View Full Version : Climate Change - scam or no scam?
Oldpinkman
03-12-2015, 09:16
This thread is marked for deletion
Jumping to conclusions again?
Sorry if my assertions have upset you, just listen to the 'scientists' they are all good honest men who don't need to make a living and don't have delusions of grandeur about saving the world, neither do the politicians who as everyone knows are the smartest people we have, their track record to date being flawless.
What intrigued me about the climate change issue was the fact that, although much is made of the fact that all government-sponsored scientific agencies officially support the idea that increased CO2 = increased global temp, they still found it necessary to tell blatant lies about it.
Now when a man tells me one blatant lie I consider him capable of telling more. I also assume he has an agenda.
When those blatant lies appear on the NASA website and remain there despite it being pointed out for several years until reputable NASA scientists insist they are taken down as they are bringing the organisation into disrepute then you don't need to be a 'scientist' to know that something is rotten somewhere.
This was all a decade ago now and in the meantime global temperature has failed to rise - for two decades now in fact. Where has all that heat gone? Hiding in the troposphere? Nope. Hiding in the deep ocean? Nope, not there either. It would be funny if it hadn't cost us billions of dollars and retarded the global economy for 2 decades.
If I were you I'd take another look at where things are up to with this scam, you might find old Coxy is starting to look a bit isolated in the scientific community these days.
Oldpinkman
03-12-2015, 12:41
How about that political hotbed of intrigue and conspiracy, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036
Like I say - measure the coastline, the ice is melting. Your question was not "where is the evidence that the warming is due to CO2" nor "where is your evidence that the warming is due to CO2 emmissions caused by man"
The question was "Where has all that heat gone" (On the back of the erroneous statement "global temperature has failed to rise")
Remember - Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get you.
You are aware that the BBC has significant pension investments in 'green technology' and other related areas? This is one o the reasons why any AGW issue always makes the BBC news regardless of its importance or veracity and why they attempt to work it in to any remotely-related documentary or current events programme including Cox's 'physics-lite' shows.
Glaciation has been retreating and sea levels rising since the current ice age began to wane around 13000 years ago. That is why you have to catch a ferry to get over to France when 10,000 years ago (or even more recently) you could have walked there.
In the past 20 years we have doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and temperature has remained constant or arguably slightly declined. This has made a nonsense of the 'climate scientists' predictions and also of their computer models in which they placed so much store. Clearly if there is a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature it is far more complex than was anticipated and what is actually required is a complete 'back to the drawing board' approach. Sadly there are already too many reputations and vested interests involved now for this to happen.
A couple of Thatcher's former science advisors have talked about this publicly. They confirmed my suspicions. She did want to use agw against the miners union, but only if it was a real phenomenon. According to the science advisors, the notion that CO2 was warming the earth was seen up to that time as a crank, fringe theory. Nobody serious in the field of atmospheric science pursued it, because the evidence weighed against it. Thatcher wanted it explored because if it was real it was another weapon she could use against the miners, and to promote nuclear power in the UK. She told her advisors, "There's a lot of money on the table for this." Her science advisors did as she asked, looked at the science on the matter. They returned to her and said the evidence didn't support the theory. My understanding is she dropped the issue after that. The problem is the Left picked it up and ran with it.
The idea has been circulating among the Left that Thatcher knew about AGW, because of her interest in it, ever since the movie "The Iron Lady" came out. Meryl Streep, who played Thatcher in the movie, talked about how she admired her for "being ahead of the curve on global warming." Will they acknowledge that she ultimately rejected the theory? I doubt it! The program now has a life of its own and is like idea of giving computers awareness and they take over in the Arnie film....
narabdela
03-12-2015, 14:12
http://wonderopolis.org/wp-content/uploads//2015/03/1425_3.jpg
This thread is marked for deletion
:lol:
:ner:
I didn't get to read it. :(
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeller, Oxford University
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
jandl100
21-12-2015, 10:21
You're about as reasonable, Martin, as when you posted that people who didn't like others smoking shouldn't go to restaurants! :lol:
We're doomed, I tell you.
We are, actually - there will be catastrophic climate change, I feel sure.
Well, not doomed as in about to go extinct. But doomed as in massive negative impact on the human population of the planet in the coming generations.
The recent Paris climate change agreement only confirms me in my view. Little in the way of binding measurable agreements. Total hypocrisy from our government - they sign up with big lunches and big grins - then come home and immediately give the go-ahead to fossil fuel-burning fracking and a reduction in solar energy subsidies etc. Others governments are the same, I feel sure.
I'm 60, so I hope to miss the start of the worst effects. I'm really glad I don't have offspring - it's going to be a nasty world.
Democracy will find itself hopeless to act, as short-termism is what drives politics in a democracy. So democracies will gradually morph into something a lot nastier than they are today as population masses move around the planet attempting to escape areas that are turning to desert or flood.
Food shortage - mass starvation - water, food and living space wars.
It'll sort itself out in the end to a new form of equilibrium, as everything must. But history books written 1,000 years from now will have a few chapters subtitled "The Great Catastrophe". That's what we are heading into now because of climate change.
You're about as reasonable, Martin, as when you posted that people who didn't like others smoking shouldn't go to restaurants! :lol:
We're doomed, I tell you.
We are, actually - there will be catastrophic climate change, I feel sure.
Well, not doomed as in about to go extinct. But doomed as in massive negative impact on the human population of the planet in the coming generations.
The recent Paris climate change agreement only confirms me in my view. Little in the way of binding measurable agreements. Total hypocrisy from our government - they sign up with big lunches and big grins - then come home and immediately give the go-ahead to fossil fuel-burning fracking and a reduction in solar energy subsidies etc. Others governments are the same, I feel sure.
I'm 60, so I hope to miss the start of the worst effects. I'm really glad I don't have offspring - it's going to be a nasty world.
Democracy will find itself hopeless to act, as short-termism is what drives politics in a democracy. So democracies will gradually morph into something a lot nastier than they are today as population masses move around the planet attempting to escape areas that are turning to desert or flood.
Food shortage - mass starvation - water, food and living space wars.
It'll sort itself out in the end to a new form of equilibrium, as everything must. But history books written 1,000 years from now will have a few chapters subtitled "The Great Catastrophe". That's what we are heading into now because of climate change.
As a farmer ,and a watcher of the way spells during seasons have become more unpredictable , and forceful, I tend to agree.
The climate has always changed. The question is not 'is the climate changing', since we know the climate has changed radically even before mankind existed, but 'is man made CO2 the cause'.
BTW Jerry my position on smoking in restaurants and pubs is that it should be up to the owner to decide if it is allowed. Not the government.
walpurgis
21-12-2015, 10:46
The climate has always changed. The question is not 'is the climate changing', since we know the climate has changed radically even before mankind existed, but 'is man made CO2 the cause'.
BTW Jerry my position on smoking in restaurants and pubs is that it should be up to the owner to decide if it is allowed. Not the government.
Agree on both counts.
Climate change has been cyclic and unpredictable, and as you suggest, since before it was recorded. There have been minor changes and huge ones which were nothing to do with manmade pollution.
Sooner or later 'they' (whoever they are) may try to make Climate Change denying a criminal act.
jandl100
21-12-2015, 10:51
Well, we're about due for the next ice age (a bit overdue, actually, I think) according to the long term averages.
It has been suggested that artificial climate warming will delay this.
Could be a good thing!
Or not.
jandl100
21-12-2015, 10:57
OFF TOPIC ALERT !!
BTW Jerry my position on smoking in restaurants and pubs is that it should be up to the owner to decide if it is allowed. Not the government.
Ah, yep, I've found your actual posting ...
Quote Originally Posted by Macca
The problem is, Marco, that no-one forces anyone to go to a pub or resteraunt. If you don't like smoking then you don't go to places where people smoke.
Which can, just, be read either way. :)
awkwardbydesign
21-12-2015, 11:29
Well, we're about due for the next ice age (a bit overdue, actually, I think) according to the long term averages.
It has been suggested that artificial climate warming will delay this.
Could be a good thing!
Or not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Loveday
If you can find a copy, Pete Loveday's "Plain Rapper #1" makes interesting reading. In it he puts forward the theory that the next ice age is overdue (the double wobble of the earth's axis has already occurred) and the only thing holding it back is post industrial revolution warming! When the pressure becomes too great there will simply be no spring one year, just an endless winter! Printed on hemp paper too. I read it about 25 years ago and it gave me the shivers.
I guess we will know for sure in a few hundred years. But besides all that, not using up all the unrenewable resources and not polluting the planet any more would be a Good Thing.
Neuk someone...thats gotta warm up the planet a bit:lol:
jandl100
21-12-2015, 11:51
Neuk someone...thats gotta warm up the planet a bit:lol:
You ever heard of Nuclear Winter? ;)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
- probably not a good idea, on consideration. :eyebrows:
As Nelson Muntz said. Gotta neuk something lol.
The climate is something which is in constant change. Inclined to agree that a change is overdue irrelevant of what we do. Thats not to say we cant help to slow things down a little though.
walpurgis
21-12-2015, 12:13
A change is as good as a rest. So they say. :)
Now let's assume CO2 levels are causing global warming.
Why are they rising? Massive population increases. This is the fundamental problem and no one seems to talk much about it, and most political parties realise restricting birth rates is a vote loser.
Given that, I'd suggest some serious wars will occur due to resource contention before climate change problems really manifest themselves enough to matter.
We should realise (those in their 60s and less) just how fortunate we have been so far with regards to this. Unless birth rates are reduced, there will be some serious, serious trouble.
Tom-Brown
21-12-2015, 15:12
Agree on both counts.
Climate change has been cyclic and unpredictable, and as you suggest, since before it was recorded. There have been minor changes and huge ones which were nothing to do with manmade pollution.
Sooner or later 'they' (whoever they are) may try to make Climate Change denying a criminal act.
Totally agree. Our climate has always been cyclic..all this global warming has just brought about kneejerk reactions and made loads of money for the alternative energy companies and the scientists that prescribe to that thought line.
The latest "historic" paris agreement has been signed by all and sundry!!! BUT it is not legally enforceble nor is there a specific timetable.....In the meantime our ill informed government is shutting down the last of our coal fired power stations....without the thought of any thing in place to replace them...get your candles at the ready peeps [emoji38] [emoji38]
walpurgis
21-12-2015, 15:19
Of course they've shut down British coal production. You don't think they'd turn down the backhanders offered by foreign coal suppliers and gas distributors?
Now let's assume CO2 levels are causing global warming.
Why are they rising? Massive population increases. This is the fundamental problem and no one seems to talk much about it, and most political parties realise restricting birth rates is a vote loser.
Given that, I'd suggest some serious wars will occur due to resource contention before climate change problems really manifest themselves enough to matter.
We should realise (those in their 60s and less) just how fortunate we have been so far with regards to this. Unless birth rates are reduced, there will be some serious, serious trouble.
Linear thinking - the same as the Victorian scientists who predicted that 21st century cities would be inundated with horse manure.
One advantage of higher concentrations of CO2 is more rapid and vigorous plant growth. I'm all for cutting down pollution and making the planet greener. Reducing CO2 production will not do that as CO2 is not a pollutant. In any case the agenda is not to reduce CO2 production as rising population makes that impossible as you point out. The agenda is to tax its production. Not quite taxing the air we breathe but as close as they can get - for now. Why do you think the politicians are all for it - to a man? Doesn't that alone ring alarm bells?
walpurgis
21-12-2015, 15:40
Linear thinking - the same as the Victorian scientists who predicted that 21st century cities would be inundated with horse manure.
That may not have happened, but they have become full of shit all the same. :eek:
We're doomed!
Think taxing is sham and will do nothing to stop it. Just cause anger and another govt. we need to get a few mass slaughters on the go. If the ruskies would ge together with the yanks they could neutron bomb the se hemisphere and carve it up;)
They'd need a lot of neutron bombs...it's a big place.. ;)
walpurgis
21-12-2015, 15:48
Far more sensible to use the 'genetic bullet' that the Russians and Yanks have pretended they've not bothered developing.
I expect the Israelis have been working hard on that too. They'd have more incentive.
awkwardbydesign
21-12-2015, 15:54
Now let's assume CO2 levels are causing global warming.
Why are they rising? Massive population increases. This is the fundamental problem and no one seems to talk much about it, and most political parties realise restricting birth rates is a vote loser.
Given that, I'd suggest some serious wars will occur due to resource contention before climate change problems really manifest themselves enough to matter.
We should realise (those in their 60s and less) just how fortunate we have been so far with regards to this. Unless birth rates are reduced, there will be some serious, serious trouble.
I recently read Dan Brown's "Inferno" (yeah, I know. Sorry.) where overpopulation is the problem (true enough) and the expected cure is drastic (somewhat unpopular!). But I remember as a child 2 billion being shocking, and now? Countries such as India probably can't control population, and China, who could, are giving up on it.
We're all doomed!
anthonyTD
21-12-2015, 16:51
Global Warming, Rationally Discussed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
awkwardbydesign
21-12-2015, 17:24
Global Warming, Rationally Discussed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
I didn't get very far; the excitement of Freeman Dyson working in the same building as Einstein did for me. So did the janitor!
Pretty much the same as my thoughts. I am impressed by me lol
Ali Tait
21-12-2015, 19:09
Global Warming, Rationally Discussed!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
Interesting. "CO2 is beneficial in so many ways, it would be crazy to try to reduce it"
Says it all really.
Deforestation is not helping things one bit either
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Ali Tait
21-12-2015, 21:13
No, but higher CO2 levels are promoting higher plant growth.
Audio Advent
24-12-2015, 21:21
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
- Dr David Frame,
climate modeller, Oxford University
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
A great lesson there in taking small soundbites out of context and presenting them as evidence for the opposite of their original meaning. Well done. I'm sure there are numerous Simpsons episodes parodying that .
You'd like them to be out of context. But their not.
Audio Advent
24-12-2015, 21:34
Totally agree. Our climate has always been cyclic..all this global warming has just brought about kneejerk reactions and made loads of money for the alternative energy companies and the scientists that prescribe to that thought line.
The latest "historic" paris agreement has been signed by all and sundry!!! BUT it is not legally enforceble nor is there a specific timetable.....In the meantime our ill informed government is shutting down the last of our coal fired power stations....without the thought of any thing in place to replace them...get your candles at the ready peeps [emoji38] [emoji38]
Everyone tries to make money. The fact is that the money to be made by fossil fuel burning industries ECLIPSES any profits the alternative energy companies might earn. They are relatively short-term profits of a couple of decades perhaps but enough to keep the mega-rich so powerful for a lot longer. But the long term costs of climate change to the 99.999% of the world's population (ignoring the arguably more important 99.999% non-human population of the earth) will be absolutely vast in comparison, economically, in terms of war, in terms of suffering etc etc. All to make a handful of people a little richer.
There is so much money spent promoting the consipracy theory propaganda and lobbying governments to act in the exact opposite ways as their own environmental policies stated they will.
