of scientific papers to shore up a particular viewpoint is one of the most widely used tactics of climate change deniers in the blogosphere.
Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming. History shows us that there are many such events.
How does this disprove anything? :confused
tonkatojo
28-Nov-09, 11:51
Well yes they did Tonkatojo.
Unfortunately I can't seem to insert the graph derived from the Vostok icecore, as produced by Petit, et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429 - 436.
What this shows, is a temperature record that goes back more than 420,000 years. It begins with a warm period and ends with the current warm period. There are five warm periods in total and four ice ages. The warm periods are all brief and the ice ages are all long term.
All of the previous warm periods, known as interglacials, are approximately 2 degrees centigrade warmer than the peak of the current warm period. The peak for this period is in the past.
That's the one, does it give any indications what were the causes of the ebb and flow of the temperatures ??. or is the data going to blow the "myths" of current global warming.:(
I don't believe that water is a greenhouse gas.
Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas by a long, long way. Far more effective than CO2.
Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas by a long, long way. Far more effective than CO2.
How do you know? :confused
How do you know? :confused
I found out from someone who has studied atmospheric physics.
I found out from someone who has studied atmospheric physics.
How did he know?
How did he know?
There seems to be no end, and certainly no point, to your silly questions. :)
Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info. Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.
Yeah, right! More like a very convenient moneymaker.
A warmer climate means more evaporation which means more rain, it doesn't really get any simpler than that.
Based on what evidence, Rheg? As you have said yourself...
Also, cherry-picking bits out of scientific papers to shore up a particular viewpoint is one of the most widely used tactics of climate change deniers in the blogosphere..... the same can be said of the believers.
Truth is no-one knows really do they? What we have had is climate-change promoters ramming so called facts down our throats left, right and bloody centre and now, if relevant newspaper reports are correct and to believed, we are to pay for the privilege of pumping carbon into the atmosphere in the form of yet more taxes.
However, the so called evidential climate change scientists have had their emails leaked suggesting that they were telling lies and manipulating the debate for their own ends, Indeed, any non believing academics were quite often denied funding grants for their own research as they didn't agree with current thinking on climate change. Hypocritical or what?
Harking back to George Brims earlier, a reasoned debate is now really impossible and, on the subject of the ozone layer, a hole is found over the Antarctic. How do we know that there hasn't always been a hole there? Only discovered after satellites found the damn thing. Therefore, why can't we reason that as we've had more than one ice age that the earth will get warmer and colder without our help? We can't, can we?
Are we that smug and superior though to think that the human race alone is solely responsible for what happens on this planet? To quote Shakespeare in Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I believe that rings true even more so today.
There seems to be no end, and certainly no point, to your silly questions. :)
Why are they silly?
@3of 8 You've heard of the water cycle haven't you? Seen a kettle lately? According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.
I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish. :lol:
Some of us, like me, even have degrees in Environmental Science and don't believe what the newspaper selling headlines say, so please don't make out that you may only be the only educated one in our midst. :roll:
... According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.
Misquoting again, Rheghead? Does the atmosphere not reach saturation with H2O? Have I not stated the primary cause of climate fluctuation to be the Sun and its cycles? :roll:
Harking back to George Brims earlier, a reasoned debate is now really impossible.
Scientific debates are of a different nature to socio-political debates, seeing that climate change is a scientific phenomenon and blogospheres can only deal with socio-political debates then I do share that sentiment.
Ultimately, we need to consult with the scientists who are researching this field directly if we are to get the proper picture on climate change. And we all know what they are saying in accordance with the IPCC.
There are too many 'political scientists' trying to grab the headlines with 'evidence' that disproves AGW, a lot of it is misrepresented scientific papers or even downright lies. Though some points may be valid which have made scientists to go back and reassess things.
I will suggest anyone to consult realclimate.org as their first port of call on climate change. They love debunking all that Great global warming swindle rubbish and such like.
I do recognise that most people are more accustomed to socio-political debating and science very often fails to get its point over to the public because of the trap of coming over in an esoteric fashion. Hence that is why interested groups who want to keep the public away from accepting anthropogenic global warming are already at the advantage.
Misquoting again, Rheghead? Does the atmosphere not reach saturation with H2O? Have I not stated the primary cause of climate fluctuation to be the Sun and its cycles? :roll:
Not misquoting at all, you said that water (vapour) was a greenhouse gas, I merely took your point further to say that whatever is driving climate change is making the effect worse since water in the gaseous phase is in a thermo-dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase. I didn't expect you to understand that.
@3of 8 You've heard of the water cycle haven't you? Seen a kettle lately? According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.
That's right! Well, almost. The amount of water in the water cycle never changes. What does change is the state of the water e.g. liquid, ice, vapour. Without water vapour, co2 alone wouldn't increase the temperature of the earth by about more than 1 degree, which is why I think we're being penalised, tax wise, for nothing. Water vapour absorbs heat and increases the heat in the atmosphere. Satellite measurements have been made 1982 and 2004 to confirm this (not a great length of time really, is it?). Now as the sun heats the earth, the heat reflected back from objects on the earth, even seawater and snow, is absorbed and trapped by the water vapour up there instead of escaping back into space. Ironically, and I'll have to check my facts again, the increase in solar power means that the black photo-voltaic cells that change the light from the sun into electricity, contributes to reflected heat into the atmosphere!
However, one good volcano eruption would blast enough particles into the atmosphere which has the opposite effect. The particles reflect away the heat from the sun and the earth cools.
That's right! Well, almost.
I love that.
Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like. It reminds me that the reality of my existance is so far removed from natures wonders to bother too much. We're all living on a lump of rock speeding through the universe at 3000 miles an hour, apparently, in an easterly direction.
This debate then is very important although if you deny theres a problem you may think theres no need for a debate
Ill be honest though. I still trust in science because I understand the mindset when I think of climate change. I'm aware of the processess and investigation that scientific papers dealing with climate change will be offered to scientific journals where they can be read by anyone and if someones not happy with the research behind that paper then they present their own paper for scrutiny and so it goes on.
I have to say from my position as an ordinary punter watching the news my complete trust goes in the opinions of the scientists who are advising world governments on the latest research into global warming.
Some of you are saying this is a complete swindle and that many people must be involved in the conspiracy. I suppose if we looked into it really carefully we may find the Pope implicated somewhere along the line through the Vaticans practice of using the stock markets and environmentally friendly insurance companies.
I wouldnt know where to begin if I tried to understand what its all about but isn't it about the use of polutants in modern life
affecting the balance of our naturally evolved climate and that the effects of continuing in the way we are going could be of great importance to future generations?
You guys are saying there is no problem?
Mrs Bucket
28-Nov-09, 21:46
I love that.
Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like. It reminds me that the reality of my existance is so far removed from natures wonders to bother too much. We're all living on a lump of rock speeding through the universe at 3000 miles an hour, apparently, in an easterly direction.
This debate then is very important although if you deny theres a problem you may think theres no need for a debate
Ill be honest though. I still trust in science because I understand the mindset when I think of climate change. I'm aware of the processess and investigation that scientific papers dealing with climate change will be offered to scientific journals where they can be read by anyone and if someones not happy with the research behind that paper then they present their own paper for scrutiny and so it goes on.
I have to say from my position as an ordinary punter watching the news my complete trust goes in the opinions of the scientists who are advising world governments on the latest research into global warming.
Some of you are saying this is a complete swindle and that many people must be involved in the conspiracy. I suppose if we looked into it really carefully we may find the Pope implicated somewhere along the line through the Vaticans practice of using the stock markets and environmentally friendly insurance companies.
I wouldnt know where to begin if I tried to understand what its all about but isn't it about the use of polutants in modern life
affecting the balance of our naturally evolved climate and that the effects of continuing in the way we are going could be of great importance to future generations?
You guys are saying there is no problem?
For goodness sake it is the natural way of things a few decades s ago they yes they were on about a new ice age
For goodness sake it is the natural way of things a few decades s ago they yes they were on about a new ice age
they? Again, the they was just a junior post grad student (or summat similiar) who got lucky with his 15 mins of fame and the media fell in love with him for getting them great headlines to sell newspapers.
I love that.
Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like.
Yeah, I tried to make it simple, but it's hard. Believe me though, that was a simplistic view.
You guys are saying there is no problem?
I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.
I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.
I'd say 0.17C per decade increase in the last 20 years is something to be alarmed about. And the levels of CO2 are going by 2-3 ppm per year now. Seas levels are going up by ~3mm per year just by thermal expansion.
The global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.6-5.7C by the end of this century alone.
If states like Bangladesh and Vanuatu had the clarity of mind like yourself then why are they bothered about climate change?
Yeah, I tried to make it simple, but it's hard. Believe me though, that was a simplistic view.
I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.
There's your chance then. Go legal. Dont promote this kind of stuff on internet forums. Its for too important for you not to challenge them at the least?
Otherwise it's no more than a conspiracy theory and believe me I would love to believe you but so far I'm struggling.
There's your chance then. Go legal. Dont promote this kind of stuff on internet forums. Its for too important for you not to challenge them at the least?
Otherwise it's no more than a conspiracy theory and believe me I would love to believe you but so far I'm struggling.
I'm promoting nothing. Expressing an opinion on a thread in a forum is all. Same as I would in the pub or with colleagues.
I'd say 0.17C per decade increase in the last 20 years is something to be alarmed about. And the levels of CO2 are going by 2-3 ppm per year now. Seas levels are going up by ~3mm per year just by thermal expansion.
The global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.6-5.7C by the end of this century alone.
If states like Bangladesh and Vanuatu had the clarity of mind like yourself then why are they bothered about climate change?
Hmmm.
The average parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere are between 250 and 350. The average found in a house with good air circulation is between 350 and 1000. So an increase of 2 or 3 ppm isn't going to affect us that much really is it?
An increase in sea level of around 3mm per year. That's around 30mm in 10 years, at the most an inch and a half, maybe 5 inches in 30 years?
Global temperatures up by 1.6 to 5.7C in 90 years from now? In 10 years from now, anything could happen to reduce global temperatures by the same or more. Are your figures based on sound scientific evidence or the hysterical rantings of previously mentioned biased scientists?
Don't know much about Vanuatu apart from being in the Pacific somewhere, but Bangladesh is and has been flooded in the rainy season every year beyond living memory hasn't it? That's why they live in houses on stilts. But, I would imagine that the politicians there have been scared senseless by scurrilous claims made by the pro global warming group hence their being bothered.
I'm promoting nothing. Expressing an opinion on a thread in a forum is all. Same as I would in the pub or with colleagues.
Well it's your opinion that attracted me. Just like a few others opinions on this matter. I was interested and had been following the debate at a distance and was aware of the wider implications if global warming was man made or not.
If it's man made then your stance whether it's in here or in the pub is criminal and Lord Haw Haw got hanged for less but if your right then the rest of the world is being hoodwinked.
Hang him I say.
It's unfair to of scientists et al to bring Bangladesh into the argument since it's a low lying country, with most parts only about 60 feet above sea level. I've no idea what an increase of 1 inch in sea level would mean to the country overall.
Not misquoting at all, you said that water (vapour) was a greenhouse gas, I merely took your point further to say that whatever is driving climate change is making the effect worse since water in the gaseous phase is in a thermo-dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase. I didn't expect you to understand that.
You didn't expect me to understand something that you did not say? :confused
Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas yet? This is really elementary stuff, but I feel that you need to get back to basics before we can make progress in deprogramming you. :)
You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation? This has been known since 19th century. In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly. What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere? It isn't really rocket science.
Carbon dioxide comprises approximately 0.52% of our atmosphere. A very small amount.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does indeed absorb and re-emit a small amount of infra red radiation.
Infra red radiation is a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
In any mathematics, small X small X small = very, very small.
Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.
Spitting in the ocean causes sea level rise in a similar way that additions to a minor component of the atmosphere causes warming.
