Crosswords26 mins ago
Global Warming
As the global temperature has remained steady for the past 10 consecutive years can we assume the panic is over? Or is it that Britains efforts (only 2% of the world's emitters) have succeeded in creating equilibrium?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by rov1100. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Dr Kenneth Green: "We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority."
Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"
Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."
Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."
Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."
Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."
Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce partic
Dr Mike Hulme: "Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous ... The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen."
Dr Kiminori Itoh: "There are many factors which cause climate change. Considering only greenhouse gases is nonsense and harmful. When people know what the truth is they will feel deceived by science and scientists."
Dr Yuri Izrael: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming. I think the panic over global warming is totally unjustified. There is no serious threat to the climate."
Dr Steven Japar: "Temperature measurements show that the climate model-predicted mid-troposphere hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them."
Dr Georg Kaser: "This number (of receding glaciers reported by the IPCC) is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude ... It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,"
Dr Aynsley Kellow: "I'm not holding my breath for criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
Dr Madhav Khandekar: "I have carefully analysed adverse impacts of climate change as projected by the IPCC and have discounted these claims as exaggerated and lacking any supporting evidence."
Dr Hans Labohm: "The alarmist passages in the (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers have been skewed through an elaborate and sophisticated process of spin-doctoring."
Dr. Andrew Lacis: "There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department."
Dr Chris Landsea: "I cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Dr Richard Lindzen: "The IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science. It uses summaries to misrepresent what scientists say and exploits public ignorance."
Dr Harry Lins: "Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. The case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated."
Dr Philip Lloyd: "I am doing a detailed assessment of the IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science. I have found examples of a summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said."
Dr Martin Manning: "Some government delegates influencing the IPCC Summary for Policymakers misrepresent or contradict the lead authors."
Dr Stephen McIntyre: "The many references in the popular media to a "consensus of thousands of scientists" are both a great exaggeration and also misleading."
Dr Patrick Michaels: "The rates of warming, on multiple time scales have now invalidated the suite of IPCC climate models. No, the science is not settled."
Dr Nils-Axel Morner: "If you go around the globe, you find no sea level rise anywhere."
Dr Johannes Oerlemans: "The IPCC has become too political. Many scientists have not been able to resist the siren call of fame, research funding and meetings in exotic places that awaits them if they are willing to compromise scientific principles and integrity in support of the man-made global-warming doctrine."
Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce partic
Dr Roger Pielke: "All of my comments were ignored without even a rebuttal. At that point, I concluded that the IPCC Reports were actually intended to be advocacy documents designed to produce particular policy actions, but not as a true and honest assessment of the understanding of the climate system."
Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."
Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."
Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."
Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"
Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."
Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."
Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."
Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."
Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."
Dr Jan Pretel: "It's nonsense to drastically reduce emissions ... predicting about the distant future-100 years can't be predicted due to uncertainties."
Dr Paul Reiter: "As far as the science being 'settled,' I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by people who are not scientists."
Dr Murray Salby: "I have an involuntary gag reflex whenever someone says the "science is settled. Anyone who thinks the science is settled on this topic is in fantasia."
Dr Tom Segalstad: "The IPCC global warming model is not supported by the scientific data."
Dr Fred Singer: "Isn't it remarkable that the Policymakers Summary of the IPCC report avoids mentioning the satellite data altogether, or even the existence of satellites--probably because the data show a (slight) cooling over the last 18 years, in direct contradiction to the calculations from climate models?"
Dr Hajo Smit: "There is clear cut solar-climate coupling and a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2 emissions and climate change."
Dr Roy Spencer: "The IPCC is not a scientific organization and was formed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. Claims of human-cause global warming are only a means to that goal."
Dr Richard Tol: "The IPCC attracted more people with political rather than academic motives. In AR4, green activists held key positions in the IPCC and they succeeded in excluding or neutralising opposite voices."
Dr Tom Tripp: "There is so much of a natural variability in weather it makes it difficult to come to a scientifically valid conclusion that global warming is man made."
Dr Robert Watson: "The (IPCC) mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying. The IPCC needs to look at this trend in the errors and ask why it happened."
Dr Gerd-Rainer Weber: "Most of the extremist views about climate change have little or no scientific basis."
Dr David Wojick: "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."
Dr Miklos Zagoni: "I am positively convinced that the anthropogenic global warming theory is wrong."
