Arguments Against Climate Change Science

[beso]

Back in 2011 the skeptics claimed the sea level was falling. They are not as keen to discuss it now.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Some claim that the temperature hasn't risen since 1998. Of course they looked only at atmospheric temperature and abused the statistics by picking a severe El Nino year when heat comes out of the ocean into the atmosphere.

The upwards trend in atmospheric temperature is unmistakable.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

The ocean heat content is steadily rising.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Have they got anything left to support their case?

[Milvus]

The full response from Dr Spencer seems have a view not supporting global warming
http://www.cfact.org/2014/10/24/why-2014-wont-be-the-warmest-year-on-record/

[atalanta]

The vast majority of scientists accept that industrialisation has caused climate change, and will continue to do so. The vast majority of economists deny it, and claim the science is wrong or the figures are wrongly interpreted.
Which side has most to gain or lose ? I know which argument I accept.

[New Judge]

As I've said before, I'm not particularly fussed who is right. Except, that one point of view, if accepted (which it unfortunately seems to have been), costs me a load of money for no sound reason whatsoever. Other than that I don't give a monkey's.

[beso]

New Judge neatly sums up the skeptics case. It is driven by pure greed.

"Not particularly fussed who is right" = I don't care what happens to the planet.

"costs me a lot of money" = I should be allowed to use the cheapest technology available regardless if it make life untenable for future generations.

"for no sound reason whatsoever" = I won't even look at the science.

As for "not giving a monkey's" please ensure that your grandchildren are aware of your position.

[New Judge]

They are, beso, and they share my views that they, like me, will have to deal with whatever the planet throws at them. But I think we've done this before. How's your forest getting on, by the way?

[beso]

Milvus:

Thank you for your contribution.

The temperature chart in the link shows global average atmospheric temperatures. The peaks in 1998 and 2010 were years with a strong El Nino. During these years heat is released from the ocean to the atmosphere.

Take a look at the overall trend of the graph and tell me what you see?

Spencer is an advocate of intelligent design and as such has a predisposition to reject any possibility of climate change.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[30][31] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[32]"

Really?

Next please.

[beso]

New Judge:

The planet is already throwing climate change at us and your response is zero. I expect your great grandchildren will not be so accepting.

Forest is growing well.

[Slapshot]

Wow.... what a day!!! religious Fundamentalism, LGBT Fundamentalism, now the old Climate Change Fundamentalism..... yawn!!!

Using Beso's very own notation:
Climate change = Politically sponsored scare mongering
I won't look at the science = We'll ignore any science that doesn't back up our theory ( you've still never answered my question on why the Inital Global Climate Change models IGNORED 60%+ of the REAL observed data it initialised with because it didn't fit the wanted results - if you want to ignore the science)

A Spencerism - "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent. [...] Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades.

Another Spencerism - Ooooooo Betty, the dog did a whoopsie on the carpet

Your slavish following of the AGW Gods makes me chuckle Beso.... brightening up a dull night shift, crack on matey

[New Judge]

I would not get too bogged down with facts if I were you, slapshot.

beso has an alarming habit of becoming unpleasant, personal and insulting when his totally inflexible views are challenged. He has never satisfactorily explained what he wants "us" to do (he's planted a forest, apparently, which is very laudable but not practical for most of us); he has never satisfactorily explained how taxing commodities and utilities will reverse alleged man-made climate change; he has never explained why so much of his vitriol is directed towards people in the UK but seems to overlook the fact that China opens four or five coal burning power stations a week.

I can't find the earlier questions now (and quite honestly cannot be bothered) but some time ago I vowed not to engage with him on this topic as the debate quickly degenerates into personal abuse. That's why I've adopted by "don't give a toss" attitude. But that's not allowed, apparently.

[Slapshot]

As a meteoroligist New Judge...... unfortunately I have little option... ;0)

[Slapshot]

JEEEZ!!! meteorologist!!

[douglas9401]

Could be in for a spell of dodgy weather I see. :-)

Yet again New Judge, I'm on your side.

[Slapshot]

it's these long night shifts Douglas.... ;0)

[Svejk]

I feel rather sorry for the Bezos in this world.

[Khandro]

New judge; // they, like me, will have to deal with whatever the planet throws at them.//
This disconcerting attitude demonstrates a naïve belief that some form of technological solution will always appear before things get too bad. This techno-optimism arises from a Cold War space race and it's science-fiction fantasies: we are not interstellar cowboys who could leave our planet if things get too rough. Humanity clings to a small blue-green reef in the middle of a limitless, hostile ocean. If we cannot live on the bounty of this reef there is nowhere else to go, and we will die gasping for breath.

[beso]

divebuddy
//The earth has managed to cope with far more severe climate change situations several times in the past. //

The Earth has coped because the planet doesn't actually care what is here. Aside from even like astronomical impacts, (when 75 percent of species became extinct), the changes have always happened gradually.