Advancement of scientific knowledge works in the following way. An interesting phenomenon is noticed. Important factors are identified and the thought process generates potential theories concerning how the phenomenon works. Once a suitable candidate theory is identified, evidence needs to be collected to test the theory. Three possible outcomes arise:
a) the evidence agrees with expectations and the theory is accepted (even "proven" theories can be disproved at a later date when a greater understanding is achieved)
b) the evidence seems to be close to expectations, but does not quite prove the theory
c) the evidence is widely different from the expected outcomes.
In some cases, theories are completely abandoned, because no modification of the theory is found that gives a better result.
In other cases, theories are modified and retested and sometimes this results in the development of a better theory.
Even accepted theories are update and improved from time to time.
So, how is the evidence collected?
If experiments can be devised and run in a laboratory, then generally all of the relevant factors can be adequately controlled and the evidence can be collected in the most controlled fashion.
However, some phenomena occur on a scale that is just too large to fit into a laboratory.
Sadly, we can not yet construct a hard copy of the planet and its atmosphere to run the necessary experiments in the most controlled way possible and neither can we control any of the factors affecting our climate. It's a good job we can't do that, can you imagine if the Met Office contacted everyone in the UK to say that they were excluding rain from our weather system for a year long study?
This means that we have to collect evidence from the real system, over which we have no control.
This evidence can be used in different ways. For example, we can carry out comparisons of one factor against another or we can apply statistics to the input data and investigate the output. Alternatively, we can construct models and run simulations.
The problem with such simulations or models is that sometimes there is just too much data to process.
This is the kind of thing that our Met Office tries to do. They have built up some expertise in forecasting our weather, but how often do you hear the complaint that they are just not good enough or words to that effect. Now that's just the weather over a small area and it achieves a certain accuracy for later today, a bit less accuracy for tomorrow, less for the rest of the week and so on.
Now consider the climate over the whole planet and you'll start to see the scale of the problem.
More on the General Circulation Models that Hadley Centre and others use later, but for now consider that in the lab. a small amount of warming can be measured by subjecting carbon dioxide to a narrow band of radiation and yet for the most part of the planet's history, carbon dioxide moved in the opposite direction to temperature or temperature changed while carbon dioxide did not, or carbon dioxide changed while temperature did not.
You didn't expect me to understand something that you did not say? :confused
Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas yet? This is really elementary stuff, but I feel that you need to get back to basics before we can make progress in deprogramming you. :)
What do you think is driving the rise in mean global temperatures? I come to the altar of knowledge as an innocent child btw since you seem to be all knowing. :confused
Like Gleeber says to 3of8, go legal, if the IPCC is spinning us all a yarn then you could make zillions out of it. Go on, make a legal case, it is against the law to be fraudulent.
Nuff said...
What do you think is driving the rise in mean global temperatures? I come to the altar of knowledge as an innocent child btw since you seem to be all knowing. :confused
Like Gleeber says to 3of8, go legal, if the IPCC is spinning us all a yarn then you could make zillions out of it. Go on, make a legal case, it is against the law to be fraudulent.
Nuff said...
No, "nuff" hasn't been said. Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas? Yes or no? :cool:
Carbon dioxide comprises approximately 0.52% of our atmosphere. A very small amount.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does indeed absorb and re-emit a small amount of infra red radiation.
Infra red radiation is a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
In any mathematics, small X small X small = very, very small.
Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.
Spitting in the ocean causes sea level rise in a similar way that additions to a minor component of the atmosphere causes warming.
Advancement of scientific knowledge works in the following way. An interesting phenomenon is noticed. Important factors are identified and the thought process generates potential theories concerning how the phenomenon works. Once a suitable candidate theory is identified, evidence needs to be collected to test the theory. Three possible outcomes arise:
a) the evidence agrees with expectations and the theory is accepted (even "proven" theories can be disproved at a later date when a greater understanding is achieved)
b) the evidence seems to be close to expectations, but does not quite prove the theory
c) the evidence is widely different from the expected outcomes.
In some cases, theories are completely abandoned, because no modification of the theory is found that gives a better result.
In other cases, theories are modified and retested and sometimes this results in the development of a better theory.
Even accepted theories are update and improved from time to time.
So, how is the evidence collected?
If experiments can be devised and run in a laboratory, then generally all of the relevant factors can be adequately controlled and the evidence can be collected in the most controlled fashion.
However, some phenomena occur on a scale that is just too large to fit into a laboratory.
Sadly, we can not yet construct a hard copy of the planet and its atmosphere to run the necessary experiments in the most controlled way possible and neither can we control any of the factors affecting our climate. It's a good job we can't do that, can you imagine if the Met Office contacted everyone in the UK to say that they were excluding rain from our weather system for a year long study?
This means that we have to collect evidence from the real system, over which we have no control.
This evidence can be used in different ways. For example, we can carry out comparisons of one factor against another or we can apply statistics to the input data and investigate the output. Alternatively, we can construct models and run simulations.
The problem with such simulations or models is that sometimes there is just too much data to process.
This is the kind of thing that our Met Office tries to do. They have built up some expertise in forecasting our weather, but how often do you hear the complaint that they are just not good enough or words to that effect. Now that's just the weather over a small area and it achieves a certain accuracy for later today, a bit less accuracy for tomorrow, less for the rest of the week and so on.
Now consider the climate over the whole planet and you'll start to see the scale of the problem.
More on the General Circulation Models that Hadley Centre and others use later, but for now consider that in the lab. a small amount of warming can be measured by subjecting carbon dioxide to a narrow band of radiation and yet for the most part of the planet's history, carbon dioxide moved in the opposite direction to temperature or temperature changed while carbon dioxide did not, or carbon dioxide changed while temperature did not.
Again, we have it in a nutshell, go legal. Tell the IPCC. You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the scientists who will peer review your findings. I'll wait for your paper to come out. BTW, 0.52% is laughable.
No, "nuff" hasn't been said. Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas? Yes or no? :cool:
You haven't brought any evidence to me yet.
I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now? :confused [disgust]
Are you now trying to claim that a specific weather in a specific location is attributable to a theoretical process?
I wonder what you will blame the similar events of 1910 on. Perhaps you are trying to say that it was just as warm in 1910 as it is now.
Thats another good thread through but it doesnt say that global warming is not a result of man made polution nor does it address the catasrophic scenario if nothing is done about emissions into the atmosphere. Do you deny it?
Are you saying that global warming by means of human polution is not a problem on planet earth and worse could be building up to a major ecological disaster and doesnt need to be addressed by the international community?
Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.
Tickle a raging bull with a feather and you will make it stop to scatch.
Again, we have it in a nutshell, go legal. Tell the IPCC. You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the scientists who will peer review your findings. I'll wait for your paper to come out. BTW, 0.52% is laughable.
Your "contributions" are becomming quite spiteful, in my opinion, and there seems little point in prolonging this discussion, especially due to the fact that you will not even acknowledge that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. This is elementary stuff - but I expect that your teacher, Albert Gore, has not mentioned this fact, is that it? :eek:
I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish. :lol:
Please quote some hard scientific facts. There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.
Are you now trying to claim that a specific weather in a specific location is attributable to a theoretical process?
I wonder what you will blame the similar events of 1910 on. Perhaps you are trying to say that it was just as warm in 1910 as it is now.
I wasn't making a scientific statement, more socio-political one.
Do you deny it?
Are you saying that global warming by means of human polution is not a problem on planet earth and worse could be building up to a major ecological disaster and doesnt need to be addressed by the international community?
Can we deny something that does not exist? I don't know. I myself certainly deny the propaganda nonsense, "An Inconvenient Truth." And there certainly is pollution of the Earth caused by us humans. But climate fluctuations are caused primarily by something totally outside of our control - the Sun.
Don't tell the politicians this, or they will tax sunlight. :D
Please quote some hard scientific facts. There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.
As I said before, blogosphere is not the place to get hard scientific facts. If you want facts ask a climate scientist, I'm not one and neither are you I'd bet. I'm not into pissing contests, too old for that.
Please quote some hard scientific facts. There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.
Well it was this link posted by Rheghead that swung my attention towards science.
http://www.miljostatus.no/en/Topics/Air-pollution-seksjonsside/Acid-rain/
Can we deny something that does not exist? I don't know. I myself certainly deny the propaganda nonsense, "An Inconvenient Truth." And there certainly is pollution of the Earth caused by us humans. But climate fluctuations are caused primarily by something totally outside of our control - the Sun.
Don't tell the politicians this, or they will tax sunlight. :D
Tell me what hope have we got to get universal acceptance of hard facts when there are folks out there that still believe in flat Earths and Geo centric theories of the Universe, etc etc. It seems these knuckle-dragging cogniscenti still feel the need to shout their diatribe to all and sundry.
Tell me what hope have we got to get universal acceptance of hard facts when there are folks out there that still believe in flat Earths and Geo centric theories of the Universe, etc etc. It seems these knuckle-dragging cogniscenti still feel the need to shout their diatribe to all and sundry.
Tut tut. So, the answer to my question regarding H2O was ... what exactly?! :lol:
Tut tut. So, the answer to my question regarding H2O was ... what exactly?! :lol:
You tell me, it was me that asked the question.:lol:
You tell me, it was me that asked the question.:lol:
By definition, it was not you who asked my question, but since your attention span seems a trifle limited tonight, I'll ask it again:
Do you accept that H2O (water vapour) is a greenhouse gas?
Do you accept that H2O (water vapour) is a greenhouse gas?
Yes but only if you give me a credible link to a website that convinces me.
Seen An Inconvenient Truth yet? There's some nice graphs that show that process and theres a massive spike about the time we start fossil fuels.
Ahh, the famous hockey stick. Mann, M E, et al, 1998. Global scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature 392: 779 - 787.
This team used several proxies, but mainly tree ring data, to assess temperature changes from 1000 to 1980. They then stitched on the surface temperature record of the twentieth century, as measured by various thermometers at various locations around the world.
Curiously, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age seemed to have disappeared into the ether.
This paper was critiqued by McIntyre, S and McKitrick, R. Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series. Energy and Environment 14: 751 - 777.
When this team requested Mann's source data, it was very slow in being provided and seemed to be incomplete. This is unusual for scientific work and raised suspicions that it had not been peer reviewed prior to publication. It was found that the data did not produce the results claimed by Mann, due to various errors, including collation errors, unjustifiable truncation, unjustifiable extrapolation, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation and Quality Control defects. Quite serious faults in scientific work.
It was discovered that Mann's paper relied most heavily on data from tree ring data from bristlecone pine trees in North America. Graybill, D and Idso, S (1993) Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in tree ring chronologies.
There are an awful lot of different proxies that can be used to determine past temperature and the overwhelming majority give good agreement. A notable exception is the bristlecone pine tree ring data. This is due to that tree being so slow growing. Notice that the original researchers were comparing the tree ring data to CO2 and not temperature. This is why that team chose this particular tree. It is vastly more suitable for studies into CO2, than temperature, due to the growth nature.
Removing the bristlecone data provided a completely different graph. A graph without a hockey stick.
Mann and his team knew this. They had the original paper.
There is more to say about the hockey stick, because it strengthens my argument considerably, but I will come back to that later.
Yes but only if you give me a credible link to a website that convinces me.
If you don't know what you're talking about, then you shouldn't be making an argument on the topic.
Greenhouse Theory does, indeed, attribute much more warming to water vapour than to all other sources combined.
If you would like to hire me as a tutor, I charge £30 per hour.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3of8
Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.
:eek: I think you'll find that it was Through who said that, not me!