Dr. Eduardo Zorita: "Editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations, even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. By writing these lines... a few of my future studies will not see the light of publication."
Same old quotes almost entirely by people with no qualifications in climate science giving unsubstantiated opinions.
If you cared to check the credentials of some of your sources you would find that some of them are professional deniers being paid handsomely by the combustion industry advocate groups and having rejected the actions taken on ozone depletion and even the lin between smoking and lung cancer.
Here is one whose name I recognise from previous research. Richard Lindzen actually does have some qualifications but he is paid by the oil industry.
http://www.logicalsci.../skeptics/Lindzen.htm
Just try researching these people and you will find their opinions are of little value. I am not about to go through them all but if you care to choose a couple I will debunk their reputation and claim for you.
The science is settled. Dissent is from a loud minority who are largely unqualified or compromised with combustion industry money. They arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Climate Change is real.
If you cared to check the credentials of some of your sources you would find that some of them are professional deniers being paid handsomely by the combustion industry advocate groups and having rejected the actions taken on ozone depletion and even the lin between smoking and lung cancer.
Here is one whose name I recognise from previous research. Richard Lindzen actually does have some qualifications but he is paid by the oil industry.
http://www.logicalsci.../skeptics/Lindzen.htm
Just try researching these people and you will find their opinions are of little value. I am not about to go through them all but if you care to choose a couple I will debunk their reputation and claim for you.
The science is settled. Dissent is from a loud minority who are largely unqualified or compromised with combustion industry money. They arguments have been thoroughly debunked. Climate Change is real.
Somebody must have formed a consensus, jake, at least as far as the Swine 'Flu fiasco went. Why elese would the government squander the cash for 30m unnecessary doses of vaccine? (Mind you, one could ask that question about any number of government spending fiascos).
I'm sorry you find my attitude arrogant. I'm not claiming to know all there is to know about climate change. It may or may not exist (I believe it does, as it always has and always will). It may or may not be due to human activity (I'm not convinced for reasons too numerous to go into here for the umpteenth time).
What I find arrogant is that people like the Rt Hon Christopher Murray Paul- Huhne, MP, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, can suggest that he can overcome such disasters by jetting round the world having agreeable dinners with his foreign counterparts and then telling us he can save the world by building useless wind farms which cost each and every taxpayer something in the order of £500 pa.
The "experts" I'm afraid are like the small boy who cried wolf. As I've said before, normally such cranks don't bother me, but this time it's costing me a packet for a bottle of snake oil.
I'm sorry you find my attitude arrogant. I'm not claiming to know all there is to know about climate change. It may or may not exist (I believe it does, as it always has and always will). It may or may not be due to human activity (I'm not convinced for reasons too numerous to go into here for the umpteenth time).
What I find arrogant is that people like the Rt Hon Christopher Murray Paul- Huhne, MP, Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, can suggest that he can overcome such disasters by jetting round the world having agreeable dinners with his foreign counterparts and then telling us he can save the world by building useless wind farms which cost each and every taxpayer something in the order of £500 pa.
The "experts" I'm afraid are like the small boy who cried wolf. As I've said before, normally such cranks don't bother me, but this time it's costing me a packet for a bottle of snake oil.
I'm perfectly used to every contrary view being ignored, but at least everyone is able to see them here. I use the legal test for man made warming, are we guilty beyond reasonable doubt before being convicted an punished? I'd say the small selection of peer reviewed links before the following personal (but professional) opinions casts more than a basic doubt over the whole thing. And presumably all these three pages of PhDs are either crooks or idiots? beso, you are just making yourself look like an IPCC stooge, don't bother trying to destroy material if you can't disagree with their messages in any other way.
As I said, the claim that "the sea level fell 10 mm in the last two years", was ridiculous. I warranted no more reply than being pointed out as such. But since you insist....
Here is a graph of sea levels from a reputable source.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
So which is it? Are you a liar, just stupid or is it good old plain ignorance?
The claim that this rise was "after a 3mm or so rise till then for over a century" is even more ridiculous.
The sea level flucutates mainly due to how much water is on the land at the time. The detailed reasons behind the recent short term low are clearly explained on the page.
Australia's river systems being higher than has been seen in a very long time would account for a significant proportion of the drop given they had been in a protracted drought for over two decades. Last year parts of Australia the larger than the size of France were underwater.
Huge floods across the planet such as in Pakistan and Thailand would account for another large chunk. Virtually the whole of Bankok is presently underwater.