There are also knock-on short-term profits to be made by churning out old tech and by taking advantage of the cheap, abundant but long-term damaging energy sources. So of course there is so much out there trying to discredit the notion. Just a shame that those believing THAT propaganda can't see it for what it is.. quite ironic infact. The funding links are always ignored.
Audio Advent
24-12-2015, 21:44
Now let's assume CO2 levels are causing global warming.
Why are they rising? Massive population increases. This is the fundamental problem and no one seems to talk much about it, and most political parties realise restricting birth rates is a vote loser.
Given that, I'd suggest some serious wars will occur due to resource contention before climate change problems really manifest themselves enough to matter.
We should realise (those in their 60s and less) just how fortunate we have been so far with regards to this. Unless birth rates are reduced, there will be some serious, serious trouble.
It is a problem but it is the knock-on effects which cause the pollution. It's not the 100s of millions of starving poor in India causing the CO2, it is industry including meat production which feeds only the richer lot. It's the demand for cars, it's the demand for throw-away goods, it's the demand to make money despite over-production in many industries...
None of this would be possible without the banking system churning out more and more and more debt which borrows heavily from future generations who simply won't be able to pay it back without yet further destruction of the planet. The ponzi-scheme of eternal economic growth.. a future generation get's burned, probably literally by a sun-scorched earth. And the reason the banking industry creates such debt despite the obvious consequence? Because individuals stand to get absurdly rich in the short term...
There's been a lot more money spent saying we are the problem than the other way around... the conspiracy is the other way I'm afraid, as sometime its goona come out
Audio Advent
24-12-2015, 22:02
There's been a lot more money spent saying we are the problem than the other way around... the conspiracy is the other way I'm afraid, as sometime its goona come out
I disagree! There's public discourse that you might see a lot of (which is fairly cheap) and there is private lobbying, backhanders etc etc that you don't see to those giving permission to exploit the resource. The culture to act that way has been there since imperial days and it's not climate change specific either, climate change is just another slight twist in the usual way of acting to those industries.
Take the goings on described in "The Confessions of an Economic Hitman" for example - destruction of indiginous lands and impoverishment of countries on the back of exploiting a nation's natural resource, all enabled by funnelling billions and billions to a handful of corrupt individuals running the country and it's millitary. Governement backed by such as the US of course and that two-way flow of self-interest is lubricated by billions and billions again. And this has been the case since the 1950s or so.
Politicians pay lip service to climate change in general and whilst whole trillion-dollar wars are engaged in in order to further the interests of those wanting to burn more and more fossil fuels to make themselves richer.
Alternative energy industries simply don't have that political reach precisely because they do not have the money by comparison. That's why we're seeing fossil fuel subsidies remaining untouched whilst the already small by comparison alternative energy subsidies are being slashed.
Taking the bigger picture into account, I can't see how you can say that.
All unsustainable activities like coal power centrals should be shut down or converted. Denmark is a good example and has prooven that it not only makes ecological sense but has many economical benefits as well. The quicker we get out of the fossil fuel logic the better.. regardless of climate change ..
All unsustainable activities like coal power centrals should be shut down or converted. Denmark is a good example and has prooven that it not only makes ecological sense but has many economical benefits as well. The quicker we get out of the fossil fuel logic the better.. regardless of climate change ..
No problem with that. Its a dying resource so we will have to sometime; and it needs sensibly programmed in. Knee-jerk reactions are stupid, as we need to have a new system proven to have the ability to do the job no matter what b4 we just say "we aint using this anymore"
The data is there for scientific minds to decide for themselves whether it is real or not.
walpurgis
04-01-2016, 18:40
The data is there for scientific minds to decide for themselves whether it is real or not.
And those with non-scientific minds are expected to rely on these 'experts' for guidance, but expert opinion says many differing things and has many different agendas.
Data and statistics are a gray area, and can be made to say lots of things tbh. No-one is saying that the planet isnt warming p, its just the amount that we are responsible for thats in question.
And those with non-scientific minds are expected to rely on these 'experts' for guidance, but expert opinion says many differing things and has many different agendas.
And herein lies the rub!
You don't need to be a scientist to figure out when someone is stringing you a line.
If you think 'Scientists' are impartial I'd advise taking a look at the e-mails leaked from the UEA Climate Research Unit. Fudging the data, perverting the peer review process, deleting the data so no-one else can check their results, and referring to it all as 'The Cause'.
These are not scientists in the sense that a layman may think of a scientist. They are people who think they have the moral right to lie to us because we are so stupid compared to them we need them to tell us what to do and how to behave 'for the benefit of humanity.' The arrogance of it is quite shocking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va_MVxpboqg
Climate change is an intangible, people will never agree.
Far better to think of it in terms of atmospheric polution, who would deny the atmosphere (as well as the land and the oceans) are becoming more polluted. Now if we all took that as a given we begin to think about what the consequences of that pollution could be.
For me, this makes it much less contentious.
The media has a way of presenting things in ways which people find hard to comprehend, global warming and economics being good examples. When we talk instead about pollution or money it becomes far more meaningful.
walpurgis
09-01-2016, 00:14
Climate change is historic and eternal. It has always varied from minor trends to extreme trends and nobody has shown proper proof as to what is happening now or reasonably provable evidence to suggest what will happen. There are too many theories, opinions and agendas. The only 'evidence' we have is all just supposed projections, suggestion and supposition from people who, due to the huge financial and political influence behind them, just cannot be trusted.
If I lived on an Island, as you do, i would feel very concerned. Time will tell.
In the mean time, consider that the production of meat produces more greenhouse gases than all fossil fuel based transport systems on the planet.
Climate change is an intangible, people will never agree.
Far better to think of it in terms of atmospheric polution, who would deny the atmosphere (as well as the land and the oceans) are becoming more polluted. Now if we all took that as a given we begin to think about what the consequences of that pollution could be.
For me, this makes it much less contentious.
The media has a way of presenting things in ways which people find hard to comprehend, global warming and economics being good examples. When we talk instead about pollution or money it becomes far more meaningful.
No-one would disagree that we need to reduce/eliminate pollution. The problem is the concentration is on reducing CO2 which is not a pollutant. In theory it is a greenhouse gas but in the last 20 years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has doubled and temperature has remained the same. This is completely contrary to the predictions made back then. Empirical evidence for this theorised cause and effect is absent. The predictions are entirely based on computer models - which are simply big equations into which you plug data. If the equation does not replicate exactly how the climate works the models' predictions will be wrong.
We know the equations are wrong because the models, when fed data from the past which we know to be accurate - are unable to predict what we know already happened- events such as the Roman and medaeval warm periods should not have occurred according to the models. We know they did, so the models are worthless.
The purpose behind the lies is simple - to bring our current way of life to an end - the end of consumer capitalism - but only for you and me, the masses. We will have to accept a much more Spartan, low CO2 producing life. Any activity or product we do/buy will have to paid for additionally respective to the amount of CO2 it produces in use or manufacture. This will put most of the things we now take for granted beyond our reach in terms of affordability. Meat being just one of them.
If you are wealthy you buy carbon credits to offset your carbon usage. If you are not you will go without.
So essentially the elite will continue as they were because they can afford to whilst the rest of us have to settle for less.
This is why the efforts are concentrated on CO2 reduction and nothing else - because pretty much everything we do, including breathing, produces CO2. As it is easily measured and ubiquitous it is a simple benchline from which to control consumption via taxation. And the hope is that the masses won't mind because this is taxation for their own good, the good of the plant and the future of their children. If you want the complicity of the masses, appeal to their emotions rather than their intellect.
Man made climate change it total hokum.
How much scientific data was proven fraudulent and still people fall for government funded results based junk science.
Man made climate change it total hokum.
How much scientific data was proven fraudulent and still people fall for government funded results based junk science.
Facts ? Examples ?
There are so many it is hard to know where to start but this is one of my favourites - from the Independent, March 2000
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said
www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/
Not really sure how anyone can poo poo it entirely.
Sure ,there are scam type scenarios about ,but we cant deny , what an impact a ballooning world population and fossil fuel burning ,deforestation etc is having on our climate
There are so many it is hard to know where to start but this is one of my favourites - from the Independent, March 2000
Global warming, the heating of the atmosphere by increased amounts of industrial gases, is now accepted as a reality by the international community. Average temperatures in Britain were nearly 0.6°C higher in the Nineties than in 1960-90, and it is estimated that they will increase by 0.2C every decade over the coming century. Eight of the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the Nineties.
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said
Since this leading expert made his forecast in the year 2000, the Northern Hemisphere has had five of its six snowiest winters on record.
www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/)
James Taylor — a professional denial propagandist. He not a climate scientist or even a scientist in any way. He’s a lawyer paid by the Heartland Institute to write climate change denial propaganda.
https://www.quora.com/How-accurate-is-this-article-in-Forbes-Magazine-about-climate-change-being-false
Not really sure how anyone can poo poo it entirely.
Sure ,there are scam type scenarios about ,but we cant deny , what an impact a ballooning world population and fossil fuel burning ,deforestation etc is having on our climate
Don't think many are doing that, but if we don't question what we are told and scutinize it then they may as well say the earth is actually flat
Anyone who goes up against their theories gets the full discredit job. So familiar but it works; they've been doing it for centuries
You simply have to look where it all started, just follow the money (Government Grants) not offered to researchers who show evidence of fraud in the hockey stick graph and have real numbers.
Science and scientists are mostly unashamed whores who put a roof over there family's heads and make the payments on there Volvo's and BMW's by means of Government funding (Grants).
Those who don't are ridiculed publicly for pointing out the fraud.
BTW Mt. ST. Helen the volcano released more hydro carbons into the air in less than one hour than the whole U.S. will create in decades.
It was far warmer in the days of King Arthur globally than is now or has been in recent memory.
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/arguments-against-global-warming.htm
http://www.nysun.com/opinion/inconvenient-truth-2007-08-13/60355/
M. Steyn would write that wouldn't he. His is not a scientific AFAIKS and has very conservative and extrem views on a range of subjects (he supported the 2003 invasion of Irak :eek: for instance.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Steyn
and volcano eruptions actually cool the atmosphere...
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php
I guess it all depends on what and who you want to believe.
The trouble is that he is correct.
These e-mails were hacked from the UEA Climate research unit:
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Suppression of evidence:
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:
Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):
……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….
How best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
There are some more from a second release here. The link is The Guardian so the e-mails are not fully quoted in order that they can try to present them as out of context. Some of the attempts to explain them away are laughable so worth a read.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-science-emails
My particular favourite is this one:
What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They'll kill us probably ..." Tommy Wills, Swansea University to the mailing list for tree-ring data forum ITRDB, 28 Mar 2007 (email 1682)
Do a couple of e-mails taken out of their context make you tothink he is right ? Seems to me to be quite a weak argument to justify our wasteful ways of life ? Whats the problem with taking care of the Earth and our future generations ?
The problem you have is and or thinking.
Climate change is being used as a control over us, that should set off alarm bells.
The government loves gullible saps it can minipulate.
There is nothing wrong with conservation but that is not what is being pushed down our throats.
And the big fix has been debunked and exposed , but still people are so brain washed they refuse to see it.
Do a couple of e-mails taken out of their context make you tothink he is right ? Seems to me to be quite a weak argument to justify our wasteful ways of life ? Whats the problem with taking care of the Earth and our future generations ?
This is what it always comes down to once the junk science is exposed for what it is. 'Even if it isn't true we still need to change our ways'. I had a long conversation on this subject with a bloke who had just completed his Phd in a 'climate related' subject and in the end that was his final fallback position too.
No-one is objecting to improving the environment and reducing pollution and waste. But that is not the agenda here. The agenda is to make you satisfied with less (unless you are wealthy and can buy carbon credits) because they have made you afraid the sky will fall in and your children will suffer if you don't comply.
Abraham Farlan: An American baby sucks in freedom with the milk of the breast on which he hangs. From a matter of life and death.
First thing I do when govt financed people say some facts is to reverse them and work from there. The trouble with climate study is it has grown into an entity with people who rely on the money it generates for their nice fine lives and their jobs and positions. Govts have pumped so much money into it and stood by it so much that any admissio!s of its credibility are going to destroy reputations and lose them and theirs there jobs etc.
The fact that you get university degrees jn it shows how deeply ingrained its become
I for one aint impressed by the arguements
Oldpinkman
12-01-2016, 09:36
Abraham Farlan: An American baby sucks in freedom with the milk of the breast on which he hangs. From a matter of life and death.
First thing I do when govt financed people say some facts is to reverse them and work from there. The trouble with climate study is it has grown into an entity with people who rely on the money it generates for their nice fine lives and their jobs and positions. Govts have pumped so much money into it and stood by it so much that any admissio!s of its credibility are going to destroy reputations and lose them and theirs there jobs etc.
The fact that you get university degrees jn it shows how deeply ingrained its become
I for one aint impressed by the arguements
Just because you are paranoid - doesn't mean the bastards aren't out to get you ;)
I think this obsession with conspiracy theories misses the point about what climate change is, and what science is for that matter. It ain't as simple as right or wrong. Its models, and theories, based on best available techniques, and a system with very long range cycles you can't carry out direct experiments on. Its necessarily a consensus conclusion - rather than something with a definite solution. 97% of scientists studying the subject accept the conclusion that through our actions we are warming the world up by MORE than its natural cycles and possibly accelerating risks which might otherwise be tens of thousands of years away at the next natural cyclical point. There is quite a range on their estimates of how much MORE we are warming it up - but zero isn't in the consensus.
It's not unlike the "science doesn't know everything" aspect in HiFi design. The statement is true. It is not reasonable to extrapolate that to argue Ohms law doesn't apply in amplifier design.
The problem is, if the "climate change is real and happens somewhat like we say" school (97%) are right this is one motherf***** of a juggernaut / oil tanker to put the brakes on.
Thank heavens the world isnt run by Hifi forums. :cool:
I ain't paranoid. My son is but that's by the by. The models used don't work and that's a big enough worry as to the predictions alone but folk seem to want to believe in something. Seems it's the Godless societies God
. Its necessarily a consensus conclusion - rather than something with a definite solution. 97% of scientists studying the subject accept the conclusion that through our actions we are warming the world up by MORE than its natural cycles and possibly accelerating risks which might otherwise be tens of thousands of years away at the next natural cyclical point. There is quite a range on their estimates of how much MORE we are warming it up - but zero isn't in the consensus.
:
Do you know how many scientists were in that sample they got the '97%' consensus from?
Just seventy-four. All of whom are/were making their living researching climate change.
it is just another lie that otherwise intelligent people take as gospel because they are too trusting or can't be bothered to check the facts.
As for the estimates on how much mankind is warming up the climate - we know for a fact that at the present time it is zero, and has been for 20 years.
Apologies it was 79 scientists not 74
text and link below:
The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.” A year later, William R. Love Anderegg, a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to determine that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC [anthropogenic climate change] outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” The sample size did not much improve on Zimmerman and Doran’s: Anderegg surveyed about 200 scientists.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
Just love these guys who set themselves up as the font of global warming n
Knowledge yet cant answer a straight question, mr Mair was all over the place.lol. 97%. Was all he had yet as martin says. He didnt say how many he asked or of what side they were on. The satellites are wrong ...give me a break!
it's not science, but some kind of weird religion against progress.