Stephen McIntyre? :lol:
Is that your reference?[lol]
I so wish my late husband was around to answer this thread. He was an environmental scientist. He often used to say that many people that 'talk' on the 'Global Warming' issue had it all wrong it was 'Climate Change' for a start and that many others simply failed to understand the subject and should not be allowed to speak on the subject in public. In his working life he was part if IPPC BAT and IPTS and JRC. If any is interested in his work mail me and I will give you his name to google. He did not blow his own trumpet, a shy man who left an amazing legacy to us all. ( These are not my words but those of work colleagues all over the world)
Well said.
It is climate change.
The climate changes.
It always has and, I, for one hope it always will. It is a natural process and if it was ever possible for us to stop it by some means, how dangerous and un-natural would that be?
Who would get to decide what climate we get? I know what I'd vote for, but I'm just as confident about what I'd end up with.
:eek: I think you'll find that it was Through who said that, not me!
beg pardon since you are taking it in turns
If you don't know what you're talking about, then you shouldn't be making an argument on the topic.
Greenhouse Theory does, indeed, attribute much more warming to water vapour than to all other sources combined.
If you would like to hire me as a tutor, I charge £30 per hour.
I was talking to stavro :roll:
Are you all the same person?
Since the curative action for acid rain is the same for climate change, why should lobby groups run 2 campaigns to cure the same problem and outspend their budget? Seemples
There may be some overlap, but these are two different issues.
There may be some overlap, but these are two different issues.
yes you just agreed with me and??
The climatologists are confident about their findings and are ready to go home, be made redundant or reassigned. It is the deniers that are keeping them at their posts to gather more information on what they already know about. The IPCC use 3 independent laboratories and they are all coming up with the same conclusions.
You tend to speak as if all climate scientists think the same and I take that's who you also mean by climatologists.
Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003. They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey. These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.
Can you convince me of that?
No we haven't because the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing with temperature in accordance with the hockey stick model.
Actually, it's not. If I could manage to include some graphical data in my posts it would be much easier. When I get a chance, I'll post the graphics on another web site and post the links.
If you look at the work by Hansen et al in 1988, you will see two predictions. The first assumes that we do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and rises rapidly into the future. The second assumes enormous cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that would turn all of the rich nations on the planet into paupers. That graph does pretty much the same thing and then stabilises out at a high temperature.
Of course, that was the forecast in 1988 and we have continued to increase emissions since then. We should have some real data now.
Yes, we do have some real data now. Plotting measured temperatures on the same chart, shows that by increasing carbon dioxide even more, the temperatures are far below even the forecast that assumes massive cuts in carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. QED.
Actually, it's not. If I could manage to include some graphical data in my posts it would be much easier. When I get a chance, I'll post the graphics on another web site and post the links.
If you look at the work by Hansen et al in 1988, you will see two predictions. The first assumes that we do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and rises rapidly into the future. The second assumes enormous cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that would turn all of the rich nations on the planet into paupers. That graph does pretty much the same thing and then stabilises out at a high temperature.
Of course, that was the forecast in 1988 and we have continued to increase emissions since then. We should have some real data now.
Yes, we do have some real data now. Plotting measured temperatures on the same chart, shows that by increasing carbon dioxide even more, the temperatures are far below even the forecast that assumes massive cuts in carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. QED.
The hockey stick model which shows that global mean temperatures rise in accordance with rises with carbon dioxide (let alone the host of other gases) is a matter of public record.
That was a good post Through. Very authoritive and comes with enough scientific reference for your opponents to challenge you.
I have little scientific knowledge concerning this issue but I trust science.
Why, if your opinions are correct, do others come up with a different scenario for global warming?
Surely it's not that difficult for science in a modern world to say that mans pollution is having an effect on the climate of the planet? Well, the truth is they do say it's a problem but then you and others on this thread say different.
Whats really going on?
Is it all down to prestige and how many Nobel prizes can be won? Are the opponets of human induced global warming so cynical in their reasoning that they would rather condemn the results of fellow scientists for deeper personal reasons not too far removed from prestige and Nobel prize envy?
There's a similar impasse in the evolution/creation debate where a small minority of scientists, because they believe in the Bibles interpretation of creation, are blinded to the argument for evolution and throw a number of small spanners into the works to muddy the weaters. They are not necessarily dishonourable and I'm sure some of them believe it, but throwing the baby out with the bath water does nothing to help anyones case.
Is that what's happening here?
Is the amount of pollution being pumped into the earths atmosphere having absolutely no effect on the ecology of the planet?
Thank you Gleeber.
Of course pollution has an effect. There is a huge list of pollutants and each of them may affect one or more aspects of our environment. Many years ago, I memorised "A Comprehensive Definition of Pollution" for an exam.
When is a pollutant a pollutant?
If you see a field and there's a cow pat, you may feel content and consider the natural surroundings. If you step into a cow pat, you might then think of it as pollution.
Environmental colleagues of mine once suggested banning chlorine. Chlorine is all around us. How did they think we could ban it? If we could devise a machine capable of collecting every single atom of chlorine on the planet and send it into space, do you think that would be a good thing to do?
Carbon dioxide is a natural substance. At an oversimplified level, we breathe it out and plants breathe it in. Would you class it as a pollutant?
Where does it come from? Fossil fuels?
How did it get into fossil fuels?
Once there was no life. Imagine that. Our Earth in its natural state. Bereft of life.
Micro organisms lived and died in the oceans and sank to the sea bed together with dead plant life. This occurred over millions of years.
Pockets were covered over and pressed into the Earth. Subjected to high pressures and temperatures, it was converted into gas and oil.
On land, trees lived and grew. This occurred over millions of years. They died and fell over. Pockets were covered over and pressed into the Earth. Subjected to high pressures and temperatures, it was converted into coal.
Before this took place, where was that carbon dioxide? It was in the sky. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at that point was immense. Yet, here we are today. What happened to global warming?
We have good evidence from this time on our very door steps. If you visit Achanarras, you will find a site that is among the best on the planet for fossil fish. These fish lived and died something like 350 million years ago. At that time, no animals lived on the land. There was no grass. There were no trees. Where was the carbon dioxide? It was in the sky. Yet, here we are to argue about it.
Remember that we are about half way through all of the oil and gas that we know of, but that there is a massive amount of coal still in the ground. Supposing we put all of the carbon dioxide back into the sky. Is that wrong or is it where it belongs?
Now consider what would happen if we ever ran out of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and remember that we've been down to about 180 parts per million. If there was no carbon dioxide in the sky, no plants could grow. There would be nothing for herbivores to eat and they would die. There would then be nothing for carnivores to eat and they would die.
What would happen if there was more carbon dioxide in the sky? Well, we know from the original paper by Graybill and Idso (see my previous post about the hockey stick) that bristlecone pine trees in particular and plant life in general, grows more quickly. More food for all. Wait a minute, more food for all. Isn't that a hot topic just now?
The hockey stick model which shows that global mean temperatures rise in accordance with rises with carbon dioxide (let alone the host of other gases) is a matter of public record.
Go and have a look at the work by McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as Wahl, E R and Ammann, C M, 2007 as well as Wegman, E et al, 2006 and show me where they are wrong.
Have you not noticed that the hockey stick used to be trumpeted as THE evidence of human caused global warming and now it barely gets mentioned, except by you?
If the hockey stick data is correct, where is the Medieval Warm Period? There are thousands of scientific papers from areas all around the globe, all showing that the MWP occurred about 1300. Compare that against the hockey stick data and explain the difference. Then remove the bristlecone pine data and see what happens.
Then consider that we have many sources of proxy data detailing the Roman Warm Period about 2,000 years ago, the Dark Ages Cold Period, MWP and the Little Ice Age. Then consider that the RWP and WMP were both warmer than today and the AGW theory withers and dies.
Wagner B and Melles M, 2001. A holocene seabird record from Raffles So sediment, East Greenland, in response to climatic and oceanic changes. Boreas 30: 228 - 239. Showed that 700 years ago, there was a large population of birds happily living there during the MWP and yet, they are not there today. It is too cold today.
There are many papers like this and I am happy to reference them for you.
Also, cherry-picking bits out of scientific papers to shore up a particular viewpoint is one of the most widely used tactics of climate change deniers in the blogosphere.
Actually, research scientists use scientific literature as a matter of course. If your argument was correct about scientific papers, then it would apply to any reference text, including all school books and your beloved hockey stick.
How does this disprove anything? :confused
Well, let us see.
The IPCC say that it is warm just now and that carbon dioxide levels are high. So that means carbon dioxide causes global warming.
Well normally you need more than one piece of evidence to persuade the scientific community of something.
Is there any more data?
Yes. Nearly all of it shows that when carbon dioxide goes up, temperature goes down or when one of them stays the same, the other changes.
If this confuses you, then you shouldn't be trying to convince others, you should be trying to learn.
What will be the effect on global temperatures by doubling the amount of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels?
Plus I don't believe that water is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't have the effect of raising temperatures either.
Doubling carbon dioxide from almost none would not do much, as has been seen in the past.
You don't believe? Then go and learn some science.
That's the one, does it give any indications what were the causes of the ebb and flow of the temperatures ??. or is the data going to blow the "myths" of current global warming.:(
Sorry Tonkatojo. The causes need a lot more work. This work is being stifled, because all the global warmists are taking up disproportionate chunks of funding and if you say you want to research anything that is against global warming, then you don't get any funding.
Scientific debates are of a different nature to socio-political debates, seeing that climate change is a scientific phenomenon and blogospheres can only deal with socio-political debates then I do share that sentiment.
Ultimately, we need to consult with the scientists who are researching this field directly if we are to get the proper picture on climate change. And we all know what they are saying in accordance with the IPCC.
The scientists whose research I am referencing are researching this field directly and what they are saying is not in accordance with IPCC.
Why don't you go to the climate change seminar run annually by my colleagues next year? You will learn an awful lot.
Socio-political debates? Your "argument" on this thread seems more suited to that type of forum. Your "argument" on this thread is limited and dogmatic.
Why is the scientific debate being stifled?
Not misquoting at all, you said that water (vapour) was a greenhouse gas, I merely took your point further to say that whatever is driving climate change is making the effect worse since water in the gaseous phase is in a thermo-dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase. I didn't expect you to understand that.
Careful. You're wandering into the realms of Fluid Mechanics now and that is where the Global Circulation Models fall down.
This is a complicated subject and one I hope to get onto soon.
For goodness sake it is the natural way of things a few decades s ago they yes they were on about a new ice age
Yes. If you look at the ice core data, I defy anyone to say that we will not get another ice age.
they? Again, the they was just a junior post grad student (or summat similiar) who got lucky with his 15 mins of fame and the media fell in love with him for getting them great headlines to sell newspapers.
Actually, the "they" referred to here is the same "they" that you call climate scientists and put on pedestals.
Recently, one of them was about to go on TV to answer the question of why had he changed his argument from a coming ice age to a coming high temperature disaster, when he was told by his university that he was not allowed to.
I'd say 0.17C per decade increase in the last 20 years is something to be alarmed about. And the levels of CO2 are going by 2-3 ppm per year now. Seas levels are going up by ~3mm per year just by thermal expansion.
The global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.6-5.7C by the end of this century alone.
If states like Bangladesh and Vanuatu had the clarity of mind like yourself then why are they bothered about climate change?
The Vostok ice core and other data clearly shows that 0.17 C per decade increase is normal and that it is dwarfed by what happens when we come out of ice ages and peak at the beginning of interglacials.
Yes, that's right. The interglacial periods quickly peak and then cool off. Our particular interglacial peaked in the past and we are now cooler than that peak. Not only that, but our interglacial is cooler than all four previous IGs.
You really need to go and look at some data.
As for sea level rise, you are far wrong again.
After the last glacial maximum, that is the maximum quantity of ice during the last ice age, the ice started to melt and sea level started to rise. This was about 18,000 years ago. Sea level quickly reached a maximum rate of rise and then gradually started to slow down. Today, we have the slowest rate of sea level rise for almost 18,000 years.