But will the skeptic acknowledge he was completely wrong and this information demolishes his argument? Certainly not. The religious never question their faith.
And will those who promulgated this myth you so easily swallowed come back and correct their position next year when the height is back above the average? No, because they only cherry pick tiny sections of data to try and make there pathetic case. The rest of it they pretend doesn't even exist. The only thing more pathetic are those who swallow this rubbish without a moments thought for its veracity.
With any luck, despite not changing his overall position it will be one less untruth spread with the greatest of authority among the people around David H.
Here is a graph of sea levels from a reputable source.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
So which is it? Are you a liar, just stupid or is it good old plain ignorance?
The claim that this rise was "after a 3mm or so rise till then for over a century" is even more ridiculous.
The sea level flucutates mainly due to how much water is on the land at the time. The detailed reasons behind the recent short term low are clearly explained on the page.
Australia's river systems being higher than has been seen in a very long time would account for a significant proportion of the drop given they had been in a protracted drought for over two decades. Last year parts of Australia the larger than the size of France were underwater.
Huge floods across the planet such as in Pakistan and Thailand would account for another large chunk. Virtually the whole of Bankok is presently underwater.
But will the skeptic acknowledge he was completely wrong and this information demolishes his argument? Certainly not. The religious never question their faith.
And will those who promulgated this myth you so easily swallowed come back and correct their position next year when the height is back above the average? No, because they only cherry pick tiny sections of data to try and make there pathetic case. The rest of it they pretend doesn't even exist. The only thing more pathetic are those who swallow this rubbish without a moments thought for its veracity.
With any luck, despite not changing his overall position it will be one less untruth spread with the greatest of authority among the people around David H.
Now , do I need to explain the concept of thermal equilibrium and specific heat? These are the reasons why the temperature doesn't move instantly with the CO2 and the climate we will ultimately experience with 400 ppm is much hotter than today with a much deeper ocean.
The Pliocene is indeed a good model for our future climate. Just one main problem with it. If we continue on our current path the 500ppm we reach before 2050 will be much too high to be modelled on the Pliocene.
The Pliocene is indeed a good model for our future climate. Just one main problem with it. If we continue on our current path the 500ppm we reach before 2050 will be much too high to be modelled on the Pliocene.
As you may have noticed, beso, I have given up arguing about whether Climate Change is evident or, if it is, what is its cause. I am by no means convinced of the arguments made by either side mainly because of the lack of causal evidence. One can prove that all sorts of things vary in proportion to variations in something else. Whether they vary because of those other variations is not usually so easy to prove. However, I really cannot be bothered to argue the point either way. Politicians have made up their minds and, as with so many other matters, whether they are right or wrong, that’s that.
The argument between you and David is becoming increasingly acrimonious. To me this demonstrates that it is unlikely to be resolved.
How about moving on (with apologies to rov for somewhat hijacking his question) and asking, if the problem is so potentially catastrophic as is suggested, what solutions do you propose? Bear in mind that the UK is responsible for just 2% of global emissions (which I do not think is disputed). Also bear in mind that China opens new coal fired power stations at the rate of about one a week, and shows absolutely no signs of curtailing that programme. Do you really think that Europe’s “light bulb” strategy and excessive tax on air travel will cure the problem?
The argument between you and David is becoming increasingly acrimonious. To me this demonstrates that it is unlikely to be resolved.
How about moving on (with apologies to rov for somewhat hijacking his question) and asking, if the problem is so potentially catastrophic as is suggested, what solutions do you propose? Bear in mind that the UK is responsible for just 2% of global emissions (which I do not think is disputed). Also bear in mind that China opens new coal fired power stations at the rate of about one a week, and shows absolutely no signs of curtailing that programme. Do you really think that Europe’s “light bulb” strategy and excessive tax on air travel will cure the problem?
beso, you're digging your hole deeper and deeper and will soon not be able to climb out. I haven't a clue how your constant inability to read links and follow graphs still allows you to believe you actually have a case to answer, but nonetheless all I can do is provide my source material and reiterate that I only try and use material which is by reliable sources.
As for the second issue then you have done my work for me. When it comes to things like temperature then I can provide a minimum of two different graphs per place and time, and so can we all, as they simply can't measure it reliably. That doesn't help your case either when they have to smoothe, adjust and basically make up the good bits before anything can even be sent upstairs to the IPCC. I have a lovely set of unmatching graphs somewhere if anyone wants to see it, but it's pretty boring so probably better just to check yourself if you're really that interested.