But the same people who would want us to live in the dark will not them selves.
Oldpinkman
12-01-2016, 16:40
Do you know how many scientists were in that sample they got the '97%' consensus from?
Just seventy-four. All of whom are/were making their living researching climate change.
it is just another lie that otherwise intelligent people take as gospel because they are too trusting or can't be bothered to check the facts.
As for the estimates on how much mankind is warming up the climate - we know for a fact that at the present time it is zero, and has been for 20 years.
I'm sure you're right. As indeed you are. Although I could challenge you to prove to me as a "fact" that no human activity affects climate. However, your opinions are just that - and not going to change anything, so of no great concern. Just watch out - They're behind you ! :D
Just seventy-four. All of whom are/were making their living researching climate change.
What, you think it would be better to ask bus drivers?
When I want a medical diagnosis, I go to a doctor, even though doctors are paid to treat patients.
How about a scientist who is not receiving money to come to a well funded conclusion.
The title is about climate change being a scam, am sure we all agree that it is not a scam, and is real. Regardless of whether we are speeding it up or not, it is happening, and will result in a lot more flooding, sea level rises etc. I have anecdotally noticed that we now have mild December weather in the UK with our real cold happening in Jan and Feb, with a lovely sunny spring...
walpurgis
12-01-2016, 17:37
We never did find out what happened to the second ice age they were predicting about thirty years ago. Must have got killed off by global warming I suppose. :rolleyes:
The fact is just as the Earth goes through seasonal cycles.
It would stand to reason it will naturally go through long term cycles as well to blame it on progress with no real proof is either because of extreme stupidity or a super secret hidden agenda.
How about a scientist who is not receiving money to come to a well funded conclusion.
See if you can find one.
You would expect climate scientists to be paid for what they specialise in, but they seem to not count as they are being paid. So where are the experts who know what they are talking about and are not getting funded by some interest group?
What, you think it would be better to ask bus drivers?
When I want a medical diagnosis, I go to a doctor, even though doctors are paid to treat patients.
'Climate science' and medicine are not even remotely comparable.
The title is about climate change being a scam, am sure we all agree that it is not a scam, and is real. Regardless of whether we are speeding it up or not, it is happening, and will result in a lot more flooding, sea level rises etc. I have anecdotally noticed that we now have mild December weather in the UK with our real cold happening in Jan and Feb, with a lovely sunny spring...
Accelerated sea level rise is another blatant lie I'm happy to have to tell you. Sea level has been rising steadily since about 10,000 years ago. To date no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that it is rising any faster than it has for the last several centuries.
As for UK floods that has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with the EU directive on water management which mandated that rivers and streams should be left to go natural and not be dredged, added to eco-lunacy and the general incompetence that usually accompanies it in the Environment Agency. Periods of heavy rainfall are not unusual in the UK, neither are mild Decembers.
Accelerated sea level rise is another blatant lie I'm happy to have to tell you. Sea level has been rising steadily since about 10,000 years ago. To date no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that it is rising any faster than it has for the last several centuries.
As for UK floods that has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with the EU directive on water management which mandated that rivers and streams should be left to go natural and not be dredged, added to eco-lunacy and the general incompetence that usually accompanies it in the Environment Agency. Periods of heavy rainfall are not unusual in the UK, neither are mild Decembers.
Can't agree at all. I spent a good deal of my civil engineering career specialising in river and canal engineering, flood alleviation schemes and raw water bulk supply schemes. Flash flooding in steep and hilly catchments especially where ground water levels and aquifers become saturated result in flash flooding downstream with high intensity rainfall and always have. Point is that the number and duration of such storm events has increased rather dramatically in recent years and there is sufficient evidence to link this to climate change irrespective of cause. You'd have to be a blind and deaf hermit not to have noticed warmer wetter winters are far more frequent now than perhaps over our entire lifetimes.
EU Directives do NOT stipulate that watercourses should be left to go "natural"...I'd be interested if you could stipulate the exact piece of legislation as enacted by UK law;). They do however stipulate when it is acceptable to carry out dredging and do stipulate environmental controls which need to be exercised in the events that dredging is required. I know this as I planned or managed many dredging schemes over the years. There is also the question for navigable waterways, including many main rivers of the Statutory Instruments (ie Waterways Act) to ensure that navigable standards are maintained, including dredging.
Also, the issue of dredging is not as clear cut as many would believe. It is true that EA budgets have been slashed for lowland drainage management, a good example being the Somerset Levels. I remember working years ago on pumping station maintenance schemes for the Levels and being well aware of the importance of dredging annually to keep the smaller drainage ditches in particular clear. However, the Levels include a large area of land reclaimed from the estuary for crop cultivation and diary farming and some years ago, the EA with continued budget cuts were forced into a lower Severn flood management strategy which included consideration from something called "beating the retreat" or allowing some land to periodically flood as the cost benefits were no longer there to maintain historic maintenance levels. That went too far with further cuts in funding and insufficient capacity for floodwater pumping plus clogged drainage waterways were the result. That is a very distinct example and not one that can be rolled out nationally.
For example, looking at say the Thames or the Severn catchments in more detail, whilst dredging can allow more flow capacity, it is only beneficial where dry weather river flows' river levels are significantly below that expected flood events and where there is no downstream control on hydraulic gradients such as weirs or locks etc. The Severn is heavily weired from Worcester downstream to Gloucester so that year round top water levels are impounded for navigation purposes. Therefore even if dredged, flow capacity is dictated by hydraulic gradient, top water levels and channel associated freeboard sectional area and not current channel depth, hence dredging actually has reduced beneficial effect in such circumstances.
I do agree though that there's been a creeping tendency to place more protection on creepy crawlies than on human beings over recent years and it is lunacy when in our crowded little island there is obviously significant need for greater funding for flood prevention and mitigation. That though must start with a total ban on further construction on flood plains and include a ban on increased development footprint for existing properties in flood plain. Its complete lunacy that for years we've known about inherent risks of increased inappropriate development but the EA and the government have spectacularly failed to taken enough action against these developments which often have over-riding political or financial agendas driving them. It has not helped the governmental environmental management departments have been in such disarray for so many years, with so many changes (ie NRA-EA, and MAFF/Dept of the Environment to DEFRA following the fiasco of the 2001 F&M outbreak and its mismanagement).
walpurgis
13-01-2016, 15:11
Localised flooding in rural areas is often due to lack of maintenance. Villages and smaller towns generally being low lying, find rain run off, directed in their direction, coming off the land and following roads and watercourses parallel to carriageways. The road drainage maintenance is not a patch on what it used to be. The grips feeding watercourses are not dug out and many gullies and associated drainage are simply not cleaned. The larger watercourses have grids at any culverts to stop larger debris passing and these are often not attended to and blocked leading to water overflowing back onto the adjacent road and onwards towards populated areas.
Localised flooding in rural areas is often due to lack of maintenance. Villages and smaller towns generally being low lying, find rain run off, directed in their direction, coming off the land and following roads and watercourses. The road drainage maintenance is not a patch on what it used to be. The grips feeding watercourses are not dug out and many gullies and associated drainage are simply not cleaned. The larger watercourses have grids to stop larger debris passing and these are often not attended to and blocked leading to overflowing back onto the adjacent road.
I agree to an extent regarding localised flooding Geoff, but one also has to consider the reality of increased intensity, duration and frequency of storm events becoming more damaging (this winter for exmple being the wettest on record leading to most areas of the UK suffering completely saturated ground and high water tables) and the very significant impact of ever increasing development in these areas, especially when combined with the lack of ditch and drainage maintenance.
I have decided that life is too short to read this entire thread, but would like to propose that if there are any people who seriously believe that climate change is a conspiracy to which all the world's scientists are party, then those people are clearly (deleted by me.. Dont insult people please Robert. Folk have a right to their opinions)
:)
:popcorn:
walpurgis
13-01-2016, 15:55
I wonder when somebody will mention HAARP? Ooops. Looks like I just did! :eyebrows:
I wonder when somebody will mention HAARP? Ooops. Looks like I just did! :eyebrows:
Ah yes haarp... I remember the EU demanding more info re this, and the US telling them "its just a radio science project" nothing to see here
LOL
Anyone not familiar with the sifi project orange
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160113/5c8c6653b61ac6664196d08915368c57.jpg
I have decided that life is too short to read this entire thread, but would like to propose that if there are any people who seriously believe that climate change is a conspiracy to which all the world's scientists are party, then those people are clearly (deleted by me.. Dont insult people please Robert. Folk have a right to their opinions)
:)
:popcorn:
No it is not a conspiracy and as we already have seen earlier in the thread the idea that 'all the world's scientists' agree that man-made global warming is a reality is a total lie. What actually happened is that a few scientists who were also ecological activists fiddled the data to present a non-existent danger - this was then taken up by extreme eco-groups and left-wing political activists (who liked the inference that society would have to make wholesale changes to offset the threat). Large amounts (billions) of research grants into mmgw were made available and this resulted in many more scientists jumping on the bandwagon.
As we know left wing political activists and eco-warriors are not averse to propagandising, lying and even aquainting their opponents heads with the pavement in order to get what they want. This made many scientist reluctant to speak out publically about what they considered to be poor science and abuse of the peer-review system.
Hope that clears things up for you.
The problem you have is and or thinking.
Climate change is being used as a control over us, that should set off alarm bells.
The government loves gullible saps it can minipulate.
There is nothing wrong with conservation but that is not what is being pushed down our throats.
And the big fix has been debunked and exposed , but still people are so brain washed they refuse to see it.
:clapclapclap:
you're the man Goraman !
walpurgis
13-01-2016, 18:24
The HAARP facility is being transfered into 'private' hands: https://theintercept.com/2015/07/13/military-site-center-conspiracy-will-transferred-civilian-operators/
Now there's a likely bit of subterfuge aimed at diverting attention. It may henceforth be operated under the auspices of The University of Alaska. But I'll bet you'd have trouble finding out what they're doing with it and at who's direction and who is funding active projects. Let alone being able to get near the place.
Personally. I doubt HAARP could have any great influence on weather conditions (assuming it has any) other than locally. To change weather globally would I reckon, require more energy than the whole of the US (or even the world?) could generate, let alone afford.
No it is not a conspiracy and as we already have seen earlier in the thread the idea that 'all the world's scientists' agree that man-made global warming is a reality is a total lie.
I always say there's nothing like choosing your own particular puddle to drown in :lol:
No it is not a conspiracy and as we already have seen earlier in the thread the idea that 'all the world's scientists' agree that man-made global warming is a reality is a total lie. What actually happened is that a few scientists who were also ecological activists fiddled the data to present a non-existent danger - this was then taken up by extreme eco-groups and left-wing political activists (who liked the inference that society would have to make wholesale changes to offset the threat). Large amounts (billions) of research grants into mmgw were made available and this resulted in many more scientists jumping on the bandwagon.
As we know left wing political activists and eco-warriors are not averse to propagandising, lying and even aquainting their opponents heads with the pavement in order to get what they want. This made many scientist reluctant to speak out publically about what they considered to be poor science and abuse of the peer-review system.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Not really.
I am genuinely struggling to understand what you are trying to say.
What I think you have said seems pretty bizarre, so much so that I fear that I might be misunderstanding your position? This is my summary of what I think you appear to be saying, please feel free to correct me:
You believe that a few radical scientists fiddled the data to make it look like there was climate change, then the 98% of rest of them all joined in on the scam, in full knowledge that it was a big fiddle, because they all saw how much money was available for lying about climate change? Furthermore you seem to believe that those scientists who do have pangs of remorse are reluctant to speak out about the lie because they are afraid of left-wing activists?
I find it hard to believe that this is actually what you are saying, because it seems so far-fetched.
As an aside, I understand that what we the public actually hear from the climate change modellers is an extremely watered down version of what they have found, because they have to make sure that they can 100% prove everything they present as they know that it will be pored over by people who want to discredit their research. They tell us that we have problem A, because they are sure of problem A. They don't tell us about problems B - Z which they think are probably going to happen, because they aren't 100% yet.
No you are missing a few points.
The climate does change and we know that although what the actual drivers are is currently unproven. Solar activity is likely paramount, however.
The reason that man-made climate change caught on is because the politicians liked the idea and were prepared to back research with our taxes. The politicians liked it because green policies are vote winners and it gave scope to impose more tax and controls in the guise of saving the planet.
All scientists do not agree that man is affecting the climate. There is still absolutely no proof of this. If you look into this subject more deeply and actually read some of the scientific debate you will see that in fact the issue is very much nuanced. There are no simple soundbite conclusions.
Those scientists who support the MMGW proposal are not very keen to have their work scrutinised, that is true. Freedom Of Information requests have been necessary to obtain access to their workings. In some cases, as we saw with the e-mails I posted earlier, they conspired together to delete e-mails and data even after FOA requests were issued. This is a crime but they were not prosecuted.
Nevertheless you don't need to be a scientist in order to work out that if one lot of scientists are prepared to break the law to prevent other scientists from checking their work something is very rotten in the state of Denmark.
Personally I find the most disturbing thing about the whole affair is that so many otherwise intelligent and educated people have just accepted what a few (and it is only a few) scientists, in league with almost all of the politicians, have told them without any questions whatsoever.
Finally take a look back at the predictions of doom those 'scientists' made 20 years ago about what would happen if we did not stop producing CO2. Well we didn't stop, we actually ramped it up and absolutely zero of those predictions have come true. How much more wrong do you want them to be?
EU Directives do NOT stipulate that watercourses should be left to go "natural"...I'd be interested if you could stipulate the exact piece of legislation as enacted by UK law;). They do however stipulate when it is acceptable to carry out dredging and do stipulate environmental controls which need to be exercised in the events that dredging is required. I know this as I planned or managed many dredging schemes over the years. There is also the question for navigable waterways, including many main rivers of the Statutory Instruments (ie Waterways Act) to ensure that navigable standards are maintained, including dredging.
).
Hi Paul
The EU directive concerned is this one http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32000L0060:EN:HTML
relevant portions
(ii) Member States shall protect, enhance and restore all bodies of surface water, subject to the application of subparagraph (iii) for artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good surface water status at the latest 15 years after the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4 and to the application of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8;
(iii) Member States shall protect and enhance all artificial and heavily modified bodies of water, with the aim of achieving good ecological potential and good surface water chemical status at the latest 15 years from the date of entry into force of this Directive, in accordance with the provisions laid down in Annex V, subject to the application of extensions determined in accordance with paragraph 4 and to the application of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 without prejudice to paragraph 8;
ANNEX V
1. SURFACE WATER STATUS
1.1. Quality elements for the classification of ecological status
1.1.1. Rivers
Biological elements
Composition and abundance of aquatic flora
Composition and abundance of benthic invertebrate fauna
Composition, abundance and age structure of fish fauna
Hydromorphological elements supporting the biological elements
Hydrological regime
quantity and dynamics of water flow
connection to groundwater bodies
River continuity
Morphological conditions
river depth and width variation
structure and substrate of the river bed
structure of the riparian zone
Chemical and physico-chemical elements supporting the biological elements
General
Thermal conditions
Oxygenation conditions
Salinity
Acidification status
Nutrient conditions
Specific pollutants
Pollution by all priority substances identified as being discharged into the body of water
Pollution by other substances identified as being discharged in significant quantities into the body of water
Whilst there is no specific restriction on dredging per se there is the need to categorise a body of water as 'artificial or heavily modified' if you wish to perform any sort if serious maintenance on it. otherwise as you can see there is a legal compulsion to prioritise the ecological aspect.
as for this 'Point is that the number and duration of such storm events has increased rather dramatically in recent years and there is sufficient evidence to link this to climate change irrespective of cause. You'd have to be a blind and deaf hermit not to have noticed warmer wetter winters are far more frequent now than perhaps over our entire lifetimes.