As I showed you earlier, about 700 years ago there was less ice at Greenland than there is today.
Not only that, but sea level is a very complicated subject. In some places it is seen to be rising, in others it is falling and in some it is staying the same.
About 85% of all the ice on the planet is at Antarctica. Even the IPCC in their latest report, admit that Antarctica has not warmed over the period of northern hemisphere warming. Although Mann, yes, the same one of hockey stick infamy, has produced "information" that the Western peninsula has started to show signs of warming. How did he do it? Well, he didn't have enough data, so he took what was available and spliced another data set onto it. Yes, the same mistakes again.
Nasa is currently measuring the rate of increase in ice at Anatarctica at between 25 GTe and 30 GTe per year. That is twenty five thousand million metric tonnes of ice to 30 thousand million tonnes of ice increase per year.
Don't know much about Vanuatu apart from being in the Pacific somewhere, but Bangladesh is and has been flooded in the rainy season every year beyond living memory hasn't it? That's why they live in houses on stilts. But, I would imagine that the politicians there have been scared senseless by scurrilous claims made by the pro global warming group hence their being bothered.
Why are the authorities in Vanatu making a point now? Well, they can say that their home is being destroyed by the richest nation on Earth and they can claim money. They have demanded that America pay them billions in compensation.
Bangladesh? You are correct 3of8. However, it suits David Shukman to be filmed by the BBC while he stands in front of the locals building mud walls just like they have been doing as far back as anyone can remember, so that it looks like it is something they have just started to do. Then he talks about a metre of sea level rise. The last figure I saw was that average sea level rise was about 1.8 mm, not 3 as Rheghead suggested. That's a long time to reach a metre even if it stops slowing down.
BTW, 0.52% is laughable.
Perhaps you can tell me what you think the carbon dioxide content of our atmosphere is in percentage terms?
How much is nitrogen?
How much is oxygen?
How much is argon?
How much is water vapour?
How much is carbon dioxide?
How much are the other gases?
::Sits back to enjoy the show::
What do you think is driving the rise in mean global temperatures? I come to the altar of knowledge as an innocent child btw since you seem to be all knowing. :confused
Like Gleeber says to 3of8, go legal, if the IPCC is spinning us all a yarn then you could make zillions out of it. Go on, make a legal case, it is against the law to be fraudulent.
Nuff said...
If we had no sun, then the planet would achieve the background temperature of space. About -289 degrees C.
What is causing "average" temperature to rise, well, the sun would be a good place to start.
However, it is much more complicated than that.
The temperature record that you are referring to is derived from data from weather stations around the globe. It was recently established that about 85% of these stations do not meet the standard set for such stations.
Satellite data shows a very much lower temperature than thermometers in weather stations. Weather balloons have been used to check which are correct, weather stations or satellites. The weather balloons agreed with the satellites.
Methods of measuring sea surface temperature have changed twice during the last century.
If you were to measure the temperature in your living room, how would you go about it?
With you in it or not? If you are in it, how does your temperature get measured and averaged with the rest. How about that drink on the table? It is part of the room, but how do you average the temperature, taking the temperature of the drink into account.
How about the temperature at different heights? How about at the window or near the door frame?
Temperature is a very difficult subject. Why do you pick the average global temperature to discuss? What does such an average mean? Should we not use minimum temperatures? How about maximum temperatures?
If other things affect the temperature reading, how should they be accounted for?
Thats another good thread through but it doesnt say that global warming is not a result of man made polution nor does it address the catasrophic scenario if nothing is done about emissions into the atmosphere. Do you deny it?
Are you saying that global warming by means of human polution is not a problem on planet earth and worse could be building up to a major ecological disaster and doesnt need to be addressed by the international community?
No, but that's not what that point was intended to achieve. Rheghead implied that Cumbria's recent weather was caused by global warming and I showed that he was in no position to make such a claim.
Yes, I am saying that the scientific evidence does not support the case that human activities, including pollution is causing global warming.
Human pollution is certainly an environmental problem and we have no shortage of real, large and serious problems to address. We are currently expending enormous resources, money, time and effort on a problem that is not real and that means we are not using those same resources to tackle real problems. Even if we make enormous cuts in emissions and consign liquid carbon dioxide to holes in the ground (how environmentally friendly is that, do you think?) the climate will carry on doing what it does. Do you not think that this is a serious problem?
As a point of encouragement, the data suggest that the planet will cool back down. Oh, no wait. We don't want to go into another ice age. Warm is one thing, but cold is catastrophic.
Around the period 1670 to 1705, we hit a cold snap. This affected more than just Scotland, but if you care to look at the history of our own country, you will see that crops failed, the death rate soared, the number of marriages fell drastically, the birth rate collapsed and there was widespread poverty.
That was just a cold snap. Imagine an ice age.
What we need to do here, as well as tackle real and immediate issues, is to learn to adapt to the natural climate change that has always been happening throughout the life of the planet and will continue to quite naturally, unless we make a mess of it by taking drastic measures to "control" the climate. Have you seen some of the mad schemes that there are around these days? What is your opinion of robotic ships that sail around ejecting chemicals into the atmosphere to cool us down? Don't believe me? Go and take a look. You'll be amazed and possibly frightened like me.
As I said before, blogosphere is not the place to get hard scientific facts. If you want facts ask a climate scientist, I'm not one and neither are you I'd bet. I'm not into pissing contests, too old for that.
I notice that you haven't been able to make any logical argument against any of the information I have presented here and now you are one step away from name calling.
You seem to have taken a small amount of information from one set of scientists, while excluding the others. You don't understand what you have, you seem to be saying that you won't go and learn more.
If you can't sustain the argument, then don't try to convince others that you are right.
Anyone who reads this can make of it waht they will. I have well referenced my argument and it is open to everyone to go and check.
I welcome a good, logical argument based on scientific evidence. I also have an open mind and if someone can make a better case for AGW, then I will be happy to accept it. Until then, I will continue to make this information available for those who are prepared to think about the issue and reach their own judgement rather than just be told what one side thinks.
It is quite scary to think that scientists are not permitted to present a logical argument, supported by suitable evidence. I thought that attitude had died out after Galileo was imprisoned.
Well it was this link posted by Rheghead that swung my attention towards science.
http://www.miljostatus.no/en/Topics/Air-pollution-seksjonsside/Acid-rain/
This thread is about global warming. The link posted by Rheghead is about acid rain.
The hockey stick model which shows that global mean temperatures rise in accordance with rises with carbon dioxide (let alone the host of other gases) is a matter of public record.
The hockey stick model has been shown to be false.
If you take a set of red data and subject it to the same statistical processes that Mann and his team applied, you get a hockey stick.
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but since 1998, no year has been as warm as 1998. 700 years ago, it was warming than now. 2,000 years ago, it was warmer than now.
These are hard facts.
Where is this warming?
The hockey stick is not false it is real, if you plotted temperature against time what do you think you'd get?
http://www.realclimate.org/RutherfordetalResults_html_6fd80b33.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
It should be noted that some falsely reported putative “errors” in the Mann et al.
(1998) proxy data claimed by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003) are an artifact of (a) the
use by these latter authors of an incorrect version of the Mann et al. (1998) proxy
indicator dataset, and (b) their misunderstanding of the methodology used by Mann et al.
Perhaps you can tell me what you think the carbon dioxide content of our atmosphere is in percentage terms?
How much is nitrogen?
How much is oxygen?
How much is argon?
How much is water vapour?
How much is carbon dioxide?
How much are the other gases?
::Sits back to enjoy the show::
well since the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is ~380 ppm by volume, it is just a matter of simple maths to work that one out. You are well out by over a factor of 10 with your 0.52%. Frankly I'm not surprised that you think carbon dioxide doesn't contribute anything to global warming if you thought the CO2 levels are now 0.52% and we are only seeing 0.2C rising temperature each decade. Just goes to show that Stephen Mcintyre isn't the only one who is using false data...
I thought you claimed to know a bit about science? [lol] [lol]
well since the carbon dioxide content is ~380 ppm by volume, it is just a matter of simple maths to work that one out. You are well out by over a factor of 10 with your 0.52%. Just goes to show that Stephen Mcintyre isn't the only one who is using false data...
I thought you claimed to know a bit about science? [lol] [lol]
Ive read this post very carefully and was interested in throughs input which seems to come from a position of authority. A well argued case I would have said until rheghead comes waltzing in and debunks throughs new found respectability.
I'm glad your keeping your eyes on the figures Rheghead otherwise an apparently authoritive statement by someone with a deeper subjective reason for debunking human induced global warming may take this thread over and have the whole of the org believing that this modern fad for environmentally friendly awareness is unnecessary and is led by a section of science with a vested interest in perpetuating the swindle. That's basically what through is saying or at least thats how I interpretate his input.
On the one hand through has admitted there is a problem from man made pollution whilst on the other he seems to be arguing theres none.
Usually in a conspiracy theory one knows who the conspirators are but there seems to be no way of deciding here whether Rhegheads the conspirator or whether it's through. Because of my trust in science and awareness of how clever deniers can be my monies on rheghead for not manipulating figures. I still have an open mind though and issue the same challlenge to through as i did tothe other climate change by human pollution deniers on the org.
Send your paper into the proper authorities, argue your case and then allow others to scrutinise your position. That's real science. Not using an internet forum to blow wind about how many scientists and profesors you know who share your findings. Will they support your findings when you finally present them to the proper authorities or will they at that stage conspire to block your true opinions exposing the great swindle you are suggesting this issue is all about?
One side in this issue is wrong. My monies still on science and unless through can impress that scientific establishment then I feel my monies safe.
Tubthumper
29-Nov-09, 13:40
I thought we (as in we the long-suffering taxpayers of the world) paid scientists to come up with answers. Having followed this thread, it seems to me that pretty much all of them are either rogues or incompetents. They can't agree on evidence, historical facts, test results or data models. Therefore why should we continue to pay them rakes of cash?
As for the argument on here - why bother?
roadbowler
29-Nov-09, 14:39
why bother? Should we be discussing x factor and what's on sky tv instead? Why does or how could anyone think it is not a valid topic to be discussing on a community forum? Aye, the science is complicated however, the climate change scam has very little to do with science and every thing to do with political agendas. Good science has been hijacked which is becoming more and more obvious all the time. In order for good science to prevail we need longer memories, common sense, critical thinking, no political input or brainwashing and certainly the explusion of ego out of all equations and rationale. People need to be very worried about copenhagen and as through said all the stupid and insane ideas of co2 storage amongst other equally wacky ones sprouting up from the capitalist scroungers trying to make money off bad science.
Tubthumper
29-Nov-09, 18:00
why bother? Should we be discussing x factor and what's on sky tv instead? Why does or how could anyone think it is not a valid topic to be discussing on a community forum? Aye, the science is complicated however, the climate change scam has very little to do with science and every thing to do with political agendas. Good science has been hijacked which is becoming more and more obvious all the time. In order for good science to prevail we need longer memories, common sense, critical thinking, no political input or brainwashing and certainly the explusion of ego out of all equations and rationale. People need to be very worried about copenhagen and as through said all the stupid and insane ideas of co2 storage amongst other equally wacky ones sprouting up from the capitalist scroungers trying to make money off bad science.
All right, tell me this. Are we going to need canoes to get to work in the next 30 years?
Good science has indeed been hijacked, therefore (a) we should stop subsidising stupid scientists and those establishments who continue to train them and (b) we should relax; after all, if it's going to happen anyway, why get worried?
The hockey stick is not false it is real, if you plotted temperature against time what do you think you'd get?
Those graphs do not plot temperature against anything. Can you see what they do plot? Can you explain why 1998 looks as if it is no longer the warmest year in recent times? This is one of those hard facts that you love; 1998 is the warmest year in the recent temperature record. Even the metoffice site shows that.