Climatology was not really much of a subject before AGW suddenly projected it into the realms of demi-godship, and no doubt the suddenly promoted scientists can't avoid at least some delusions of grandeur. Before then we had meteorologists. Weather forecasters. Practical folk who sold their ability to predict the probability of the weather for businesses as far as up to three or even six months ahead in some cases. They were paid by results (some still are if not nationalised) and if they didn't get it right were replaced. Climatologists were historians and theoreticians, they looked at fascinating things that could help meteorologists do their jobs better and understand nature as a whole. Their remit didn't actually include prediction till someone asked them to. Forget the open system, the one which gave rise to chaos theory as it was so complex. New processing power could easily handle that. So off they went with their 100 year projection and it became gospel, and every word they uttered since about measurements previously impossible to provide was accepted as if from the lips of Jesus himself.
Sorry to break your bubble here beso, they're not fit for purpose. The massive variations and adjustments just in the foundation temperature data make anything based on it pure hokum. Only the widest and most general trends tell us anything worthwhile and the rise in CO2 coincides roughly with a slightly faster rise in a slowing rising trend lasting since the last ice age. I don't get paid to spend ages digging up links etc for this, so if you don't trust my quotes without them maybe you'd like to pay me for all the time it takes to retrieve each one (I have many hundreds) or instead, why not just take a few examples like this one and accept I do for all the others.
http://www.skepticals...a-level-fall-2010.htm "Sea level fell 6mm in 2010 after a 3.2 mm falling trend till then"
You are really making yourself look silly by trying to undo every single item I mention. I've collected 10 years of studies here and although a few go in the bin from time to time as all would, most do stand up and instead of following the agenda of 'There is no debate, the science is settled' why not be a scientist and adapt to new data like they are all supposed to by training? You've all lost the plot here in your grab for fame and fortune.
As for the second issue then you have done my work for me. When it comes to things like temperature then I can provide a minimum of two different graphs per place and time, and so can we all, as they simply can't measure it reliably. That doesn't help your case either when they have to smoothe, adjust and basically make up the good bits before anything can even be sent upstairs to the IPCC. I have a lovely set of unmatching graphs somewhere if anyone wants to see it, but it's pretty boring so probably better just to check yourself if you're really that interested.
Climatology was not really much of a subject before AGW suddenly projected it into the realms of demi-godship, and no doubt the suddenly promoted scientists can't avoid at least some delusions of grandeur. Before then we had meteorologists. Weather forecasters. Practical folk who sold their ability to predict the probability of the weather for businesses as far as up to three or even six months ahead in some cases. They were paid by results (some still are if not nationalised) and if they didn't get it right were replaced. Climatologists were historians and theoreticians, they looked at fascinating things that could help meteorologists do their jobs better and understand nature as a whole. Their remit didn't actually include prediction till someone asked them to. Forget the open system, the one which gave rise to chaos theory as it was so complex. New processing power could easily handle that. So off they went with their 100 year projection and it became gospel, and every word they uttered since about measurements previously impossible to provide was accepted as if from the lips of Jesus himself.
Sorry to break your bubble here beso, they're not fit for purpose. The massive variations and adjustments just in the foundation temperature data make anything based on it pure hokum. Only the widest and most general trends tell us anything worthwhile and the rise in CO2 coincides roughly with a slightly faster rise in a slowing rising trend lasting since the last ice age. I don't get paid to spend ages digging up links etc for this, so if you don't trust my quotes without them maybe you'd like to pay me for all the time it takes to retrieve each one (I have many hundreds) or instead, why not just take a few examples like this one and accept I do for all the others.
http://www.skepticals...a-level-fall-2010.htm "Sea level fell 6mm in 2010 after a 3.2 mm falling trend till then"
You are really making yourself look silly by trying to undo every single item I mention. I've collected 10 years of studies here and although a few go in the bin from time to time as all would, most do stand up and instead of following the agenda of 'There is no debate, the science is settled' why not be a scientist and adapt to new data like they are all supposed to by training? You've all lost the plot here in your grab for fame and fortune.