There is absolutely no evidence to make such a claim. We do not have data going back far enough to be able to map long term trends and claim that they have changed; If we are experiencing a higher frequency of such events - in itself debatable since the recent rainfall in Cumbria was not unprecedented within our lifetimes, it may be it is part of a much longer-term cycle.
legb4rsk
14-01-2016, 15:16
The Green Party,GreenPeace,etc. & all those soap dodging hippy,back-to-nature activists were seen as a bunch of loony lefties.
Then some bright spark came up with the idea of a 'green tax'.
Oh my! how things have changed.
No you are missing a few points.
Ok, but apart from that was I basically correct in my precis of your thinking?
You believe that a few radical scientists fiddled the data to make it look like there was climate change, then the 98% of rest of them all joined in on the scam, in full knowledge that it was a big fiddle, because they all saw how much money was available for lying about climate change? Furthermore you seem to believe that those scientists who do have pangs of remorse are reluctant to speak out about the lie because they are afraid of left-wing activists?
As to the rest of what you wrote, it is so at odds with the reality that I remember occurring that it is hard to address really. This world where politicians are all keen to support the science is not one that I recognise. This world where someone can assert that it is "a few (and it is only a few) scientists" who believe in climate change is not one that I recognise. How can you even write that sentence and expect not to be called out on it? Are you really attempting to say that it is a MINORITY of scientists who believe that man made climate change is happening? Are you party to some information that no-one else is?
This is what I believe:
It is not nuanced.
There are plenty of simple soundbite conclusions.
There is no conspiracy.
There is a consensus within the scientific community.
You can spew all you like about how this is not true, but you would be labouring under a deep misunderstanding about the current state of the science and might as well make yourself a tinfoil hat if you think its a global conspiracy funded by profits from windfarms!
Respectfully, of course.
Robert
:stalks: :)
I agree.
I was reading Metcheck yesterday , and where it said the sea temps off the UK are 2 to 3 degrees warmer than they should be .
This morning saw this . Makes you think
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/a-unique-event-in-tropical-storm-history/ar-BBobKhF?ocid=spartandhp
walpurgis
15-01-2016, 11:24
sea temps off the UK are 2 to 3 degrees warmer than they should be
A consequence of the powerful El Nino effects being experienced this year? If so, irregular, but cyclic and normal.
Fantasy science.
it is clear from this thread a lot of people have blindly accepted the rubbish that has been fed them about man-made warming. I think this is psychological, they want to believe that big bad man is destroying the planet because it is a narrative that appeals to them. Not sure why.
I'd urge anyone interested in the subject to do some serious reading and to follow the debates between the scientists rather than take as gospel what is written on some eco-propaganda site. At least that way you will be able to have an informed opinion, regardless of what you conclude.
Fair enough Macca.
Having farmed the land for over 40 yrs , I have my own opinion.
40 years isn't anything like long enough to draw any conclusions about climate. If you had farmed for 4000 years, maybe you could. I don't doubt that you have noticed changes and variations in that time but to then ascribe those changes to some sort of man-made effect is an enormous leap of faith with absolutely no basis in scientific method.
walpurgis
15-01-2016, 12:47
I know what Anto is getting at though, having also spent most of my life working out of doors. You do get a 'feel' for the weather and seasons, so changes and trends are noticed due to this awareness.
Yes ive worked outside for many years and i would say the weather has changed over last 10 years. Cycles of sun activity count for much of it but not all. Its wetter and warmer overall across the seasons. Saying its human inflicted global warming is a leap too far too soon though. Sure we contribute to the climate but it is a hugely complex system that give us our weather and no models come close to understanding it or likely ever will. The science behind the frantic doom scenario is decidedly dicey.
This doesnt mean we should just be complacent and pollute for the sake of it though.. Its always good practice to keep the workspace clean
Yes totally agree. But the climate is always changing. Would a farmer, farming the same piece of land 500 years ago have noticed any changes in his lifetime? I think it unlikely that he would not. And yet that is way before industrialisation.
Whether we can ascribe those changes to the actions of man, and further, to the effects of one trace gas, is what is being debated. The idea that 'the science is settled' on these questions is utterly absurd.
Ali Tait
15-01-2016, 14:56
Indeed. It is well established I believe that Britain was much wetter during the IronAge, which followed a much drier and warmer period during the Bronze Age. Too many camp fires perhaps? :-)
Pointless discussions with the few remaining Climate Change sceptics always make me chuckle - the extreme wriggling it involves to 'discredit' the data is pure entertainment :lol:
Some ice-cold facts here (no 'theoretical modelling' required):
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/
Quote:
"Antarctic ice cores show us that the concentration of CO2 was stable over the last millennium until the early 19th century. It then started to rise, and its concentration is now nearly 40% higher than it was before the industrial revolution (see Fig. 2 overleaf). Other measurements (e.g. isotopic data) confirm that the increase must be due to emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel usage and deforestation. Measurements from older ice cores (discussed below) confirm that both the magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years. The fastest large natural increase measured in older ice cores is around 20ppmv (parts per million by volume) in 1,000 years (a rate seen during Earth’s emergence from the last ice age around 12,000 years ago). CO2 concentration increased by the same amount, 20ppmv, in the last 10 years! Methane (CH4), another important greenhouse gas, also shows a huge and unprecedented increase in concentration over the last two centuries. Its concentration is now much more than double its pre-industrial level."
Mike no one is disputing that we have doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere.
That is not proof that it increases global temperature.
Mike no one is disputing that we have doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere.
That is not proof that it increases global temperature.
Turn it on its head
Theres no proof it does not!
I am not really sure where folk are going with this . Are we just trying to damn every scientist that believes in it or are we as someone so cleverly put early on , stick our heads in the sand ,like a big old bird!!
I like big old birds by the way
I like big old birds by the way
As long as they still have some 'juice' left in them, eh? ;)
Marco.
As long as they still have some 'juice' left in them, eh? ;)
Marco.
I have my special mixture for basting them;)
Mike no one is disputing that we have doubled the CO2 in the atmosphere.
That is not proof that it increases global temperature.
Must admit you got me there - a really tough one to call ...
When it comes to the evidence of a direct link between the clear rise in CO2 and associated GHGs and an equally sharp increase in warming of the planet - do I believe:
A) a whole bunch of scientific organisations (including NASA and the Royal Society) supported by a sizeable majority of scientific experts in the field of study.
.... or
B) some bloke on the internet who thinks its all bollocks
I think this is what our American cousins would refer to as a "No-Brainer" :lol:
A) a whole bunch of scientific organisations (including NASA and the Royal Society) supported by a sizeable majority of scientific experts in the field of study.
My problem with this answer is that "sizeable majority of scientific experts" should read "all of the scientific experts."
The science has absolutely been settled.
To believe otherwise is to believe
that all of the scientists are lying,
which is preposterous.
My problem with this answer is that "sizeable majority of scientific experts" should read "all of the scientific experts."
The science has absolutely been settled.
To believe otherwise is to believe
that all of the scientists are lying,
which is preposterous.
Here is a list of scientists who don't agree that 'the science is settled.' (in itself a remark that no self-respecting scientist without an agenda would make)
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
David Bellamy, botanist.[14][15][16][17]
Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[18][unreliable source?][19]
Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[20][21]
Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[22][23][24][25]
Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[26][27]
Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[28][29]
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[30][31][32][33]
Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]
Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[41][42][43]
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[44][45]
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[46][47]
Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.[48]
Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[49][50][51][52]
Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.[53]
Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[54][55]
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[56][57]
Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[58][59]
Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[60][61]
Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[62][63]
Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[64]
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[65]
These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences[66][67]
Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[68][69][70]
Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg[71][72][73]
Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University[74][75]
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[76][77]
Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland[78][79]
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester[80][81]
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[82][83]
William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University[84][85]
William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University[86][87]
Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo[88][89]
Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[90][91]
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology[92][93]
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware[94][95]
Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri[96][97]
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa[98][99]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[100][101][102]
Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[103][104]
Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego[105][106]
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado[107][108]
Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University[109][110][111]
Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo[112][113]
Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem[114][115]
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia[116][117][118][119]
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[120][121]
Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville[122][123]
Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center[124][125]
George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University[126][127]
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa[128][129]
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[130][131]
Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[132][133]
Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[134][135]
Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[136][137]
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[138][139][140]
Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[141][142]
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[143][144]
Ivar Giaever, professor emeritus of physics at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a Nobel laureate.[145][146]
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes[147][148]
Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change[149][150]
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[151][152]
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.
Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior[153][154][155]
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change [156][157]
Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University[158][159]
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia[160][161]
Dead scientists
This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.
August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming[162]
Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes:[163]
Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute[163] to counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming.[164] Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation.[165]
Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923-2011), Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the money flood" of government grants.[166]
Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[163][167]
Here is a list of scientists who don't agree that 'the science is settled.' (in itself a remark that no self-respecting scientist without an agenda would make)
An interesting, if relatively short list. Must admit its difficult not to take any list seriously that starts with that acclaimed TV pundit and all-round comedian David Bellamy and also includes this guy:
"Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg he established the George C. Marshall Institute to counter the scientists who were arguing against Reagan's Starwars Initiative, arguing for equal time in the media. This institute later took the view that tobacco was having no effect, that acid rain was not caused by human emissions, that ozone was not depleted by CFCs, that pesticides were not environmentally harmful and it was also critical of the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming. Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation."
Sure to be a real hoot at any scientific conference, if he was still among the living.
Also surprised that you didn't include the renowned heads of the 'Global Warming Policy Foundation' (GWPF), Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser.
After all, there's nothing like an Economist and a Lecturer in Sports Science to add scientific lustre and credence to the sceptic stance :lol:
Yes, well the head of the IPCC is a railway engineer so draw your own conclusions about scientific expertise/specialisation.
The list was culled directly from Wikipedia. I have no doubt that it is not exhaustive.
From that list this chap in particular is worth checking out:
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
AS you can see an emeritus professor at MIT is about as far from joke credentials as you can get. If you read some of his work and the discsusions/debates he has been involved in you will start to realise the debate is quite nuanced and that the whole 'science is settled' thing is a little bit Janet and John.
An interesting, if relatively short list.
I have to put my hands up to being called out on my use of the word "all". I had considered using "all credible scientists" or "all scientists barring a small lunatic fringe", but decided that brevity was more elegant, and less confrontational. (But thank you Martin for looking on Wikipedia to provide us with a list of those "scientists".)
"Discussing" things on the internet is often a pointless exercise, but there are some subjects that are close to my heart and whilst I realise that it is unlikely to change anyone's opinion, lest some impressionable young mind one day believes that the unchallenged proclamations read upon a hi-fi site reflected the truth about climate change, there are a couple of things that I would like to address directly with you, Martin, if I may.
1. I am not very happy that whilst I was censored in my efforts to call climate change deniers "monumental idiots" (which I thought was rather measured and polite) you can quite happily say the following, which is at best extremely patronising:
it is clear from this thread a lot of people have blindly accepted the rubbish that has been fed them about man-made warming. I think this is psychological, they want to believe that big bad man is destroying the planet because it is a narrative that appeals to them. Not sure why.
I'd urge anyone interested in the subject to do some serious reading (...) rather than take as gospel what is written on some eco-propaganda site.
Basically you said that anyone who does not agree with you has "blindly accepted rubbish" and that this rubbish can only have come from an eco-propoganda site. Personally I think that it is hugely insulting, and it doesn't even address the argument. I am guessing that the "serious reading" that you urge would only be considered "serious" by you if it agreed with your position? Would I be right in that? Someone actually posted a bit of "serious reading" from the British Antarctic Survey website, and you were very quick to dismiss it (fallaciously and using misdirection) by effectively saying "Oh yes of course I agree with that but CO2 doesn't have anything to do with temperature change". Can I take it that you have "seriously read" a lot of the articles on the BAS website? Or perhaps not. I am sure that you will have a very good reason as to why your "serious reading" on the subject does not need to read such frivolous and biased research.
My position on the science behind climate change does not come from blindly believing nonsense I have read on eco-web sites, it comes from satellite data.
2. I asked you a couple of direct questions which you seem to have ignored. One was whether or not my precis of your thinking was largely accurate - ie, that you believe that all (okay: most, 97%, whatever) scientists are lying, for profit. Another was whether you were party to any information that the rest of us were not.
3. I am genuinely interested as to how you have arrived at your position. I think I am fairly safe in assuming that you are not a climate change scientist, or indeed a professional scientist of any description? Now I understand that you have a list of scientists "who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming" (*from the Wikipedia page that you cut and pasted), but I have to give you enough credit to assume that you did not just google that article on Wikipedia and decided that you would not believe in the consensus. There had to be a thought process that has led you to decide that all of the world's scientists (apart from a tiny brave handful who were standing up against the ridicule and loss of professional standing) were lying, and that you, after some "serious reading" were better placed to pronounce judgement on the planet's systems than a very large group of people whose job it was to do so. I am sorry if this sounds confrontational at all, I suppose it will, but I am genuinely interested into why you decided to go the way you did. I am also curious as to why you seem so agitated about it?
I woud be grateful if you could address the questions that I have raised.
Robert
From that list this chap in particular is worth checking out:
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
AS you can see an emeritus professor at MIT is about as far from joke credentials as you can get. If you read some of his work and the discsusions/debates he has been involved in you will start to realise the debate is quite nuanced and that the whole 'science is settled' thing is a little bit Janet and John.
!!!
his wikipedia page is a real LULZFEST.
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.
But yes, retired academics are indeed at the cutting edge of the science.
Ali Tait
16-01-2016, 14:53
You keep using the term "Climate change deniers". No one here is denying the climate is changing. Just the mechanism of the change.
You keep using the term "Climate change deniers". No one here is denying the climate is changing. Just the mechanism of the change.
Thanks Ali, but I believe that I am using the term correctly.
from Wikipedia:
Climate change denial, or global warming denial, involves denial, dismissal, or unwarranted doubt about the scientific consensus on the rate and extent of global warming, or about the extent to which it is caused by humans, its impacts on nature and human society, or the potential for human actions to reduce these impacts.
Ali Tait
16-01-2016, 15:37
That doesn't mean much, anyone can add articles to Wiki. Just because it's on there does not mean it's fact.