Compare your graphs with the met versions and explain the difference in overall appearance.
What you have posted seems to have been designed for visual impact.
As for your quote concerning Mann's paper, would you mind giving the source? If there was no problem with Mann's paper, then why did they publish a corrigendum?
Mann et al, 2004. Corrigendum: global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the last six centuries. Nature 430: 105.
Did you notice that the data sets used by McIntyre and McKitrick were provided by Mann?
Did he ever address the critiques by other research teams?
Wahl, E R and Ammann, C M, 2007. Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of northern hemisphere surface temperatures: examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence. Climate Change 85: 33 - 69 as well as that by Wegman, E et al, 2006.
If you refer to my previous post, you will see that there is a huge amount of proxy data available. Why did the Mann research team choose to use the only proxy data that gave his desired result? Why did they use data from a paper that was designed to determine the fertilisation effect of carbon dioxide on growth?
On the one hand through has admitted there is a problem from man made pollution whilst on the other he seems to be arguing theres none.
You are confusing two separate issues Gleeber.
I am arguing that human activities do not cause global warming.
This does not mean that pollution is not a problem. It means that pollution causes other problems.
All right, tell me this. Are we going to need canoes to get to work in the next 30 years?
Good science has indeed been hijacked, therefore (a) we should stop subsidising stupid scientists and those establishments who continue to train them and (b) we should relax; after all, if it's going to happen anyway, why get worried?
No, we are not going to need canoes to get to work in the next 30 years.
(a) I agree. Do you know how many billions the global warming industry is now worth?
(b) We should not relax. We should be concentrating on the real probems. For example, climate change happens. There's nothing we can do about that. What we can do is develop ways to cope with climate change.
You are confusing two separate issues Gleeber.
I am arguing that human activities do not cause global warming.
This does not mean that pollution is not a problem. It means that pollution causes other problems.
There's the problem then. I'm not confused. You are creating a conspiracy theory because the mainstream voice of science seems to be saying that human activities are contributing to the present natural evolving ecology of the planet and you are saying it's not. Simple.
Hard facts for Rheghead. For references, please see my previous posts.
There is no scientific concensus on climate change.
The carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere has been 4 times higher in the past than it is today.
On many occasions, the temperature has been higher in the past than it is today. This includes 700 years ago, 2,000 years ago and each of the last periods between ice ages.
Maximum rates of temeprature rise are those at the beginning of interglacial periods.
On many occasions in the past, carbon dioxide rose while temperature fell.
The rate of sea level rise has been decreasing for thousands of years.
Currently, there is the slowest rate of sea level rise for the best part of 18,000 years.
Hard facts for Rheghead. .
What like the 0.52% rubbish? Nuff said.
tonkatojo
29-Nov-09, 20:17
This is getting like the "do you believe in god" thread, we won't find out until the time comes, then some will be laughing and some will have red faces. ;)
Here's one closer to home:
Reference
Dawson, S., Smith, D.E., Jordan, J. and Dawson, A.G. 2004. Late Holocene coastal sand movements in the Outer Hebrides, N.W. Scotland. Marine Geology 210: 281-306.
I always considered doubt, to be a central tennat of any scientific and rational understanding.
Any particular scientific theory is only valid temporarily - until new evidence comes to light (and it always does).
In fact doubt plays a central role in the need to continually investigate new and better theories for experiences and phenomena that cant be explained to our satisfaction.
It never ceases to amaze me that the green machine seems to hold the concept of doubt in utter contempt.
Describing those who are doubtful about an unsatisfactory explanation of current events as "flat earthers" is quite hypocritical, when it is the green machine itself that is maintaining a "belief" in what they regard as absolute and incontravertable truth.
If they wish to adopt the scientific high ground (and more credibility) they need to grasp the concept of doubt - an start researching the problems within their own theories much more vigorously - and in time come up with a better explanation than the one they currently promoting.
roadbowler
29-Nov-09, 23:02
tubthumper... Nope you can skip the canoe. Yes, the money pulled in to this scam.. Including 22 millon given to phil jones to use nature tricks to hide the decline is atrocious. However, copenhagen happens in less than a month meaning not only will be subsidising the 'research' of this scam we will be subsidising all the developing nations for our co2 'crimes' out of the taxpayers pocket. No time to relax. Yes gleeber a conspiracy. Imagine that?
tubthumper... Nope you can skip the canoe. Yes, the money pulled in to this scam.. Including 22 millon given to phil jones to use nature tricks to hide the decline is atrocious. However, copenhagen happens in less than a month meaning not only will be subsidising the 'research' of this scam we will be subsidising all the developing nations for our co2 'crimes' out of the taxpayers pocket. No time to relax. Yes gleeber a conspiracy. Imagine that?
There was no trick to deceive, no scam, no nowt except an illegal hack and gross misrepresentation of data. The timing of this is not coincidental.
I always considered doubt, to be a central tennat of any scientific and rational understanding.
How about blind doubt?
CRU also publish sea level data on one of their web pages. They have been measuring sea level at many of the islands in the pacific for a reasonable number of years. The graphs go up and down a bit, but show no trend overall. The only dramatic event in the charts, is a fall in sea level, that subsequently returns to a value around the norm.
CRU correlate their own data with previous studies that go back far longer and conclude that there is good agreement.
They then go on to say that their graphs prove an upward trend.
I give you two challenges.
1) find the web page and let's see how accessible it is to the public.
2) spot a trend in the charts, either up or down.
My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.
If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.
However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight. I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.
I'm curious Rheghead; what is your definition of a climate scientist?
roadbowler
29-Nov-09, 23:45
hack illegal or otherwise. They ADMIT to it being all genuine. I' m sure if the hack, which in my opinion was a community service had been into a computer of a dissenting scientist you would be the same as me. It confirms a lot of what i already knew. However, this isn't a time for spitting dummies out, i realise all this has been slightly embarassing for the agw drum bangers but, heads aside we need to look at copenhagen and say, THIS IS INSANE. No matter what camp yer in. I would enjoy to hear about your view of the coincidental timing because in my view it will make NO difference to agendas at copenhagen nor had i ever thought it would.
My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.
If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.
However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight. I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.
So you admit to presenting incorrect information, why should I have confidence in your ability to interpret complex data when you can't even do a simple calculation?
I'm through with your bs.
hack illegal or otherwise. They ADMIT to it being all genuine. I' m sure if the hack, which in my opinion was a community service had been into a computer of a dissenting scientist you would be the same as me. It confirms a lot of what i already knew. However, this isn't a time for spitting dummies out, i realise all this has been slightly embarassing for the agw drum bangers but, heads aside we need to look at copenhagen and say, THIS IS INSANE. No matter what camp yer in. I would enjoy to hear about your view of the coincidental timing because in my view it will make NO difference to agendas at copenhagen nor had i ever thought it would.
Do admit it's genuine?? My sources say that they admit to a hack has taken place, no statement so far that the leaked emails etc haven't been tampered with. If it was on the other foot then there would be no need to debunk by deception and misrepresentation. Why lie about a lie?
roadbowler
30-Nov-09, 00:03
i'm through with this bs. Was that a pun or a dummie hitting the floor? Lol perhaps u need to do soe reading up. They've already explained away what 'keith's nature trick' was but no mention of what decline they were hiding as of yet. They fully admit this email is GENUINE.
So you admit to presenting incorrect information, why should I have confidence in your ability to interpret complex data when you can't even do a simple calculation?
I'm through with your bs.
You are completely hollow, Rheghead. I have been sitting back, looking at your strategy here which, although it seems to have fooled gleeber, does not fool me.
Through presented to you (and everyone else) several very detailed, informative and clearly well-researched postings. In his haste, no doubt, he made a mistake over CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere. These levels are well-known and can easily be found after 20 seconds of searching via Google/Wikipedia. So, what do you do? You spend your 20 seconds searching the CO2 concentration level and then dismiss and ridicule the entire contents of Through's postings. This is an insult to the time and effort that obviously went in to these posts, posts that were meant, no doubt, to be for your benefit as well as everyone else's who are interested in this important topic. It is also indicative of someone (i.e., you) who is so utterly devoid of valid scientific material, knowledge and awareness that all you can do is make these derogatory "responses," and I put "responses" in quotes because in using the word, I am really being kind to you.
The "incorrect information" that you stick to like chewing gum under the school desk, was a simple mistake that Through openly admitted to. But wait a minute here, did you not notice that the real concentration is 13.68 times LESS concentration of CO2 than the figure Through was using? His erroneous figure would have aided YOUR position, if it were correct, not ours. Unlike the Albert Gores of this world, therefore, who made at least NINE errors in his (in)famous presentation, Through's single (subsequently corrected) error had no benefit to the one making it.
If this confuses [Rheghead], then [Rheghead] shouldn't be trying to convince others, [Rheghead] should be trying to learn.
Yes, I agree. :)
ywindythesecond
30-Nov-09, 02:17
Time to come out the closet. Stavro and Through are learning as I did that Reggy has no substance. He will never respond to a well-made argument, he will always divert it instead. I can’t recall which of you asked him about water vapour as a greenhouse gas. Ask him again, and if he can’t, or more probably won’t answer, provide some references. Don’t ask too often, he might complain about harassment.
Disappointed Gleeber that you place faith in science and seem to believe it is represented by Reggy.
On my own part, I enjoyed snow in winter and sun in summer as a child. When my children were growing up, their grandmother went sledging with them. In the eighties, snow disappeared as a regular feature.
There is not a huge difference between summer and winter in Caithness. I have been here ten years and the winds are not as I remember them, but perhaps I have just got used to it.
Climate is changing, no doubt about it. Is it man-made? Almost certainly some of it is, but how much?
I don’t know. But it is not hard to work out that this small country cannot not make any difference to the global effect of man’s possible influence on climate.
Perhaps we are responsible for global warming and perhaps we are therefore responsible for climate change. I prefer to rely on the long term record, and believe that cyclical factors govern our planet more than humans do.
I am a realist.
It is real that flooding in the UK is a major problem. Our national energies would be better used in preparing for what is a present reality which we need to face than trying to neutralise CO2 emissions from China, which we cannot do, even if that proved actually to be a problem.
Disappointed Gleeber that you place faith in science and seem to believe it is represented by Reggy.
The science I have faith in is represented by science. Remember science? It's a study and understanding of the world around us.
Ive only followed this issue since this thread started but I'm just as aware of Rhegheads tactics as I'm aware of the prejudices of those of you who disagree with him and deny climate change could be man made. For goodness sake one of the deniers on this thread also denies the evidence for evolution by natural selection. How am I supposed to have faith in a bunch of deniers whose only challenge to their alternative idea is from a long distance cycilist and a builder.
Put your findings to the powers that be. Those same scientists who you claim are working a flanker would keep you right, or perhaps even confirm your findings.
Are there any non denying climate change scientists out there prepared to give the denyiers the credibility they crave by engaging them and allowing those of us who really don't know to have a more balanced view on the subject?
Conspiracy theories are criminal. They plant seeds in peoples minds and the origins of those seeds are usually some deep seated prejudice in the personality of the conspiracy theorist. Alternatively I am prepared to admit that my faith in science may be misled on this subject but that's why these people need challenged. If they are right then we are all being deliberately swindled by the scientific community. If not then this bunch of org deniers are a danger to the understanding and survival of the planet.
Bobinovich
30-Nov-09, 11:38
Unfortunately Gleeber you will always get those on both sides of the fence as well as those well & truly stuck on it. I am not a denier but am sceptic that anything but a fraction of climate change is man-made and therefore anything we do will be a drop in the ocean. It's unlikely that my belief is going to be changed by a debate on here.
However I don't deny that we should be looking after our planet better so do my bit by recycling (fairly keeps the bin empty too!) and would like to have some form of electricity generation at home (if only to keep my electric bills down :().