New Judge, you've virtually begun declaring yourself a skeptic and then asked how we can solve the problem of man made warming. That appears you have started on the fence and now come down on beso's side. Fair enough, but please consider some of the data I've provided which tells anyone who is scared of false accusations of man made global guilt there may actually be some doubt there is a problem in the first place. It's fine if you have now made up your mind the other way, but then you can't carry on saying you're not sure. That sure confuses me.
Here's a little summary to explain the situation, ie the more they look the more other influences they discover- natural short and long cycles, solar activity and even volcanoes!
http://junkscience.co...cant-see-the-obvious/
It's an infant science and god forbid one which tells you and me how we can live with barely any actual climate change in reality despite CO2 rising.
http://junkscience.co...cant-see-the-obvious/
It's an infant science and god forbid one which tells you and me how we can live with barely any actual climate change in reality despite CO2 rising.
As predicted, absolutely not a single mention of the fact that the claim about the sea level was utterly false and simply moving on to another batch of fallacies.
Then the claim to have data that back your argument but it is so boriing that we should find it ouselves? You are a joke in this debate.
Only it isn't funny because the arrogant ignorance of people like you is why it is so hard to move forward on taking action. You constantly try to undermine the science with heresay. The lives of billions depend on intelligently addressing this issue and we don't have time to waste.
I have read widely on this issue both from the science and the sceptic's bunkum and am familiar with any argument you care to put forward. If you are serious then provide references and I will debunk them. But you won't because you know that nothing you present will withstand intelligent analysis.
You have collected ten years of rubbish that back your prejudice and have not devoted one iota of effort to critical analysis.
Do you really think your link to a site devoted to promulgating the myths of skeptics trumps the actual measurements? As I said earlier they chose one small piece of the data that suits their bigotry and ignore the rest. This is obvious even to a child who looks at the graph.
Even then it doesn't back your original claim of a ten millimetre fall in two years.
I have debated several people on this issue but David H is the most outstandingly ignorant and arrogant that I have encountered.
Then the claim to have data that back your argument but it is so boriing that we should find it ouselves? You are a joke in this debate.
Only it isn't funny because the arrogant ignorance of people like you is why it is so hard to move forward on taking action. You constantly try to undermine the science with heresay. The lives of billions depend on intelligently addressing this issue and we don't have time to waste.
I have read widely on this issue both from the science and the sceptic's bunkum and am familiar with any argument you care to put forward. If you are serious then provide references and I will debunk them. But you won't because you know that nothing you present will withstand intelligent analysis.
You have collected ten years of rubbish that back your prejudice and have not devoted one iota of effort to critical analysis.
Do you really think your link to a site devoted to promulgating the myths of skeptics trumps the actual measurements? As I said earlier they chose one small piece of the data that suits their bigotry and ignore the rest. This is obvious even to a child who looks at the graph.
Even then it doesn't back your original claim of a ten millimetre fall in two years.
I have debated several people on this issue but David H is the most outstandingly ignorant and arrogant that I have encountered.
I'll let you be judged by everyone on your attitude, I am not replying to you as an individual besides the reply to your well-worn joke that I may be working (or any of the independent scientists I quoted) for the 'combustion industry' (something of the medieval witch hunt there) that you are behaving like an IPCC employed drone who are known to invade forums to make sure their view is perpetuated and any other is squashed and ridiculed as you do constantly. Otherwise all I care about is data and who and what you are is your business.
Just the two points, the 10mm in two years is on the site, and came after the NASA findings which weren't that far out but only covered 2010. I don't mind dumping the 10mm one as a 6mm fall a year after a 3mm regular rise is good enough for me, so suggest we share that and leave the other one as superflous.
Secondly you have surprised me with your assertion that temperatures may reach 5C. That is not IPCC but Greenpeace's figure, so assuming that means you are one of the enthusiasts who have rejected the 2.5C average rise by 2100 in the mid point of IPCC's 0.5-6C range. As the IPCC besides the rather high error margin are what I'd call the mainstream world view (the consensus you speak of), then you are taking the more extreme view based on, well you tell me, that even the IPCC, CRU, NASA etc are dangerously underestimating something that 1) hasn't happened yet and 2) won't happen when we're alive in 2100 to ever know it.