Not saying it's not correct in this instance, just that Wiki is not necessarily an authoritative source.
That doesn't mean much, anyone can add articles to Wiki. Just because it's on there does not mean it's fact.
Not saying it's not correct in this instance, just that Wiki is not necessarily an authoritative source.
It's just the commonly accepted definition of the term, Ali.
We should not get too distracted by semantic quibbles, but I suppose that the question of the reliability of one's sources is pertinent to the main topic under discussion.
Perhaps you are more comfortable with the OED?
denialist
de¦nial|ist
Pronunciation: /dɪˈnʌɪ(ə)lɪst/
noun
A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:
the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists
[AS MODIFIER]: the denialist view
;)
walpurgis
16-01-2016, 16:01
I think I'll stop reading this thread.
I though this made interesting reading
http://www.worldpreservationfoundation.org/topic.php?cat=climateChange#.VppobVmjEY8
It would appear that my few cows (I only have a few by todays standards) are producing methane that needs curbing ! Perhaps I should retire :cool:
As an aside , methane hydrates on the ocean floors , warming ,and releasing more methane into the atmosphere ??
I think I'll stop reading this thread.
Ha ha . Its :mental:
Perhaps you are more comfortable with the OED?
denialist
de¦nial|ist
Pronunciation: /dɪˈnʌɪ(ə)lɪst/
noun
A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence:
the small minority of very vocal climate change denialists
[AS MODIFIER]: the denialist view
Or perhaps he's just a free-thinker, who believes what *he* thinks is right, regardless of what 'science says is right', or Wikipedia, and doesn't give jack shit about being tagged with such presumptuous labels? ;)
Count me in :yesbruv:
Long live the 'heretics' who continually seek to challenge 'currently accepted wisdom'!
Marco.
Or perhaps he's just a free-thinker, who believes what *he* thinks is right, regardless of what 'science says is right', or Wikipedia, and doesn't give jack shit about being tagged with such presumptuous labels? ;)
You should take it up with the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary, Marco, but the definition you have proposed would seem to be closer to the definition for "delusional".
delusional
de¦lu|sion¦al
Pronunciation: /dɪˈluːʒ(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
1. Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder:
hospitalization for schizophrenia and delusional paranoia
he was diagnosed with a delusional disorder
:lol:
I have to put my hands up to being called out on my use of the word "all". I had considered using "all credible scientists" or "all scientists barring a small lunatic fringe", but decided that brevity was more elegant, and less confrontational. (But thank you Martin for looking on Wikipedia to provide us with a list of those "scientists".)
An MIT Professor is lunatic fringe? You might do better trying to present an argument, this is simply a poor attempt to pour scorn and people can see through that.
"Discussing" things on the internet is often a pointless exercise, but there are some subjects that are close to my heart and whilst I realise that it is unlikely to change anyone's opinion, lest some impressionable young mind one day believes that the unchallenged proclamations read upon a hi-fi site reflected the truth about climate change, there are a couple of things that I would like to address directly with you, Martin, if I may.
1. I am not very happy that whilst I was censored in my efforts to call climate change deniers "monumental idiots" (which I thought was rather measured and polite) you can quite happily say the following, which is at best extremely patronising:
I didn't moderate you. I would have left that in as it diminishes your position rather than enhances it.
Basically you said that anyone who does not agree with you has "blindly accepted rubbish" and that this rubbish can only have come from an eco-propoganda site. Personally I think that it is hugely insulting, and it doesn't even address the argument. I am guessing that the "serious reading" that you urge would only be considered "serious" by you if it agreed with your position? Would I be right in that? Someone actually posted a bit of "serious reading" from the British Antarctic Survey website, and you were very quick to dismiss it (fallaciously and using misdirection) by effectively saying "Oh yes of course I agree with that but CO2 doesn't have anything to do with temperature change". Can I take it that you have "seriously read" a lot of the articles on the BAS website? Or perhaps not. I am sure that you will have a very good reason as to why your "serious reading" on the subject does not need to read such frivolous and biased research.
You completely misquote me, presumably because you don't have an argument otherwise. The poster in question thought that the debate was about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. That was all the evidence he linked to and since that is undisputed there was nothing more to say. Whilst CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' the increases in the last 30 years have not led to increased warming of the climate. Cause and effect are not established and are clearly not linear. We have done the experiment for real and the alarmists were wrong.
My position on the science behind climate change does not come from blindly believing nonsense I have read on eco-web sites, it comes from satellite data.
Data all the scientists have, both those who agree and those who disagree that there is any man made influence - so your point is?
2. I asked you a couple of direct questions which you seem to have ignored. One was whether or not my precis of your thinking was largely accurate - ie, that you believe that all (okay: most, 97%, whatever) scientists are lying, for profit. Another was whether you were party to any information that the rest of us were not.
I answered you question in some detail. But to briefly recap - Yes, some scientists are lying. They have been discovered to be lying. Money and/or political/moral motivations are the reason. I am amused that you think that scientists are immune to those things which drive all other humans. Do I have access to information that others don't? No.
3. I am genuinely interested as to how you have arrived at your position. I think I am fairly safe in assuming that you are not a climate change scientist, or indeed a professional scientist of any description? Now I understand that you have a list of scientists "who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming" (*from the Wikipedia page that you cut and pasted), but I have to give you enough credit to assume that you did not just google that article on Wikipedia and decided that you would not believe in the consensus. There had to be a thought process that has led you to decide that all of the world's scientists (apart from a tiny brave handful who were standing up against the ridicule and loss of professional standing) were lying, and that you, after some "serious reading" were better placed to pronounce judgement on the planet's systems than a very large group of people whose job it was to do so. I am sorry if this sounds confrontational at all, I suppose it will, but I am genuinely interested into why you decided to go the way you did. I am also curious as to why you seem so agitated about it?
I'd suggest that it is you who are agitated, indeed the emotional tone of your posts does seem to convey that this is some sort of raw nerve for you. 'all of the world's scientists (apart from a tiny brave handful who were standing up against the ridicule and loss of professional standing) were lying' - Seriously so you think that there is some global body of 'Science' where everyone, regardless of discipline, pronounces their view on mad made climate change? You are trying to paint a picture, a very silly one.
Like you I accepted the soundbites without question. 'All the world's scientists' etc - It was when I read an article about the famous photograph of the polar bears 'stranded' on an ice flow. The photographer was not happy that their photograph had ben hijacked in this way. They stated that the ice flow was les than a mile from shore and the bears were in no danger' That got me looking into the subject in more detail, both the science and the propaganda sides. On the propaganda side a shocking amount of lies are told and the motivation interested me. Once I realised there was a moral/political angle I started to see things in a different light.
I'm not a scientist but I do have an academic background and it is possible to follow the science with some reading around the subject.
I woud be grateful if you could address the questions that I have raised.
Robert
My responses in bold
!!!
his wikipedia page is a real LULZFEST.
According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article,[67] "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." He also believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming.[67] Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001,[8] and offered more support in a 2009 paper.
But yes, retired academics are indeed at the cutting edge of the science.
If you have not heard of Lindzen before then you can't have read much on this subject.
Like you I accepted the soundbites without question.
There you have it again - a patronising assumption that I am blindly swallowing soundbites.
My sister has been studying the antarctic ice sheet since the mid 1990s, and through conversations with her, and from meeting many of her cryoscientist colleagues and listening to their conversations, the picture is clear. Their understanding of the situation is that it is far worse than we read about in any IPCC report, and any doubt that it was affected by mankind has disappeared in the last ten years or so. They are clearly not doing it for money or kudos. They are doing it because thats what they do. They throw up some satellites and read the data sent back. They fly planes over Greenland. They monitor the ocean currents. The ocean guys talk to the ice people, as they do with the desert people and the rainforest people. Every year the knowledge we have grows, whether that is a greater understanding of ocean currents, ice sheet thickness, or sub glacial lake systems. The information grows, and the climate models improve year on year and the computers get better.
I wasn't really trying to construct an argument against you, because for me there is no argument. The science is settled and yet there are a few people who make a lot of noise trying to claim that it is not. The only reason I engaged was because you seemed to be saying that all climate scientists were part of some orchestrated conspiracy to lie about climate change. This just seemed so patently tin-foil-hat-wearing bonkers that I felt the need to clarify if that is really what you were saying.
You also say "I am amused that you think that scientists are immune to those things which drive all other humans." Firstly it is just too far fetched to imagine that there is a conspiracy of scientists, but also this is an incredibly sad view of the world and of human motivation, to believe we are ALL driven purely by greed and politics. It is not a world that I recognise.
Anyway. Good luck with it.
Who really cares about polar bears, there nasty beasts with putrid breath, they would rather eat you than drink a Coke.
When the ice melts, it will make the perfect place for a golf coarse.:lol:
Now can we all just sing cumbyah!
There you have it again - a patronising assumption that I am blindly swallowing soundbites.
My sister has been studying the antarctic ice sheet since the mid 1990s, and through conversations with her, and from meeting many of her cryoscientist colleagues and listening to their conversations, the picture is clear. Their understanding of the situation is that it is far worse than we read about in any IPCC report, and any doubt that it was affected by mankind has disappeared in the last ten years or so. They are clearly not doing it for money or kudos. They are doing it because thats what they do. They throw up some satellites and read the data sent back. They fly planes over Greenland. They monitor the ocean currents. The ocean guys talk to the ice people, as they do with the desert people and the rainforest people. Every year the knowledge we have grows, whether that is a greater understanding of ocean currents, ice sheet thickness, or sub glacial lake systems. The information grows, and the climate models improve year on year and the computers get better.
I wasn't really trying to construct an argument against you, because for me there is no argument. The science is settled and yet there are a few people who make a lot of noise trying to claim that it is not. The only reason I engaged was because you seemed to be saying that all climate scientists were part of some orchestrated conspiracy to lie about climate change. This just seemed so patently tin-foil-hat-wearing bonkers that I felt the need to clarify if that is really what you were saying.
You also say "I am amused that you think that scientists are immune to those things which drive all other humans." Firstly it is just too far fetched to imagine that there is a conspiracy of scientists, but also this is an incredibly sad view of the world and of human motivation, to believe we are ALL driven purely by greed and politics. It is not a world that I recognise.
Anyway. Good luck with it.
So cards on the table you have relatives who are making a living from climate research. So I apologise you are not relying on the soundbites but from people who have told you it
is all true because they do research in that area and you have just accepted that.
Satellite data and flying planes may allow you to make empirical observations - it does not allow you to draw conclusions about the causes of what you observe. The distinction is an important one. At least it is in proper science. I have evidence that some scientists telling us 'the science is settled' know nothing about the science in question. More later.
So cards on the table you have relatives who are making a living from climate research. So I apologise you are not relying on the soundbites but from people who have told you it is all true because they do research in that area and you have just accepted that.
Because they do research in that particular area doesn't make it true. And does the fact that they are getting paid make their findings less trustworthy ?
Satellite data and flying planes may allow you to make empirical observations - it does not allow you to draw conclusions about the causes of what you observe. The distinction is an important one. At least it is in proper science. I have evidence that some scientists telling us 'the science is settled' know nothing about the science in question. More later.
Is the fact that you have evidence that some scientists have different ideas make it a scientific distinction ? IMO, empirical data is needed in scientific research. Otherwise it wouldn't be scientific but subjective.
Because they do research in that particular area doesn't make it true. And does the fact that they are getting paid make their findings less trustworthy ?
.
I agree your first part, this applies to any field of research, obviously. No to your second part, although the availability of grants is something any research scientist is concerned about - they have mortgages, car payments, boat payments etc like the rest of us - I think the reason they are prepared to go to the lengths that some have is their political/moral motivation i.e they don't approve of consumer capitalism and want to believe that it is destroying the planet, and they want to feel like they are contributing something important and revolutionary to mankind; a legacy in other words. Hence the pitch to the general public has been on a crude emotional level - cuddly polar bears, 'think of the children' etc combined with dismissing any educated objections with 'the science is already settled'.
Satellite data and flying planes may allow you to make empirical observations - it does not allow you to draw conclusions about the causes of what you observe.
At this point it is very difficult to pretend to be having a sensible discussion any more as you seem to not understand what science is, or what scientists do.
At this point it is very difficult to pretend to be having a sensible discussion any more as you seem to not understand what science is, or what scientists do.
I know that is what you'd like to think, even if you really know that it is not true.
Any claims that the past 100 years or so of man burning fossil fuels has had zero effect on the climate, I would suggest, is border-line lunatic fringe talk. Most credible evidence suggests otherwise.
What evidence would that be then Paul?
Consider that you not only must have evidence that the climate has changed, you must also demonstrate a causal link between the climate change and human activity.
- I think the reason they are prepared to go to the lengths that some have is their political/moral motivation i.e they don't approve of consumer capitalism and want to believe that it is destroying the planet, -
You really haven't met many research scientists have you .... the notion that they are all tree-hugging lefties is quite frankly beyond daft and into the realms of pure fantasy.
You really haven't met many research scientists have you .... the notion that they are all tree-hugging lefties is quite frankly beyond daft and into the realms of pure fantasy.
Making up things I might have said but didn't and then criticising them isn't really having a discussion is it?
Making up things I might have said but didn't and then criticising them isn't really having a discussion is it?
Is quoting your own words not enough?
I could go back and trawl through the thread and find the umpteen examples where you have regurgitated the same tired and fallacious mantra about this topic, but to be honest I just can't be arsed.
You are convinced it's all a money-spinning conspiracy and you know what - you are welcome to live in your self concocted fantasy. The impact of your argument and those who still uphold such home-brewed codswallop is thankfully minimal.
walpurgis
17-01-2016, 20:44
Sarcasm is not an attractive trait!
This thread is marked for deletion
Long overdue I reckon:)
What evidence would that be then Paul?
Consider that you not only must have evidence that the climate has changed, you must also demonstrate a causal link between the climate change and human activity.
Don't forget that you aren't allowed to reference any scientific research!
:eek: :)
;)
:guitar:
:eek:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/cancer-and-climate-change.html
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/04/13/greenland_is_melting_much_faster_than_scientists_e xpected.html
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Audio Advent
16-04-2016, 17:30
At this point it is very difficult to pretend to be having a sensible discussion any more as you seem to not understand what science is, or what scientists do.
I've read your points Macca about science on a few different topics - I came to his same conclusion.
I know that is what you'd like to think, even if you really know that it is not true.
So now you have gone as far as to claim that anyone arguing against your view must be lying about what they really claim to believe to be true?
That really is venturing into the realms of lunatic fringe!
"They are all corrupt! It's all a conspiracy !"
Audio Advent
16-04-2016, 17:40
What evidence would that be then Paul?
Consider that you not only must have evidence that the climate has changed, you must also demonstrate a causal link between the climate change and human activity.
That's a little arrogant and hypocritical!
Why must he? To satisfy your demands? Where are YOUR standards of evidence for your point of view?