It has been interesting seeing both sides being debated, but as I am already a sceptic I know which side I'd be more likely to believe.
I dont understand how all this global warming is making people richer? or how we are being taxed for it?
changilass
30-Nov-09, 13:03
I'm off to sit on Bob's fence, I like the view from there.
Paul Reiter is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control.
Reiter was a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he found himself at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of speciality".
After ceasing to contribute he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report.
Reiter is sceptical about the IPCC process, as seen in his April 25, 2006 testimony to the United States Senate:
"A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious 'science' is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of 'experts.' I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a 'consensus of the world's top scientists' on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science. Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse"
I too echo Bobinovich's sentiments.
Just because I question the propaganda why does that make me a "Denier"?
I don't doubt climate change for a second. I question just how and what our contribution is to it.
I totally agree our emissions need to be addressed and reduced, also our use of the planets resources i.e. forests (read deforestation) pollutants into watercourses and seas, and into the ground.
We're a dirty bunch of s and we need to change.
We also need to look at how and what energy we use, we need to reduce our consumption. Be a "denier or believer" but fossil fuels are a finite resource so we need to look elsewhere.
BUT, I do not believe in carving up wide expanses of unspoilt countryside in the name of "Saving the Planet", that is folly heavily subsidised for the right people.
The propaganda that is being pitched to the many through the tabloid and similar media, is along the lines of "we need to tax everyone on CO2 and plant windmills and all these floods will stop".
The BS is the fact that we can somehow stop or reverse these changes by being "Green" and then everything will be ticketyboo.
I don't believe that by paying more tax for flights etc. is going to stop it raining!
Why are the major governments sending very mixed messages? Stop emitting CO2 they say. We're investing millions in the car industry to get the economy going. Hmmmm reduce CO2 but buy more cars........
Why don't they invest heavily on the cleanest and greenest public transport systems, that'd create jobs and get the economy moving.
Why build coal fired power stations and then tax me for the CO2 my new car emits????
Nothing to do with money then!
I certainly don't rank myself as a screaming conspiracy theorist but in a level headed way I'm quite sure that governments & business' go hand in hand in pushing an agenda to line the pockets of certain sectors.
It's been happening for as long as politics and business' have been around, look at how many MP's etc. are also company directors or go on to be directors after they leave office or they also act as "advisors" to business'.
I also know from personal experience, that under a gov't & EU funded scheme (multi millions of £'s) I and others were told to alter specifications to make "facts" and figures fit.
Sceptical yes, denier No.
The science I have faith in is represented by science. Remember science? It's a study and understanding of the world around us.
Ive only followed this issue since this thread started but I'm just as aware of Rhegheads tactics as I'm aware of the prejudices of those of you who disagree with him and deny climate change could be man made. For goodness sake one of the deniers on this thread also denies the evidence for evolution by natural selection.
I am the one you refer to who rejects organic evolution as offering a plausible explanation of how life came into being. But if you look at Through's post number 155 on this thread, you will see that Through believes in it. We are here debating the scientific and political evidence and interests behind the climate change lobby - so it does not matter which of us accepts organic evolution and which does not, since the point of this particular debate is to assess the scientific evidence for and against the current hype over man-made climate change. There are many more "deniers" as you refer to us on this thread, and I don't know what their positions are on evolution, nor do I care for the purpose of this debate.
Certainly I remember science, as you put it, because I have used science in this thread and I used it in the evolution/creation discussion on the "Do you believe in a God?" thread.
If there is a science point that you want to bring out regarding CO2-based global warming, then let's discuss it.
Metalattakk
30-Nov-09, 16:19
More CRU-gate analysis here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/).
Some sentient points made, and a rather relaxed article considering some of the author's previous output. ;)
My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.
If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.
However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight. I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.
You've still got a lot to explain.
Why have you used unconventional units? I've seen gas concentrations irt climate change expressed as % by volume, mg/m³ or ppm by volume but never % by mass.
Secondly, and most damning against you, is that even if I convert your figure using conventional methods and using your unconventional units then you are completely off the correct concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by over 25%.
A typo is forgiveable but grooming the figures is not. Incidentally, that error actually equates to hiding a global temperature warming by CO2 of ~1.3C, twice that of the observed rise over the last century.
You are completely hollow, Rheghead. I have been sitting back, looking at your strategy here which, although it seems to have fooled gleeber, does not fool me.
Through presented to you (and everyone else) several very detailed, informative and clearly well-researched postings. In his haste, no doubt, he made a mistake over CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere. These levels are well-known and can easily be found after 20 seconds of searching via Google/Wikipedia. So, what do you do? You spend your 20 seconds searching the CO2 concentration level and then dismiss and ridicule the entire contents of Through's postings. This is an insult to the time and effort that obviously went in to these posts, posts that were meant, no doubt, to be for your benefit as well as everyone else's who are interested in this important topic. It is also indicative of someone (i.e., you) who is so utterly devoid of valid scientific material, knowledge and awareness that all you can do is make these derogatory "responses," and I put "responses" in quotes because in using the word, I am really being kind to you........The "incorrect information" that you stick to like chewing gum under the school desk, was a simple mistake that Through openly admitted to.
Data is either wrong or right within calculated parameters. If you had just waited then you would have seen it wasn't just a typo, it was completely wrong. If through wants to spend all ungodly hours reaming of flimflam then that is up to him. Next time, get your facts right before throwing mud. Which brings me on to your next worthless tirade at me.
But wait a minute here, did you not notice that the real concentration is 13.68 times LESS concentration of CO2 than the figure Through was using? His erroneous figure would have aided YOUR position, if it were correct, not ours. Unlike the Albert Gores of this world, therefore, who made at least NINE errors in his (in)famous presentation, Through's single (subsequently corrected) error had no benefit to the one making it.
Absolute baloney.
You either don't have a clue about climate change methodology or you are just causing mischief or both. Through's doubly erroneous figure for the concentration of CO2 would not have helped my position for if I had used it or indeed if the IPCC scientists had used it then it would have grossly hidden ~95% of the projected warming this coming century.
Do you need a lesson? I'm sure through will help.
Through, care to explain why to stavro?
<sits back to enjoy the show>
Bobinvochs post is pretty reasonable and if I hadnt got such faith in science I could almost agree with him. I'm not a sceptic though. I take the global warming debate at face value with science being my yardstick. I believe that man made pollution, if not addressed soon will be responsable for catasrophic events on our planet. I believe it because scientists are saying so.
I would be interested though why Bob is a sceptic? What was it made you start to think this global warming thing was not quite what it is being made out to be? Was it scientific stuff like your seeing being quoted/misquoted here or was it something more personal, just a feeling kind of thing or did you read a book or what?
Bobinovich
30-Nov-09, 18:54
To be honest Gleeber there are so many on both sides who will quote you science, facts and figures, etc. and who can 'twist' the results either way to suit their own agenda. I do not have the necessary skills to do my own research and finding a totally impartial site on the Interweb (in fact probably anywhere) is impossible.
My gut instinct is what makes me a sceptic. I feel that nature has its own way around things, a natural cycle, its own ways to acheive equilibrium, etc. and that man has about as much control or input over that as we do the weather. That's pretty much it.
Greenhouse Theory shows that AGW is characterized by acting first and most strongly at the poles.
For this reason, the research team referenced below decided to investigate Northern Russia. If Greenhouse Theory is correct, temperature changes in high latitudes are sensitive indicators of global temperature changes and they can serve as a basis for verifying climate model calculations.
Naurzbaev M M, Vaganov E A, Siderova O V and Schweingruber F H, 2002. Summer temperatures in Eastern Taimyr inferred from a 2,427 year late Holocene tree ring chronology and earlier floating series. The Holocene 12: 727 – 736.
The region studied lies between 70° 30’ and 72° 28’ North latitude.
They selected living and preserved larch trees, because, “it has been established that the main driver of tree ring variability at the polar timber line is temperature (Vaganov et al 1996, Briffa et al 1998, Schweingruber and Briffa 1996).”
The study found, “the warmest periods over the last two millennia in this region were clearly in the third, tenth to twelfth and the twentieth centuries.”
They emphasise that, “the warmth of the two centuries AD 1058 – 1157 and 950 – 1049 attests to the reality of relative mediaeval warmth in this region.”
Their data clearly show that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were both warmer than the Current Warm Period.
This is completely against what is portrayed by the broken hockey stick data of Mann et al (1998 and 1999).
Rheghead, 0.052% is correct.
20 points if you can work it out.
ps Nobody help him.
Rheghead, 0.052% is correct.
20 points if you can work it out.
ps Nobody help him.
No it's wrong by ~25% I've already worked it out.! :lol: Show your working, there's a good boy. This just gets better.
No Rheghead, 0.052% is correct.
I knew you wouldn't be able to work it out and this limitation is your undoing.
No Rheghead, 0.052% is correct.
I knew you wouldn't be able to work it out and this limitation is your undoing.
You are wrong, I thought you knew about this stuff?:roll:
CRU "publish" data on their web site and yet, nobody can find it unless they know where it is.
Unless anyone can tell me that they met my challenge and found the page containing graphs of sea level at the Pacific Islands.
I do. 0.052% is correct and until you can work it out, you don't.
I do. 0.052% is correct and until you can work it out, you don't.
Go back and rework your figures, if you can't see your error the second time then you are doubly inept.
I think people should realise that IPCC employ about 50 "scientists". I deliberately used quotes, because more than half of those are modellers, I mean computer programmers, who create the models they use to make forecasts. In case anyone is wondering, no forecast they have made has ever come true. Look at the one by Hansen et al in 1988. Plotting the IPCC average global temperature since 1988 shows that today we are far below the temperature predicted by Hansen et al that was based on enormous cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn, was far below the graph of what would happen if we didn't make cuts. As you all know, carbon dioxide emissions have increased since 1988.
The theory is wrong.
The position is clear Rheghead. At this point in your education, you need to put in some work yourself. I will not teach you what you need to know, because you need to be capable of working it out yourself.
This issue is quite clearly on display to the message board readers.
Work it out and show you can do it.
The position is clear Rheghead. At this point in your education, you need to put in some work yourself. I will not teach you what you need to know, because you need to be capable of working it out yourself.
This issue is quite clearly on display to the message board readers.
Work it out and show you can do it.
Look, I've caught you out twice putting out erroneous data and you haven't a modicum of decency to admit to being mischievous.
I give you a clue, Gas Constants and molecular weights, the equation to convert gas concentrations by mass to those of by volume and visa versa at standard temps and pressure are well-known undisputed aspects of physics. Even a schoolboy physics student could work it out, no offence to them intended.
Now go back and rework your 0.052%
If this is your tactic, deny deny more blah blah, deny deny, ignore ignore then everyone, even ywindy can see what you are up to.
I am the one you refer to who rejects organic evolution as offering a plausible explanation of how life came into being. But if you look at Through's post number 155 on this thread, you will see that Through believes in it. We are here debating the scientific and political evidence and interests behind the climate change lobby - so it does not matter which of us accepts organic evolution and which does not, since the point of this particular debate is to assess the scientific evidence for and against the current hype over man-made climate change. There are many more "deniers" as you refer to us on this thread, and I don't know what their positions are on evolution, nor do I care for the purpose of this debate.
Certainly I remember science, as you put it, because I have used science in this thread and I used it in the evolution/creation discussion on the "Do you believe in a God?" thread.
If there is a science point that you want to bring out regarding CO2-based global warming, then let's discuss it.
I believe in evolution by natural selection also, and though Stavro and I were on opposing sides on that one, I agree with his views on this one.
The co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore - even thinks the environmentalist/green movement has been hijacked.
I'd like to see actual facts and figures backed by some references also so I could respond and critique the source and intent of the research.