If you are going to make extrordinary claims then you need extraordinarily good evidence. At present a 0.8 rise in 150 years tells me nearly all I need already, and however many terabytes of RAM you throw at it you can't tell where it'll be a year ahead (quote "when the sea level rises again in a year's time"), a decade ahead (IPCC/Michael Mann's assertions that temperatures would rise by 2C by 2010) let alone a century. That, I would suggest, is genuine arrogance. And arrogance which will kill thousands of old and poor people in Britain this year who won't be able to pay for their heating (3000 last year, according to the official figures, set to rise as prices have). That's the other reason your dangerous scary stories are to be challenged at every step, I care about people right now, not after we're all dead, that's called being practical, not arrogant.
Just the two points, the 10mm in two years is on the site, and came after the NASA findings which weren't that far out but only covered 2010. I don't mind dumping the 10mm one as a 6mm fall a year after a 3mm regular rise is good enough for me, so suggest we share that and leave the other one as superflous.
Secondly you have surprised me with your assertion that temperatures may reach 5C. That is not IPCC but Greenpeace's figure, so assuming that means you are one of the enthusiasts who have rejected the 2.5C average rise by 2100 in the mid point of IPCC's 0.5-6C range. As the IPCC besides the rather high error margin are what I'd call the mainstream world view (the consensus you speak of), then you are taking the more extreme view based on, well you tell me, that even the IPCC, CRU, NASA etc are dangerously underestimating something that 1) hasn't happened yet and 2) won't happen when we're alive in 2100 to ever know it.
If you are going to make extrordinary claims then you need extraordinarily good evidence. At present a 0.8 rise in 150 years tells me nearly all I need already, and however many terabytes of RAM you throw at it you can't tell where it'll be a year ahead (quote "when the sea level rises again in a year's time"), a decade ahead (IPCC/Michael Mann's assertions that temperatures would rise by 2C by 2010) let alone a century. That, I would suggest, is genuine arrogance. And arrogance which will kill thousands of old and poor people in Britain this year who won't be able to pay for their heating (3000 last year, according to the official figures, set to rise as prices have). That's the other reason your dangerous scary stories are to be challenged at every step, I care about people right now, not after we're all dead, that's called being practical, not arrogant.
No, David, I’m certainly not on the fence. If you’ve seen any of my responses to earlier questions on Global Warming (aka “Climate Change”) you will have seen that I am not merely a sceptic, but a positive denier (or heretic in some people’s view).
However, I simply give up with the Climate Change enthusiasts. All you get is “look at the data” or “the science is settled” or “everybody agrees” or (annoyingly arrogantly) “the debate is settled”. I’ve asked time and again for explanations of what I see as fundamental shortcomings in Global Warming theory. In particular, the causal relationship has never been properly explained. The usual resolution is “We can’t attribute it to anything else, so it must be human activity”.
Life’s too short and I need to get on. Hence my change of emphasis. I’ve accepted that politicians have been convinced and have seen a prime opportunity to impose their will (and their taxes) on a mainly unconvinced or disinterested public. What I’d now like to know is if the potential outcome is as catastrophic as is suggested how will the UK’s pledge to reduce emissions by 50% (neither desirable nor achievable) avert such a disaster? And I’d also like to know how the government’s current strategy involving light bulbs, wind farms, electric cars and excessive air travel taxes will get anywhere near achieving such a ludicrous target.
However, I simply give up with the Climate Change enthusiasts. All you get is “look at the data” or “the science is settled” or “everybody agrees” or (annoyingly arrogantly) “the debate is settled”. I’ve asked time and again for explanations of what I see as fundamental shortcomings in Global Warming theory. In particular, the causal relationship has never been properly explained. The usual resolution is “We can’t attribute it to anything else, so it must be human activity”.
Life’s too short and I need to get on. Hence my change of emphasis. I’ve accepted that politicians have been convinced and have seen a prime opportunity to impose their will (and their taxes) on a mainly unconvinced or disinterested public. What I’d now like to know is if the potential outcome is as catastrophic as is suggested how will the UK’s pledge to reduce emissions by 50% (neither desirable nor achievable) avert such a disaster? And I’d also like to know how the government’s current strategy involving light bulbs, wind farms, electric cars and excessive air travel taxes will get anywhere near achieving such a ludicrous target.
That's pretty much the same as the original question, but just a bit of a non-sequitur from someone clearly almost as doubtful as me.
But it's a massive concern, one actually addressed by Panorama on the BBC last night which must be a first.
I'll start with the economics and then the science.