All you do is reference other people's views and pass the buck for those standards of evidence. In most every case the people you've refered to in this long running thread can and have been debunked by others already. But the response to that is the morally corrupt response that those debunking are corrupt themselves.
When the only case for one's position is that those who show evidence that debunks that position are corrupt, the position has no merrit. It's exactly like the last throws of a corrupt dictator throwing everyone in jail for consipracies against him because they've shown evidence for crimes he has committed.
Sam, I gave up on this thread as those who wanted to debate had clearly not done the required reading and had nothing to work with but weak ad hominem combined with misrepresenting my position and then arguing against that, and not what I actually stated.
Now it appears you want to join and do the same thing. Forget about it.
so defeating Martin is going to change everything? maybe you should try and change China and India who are 2 of the current biggest polluters..
Now if you are not going to stop insulting folk then this thread will be closed. and insults will be deleted.
Grant it is my thread and it is fine.
In fact I only started the thread due to a private joke between me and Oldpinkman.
walpurgis
16-04-2016, 18:43
I don't need to read, research or even understand anything about a topic to know that arguments arising will have more than one side. The 'evidence' supposedly most strongly in favour of a particular debate on a world issue probably coming from the side with the most money behind it. This undoubtedly being because of government and industry support which will naturally be agenda driven. Lets face it. Nobody would suspect them of doing anything underhand or dishonesty or just barefaced lying, now would they?
That's a little arrogant and hypocritical!
Why must he? To satisfy your demands? Where are YOUR standards of evidence for your point of view?
Take a step back, Sam, and see how the above reads, in terms of tone [I found it rather aggressive and confrontational - tetchy at best]... Were you in a bad mood when you wrote it? It certainly seems that way ;)
Chillax, man! :cool:
Marco.
Haselsh1
16-04-2016, 19:10
Utter scaremongering...!
I have said this before and i'll say it again;
Once upon a time there was a huge hole in the ozone layer that was going to fry us all, then, there was this fuckoff big asteroid that was going to smash the Earth into pieces. Now they have run out of bollocks to tell us all, so, let's make something up shall we.
Who is they?
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Who is they?
The Lizard People from Planet Zog, obvs!
The Lizard People from Planet Zog, obvs!
I hate those guys.
Audio Advent
17-04-2016, 23:05
Sam, I gave up on this thread as those who wanted to debate had clearly not done the required reading and had nothing to work with but weak ad hominem combined with misrepresenting my position and then arguing against that, and not what I actually stated.
Now it appears you want to join and do the same thing. Forget about it.
Sorry Martin... :o Reading the post Marco pulled up does read a little agressively!
I do pose that same question though - not sure how else to put it...
Someone says they can find some evidence to back their position but then you quickly decree that before you'll even bother to consider their evidence being worthy of part of the debate, it has to pass your own standards of validity, set by yourself... And that when you've not aproached those standards at all with your own arguments (where the hypocritical bit comes in).
That's acting out a kind of power play over someone in an argument - often done by people on the loosing side of an argument who's case is week, I may add. (making power plays could be seen as some kind of agression or arrogance - hence where I was coming from).
Audio Advent
17-04-2016, 23:14
Utter scaremongering...!
I have said this before and i'll say it again;
Once upon a time there was a huge hole in the ozone layer that was going to fry us all, then, there was this fuckoff big asteroid that was going to smash the Earth into pieces. Now they have run out of bollocks to tell us all, so, let's make something up shall we.
You've read too many sensationalist tabloids and they've worn you out so that you can't be bothered to listen any more.
If you listen to people who actually know what they're talking about (not tabloids) you will see that the risks from the ozone layer depletion were/are slow onset and also, for human health risk, percentage increases of risk. Those are not hard hitting factors so tabloids sex them up and wear you down with their sensationalist nature.
An asteroid has NEVER been about to hit the earth EVER. That is all rubbish. There have been some which have a certain risk of coming close and some have done and passed us by but never has anyone been concerned other than to keep an eye that their predicted travel is correct (that they won't hit the earth). Again, that's not much to sell a paper is it?
Your problem seemingly should be with the media - nothing to do with what's really happening with climate change and the real science and data behind the hypothesis, a hypothesis that has so much evidence backing it up that it's pretty much true as far as science can ever be. Of course that open-minded scientific doubt then allows conspiracy theorists a gap to drive in a wedge with all their completely debunkable (not by me - I've not the inclination nor the time thanks) and unfounded trollop.
walpurgis
17-04-2016, 23:19
It's a shame that anybody who questions popular principles could become badged as a conspiracy theorist. Everything is open to question!
It's a shame that anybody who questions popular principles could become badged as a conspiracy theorist. Everything is open to question!
I think the conspiracy theory thing is in regard to the proposition that all the scientists are lying about climate change.
That idea, which has been unequivocally stated in this thread, is quite clearly a theory that there is a conspiracy of scientists to lie.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
This is quite good, and clearly explained:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/?_r=0
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
This is quite good, and clearly explained:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/?_r=0
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
It's 100% waffle.
It's 100% waffle.
I KNOW! That's why I posted it!!!! LOL
I mean, really, what an idiot! His research is much better when taken out of context by denialist bloggers to show that climate change is a scam.
And did you see the video? What a MORON! Pretending he understands geophysics better than Piers Corbyn. What a stupid LOSER!
[emoji6]
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Yes, but apart from that, he's ok? :eyebrows:
Marco.
It's a shame that anybody who questions popular principles could become badged as a conspiracy theorist. Everything is open to question!
I think some things are accepted as fact by all except the delusional and those with a vested interest in maintaining the opposite. Does anyone now believe that smoking is not a major cause of lung cancer? And were not the last 'deniers' of this heavy smokers and tobacco companies?
I think some things are accepted as fact by all except the delusional and those with a vested interest in maintaining the opposite.
Ahem... I give you the age-old circular debate of: 'Do cables make a difference?' ;)
<Runs for cover>
Marco.
Ahem... I give you the age-old debate of: 'Do cables make a difference?' ;)
<Runs for cover>
Marco.
Well, quite. Of course, global warming and lung cancer pale into insignificance when compared to the fundamental importance of cable differences.
Lol... Well, of course, no. However, in terms of your statement: "I think some things are accepted as fact by all except the delusional", I'm merely providing an example of a so-called 'fact' that not everyone accepts, whether one is a 'believer' or 'non-believer'.
Although utterly trivial in comparison, parallels can be drawn with the cable debate which are similar to those relating to the climate change/global warming one.
Here's the thing: who gets to judge who is "delusional", and on what basis?
Marco.
Lol... Well, of course, no. However, in terms of your statement: "I think some things are accepted as fact by all except the delusional", I'm merely providing an example of a so-called 'fact' that not everyone accepts, whether one is a 'believer' or 'non-believer'.
Although utterly trivial in comparison, parallels can be drawn with the cable debate which are similar to those relating to the climate change one.
Marco.
There's obviously a blurry line between things that are accepted as facts by all expect the delusional, and 'facts' which are really opinions masquerading as facts, such as 'cables make no difference' and 'all amplifiers sound the same'. Climate change is IMO closer to the former than the latter; I know quite a few environmental scientists and without exception they agree that climate change is happening, though they may disagree on the precise causes and solutions. The only dissenters I know of are vested interests (oil companies) tabloid newspapers, and Blokes on the Internet. Personally I don't think it can be argued that climate change isn't happening; a look at the statistics will tell you that, and even most 'deniers' will concede that point. They will however maintain that 'climate change has always happened', and/or that 'any action by us is pointless because of China/India/wherever'.
As to who gets to judge what beliefs are 'delusional', IMO it's the experts in that particular field. If 100% of doctors agree that smoking causes lung cancer, then I say we trust them to be right, because they've done the research and understand the statistics; ditto environmental scientists and climate change. I would also look at what might motivate their opponents; i.e. are they disinterested observers, or do they have a vested interest?
That's fine, Joe, and I get where you're coming from. We are essentially in agreement.
My point was that you need to be careful when bandying about the term "delusional", as it can be taken as extremely offensive by people whose 'delusions' are simply those which clash with the 'accepted norm', or 'what science currently says is so'.
Therefore, those people are entitled to hold valid opinions, outside of the above, without being disrespectfully (and perhaps incorrectly) branded as 'delusional'.
'Heretics' are sometimes right, you know! ;)
Marco.
Climate change is IMO closer to the former than the latter; I know quite a few environmental scientists and without exception they agree that climate change is happening, though they may disagree on the precise causes and solutions. The only dissenters I know of are vested interests (oil companies) tabloid newspapers, and Blokes on the Internet.
You really ought to read more then because there are far more dissenting voices on this subject than that. Not really your fault as you are only repeating what you have read.
Everybody accepts that the climate changes, that it has patterns and cycles that can be very long term in some situations. The dispute is to whether the hypothesis 'CO2 is a greenhouse gas therefore man-made emissions of CO2 will cause global temperature to increase' is correct or not.
One of the main issues with this hypothesis is that the global temperature has not increased in almost 20 years whereas the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by around 40%
Those supporting the hypothesis contend that the heat is 'hidden' in the troposphere or the oceans but so far there is no evidence for this - indeed the tropospheric 'hot spot' has now been ruled out.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 15:09
things that are accepted as facts by all
Who are these "all"?
Who are these "all"?
All undeluded people. Thus, if I say 'everyone knows that the Earth isn't flat', I am clearly excluded the weirdos who for whatever bizarre reason believe that it is flat. If I say 'everyone knows that two plus two equals four', I am excluding people who use some weird mathematical system in which two plus two equals the square root of seventy, or those to whom the words 'two', 'plus' and 'equals' are meaningless. Some people have very strange beliefs, which go against accepted knowledge, but their beliefs are so obviously wrong it's best to ignore them.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 15:32
All undeluded people.
That sounds a dangerous position to take.
Who identifies the 'deluded' and by what yardstick? It's just opinion!
In the past "all" may have agreed that "all" should go to church on Sunday and that homosexuality had to be illegal and so punished and that witches should rightly be burned and that Hitler had the right ideas.
That sounds a dangerous position to take.
Who identifies the 'deluded' and by what yardstick? It's just opinion!
What, the earth not being flat is 'just opinion?' OOKKKAAAYYY.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 15:45
What, the earth not being flat is 'just opinion?' OOKKKAAAYYY.
I don't know where you got that from. It is not what I said.
Well it is only a sphere within the context of our subjective space/time situation. Which, whilst I agree that for practical purposes that is all we need, technically, once you step outside of that, the Earth ceases to be a sphere.
Well it is only a sphere within the context of our subjective space/time situation. Which, whilst I agree that for practical purposes that is all we need, technically, once you step outside of that, the Earth ceases to be a sphere.
How many people have stepped outside of our subjective space/time situation? (Apart from Jimi Hendrix, of course).
Another example would be evolution. The non-deluded view would be that evolution took place over many millions of years, and that the different layers of fossils are proof both of evolution and of the earth's age. The deluded view would be that God created the earth and all its creatures in the space of six days in 4004BC, and that fossils were placed in the earth by the Devil to deceive us into doubting the literal truth of the Bible.
And you are seriously making comparisons of that sort with the man made climate change debate?
Nothing is ever proven except in mathematics but I think we all agree that the devil placing dinosaur fossils to deceive us, whilst it cannot be proven to be incorrect in a mathematical sense, is almost certainly nonsense.
This isn't comparable to an argument about the significance of CO2 as a driver of global climate.
And you are seriously making comparisons of that sort with the man made climate change debate?
Er, no. Walpurgis asked me to clarify what I meant by 'deluded' people, and I gave some examples of what deluded people might believe (the earth being flat, two plus two not equalling four, evolution not being an established fact). At no point did I say that people who didn't accept a particular model of climate change were deluded.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 16:05
the earth not being flat
But the Earth is not flat.
(apart from any flat bits, that is)
But the Earth is not flat.
(apart from any flat bits, that is)
Well, quite. Like I said, only deluded people believe that the Earth is flat.
My bit is quite flat. Alas classing people who think the earth flat as deluded as people who disagree on the main reasons why the climate is changing is pretty insulting Joe.
A bit similar to the guy would wanted anyone disagreeingvwith the climate change agenda to be jailed.... If thats your world ethos then you can keep it
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 16:37
Well, quite. Like I said, only deluded people believe that the Earth is flat.
I see you've edited. You had said 'deluded people might believe the earth not being flat'
I see you've edited. You had said 'deluded people might believe the earth not being flat'
'quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus', as Horace wrote.
A long winded aye?
Loosely translated as: 'Even Homer nods'.
got the nods and homer lol. think I read it once. not big on latin; prefer jocklish
All undeluded people. Thus, if I say 'everyone knows that the Earth isn't flat', I am clearly excluded the weirdos who for whatever bizarre reason believe that it is flat. If I say 'everyone knows that two plus two equals four', I am excluding people who use some weird mathematical system in which two plus two equals the square root of seventy, or those to whom the words 'two', 'plus' and 'equals' are meaningless. Some people have very strange beliefs, which go against accepted knowledge, but their beliefs are so obviously wrong it's best to ignore them.
Yes, but said indisputable facts aren't the same as people believing (for valid and logical reasons to them) that cables make a difference, or that 'global warming' is bollocks, or the opposite of such.
When you extrapolate an argument, you have to be careful to put it into a similar context as that which you're extrapolating from, without exaggerating ;)
Also "accepted knowledge" isn't always conclusive or indisputable; it can simply be the 'accepted wisdom' of the majority at any given point in our learning, which is subject to updating when new evidence obtained in a relevant subject dictates that such acton is necessary.
One could argue that's the case (i.e. our current knowledge in this area isn't conclusive) with the subject of climate change/global warming.
Marco.
Er, no. Walpurgis asked me to clarify what I meant by 'deluded' people, and I gave some examples of what deluded people might believe (the earth being flat, two plus two not equalling four, evolution not being an established fact). At no point did I say that people who didn't accept a particular model of climate change were deluded.
Okay I was just checking. Thought for a second I might have found something we actually disagree about. ;)
You guys need to speak to a graduate environmental sciences person if you believe we are not at least accelerating climate change.
Truth be told we are hitting a pinnacle of incredible damage to Earth and removal of natural resources at the moment, and our kids will be feeling the changes.
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 17:40
Does 2 + 2 equal 4?
http://virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html
As for a flat or round Earth.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm
Climate change? Why not? It always has.
One could argue that's the case (i.e. our current knowledge in this area isn't conclusive) with the subject of climate change/global warming.
One could, but one would be wrong. It is conclusive. Stop trying to not hurt anyone's feelings, we're all grown up here.
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
walpurgis
18-04-2016, 20:57
Thirty years ago we were being warned of an impending ice age. Funny how things change. Bit like the weather.
It's like playing chess with a pigeon!
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
Thirty years ago we were being warned of an impending ice age. Funny how things change. Bit like the weather.
we had that 5 years ago. lasted 2 seasons... wait a few years and another ice age will be along... they are like buses you know. Its been said without the extra co2, many millions would have died of starvation, and in fact its a good thing.. Until I see some proof that co2 IS the cause then I will sit on my side of fence.