Admittedly this is a cheap shot but environmentalists have even signed a petition to ban that dangerous substance dihydrogen monoxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax)
Also, I've actually been to some of these rallies etc, very little discussion or debate goes on its usually a place for people to shill books, sell t-shirts, or listen to music and get high. Not that there is anything wrong with that just don't try to make yourself seem noble.
Bobinovich
30-Nov-09, 19:49
Good grief! Can you two not go into chat and work this out until you come to an answer you both agree on, instead of pontificating & putting each other down? Then come back & give us the consensus of your joint opinions :D
You appear to be the ones caught on either side of the fence so, putting your varying feelings on the subject aside, and at least come to an agreement on this value! It's been going on so long now I can't even remember what the value was for [disgust]!
Bob, let 'em continue, this is really good stuff; over 3,000 'looks' so far, it's got a good following!
George Brims
30-Nov-09, 20:20
If we had no sun, then the planet would achieve the background temperature of space. About -289 degrees C.
OOOOPS. There is no such temperature as -289 degrees C. Absolute zero is -273.15 degrees C. Interstellar space is about 3 degrees warmer than that.
George Brims
30-Nov-09, 20:27
By definition, it was not you who asked my question, but since your attention span seems a trifle limited tonight, I'll ask it again:
Do you accept that H2O (water vapour) is a greenhouse gas?
Well I will butt in here. Water is a greenhouse gas. It is however not changing its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is, mostly due to anthropogenic sources.
Cinders392
30-Nov-09, 20:37
What about methane?
The Age of Stupid truely is here! :)
The plot thickens and the climates changing in favour of science. Poor thought, oops Freudian slip, poor through canna get his sums right and he's trying to convince us that the scientists are swindling us. He nearly had me believing it on Saturday, but Rheghead doggedly stuck in there and exposed the shady side of Global warming denial, which for the sake of a few of you has little to do with healthy scepticism.
Tubthumper
30-Nov-09, 23:39
Where hae ye been ye scientists
And climate change deniers oh?
Ye’ve been on ‘boot yer greenhouse gas
But no sure aboot the flamin' H2O
If ye could see whit I can see
Ye wouldnae stand sae handy-oh
Ye science berks have missed the point
Dry yer eyes, now here’s a hankie-oh
So wir water level’s risin’ up
The burns are couping o’er-oh
And the coos and stirks are ankle deep
Cos the ice-cap's melting rapid-o
What div ye put in recycling bin
Div ye pu’ yer telly plug out so
And hev ye got loft insulation in
Tae a depth of millimetres 4-0-0
So Through says aye and it’s a’ fibs
While Rheghead says a firm flat ‘no’
While the rest of us roll wir e'en yince mair
Wishin' Rheg & Through tae school wid go
And if ye could see whit I kin see
A pair a flaming chancer’s oh
Who have wasted education on
Simply at their computer cantin’-oh
Within three years we’ll be to wir necks
The bairns’ll hev webbed feeties-oh
And it won’t be buses through to Week
But a trip on the famous Hamnavoe
So kin you twa numpties get a clue
Whit dis it matter to us aw
It’s the sooth o’ England sinkin’ doon
While the North is rising, that no’ braw?
"It’s the sooth o’ England sinkin’ doon
While the North is rising, that no’ braw? "
Is that 'cos the couple of Km's of ice we had overhead has all gone and we're bouncing back up?
Well I will butt in here. Water is a greenhouse gas. It is however not changing its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is, mostly due to anthropogenic sources.
Yes, agreed, but as I said before water vapour is the main greenhouse gas. I think that this point has been made now and, as far as I see it, the next point to concentrate on is the fact that the Earth's temperature/climate follows solar phenomena. If we can reach concensus on that, then the final point is to assess what effect man's influence on the atmosphere is going to have with respect to the main cause and effect (of the Sun cycles).
ywindythesecond
01-Dec-09, 01:47
Well I will butt in here. Water is a greenhouse gas. It is however not changing its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is, mostly due to anthropogenic sources.
Given that some bits fall off into space and some bits come in from space, it seems to me that Earth is generally in balance, and it fine-tunes itself.
I seem to remember from school that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so all the bits of CO2 are here already, but as Eric Morecambe famously said "not necessarily in the right order" (whilst slapping Andre Preview's chops.)
Thermal mass is a buzzword today. Solid stuff like concrete, bricks, and a planet made of rock gradually store heat, and when the heat source goes away, gradually release stored heat and cool down. I lived in St Petersburg for two years. The traditional city buildings are really solid and chunky. The heat stored in the building fabric in summer lasts till halfway through winter and the cold stored through the rest of the winter keeps the building comfortable till halfway through summer.
Earth is a heat sink just the same. It takes time to warm up and time to cool down, but not in an annual cycle, nor in a human lifetime cycle.
I want to reduce the unnecessary waste I cause. I want to conserve things which I value.
But I don't want to be railroaded down a "do nothing and die" slippery slope that has no sound foundation and is being exploited for gain by strictly commercial interests which are funded by us the consumers.
roadbowler
01-Dec-09, 02:09
aye, post glacial rebound.
so all the bits of CO2 are here already, but as Eric Morecambe famously said "not necessarily in the right order" (whilst slapping Andre Preview's chops.)
Ha ha, love the Eric Morecambe reference :lol:
'tis right in my head.
I think mother nature has a way of keeping the balance, IF we ARE screwing the planet up my guess is mother nature will let us sink into another ice age and be sure to wipe out as much of mankind as she can, thus removing emissions completely. Job Done.
tonkatojo
01-Dec-09, 11:16
I see yet another set of eminent scientists in the times say the sea levels will at least double the present estimates.:confused
Well yes they did Tonkatojo.
Unfortunately I can't seem to insert the graph derived from the Vostok icecore, as produced by Petit, et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429 - 436.
What this shows, is a temperature record that goes back more than 420,000 years. It begins with a warm period and ends with the current warm period. There are five warm periods in total and four ice ages. The warm periods are all brief and the ice ages are all long term.
All of the previous warm periods, known as interglacials, are approximately 2 degrees centigrade warmer than the peak of the current warm period. The peak for this period is in the past.
This is the graph that you mean
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
You will see that the temperature was higher in the previous inter-glcaial periods. That isn't in dispute. But there is a huge amount of variance between each cycle to the extent that the 5th period about 400,000 years ago was similiar in temperature as is today, if not a little cooler overall given that the graph is a lot smoother and may give a false impression as the graph gets older.
You should also accept that whatever caused these changes before 300 years ago were non anthropogenic. Therefore whatever made these changes was completely natural. All the graph shows is that certain long term cyclical events have a powerful effect on our climate which also create a 'load following' effect of raising carbon dioxide levels thus exacerbating rises in global temperatures. The graph does not offer any indication of the magnitude of the other events that caused the cyclical nature in the first place or the magnitude of the positive and negative feedbacks that accompanied the changes hence the notion that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas doesn't quite follow. Carbon dioxide and other GHGs weren't the driving agent then as they are today.
The thing to remember here is that the longterm trend with the hockey stick was very gradual downward as we would expect from 1000AD to ~1750 and then things took off from there. The task for those with doubts is to explain why such astronomical changes are taking place after the industrial revolution AND at the same time explain why GHGs aren't causing such rises when the experimentally derived radiative forcing data suggest otherwise.
ywindythesecond
01-Dec-09, 19:26
This is the graph that you mean
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
You will see that the temperature was higher in the previous inter-glcaial periods. That isn't in dispute. But there is a huge amount of variance between each cycle to the extent that the 5th period about 400,000 years ago was similiar in temperature as is today, if not a little cooler overall given that the graph is a lot smoother and may give a false impression as the graph gets older.
You should also accept that whatever caused these changes before 300 years ago were non anthropogenic. Therefore whatever made these changes was completely natural. All the graph shows is that certain long term cyclical events have a powerful effect on our climate which also create a 'load following' effect of raising carbon dioxide levels thus exacerbating rises in global temperatures. The graph does not offer any indication of the magnitude of the other events that caused the cyclical nature in the first place or the magnitude of the positive and negative feedbacks that accompanied the changes hence the notion that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas doesn't quite follow. Carbon dioxide and other GHGs weren't the driving agent then as they are today.
The thing to remember here is that the longterm trend with the hockey stick was very gradual downward as we would expect from 1000AD to ~1750 and then things took off from there. The task for those with doubts is to explain why such astronomical changes are taking place after the industrial revolution AND at the same time explain why GHGs aren't causing such rises when the experimentally derived radiative forcing data suggest otherwise.
It is not possible to derive any short-term conclusions from the graph. The graph lines are about 1000 years thick!
At least you're trying hard with the Vostok data Rheghead. However, there are a number of very important problems with your argument.
This graph is not a very good example and has poor resolution. However, you can see the pattern and you can see where we are in the big picture. We are on the wrong side of the hill for your argument to hold true. You can see that temperature peaked about seven thousand or so years ago and that we are already significantly cooler.
All through my argument here, remember that physical laws behave the same whether it is now, 1 year ago, 10 years ago and so on back to thousands of millions of years ago. It will always do the same thing. We have not invented a new kind of carbon dioxide here. It is the same carbon dioxide molecule that has always existed.
Now remember Greenhouse states that increased carbon dioxide causes higher temperature, higher temperature causes higher carbon dioxide, and so on. The fact that carbon dioxide levels have been increased from their record low of all time to where they are today, would therefore mean that they should now be causing temperature increase that causes more carbon dioxide that causes higher temperatures in a rapidly increasing fashion. Yet, now we have CRU climate scientists exclaiming that it is a travesty that they cannot explain the lack of warming for the last 11 years. Clearly, carbon dioxide is not driving temperature.
If Greenhouse was correct and given the way that you previously presented graphs of measured temperature, we should already be setting a new high temperature every year. We're not.
As previously referenced, Rothman (2002) showed that millions of years ago, carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times the level of today. If Greenhouse was correct, temperature would have rocketed and we would not be here today. We humans are proof that Greenhouse Theory is incorrect.
Also previously referenced, Fischer et al (1999) Mudelsee et al (2001) and Pagani et al (2005) (plus many others I haven't referenced here) have all shown that historic carbon dioxide and temperature have done completely different things time after time after time. If Greenhouse was correct, carbon dioxide would drive temperature upwards not just once, but every time. This is an example of how scientists test a theory against data and show whether it is correct. Greenhouse failed this test.
Also previously referenced, Petit et al (1999) showed from the Vostok ice core that the end of each interglacial period over the last 421,000 years was characterised by temperature starting to fall while carbon dioxide was increasing toward a maximum value that did not arrive for hundreds of years. Greenhouse says that this is absolutely impossible.
You then fall into the trap of ignoring the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between 1000 and 1300, evidence of which is demonstrated in many of the papers I've referenced and for which I can quote literally hundreds more from all areas of the globe.
The Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has collated hundreds of these papers and shown that the most commonly determined temperature for MWP was 0.75 deg C higher than the Current Warm Period (CWP). So, just 700 to 1000 years ago, it was significantly warmer than now and yet carbon dioxide was much lower. Some papers actually show that MWP was up to 3.75 deg C warmer than CWP. Papers with this evidence exist from all over the world.
The Roman Warm Period (RWP) has also been shown to have been significantly warmer than CWP. So, 2,000 years ago it was warmer than now, yet carbon dioxide was much lower.
Some of my previous references have shown that not only has it been warmer in the last 2,000 years or so, but we know that there has been less ice in the North. You'll be pleased to know that I intend to reference another paper on this shortly.
Even from the rather crude version of the Vostok data that you have presented, it can clearly be seen that the recent temperature change rates you claim to be astronomical are completely dwarfed by the onset of Interglacials. It is no competition.
There is no scientific concensus.
Temperature today is not a world record.
Carbon dioxide has been much higher in the past, including during periods when temperature was decreasing.
There has been less ice in the North within the last 1,000 years.
Historically, high carbon dioxide and high temperature rarely co-incide.