Raising prices can only reduce consumption on normal goods. Essentials will not be affected (ie power) while 'Giffen goods' are actually bought more if the price goes up (like bread, don't ask me why, it was over 30 years ago I did it). So as any O level student learns, if you charge more for power then people spend less on luxuries as they can't actually survive without heat and power.
So the theory falls at stage one, as demonstrated by the singular lack of effect on the rising CO2 since the regulations began. Of course they won't go down, what are people meant to do? Companies who are charged more to operate factories can only pass the cost along, as much as the subsidies for wind and solar power which if you read the figures, besides the eye watering cost cannot actually work when they don't feel like it (about 80% of the time) so if you want a hospital to run on them then you'll be able to put them to the test.
Secondly the science. As you said, the CO2/climate connection is one of 'arguing from ignorance', ie if you don't know the answer, plump for the closest thing rather than admit you don't know. That's a human failing as people would far rather provide an answer regardless than admit defeat, much like the sources of religion. Unless we waited 100 years plus for enough time to play out the experiment while also leaving it alone we'll never know the actual effect as basically hardly any of it has happened. The 2C 'safe level' set by the IPCC on a straight extrapolation appears to be well undershot at current trends, simply as history always tells us more than anything else, and the 50% rise since 1850 has started the correlation and projection which is far better extended from that since it's quite sufficient to do so from.
Add the two together and you'll see despite a decade of stringent measures by Europe, the US (they rejected Cap and Trade but regulate CO2 with the EPA so the citizens don't generally realise it, plus many individual states run their own regulations), New Zealand, Australia from today, and anyone else I don't know of, CO2 has risen steadily as of course unless they find an alternative fuel besides nuclear (you can't run a car on that) then whatever they have done in toto has had absolutely no effect anyway.
That alone should tell you that if CO2 was a problem then that's not the way to reduce it. However many investors have made millions from it, which I'd guess is why it grows and grows, and as long as they're both making the laws and benefitting from them (David Cameron's family for example) then it's all systems go. Genuinely concerned people should have realised this long ago and made a stand against it as if god forbid they were right, then every single measure ever taken has made absolutely no difference, but they don't seem to have worked this out.
But it's a massive concern, one actually addressed by Panorama on the BBC last night which must be a first.
I'll start with the economics and then the science.
Raising prices can only reduce consumption on normal goods. Essentials will not be affected (ie power) while 'Giffen goods' are actually bought more if the price goes up (like bread, don't ask me why, it was over 30 years ago I did it). So as any O level student learns, if you charge more for power then people spend less on luxuries as they can't actually survive without heat and power.
So the theory falls at stage one, as demonstrated by the singular lack of effect on the rising CO2 since the regulations began. Of course they won't go down, what are people meant to do? Companies who are charged more to operate factories can only pass the cost along, as much as the subsidies for wind and solar power which if you read the figures, besides the eye watering cost cannot actually work when they don't feel like it (about 80% of the time) so if you want a hospital to run on them then you'll be able to put them to the test.
Secondly the science. As you said, the CO2/climate connection is one of 'arguing from ignorance', ie if you don't know the answer, plump for the closest thing rather than admit you don't know. That's a human failing as people would far rather provide an answer regardless than admit defeat, much like the sources of religion. Unless we waited 100 years plus for enough time to play out the experiment while also leaving it alone we'll never know the actual effect as basically hardly any of it has happened. The 2C 'safe level' set by the IPCC on a straight extrapolation appears to be well undershot at current trends, simply as history always tells us more than anything else, and the 50% rise since 1850 has started the correlation and projection which is far better extended from that since it's quite sufficient to do so from.
Add the two together and you'll see despite a decade of stringent measures by Europe, the US (they rejected Cap and Trade but regulate CO2 with the EPA so the citizens don't generally realise it, plus many individual states run their own regulations), New Zealand, Australia from today, and anyone else I don't know of, CO2 has risen steadily as of course unless they find an alternative fuel besides nuclear (you can't run a car on that) then whatever they have done in toto has had absolutely no effect anyway.
That alone should tell you that if CO2 was a problem then that's not the way to reduce it. However many investors have made millions from it, which I'd guess is why it grows and grows, and as long as they're both making the laws and benefitting from them (David Cameron's family for example) then it's all systems go. Genuinely concerned people should have realised this long ago and made a stand against it as if god forbid they were right, then every single measure ever taken has made absolutely no difference, but they don't seem to have worked this out.