What would you accept as proof, Grant?
(I am guessing you didn't read through to any of the links I posted on p17?)
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
You guys need to speak to a graduate environmental sciences person if you believe we are not at least accelerating climate change.
.
I have, I spent several hours discussing it with a PhD.
He also started with 'You must believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory'; but in the end the only argument he had was 'Well, it makes sense for us to use less energy, it doesn't matter whether or not the reason for doing so is correct'
Which is a fair point but I don't personally agree with 'The end justifies the means'.
As for proof that there is an issue with man-made CO2, when they award someone a Nobel Prize for demonstrating the causal link then I'll sit up and take notice.
I have, I spent several hours discussing it with a PhD.
He also started with 'You must believe in a ridiculous conspiracy theory'; but in the end the only argument he had was 'Well, it makes sense for us to use less energy, it doesn't matter whether or not the reason for doing so is correct'
Which is a fair point but I don't personally agree with 'The end justifies the means'.
As for proof that there is an issue with man-made CO2, when they award someone a Nobel Prize for demonstrating the causal link then I'll sit up and take notice.
The causal link has been known since 1895 so there probably aren't going to be any Nobel prizes awarded.
When scientists are quoted at you, this doesn't seem to carry any weight, yet somehow you can say "I have discussed this with a PhD for hours" and this is supposed to be meaningful. What was their PhD in? I'm guessing that it wasn't climate science.
The properties of CO2 are not opinion, they are just physics/chemistry.
"There was and is no disagreement on this. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. It allows visible light to penetrate the atmosphere, and it acts as a blanket, keeping heat from radiating back out into space. This knowledge does not depend on any indirect measurements, assumptions, or elaborate numerical analysis. Rather, it emerges directly from the extremely well established basic understanding of the behavior of atoms and molecules."
This article is simpler and clearer than the last one I posted. Grant, if you take the time to read this then I hope you will see that proof is not needed about the effects of CO2 any more than we need proof of gravity. Martin, I can't imagine that you will read it, but I hope you do. It may give you some pause for thought, although I admit this is unlikely.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2016/04/16/doubting-climate-change-not-enough/3aBHd9Weo9AxSmzI99LSZJ/story.html
Anyone who can read that and still think it's just a matter of opinion, you're in good company...
“I think there’s a change in weather. I am not a great believer in man-made climate change. I’m not a great believer.”
Donald Trump
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
You are still trying to simplify something which is much more complex
If the relationship between global temperature and CO2 is so simple how is it possible to increase CO2 by 40% and not increase global temperature at all?
There are other factors at play in what is a complex and chaotic system which we have been unable to replicate (to date) with computer modelling - one of which is the amount of heat radiated into space and the possibility that there is a limit as to how much heat the planet will retain, regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Certainly we know that in the past the Earth has been much cooler than it is now but with a much higher proportion of atmospheric CO2 than now - if the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration was as simple as you say this situation could not have occurred.
You really have not begun to scratch the surface of this subject.
BTW the PhD was in a climate-related subject, that is why we had the discussion although I cannot recall specifically what it was.
CornishPasty
19-04-2016, 11:42
Why has global warming morphed into climate change? Was global warming not working for them?
Spectral Morn
19-04-2016, 12:11
Er, no. Walpurgis asked me to clarify what I meant by 'deluded' people, and I gave some examples of what deluded people might believe (the earth being flat, two plus two not equalling four, evolution not being an established fact). At no point did I say that people who didn't accept a particular model of climate change were deluded.
It is not an established fact, it is an unproven theory. Way too many holes in the theory for it to be considered a fact. Yes I am one of those deluded people :eyebrows: :) I am not offended. To believe life, the universe and everything just happened by chance, means you and folks like you have much more faith than I have.
I had a very interesting convo with an evolutionary palaeontology biologist once, well ex, he and many have tried to prove evolution as a fact, they can't, he stopped and became a Christian. His colleagues continue to try, one has put 50 years into trying to get fruit fly's to evolve, so far they haven't.
Why has global warming morphed into climate change? Was global warming not working for them?
25 years ago things were a lot simpler - more co2 = higher temperature and that was that. So we got predictions such as 'children will not know what snow is' and 'the west side highway in Manhattan will be underwater' and 'there will be 30 million climate refugees by 2010'
Despite then concentration of CO2 increasing none of these things happened and the whole thing began to look like a joke so to keep the money rolling in we moved from 'global warming' to 'climate change' so now we can blame any change in the weather/temperature on CO2 and keep on taxing.
So yes, global warming wasn't good enough - note these titles have nothing to do with 'the science' and everything to do with preserving credibility amongst the ordinary folk who pony up the dough - i.e me and you.
Always liked this
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160419/5b09f0e03bef3cad6d090a8b77e4931d.jpg
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
he and many have tried to prove evolution as a fact,
There is that "proof" word again. Science does not deal in proof, it deals in observation and hypotheses, that may eventually progress to being a theory.
I would point to any number of observations of evolution in action, but I suspect you will reply with a unusual definition for what evolution is that appears to prove your position.
Always liked this
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160419/5b09f0e03bef3cad6d090a8b77e4931d.jpg
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Lets try with a less carefully chosen scale
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/ice-seaice-extent/N_09_plot-2015.png
Spectral Morn
19-04-2016, 13:12
There is that "proof" word again. Science does not deal in proof, it deals in observation and hypotheses, that may eventually progress to being a theory.
I would point to any number of observations of evolution in action, but I suspect you will reply with a unusual definition for what evolution is that appears to prove your position.
Not trying to prove a position or persuade anyone I don't believe in evolution as a fact, its an unproven theory. Therefore to state its a fact is not correct.
Yes I am one of those deluded people :eyebrows: :) I am not offended. To believe life, the universe and everything just happened by chance, means you and folks like you have much more faith than I have.
As you know, being a fellow Christian (Catholic), I 100% believe in God, so I'll join you amongst the assembled 'deluded'! :eyebrows: Oh, and nor am I offended by Joe's (rather superficial thinking) absolutism ;)
Marco.
Not trying to prove a position or persuade anyone I don't believe in evolution as a fact, its an unproven theory. Therefore to state its a fact is not correct.
Semaintics again. There are no proven theories in science, there is no proof. A Theory in science is a close as it gets. Facts are things in the real world, gravity is a fact, masses attract each other proportionally to their mass and distance. It happens, its a fact. The action of speciation through the effect of mutation, natural selection and gene sharing is a fact, we can see it all around us. The explanation of how and why gravity exists and acts is a scientific theory and is open to debate, but gravity itself isn't. Likewise Evolution as a mechanism for the process that leads to divergence of species is a theory and is open to debate.
I 100% believe in God
Seems somewhat like the absolutism you suggest is blinkered.
Not at all. That's the teaching, if you're a practising Catholic, so there is no choice. I was stating a fact. Therefore, saying I 100% believe in God is no more 'absolutist' than saying I 100% believe I'm human :)
Both are indisputable facts: my humanness and 100% belief in God. Evolution is NOT a fact, and so should not be expressed as one.
Marco.
Therefore, saying I 100% believe in God is no more 'absolutist' than saying I 100% believe I'm human.
Its no less 'absolutist' either.
walpurgis
19-04-2016, 14:00
Why has global warming morphed into climate change? Was global warming not working for them?
Because the term global warming was somewhat open to question and 'they' can more easily work all kinds of furtive agenda under the guise of 'tackling the threat' of climate change with less chance of being successfully challenged. After all, one can conjure up all sorts of supposed theats arising from climate change, even though climate change has always been with us.
Its no less 'absolutist' either.
The difference is, I'm being 'absolutist' towards myself, not towards others. I would never imply that anyone was 'deluded', simply because they didn't share the same convictions as me, which is what Joe did.
Marco.
StanleyB
19-04-2016, 14:17
After all, one can conjure up all sorts of supposed theats arising from climate change, even though climate change has always been with us.
That's true. The issue is how it would affect our species.
The Catholic Church was 100% convinced that the Sun revolved around the Earth, until Galileo proved it was the other way round. Even then they threatened him with the Inquisition and put him under house arrest for saying so. Sadly, the Church has a long and ignoble tradition of opposing scientific discoveries up to and beyond the point where any reasonably intelligent person has accepted them.
AFAIK there's nothing to prevent one from believing in evolution and also believing in God. What baffles me is the alternative explanation put forward by fundamentalist Christians for the existence of fossil remains that have been in the ground for millions of years - ie the Devil put them there. If that makes me an 'absolutist' so be it. To my mind it simply means accepting the most likely explanation of the known facts.
The difference is, I'm being 'absolutist' towards myself, not towards others. I would never imply that anyone was 'deluded', simply because they didn't share the same convictions as me, which is what Joe did.
Marco.
I think some beliefs are deluded. If a person believes that he can fly simply by flapping his arms, he is deluded. If he believes that fire won''t burn him, or that water won't make him wet, he's deluded. If he believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth, he's deluded. And if he believes in the literal truth of the Bible, he's deluded.
Not sure what this has to do with whether man is the main contributor to climate change as its now being called. No real evidence has convinced me so far. If and when it does then fine by me. I just dont tbink because people who have vested interests in it being so say it is that i just have to agree.. Ive no vested interests one way or other.. I am very careful not to abuse the planet as much as i can and thats all i can really do.
Weather is a phenomenally complex thing and computer models on the subject plainly dont work...i doubt they ever will as there is too much complexity.
The fact that the weather is a changin aint really the issue. Neither is the existance of God
I think some beliefs are deluded. If a person believes that he can fly simply by flapping his arms, he is deluded. If he believes that fire won''t burn him, or that water won't make him wet, he's deluded. If he believes that the Sun revolves around the Earth, he's deluded. And if he believes in the literal truth of the Bible, he's deluded.
I agree with all of that.
In terms of the emboldened text, that's not quite what you wrote earlier... No, I don't believe that everything written in the Bible is 100% accurate/true (much of it has been lost in translation), but I do believe in the existence of God, and that he created man, as it is a massive part of my Catholic faith.
Anyway, we're veering vastly off-topic, and onto a rather contentious subject, so I think it's best if we leave it there :)
Marco.
18 ins of rain in Houston
You are still trying to simplify something which is much more complex
If the relationship between global temperature and CO2 is so simple how is it possible to increase CO2 by 40% and not increase global temperature at all?
There are other factors at play in what is a complex and chaotic system which we have been unable to replicate (to date) with computer modelling - one of which is the amount of heat radiated into space and the possibility that there is a limit as to how much heat the planet will retain, regardless of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Certainly we know that in the past the Earth has been much cooler than it is now but with a much higher proportion of atmospheric CO2 than now - if the relationship between temperature and CO2 concentration was as simple as you say this situation could not have occurred.
You really have not begun to scratch the surface of this subject.
BTW the PhD was in a climate-related subject, that is why we had the discussion although I cannot recall specifically what it was.
I decided that as you seemed to be responding to the article I linked to as if it was me who had written it, and that you also seemed to be saying that you understood the subject better than the author of that article, that I should probably not try to argue the point. Instead I sent your reply to a professor I know who works in the field, and so is better qualified than I am to respond. I asked how best to respond, and this was the reply [my emphasis]:
Lots of them out there. We HAVE increased global temperature.
He is partially right, knows enough to be dangerous. He's talking about the Jurassic period 250 million years ago, when dinosaurs were around, we know very little about that time. How could we know? See http://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/ We can't go back any further than 500,000 in ice cores, they are seeking million year ice, but not found it yet.
Audio Advent
20-04-2016, 01:32
You really ought to read more then because there are far more dissenting voices on this subject than that. Not really your fault as you are only repeating what you have read.
There are yet more dissenting voices of those dissenting voices on this subject. But let's say it's not really your fault because you are only repeating what you have read.
If you Martin, yourself, are personally NOT just repeating what you have read too, then are you saying that you have conducted your very own independent research on the climate, it's changes over time etc etc?
Where was your funding from? Where is the data you collected?
Audio Advent
20-04-2016, 01:37
25 years ago things were a lot simpler - more co2 = higher temperature and that was that. So we got predictions such as 'children will not know what snow is' and 'the west side highway in Manhattan will be underwater' and 'there will be 30 million climate refugees by 2010'
Despite then concentration of CO2 increasing none of these things happened and the whole thing began to look like a joke so to keep the money rolling in we moved from 'global warming' to 'climate change' so now we can blame any change in the weather/temperature on CO2 and keep on taxing.
So yes, global warming wasn't good enough - note these titles have nothing to do with 'the science' and everything to do with preserving credibility amongst the ordinary folk who pony up the dough - i.e me and you.
Ah! So is this where your stance comes from?
Someone told you a simplistic explaination and because it was simplistic and it didn't pan out in a way that agrees with it's simplistic nature, then you felt cheated and now cannot trust anyone about it at all, in fact so much so that you think every scientist involved is corrupt.
Audio Advent
20-04-2016, 01:43
Why has global warming morphed into climate change? Was global warming not working for them?
Temperature averages over the whole globe rise - hence global warming is still a valid way of describing it.
The personal experiences of this average global warming will not necessarily be one of increased heat however. Higher global average temperatures effect sea temperatures too which change flows of heat around the earth which can increase incidences of rain in some parts whilst causing droughts in others, deeper winters in some parts in a shorter time scale, more hurricanes, typhoons - on a personal experiencial level, climate and local climates will be experience significant change but won't necessarily be subjectively felt to be warmer.
So it is the same thing but climate change is more appropriate on a huma level.
But why would you be picking up on the choice of words to describe the same thing? Rather a small thing to be concerned with if you ask me.
Audio Advent
20-04-2016, 01:54
Ahem... I give you the age-old circular debate of: 'Do cables make a difference?' ;)
<Runs for cover>
Marco.
No...? You're not really equating the subjective personal experience of the sounds we hear/don't hear is in any way the same as whether there is evidence that the climate is changing are you?
I mean perhaps if we try to work out the latter by sticking our hand out the window as a guage on world temperatures, you might have a point but I don't think they are related in any way.
Believing that ALL scientists who's fields are effected by or touch on climate change are corrupt and deliberately lying and fixing their data, all hundereds of thousands of them, is something that could rightly be concluded as being a delusional idea! It doesn't mean that someone who believes that is delusional about anything else in their life either.
I don't think it can be considered to be insulting in the context of this very thread (but, hey some people are insulted if you appear to have looked in their direction down the pub - I don't think one should accomodate or defend their "right" to be offended though).
Audio Advent
20-04-2016, 01:58
Not sure what this has to do with whether man is the main contributor to climate change as its now being called.
Which whether man? Michael Fish, John Kettley? I'm not sure either are a main contributer - you're delusional!
StanleyB
20-04-2016, 06:26
Which whether man? Michael Fish, John Kettley? I'm not sure either are a main contributer - you're delusional!
Can't we have a bit of banter without aggression?
No...? You're not really equating the subjective personal experience of the sounds we hear/don't hear is in any way the same as whether there is evidence that the climate is changing are you?
No, if you read post #172, all is explained there. It's about what is justifiably (and that's the key word here) considered as 'delusional', and what isn't, and crucially, who gets to be the judge - and that can apply to many different subjects, not just climate change.