Since 1998, no year has been as warm as 1998. (Even the met office web site shows this.)
It is not possible to derive any short-term conclusions from the graph. The graph lines are about 1000 years thick!
I wasn't trying to from that graph, I mentioned the hockey stick graph which does suggest that temperatures will continue to rise.
I see yet another set of eminent scientists in the times say the sea levels will at least double the present estimates.:confused
Toscano M A and J Wahr, 2003. Corrected Western Atlantic Sea Level Curve for the last 11,000 years. Coral Reefs 22: 257 - 270.
This paper shows sea level rise the Last Glacial Maximum. The graph shows rapid sea level rise as temperature recovered from the last ice age and then it slows away down to its present rate of about 1.8 mm per year. This is the slowest rate of sea level rise for almost 18,000 years. The next time you see David Shukman on BBC News talking about 1 metre of sea level rise, remember that even if the rate of rise doesn't keep slowing down, then it will take 556 years to rise another 1 metre.
Close to home, we have evidence that climate change is all natural: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/7735544.stm.
So why are temperatures not rising now then Rheghead?
Like CRU say, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the lack of warming in the last 11 years.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
01-Dec-09, 22:37
So the Global warming question comes down to two solutions.It does.Well for Weekers anyway.Pick a bit of Caithness landscape thats nearest to yer backdoor.Don't want to be seen as a Caithnessiast.Yer walking out yer backdoor in 50 years time.What is it gonnae be,just the same as normal.I think so:).Or is it gonnae be folk standing on wee toattie islands waving at one another.I don't think so.:)Global warming propaganda is all wrote by humans.The Earth doesn't care.The planet doesn't give a cahoony about humans.The Earth has been doin just fine.The humans problem is over the moons they have learned to consciously think about things.The Earth is God.God is the Earth.The Bible was written what 1970 years ago,only translated into English what 500.I can hear the power of the Earth by the wind thats blowin outside tonight.So stick yer plonders of scientists in labs where the sun don't shine.Maybe if they went outside now and again and smelt the roses,maybe they might see a different world.The Pseudo Scientists,or the normal punter knows the answer.:lol:
Metalattakk
01-Dec-09, 22:44
So why are temperatures not rising now then Rheghead?
Like CRU say, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the lack of warming in the last 11 years.
I think I can answer that question for Rheggy:
http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z55/Metalattakk/multidecosc.jpg
Multi-decadal Oscillation.
At least you're trying hard with the Vostok data Rheghead. However, there are a number of very important problems with your argument.
This graph is not a very good example and has poor resolution. However, you can see the pattern and you can see where we are in the big picture. We are on the wrong side of the hill for your argument to hold true. You can see that temperature peaked about seven thousand or so years ago and that we are already significantly cooler.
So whatever is has been cooling the Earth during the last 7 thousand years has been cooling the Earth (but you'll notice that the graph is not smooth, it has oscillations). You will notice that CO2 was going up during this time. What is your point? Whatever its true nature, it obviously has been having a greater effect than the mere 20ppm increase of carbon dioxide over that time.
Now remember Greenhouse states that increased carbon dioxide causes higher temperature, higher temperature causes higher carbon dioxide, and so on.
That is the runaway greenhouse effect that has been a buzzword of late. It is a concern due to the evidence in the Petit et al graph above but so far I think there is little evidence of it, but I'm willing to be proved wrong there.
The fact that carbon dioxide levels have been increased from their record low of all time to where they are today, would therefore mean that they should now be causing temperature increase that causes more carbon dioxide that causes higher temperatures in a rapidly increasing fashion. Yet, now we have CRU climate scientists exclaiming that it is a travesty that they cannot explain the lack of warming for the last 11 years. Clearly, carbon dioxide is not driving temperature.
Are they claiming it is a travesty that they can't find any warming in the last 11 years? In the last 11 years there have been 9 years of the 20 hottest on record. I think this 1998 cooling notion is just misleading as 1998 was just an exceptionally hot year. Plus, the Sun has been rather quiet in recent years, it is El Nino year next year so it will be interesting to see what happens.
If Greenhouse was correct and given the way that you previously presented graphs of measured temperature, we should already be setting a new high temperature every year. We're not.
That because the Earth is not a science experiment where we can do a controlled experiment on it, it is subject to chaos etc. The underlying trend of temperatures will be going up as seen by the hockey stick graph with downward trends like between 1940 and 1970 when a certain individual grabbed the headlines and exclaimed he predicted we were heading for an ice age.
As previously referenced, Rothman (2002) showed that millions of years ago, carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times the level of today. If Greenhouse was correct, temperature would have rocketed and we would not be here today. We humans are proof that Greenhouse Theory is incorrect.
That is a big jump to make the conclusion. However, quoting Rothman (not familiar with his work) is irrelevant as the Earth millions of years ago was a different place, different geology, different currents etc. And never the less, even if it was much hotter or much colder, animals continue to evolve all kinds of climate as that is what species do, they adapt to changing climates.
Also previously referenced, Fischer et al (1999) Mudelsee et al (2001) and Pagani et al (2005) (plus many others I haven't referenced here) have all shown that historic carbon dioxide and temperature have done completely different things time after time after time. If Greenhouse was correct, carbon dioxide would drive temperature upwards not just once, but every time. This is an example of how scientists test a theory against data and show whether it is correct. Greenhouse failed this test.
Normally I would agree with that if something does not follow a trend then there isn't a link between the two, as in the case that carbon dioxide levels don't follow rises in temperature, the biggest failing with these authors is that they failed to account for what was causing the changes in temperature despite the rises in CO2, so the conclusion that CO2 doesn't cause global warming doesn't quite follow.
Also previously referenced, Petit et al (1999) showed from the Vostok ice core that the end of each interglacial period over the last 421,000 years was characterised by temperature starting to fall while carbon dioxide was increasing toward a maximum value that did not arrive for hundreds of years. Greenhouse says that this is absolutely impossible.
As I said before, CO2 was not the agent causing climate change in the past. If you look at each peak, as you stated, it is characterised by a fall in temperature. A gradual downward change, a shallow slope but the temperatures were still on the top of the peak thus causing CO2 to venture into the atmosphere. I think there is a lag in the system, it may have something to do with the thermo-haline circulation. Anyway, the rise in CO2 is only characterised during the last cooling from the last peak, the other peaks show immediate coinciding drops in CO2.
You then fall into the trap of ignoring the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between 1000 and 1300, evidence of which is demonstrated in many of the papers I've referenced and for which I can quote literally hundreds more from all areas of the globe.
The Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has collated hundreds of these papers and shown that the most commonly determined temperature for MWP was 0.75 deg C higher than the Current Warm Period (CWP). So, just 700 to 1000 years ago, it was significantly warmer than now and yet carbon dioxide was much lower. Some papers actually show that MWP was up to 3.75 deg C warmer than CWP. Papers with this evidence exist from all over the world.
The Roman Warm Period (RWP) has also been shown to have been significantly warmer than CWP. So, 2,000 years ago it was warmer than now, yet carbon dioxide was much lower.
Some of my previous references have shown that not only has it been warmer in the last 2,000 years or so, but we know that there has been less ice in the North. You'll be pleased to know that I intend to reference another paper on this shortly.
As I said before, evidence for a global MWP is extremely scant however the evidence from the hockey stick graph sort of shows that temperatures were slightly warmer for 750 years then at the late end of the 19th century things clearly started to change. Global emperatures are clearly warmer than the global 'MWP' temperatures. Whether the regional temperatures of northern Europe during the MWP were hotter than the global temperatures of today is irrelevant.
Even from the rather crude version of the Vostok data that you have presented, it can clearly be seen that the recent temperature change rates you claim to be astronomical are completely dwarfed by the onset of Interglacials. It is no competition.
I agree up to a point that the certain effects which have caused the interglacial periods have proven to have changed global temperatures over a greater range but they have occurred over many millennia, even during the steep parts of the graph.
What we see over the last 150 years is a rising change in Global temperatures amounting to almost a full degree in centigrade. A very small time geologically and with nothing to explain it except a little sun activity but a huge rise in greenhouse gases.
There is no scientific concensus.
Temperature today is not a world record.
Carbon dioxide has been much higher in the past, including during periods when temperature was decreasing.
There has been less ice in the North within the last 1,000 years.
Historically, high carbon dioxide and high temperature rarely co-incide.
Since 1998, no year has been as warm as 1998. (Even the met office web site shows this.)
There is clear consensus amongst scientists.
Where has CO2 been higher than today during the last 420,000 years, the graph is there for you to see.?????
Clearly, there is a general trend over the last 420,000 years where CO2 does coincide with temperature, peaks and troughs match. Where they don't coincide, sceptical scientists have not accounted for other factors which may be having an effect or the lag in the response to temperature changes on carbon sinks. So the conclusion that carbon dioxide does not have an important effect in the here and now doesn't follow.
Can I refer all of you to the book "GLOBAL WARMING AND OTHER BOLLOCKS" by Professor Stanley Feldman and Professor Vincent Marks. Published by Metro and available from Amazon for about a fiver.
Can I refer all of you to the book "GLOBAL WARMING AND OTHER BOLLOCKS" by Professor Stanley Feldman and Professor Vincent Marks. Published by Metro and available from Amazon for about a fiver.
Despite them being medical professors writing a satirical book, I think you've hit the nail on the head here, a lot of these critics of global warming and its solutions (authors include Christopher Booker, Bjorn Lomborg, Dr J E Etherington, Patrick Michaels, Freeman Dyson, Ian Plimer, Michael Crichton, Alan Carlin, just to name a few) seem to grab the headlines then lo and behold they are bringing another pseudo-science book out on their 'controversial subject' of their own making. :lol: Could there be a coincidence?
And what makes them do it? It is gullible clowns like you , me and the rest of us that have too much money in their pocket that buy rubbish. They wouldn't be interested otherwise. Everyone loves a good conspiracy but it is dangerous when such authors (who should have the intelligence to know better) make them look like plausible scientific journals or popular science books when there is so much at stake. There can be no clear-cut solution to Climate Change when the waters are being muddied to the wider population who have no particular expertise in science. What we need is a clear unambiguous message about the true nature of Climate Change.
Clearly these climate change sceptics are self-interested, motivated by money and greed whereas authors like David MacKay in contrast have published their books about renewable energy online for free download. I'd go with the altruistic author for a start.
Cedric Farthsbottom III
02-Dec-09, 00:27
I think you've hit the nail on the head here, a lot of these critics of global warming seem to grab the headlines (Christopher Booker just recently) then lo and behold they are bringing a pseudo science book out on their 'controversial subject' of their own making. :lol:
And what makes them do it? Cause it is gullible clowns that have too much money in their pocket that buy rubbish, they wouldn't be interested otherwise. Everyone loves a good conspiracy but it is dangerous when such authors make them look like plausible scientific journals or popular science books.
Pseudo science?Thats a favourite saying on here.
How to ride a bike?
The scientist took the bike into his lab measured all the dimensions and put it into his computer.Measured the weight for propulsion then found out after all his calculations on the bike that the lab was too small to go anywhere.
The pseudo scientist,took the bike outside jumped on it,fell off a couple of times,then went off on some lovely adventures.
Science has solutions.
Pseudo Science has better solutions.
George Brims
02-Dec-09, 18:09
I think people should realise that IPCC employ about 50 "scientists". I deliberately used quotes, because more than half of those are modellers, I mean computer programmers, who create the models they use to make forecasts.
Two points:
1) IPCC employ about 2,500 scientists. Being off by a factor of fifty is usually considered "an error" in the real world.
2) Don't get near a computer modeller in a dark alley and try to tell him/her they are not a scientist. If computer modelling didn't work, the landscape would be littered with crashed planes, burned out nuclear power stations, and people screaming at their cell phone because they can't get any service.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.