David
I will get to your penultimate post later. You last post is more interesting. It cuts to the issue about what can be done. Like you NewJudge is actually more concerned about the affordability of solutions.
This is where our focus should be. Not debating the fat that global warming is a real issue. It comes both from natural sources and from our technologies being driven by rampant combustion. We can only do something about one of them and the science is telling us that it is a big contribution.
This change to out technologies is inevitable. If you read my earlier post more closely you will see I made no mention of five degrees but 500ppm carbon dioxide. As we are going we will be there in a generation. Then more , then more.
I have asked this question of menay deniers and never received even an attempt at an answer. "At what point do you think carbon dioxide will have an effect on climate?"
Continuing on we will have 800ppm in a couple of centuries. If you want may respect, answer this question.
The other aspect that is not understood by many is the carbon dioxide doesn't go away wne we stop. It is accumulating and most of carbon dioxide we release will go on heating use for millennia. We cannot simply stop and the problem will go away as has finally started to happen with the fluorocarbon pollution twenty years after we took action.
Deniers are afraid of taking on the problem because they think it can't be done. They fear a loss of lifestyle. But David reveals the real issue by reminding us that the problem will not be really manifested until long after we die.
Denialism is driven by just plain self indulgence because they know they can take the easy path without paying the costs.
Like most deniers David is willing to squander the future of our descendents for his indulgence leaving them to pay the costs a thousand times over after he is gone.
They settle their conscience by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge somethng needs to be done. Frankly it disgusts me.
I will get to your penultimate post later. You last post is more interesting. It cuts to the issue about what can be done. Like you NewJudge is actually more concerned about the affordability of solutions.
This is where our focus should be. Not debating the fat that global warming is a real issue. It comes both from natural sources and from our technologies being driven by rampant combustion. We can only do something about one of them and the science is telling us that it is a big contribution.
This change to out technologies is inevitable. If you read my earlier post more closely you will see I made no mention of five degrees but 500ppm carbon dioxide. As we are going we will be there in a generation. Then more , then more.
I have asked this question of menay deniers and never received even an attempt at an answer. "At what point do you think carbon dioxide will have an effect on climate?"
Continuing on we will have 800ppm in a couple of centuries. If you want may respect, answer this question.
The other aspect that is not understood by many is the carbon dioxide doesn't go away wne we stop. It is accumulating and most of carbon dioxide we release will go on heating use for millennia. We cannot simply stop and the problem will go away as has finally started to happen with the fluorocarbon pollution twenty years after we took action.
Deniers are afraid of taking on the problem because they think it can't be done. They fear a loss of lifestyle. But David reveals the real issue by reminding us that the problem will not be really manifested until long after we die.
Denialism is driven by just plain self indulgence because they know they can take the easy path without paying the costs.
Like most deniers David is willing to squander the future of our descendents for his indulgence leaving them to pay the costs a thousand times over after he is gone.
They settle their conscience by steadfastly refusing to acknowledge somethng needs to be done. Frankly it disgusts me.
David H //the 50% rise since 1850 has started the correlation and projection which is far better extended from that since it's quite sufficient to do so from.//
This is a ludricous proposition that not only discard the data but is based upon a zero time lag between carbon dioxide and temperature rise. It goes against everything we know about the dynamic of the system we live in.
Indeed you discredit the IPCC models and then propose to replace it with a model that draws a line between two points. Just bizarre.
This is a ludricous proposition that not only discard the data but is based upon a zero time lag between carbon dioxide and temperature rise. It goes against everything we know about the dynamic of the system we live in.
Indeed you discredit the IPCC models and then propose to replace it with a model that draws a line between two points. Just bizarre.
Why can't these guys argue about something practical, like which end of their boiled egg they should crack?
The climate change industry is in full control at the moment, and it will be many years before either side is proved right or wrong, and whether our expensive green efforts in the UK will make a hap'orth of difference to the planet.
The Earth isn't a simple thing. There are constant discoveries & surprises. Perhaps global warming will coincide with the coming Ice Age, and we'll all sit there wondering what all the fuss was about <[:-)>
The climate change industry is in full control at the moment, and it will be many years before either side is proved right or wrong, and whether our expensive green efforts in the UK will make a hap'orth of difference to the planet.
The Earth isn't a simple thing. There are constant discoveries & surprises. Perhaps global warming will coincide with the coming Ice Age, and we'll all sit there wondering what all the fuss was about <[:-)>