Marco.
Can't we have a bit of banter without aggression?
I *think* that Sam was attempting a joke, so a wink smiley at the end of the post would've conveyed a rather different tone.
However, Sam, I have to say that after our little chat, where I thought you'd taken on board what I'd said, you've simply returned to type :doh: :( , and to this rather unpleasant 'interrogative' style of communicating with other members, which I'm afraid is no longer acceptable.
Therefore, if you aren't able to curb that habit of yours, I'm afraid that it's not going to work out for you here. I would regret that, but we've let it slide for sometime, trying to allow you to be yourself, but if every day I have to wake up to reading complaints in PMs about your posting style, something's got to give...
Marco.
Can't we have a bit of banter without aggression?
That comment wasn't aggressive, it was clearly a joke that was intended to satirise fallacious arguments. Please don't derail the thread!
Martin, I am rather puzzled by something you wrote earlier, about how we know that the planet has been cooler in the past when CO2 levels were higher. I was wondering how is it that you can state this as fact. Where does your information come from (and how was it obtained)?
R
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
That comment wasn't aggressive, it was clearly a joke that was intended to satirise fallacious arguments.
I'm not sure about it being "clearly" a joke, but I agree that it probably was.
However, it would've been a lot clearer if a ' ;) ' had been placed at the end, instead of an exclamation mark. You have to be careful when using exclamation marks, as unless you nail it bang on, they can so easily be misconstrued as aggression.
Marco.
That comment wasn't aggressive, it was clearly a joke that was intended to satirise fallacious arguments. Please don't derail the thread!
Martin, I am rather puzzled by something you wrote earlier, about how we know that the planet has been cooler in the past when CO2 levels were higher. I was wondering how is it that you can state this as fact. Where does your information come from (and how was it obtained)?
R
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I will see if I can find the reference. I believe it was from ice cores but your Prof seems to think otherwise, possibly he is correct. I like the 'knows enough to be dangerous' - I take that as a compliment ;)
Don't get me wrong I am happy to have my position challenged and for people to demonstrate that evidence I am relying on is false - that is the purpose of debate. It is when it becomes the tedious 'you are wrong but I don't know why' that I get fed up with it.
I'm not sure about it being "clearly" a joke, but I agree that it probably was.
However, it would've been a lot clearer if a ' ;) ' had been put at the end, instead of an exclamation mark. You have to be careful when using exclamation marks, as unless you nail it bang on, they can so easily be misconstrued as aggression.
Marco.
Marco if you really can't see why someone asking whether it is Michael Fish or John Kettley who is responsible for global warming is unequivocally not being serious, then I worry for your sense of humour!
[emoji6]
I'll happily concede that it wasn't a very good joke, mind you...
[emoji13]
Anyway, to get things back on track, i think we were discussing paleo climatology...
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I got the 'joke', Robert. It was Stan who seemingly didn't! ;)
And of course we won't know now how Grant (the person Sam quoted and responded to) would've reacted to the post, had this discussion not taken place before he had a chance to reply...
Marco.
It was Stan who seemingly didn't! ;)
Good point.
Now maybe we can get back to the thread.
Martin - as the professor stated, ice-cores have only been drilled up to about half a million years ago. So if the data you were referencing is about a time period further back than that, and if we can believe her, then it did not come from an ice-core.
I think I meant my question slightly differently though.
Let's assume for the sake of the thread that the data you reference was obtained from an ice-core sample. [for the purposes of my question it doesn't really matter that much]
My question is rather this:
1. Do you understand the process behind calculating historical temperatures/CO2 levels from ice-core samples?
2. Assuming that we haven't been drilling ice-core samples for climate research for hundreds of years, why do you think it was that someone came up with a method of calculating historical temperatures/CO2 levels from drilling ice core samples?
3. If we can safely assume that the method was developed by a climate scientist, and the drilling/analysis carried out by climate scientists, why is it that you are able to quote this part of their research with such authority, yet so easily dismiss everything else that they conclude?
4. Are there any other factors that you know of that may affect the temperature of the planet apart from atmospheric CO2 levels? If so, how well do you understand these factors, and how they may have affected the global temperature today, and historically?
yours in the spirit of enlightened argument!!
R
walpurgis
20-04-2016, 09:20
I'm going to have a cup of tea and a biscuit! :)
I'm going out in the patio soon to have lunch, as it's such a gorgeous day, and open a nice chilled bottle of Chablis! :cheers:
Far too nice to be stuck inside arguing over this pish.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Good point.
Now maybe we can get back to the thread.
Martin - as the professor stated, ice-cores have only been drilled up to about half a million years ago. So if the data you were referencing is about a time period further back than that, and if we can believe her, then it did not come from an ice-core.
I think I meant my question slightly differently though.
Let's assume for the sake of the thread that the data you reference was obtained from an ice-core sample. [for the purposes of my question it doesn't really matter that much]
My question is rather this:
1. Do you understand the process behind calculating historical temperatures/CO2 levels from ice-core samples?
2. Assuming that we haven't been drilling ice-core samples for climate research for hundreds of years, why do you think it was that someone came up with a method of calculating historical temperatures/CO2 levels from drilling ice core samples?
3. If we can safely assume that the method was developed by a climate scientist, and the drilling/analysis carried out by climate scientists, why is it that you are able to quote this part of their research with such authority, yet so easily dismiss everything else that they conclude?
4. Are there any other factors that you know of that may affect the temperature of the planet apart from atmospheric CO2 levels? If so, how well do you understand these factors, and how they may have affected the global temperature today, and historically?
yours in the spirit of enlightened argument!!
R
1) yes, in layman's terms. I couldn't do it myself.
2) I would only be speculating - if you know let me know.
3) there is no such thing as a 'climate scientist' - at least not until recently. 'Climate science' is an amalgam of various different scientific disciplines
There is a difference between obtaining raw data and extrapolating theories from that data. I have never suggested that science is wrong about everything, at the same time I am not cherry-picking either.
4) the level of water vapour concentration - my understanding is that water vapour is the main cause of greenhouse effect, also solar activity was until recently not believed to have an impact on global temp, I understand that view is now being challenged.
sorry, at work so cannot give longer answers.
Good idea Marco.
I am going outside after my late brekkie to repair a fence so the young heifer cows can go out . Its still too wet really , but sun is great for Vit D3 and C , and they cant stay in any longer as it is a pain in the arsh for me and the mrs.:)
I am sure my local climate has changed and its not a scam;)
M
excuse the long post. I hope that it is coherent.
The first ice-cores were taken in the mid 1950s and were about 100m deep.
Sixty five years later the technology has improved somewhat, but still it is a very expensive and difficult process that is generally conducted in what are perhaps the most hostile conditions on Earth. The deepest one was taken by the Russians at Lake Vostok in Eastern Antarctica, and reached a depth of over 3,600m. The temperature at the surface was once recorded there as being -89C.
The reason they are drilled is to study the past.
As I understand it, they look at the differences in isotopes of oxygen and water to infer temperature and other such things, also studying trapped air bubbles inside the ice, and dust, etc etc, they can see certain things like historic CO2 levels, sunspot activity, volcanic eruptions etc.
The main reason they are drilled is to study the past climate of the planet.
You can read about the history of ice-core drilling here:
http://www.clim-past.net/9/2525/2013/cp-9-2525-2013.pdf
The people who have been developing this extremely difficult technique then take the data and study it, and see if the data fits the theories, or they develop new theories from the data.
There are other ways of studying the paleoclimate:
Isotopic Geochemical Studies: The study of rock isotopic ratios, ice core bubbles, deep sea sediments, etc.
Dendochronology: the study of tree rings
Pollen Distribution: the study of plant types and prevalence from pollen found in sediments, ice, rocks, caves, etc.
Lake Varves: (like dendochronology, but with lake sediments - a varve is an annual layer of mud in the sediment)
Coral Bed Rings
Fossils: Studies of geological settings, etc.
Historical documents, paintings, evidence of civilizations, etc.
But let's stick with ice-cores.
The people who have had the drive, intelligence, and application to develop this particular technique have come to the unavoidable conclusion that the CO2 that is being released by mankind's actions is affecting the climate. There are a lot of them, and their colleagues who are studying the oceans, the tree rings, the lake bed sediments, the coral and the fossils have all pooled their information, and they have all come to the same conclusion.
There are other factors which affect climate:
Changes in solar output
Changes in Earth's orbit
Changes in the distribution of continents
Changes in the concentration of Greenhouse Gases in the atmosphere
also
The amount of dust in the atmosphere
The reflectivity of the ice sheets
The changing characteristics of clouds
The rebounding of land, having been depressed by ice
All of this has been and is being studied. The conclusions that have been drawn is that the main thing affecting the climate right now are the greenhouse gases.
It isn't solar activity (the period is too short to explain the changes in the ice core data)
It isn't a Milankovich Cycle (the Milankovich theory of the earth's orbital wobble was proved by ice-core data, and it does not explain current changes. (NB note that they used the data to prove a theory, not to extrapolate one))
The reason they are studying ice-cores (and other proxy indicators) is to better understand what happened in the past, to try to understand why it happened, and therefore to try to predict whether it will happen again, or indeed what else might happen.
You can read a very clear explanation (i think it is a lecture for undergraduates) of paleoclimatology (and more information about what I have talked about) here:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/paleoclimate/
Don't you think that it seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to to just fix some results?
There are an awful lot of variables that need fixing (how do you fake coral? How do you make sure the lake sediment lies match the tree ring lies?)
A large part of your objection to the conclusions of these decades of thorough hard scientific investigation seems to be that it is just opinion. But it is simple physics that as the concentrations of heat-trapping gases like CO2 and methane increase in the atmosphere, more heat is trapped next to the surface of the Earth and the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and oceans warms. Can you explain to me the physics that shows that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not raise global temperature? Can you explain to me the world where the opinions that carry the most weight are not those of the experts in the field?
You may have to find and read the 1890 paper I mentioned a few pages back, because that's where it was first discussed. ;)
As you said a few posts back, we have barely scratched the surface of this topic. Fortunately there have been hundreds of brilliant minds who have been first scratching the surface and then drilling deep down into it for over fifty years, so we don't have to.
R
walpurgis
20-04-2016, 13:50
I'm going out in the patio soon to have lunch, as it's such a gorgeous day, and open a nice chilled bottle of Chablis! :cheers:
Far too nice to be stuck inside arguing over this pish.... :eyebrows:
Marco.
Lovely out today. Walking the dog over the fields in the sunshine. Enjoying the faint waft of kerosene from nearby Heathrow. :D
Oldpinkman
20-04-2016, 14:18
M
excuse the long post. I hope that it is coherent.
...
As you said a few posts back, we have barely scratched the surface of this topic. Fortunately there have been hundreds and thousands of brilliant minds who have been first scratching the surface and then drilling deep down into it for over fifty years, so we don't have to.
R
Really good post Robert. Not that it will change much. It is a pity that science is viewed by so many with a conspiracy theory perspective when they fail to understand it. It is a bigger pity when the consequences of that attitude might be a global tragedy. It does not become a smaller pity because that tragedy will affect those who come after we are gone.
A healthy dose of common sense and paranoia avoidance is most welcome.
I thought the latest Bond film, whilst excellent entertainment, had stretched credulity a bit with MI6 no longer spying on governments but policing general purpose baddies trying to ruin the world, and bent on ruining an agents love life. But as a plot, I found it more credible than the idea that all of the worlds scientists are collaborating in a conspiracy to invent a global catastrophe like global warming like a bunch of teenage hackers. Just cos Clarkson says so..;)
M
A large part of your objection to the conclusions of these decades of thorough hard scientific investigation seems to be that it is just opinion. But it is simple physics that as the concentrations of heat-trapping gases like CO2 and methane increase in the atmosphere, more heat is trapped next to the surface of the Earth and the temperature of the earth's atmosphere and oceans warms. Can you explain to me the physics that shows that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not raise global temperature? Can you explain to me the world where the opinions that carry the most weight are not those of the experts in the field?
You may have to find and read the 1890 paper I mentioned a few pages back, because that's where it was first discussed. ;)
As you said a few posts back, we have barely scratched the surface of this topic. Fortunately there have been hundreds of brilliant minds who have been first scratching the surface and then drilling deep down into it for over fifty years, so we don't have to.
R
Okay, I have raised this point before and had no response but I'll try again.
If CO2 increase = temperature increase and it really is that simple, why is that global temperatures have not increased in 20 years, when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40%?
I'm not expecting an answer because if you could answer that you would certainly win the Nobel Prize. But at least accept this as evidence that that things are not as simple as you have painted.
I also take issue with this:
The people who have had the drive, intelligence, and application to develop this particular technique have come to the unavoidable conclusion that the CO2 that is being released by mankind's actions is affecting the climate. There are a lot of them, and their colleagues who are studying the oceans, the tree rings, the lake bed sediments, the coral and the fossils have all pooled their information, and they have all come to the same conclusion.
The drive, intelligence and application? - you mean it is the job they are paid for?
let's not try to paint these people as superheroes or tireless benefactors working ceaselessly for the betterment of humanity. They are just people like you and me, with car payments, mortgages, school fees and so on.
it is this sort of talk that raises my hackles because it essentially suggests that these people are not to be questioned, indeed it is churlish to question them. in fact it is both our right and our duty to question them as we pay -directly or indirectly for the research. They are people doing the job they are paid for not saints or some sort of priestly class.
I will put up some evidence later that might make you see them in a different light.
If CO2 increase = temperature increase and it really is that simple, why is that global temperatures have not increased in 20 years, when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 40%?
Well, that statement suggests that global temperatures have not increased in 20 years, which is not what the numbers show.
Your question seems to be answered here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-intermediate.htm
Well, that statement suggests that global temperatures have not increased in 20 years, which is not what the numbers show.
Your question seems to be answered here:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation-intermediate.htm
No, I'm afraid it isn't. Look at the right hand scale on the graph labelled 'temperature anomaly', showing 0.5 of a degree increase. The margin of error in measuring global temperature is: 0.5 degrees.
The excuse that this is simply a short term variation caused by El Nino is also an epic fail. That's a propaganda site, I'm afraid
No, I'm afraid it isn't. Look at the right hand scale on the graph labelled 'temperature anomaly', showing 0.5 of a degree increase. The margin of error in measuring global temperature is: 0.5 degrees.
The excuse that this is simply a short term variation caused by El Nino is also an epic fail. That's a propaganda site, I'm afraid
So let me get this right. On the one hand you are saying that we can't measure to more that half a degree the global temperature, so because of that we actually have no way of knowing if the temperature has gone up, down or stayed the same. But at the same time, you feel confidant in saying that the global temperatures have not changed in 20 years. Do you have another source of information that is more accurate?
The correlation and trend in this graph, seems to me to show a much closer underlying accuracy.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/368812/nasa_tempdatasets.png
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/368812/nasa_tempdatasets.png
That's a propaganda site, I'm afraid
So we are back to the global conspiracy again?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.