The rate of the current change far exceeds any ordinary climate change events. There is not enough time for evolution to take up the change. This is on top of our ecosystem having already taken a might whack from human activity.

//None of those events were encouraged by the effects of industry because there wasn't any industry. I suppose man might make some small, almost irrelevant contribution to serious change, but basically it's just the natural order of things.//

You naively presume that doubling the carbon dioxide content of the will be a irrelevant contribution. The science shows that the changes in CO2 are fundamental to the mechanisms that drive have driven the changes to climate in the past.

[beso]

Slapshot
//Climate change = Politically sponsored scare mongering //

So you assert without a scrap of evidence.

//I won't look at the science = We'll ignore any science that doesn't back up our theory//

There is no credible science to back the skeptic's case.

//why the Inital Global Climate Change models IGNORED 60%+ of the REAL observed data it initialised with//

How did they ignore data? At every step the models have been compared with data. Where the model didn't fit the data the models were revised bringing in ever more physical details as they became better understood.

Early models were limited by the available processing power but ever more powerful computers have allowed ever more complex models to be run ring in more detail and fitting more closely to the data.

//A Spencerism - "To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent. [...] Right now, all climate models predict that clouds will amplify warming. I'm betting that if the climate models' 'clouds' were made to behave the way we see these clouds behave in nature, it would substantially reduce the amount of climate change the models predict for the coming decades. //

Spencer has already demonstrated his religious commitment to there being no change. (Guess he forgot about the Biblical Flood). He "bets" how differently the model would behave if they were adjusted to fit his prejudice. Betting is not science.

//Your slavish following of the AGW Gods makes me chuckle Beso//

And what precisely do you base your beliefs on? You simply hope the models are wrong despite the science. It is your baseless beliefs that are of a religious nature.

[beso]

New Judge
//I would not get too bogged down with facts if I were you, slapshot. //

I have yet to see a skeptic present any facts.

//beso has an alarming habit of becoming unpleasant, personal and insulting when his totally inflexible views are challenged. //

I am passionate about this issue because it represents the biggest threat ever faced by humanity. My views are not inflexible. The fact is that nothing has been presented to make me think the science is wrong.

Unlike the skeptics I have researched the opposing claims. In every case they have been easily dismissed as simplistic and unscientific.

// he has never satisfactorily explained how taxing commodities and utilities will reverse alleged man-made climate change;//

Simple market economics. Taxing the carbon emissions provides an incentive to use sustainable energy technologies. It has already been seen to be working in countries that have implemented the policies.

The rise in investment has fossil fuel companies in a panic trying to stop the tide of change.

//he has never explained why so much of his vitriol is directed towards people in the UK but seems to overlook the fact that China opens four or five coal burning power stations a week.//

This skeptic's favourite is old news. In fact these many of the new plants in China replaced old inefficient technology. Moreover the developed world has had the luxury of cheap coal power for long enough to be using some of that wealth to develop alternatives.

The current situation in China shows they are taking action far more seriously than the developed world.

"China, meanwhile, is moving ahead on plans to address its pollution problem by phasing out coal, with the Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau announcing on Monday that the districts of Dongcheng, Xicheng, Chaoyang, Haidian, Fengtai and Shijingshan would stop using coal and its related products, and close coal-fired power plants and other coal facilities, by 2020.

"According to official Chinese government statistics, coal use accounted for 25.4 per cent of the capital’s energy consumption in 2012 – a figure that is expected to shrink to less than 10 per cent by 2017."

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/worse-news-for-australia-as-india-taps-solar-beijing-bans-coal-66423

[Slapshot]

BESO.....
//You naively presume that doubling the carbon dioxide content of the will be a irrelevant contribution. The science shows that the changes in CO2 are fundamental to the mechanisms that drive have driven the changes to climate in the past. ........ How did they ignore data? At every step the models have been compared with data. Where the model didn't fit the data the models were revised bringing in ever more physical details as they became better understood. //

When the first models were created there were more than 90,000 accurate atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements made by various scientists and documented over the previous 180 years. Most of these measurements were indiscriminately thrown out by the architects of the Man-Made Global Warming Theory.

Ernst George Beck recently reviewed these early measurements combining the results from several studies and his paper titled “180 years of Atmospheric CO2 Gas Analysis by Chemical Methods” was published in Energy & Environment, 2007, Volume 18, Number 2. ..... Just a cut and paste from our last discussion....

This paper concluded actual measured atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been higher than current levels in the recent past. The high level maxima’s occurred around 1825, 1857 and 1942. The carbon dioxide levels in 1942 exceeded 400 ppm.

The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is neither unusual nor abnormal but fits well within the range of measured levels during the 19th and 20th centuries.“ Marusek 07

Models have continued as iterations and developments of the originals but at NO TIME were those initial observation included in the parameterisations of the models. The East Anglia emails were hushed because evidence contradicted the message.....

There is no discussion or debate with you like the rest of slavish followers of the cult. You fail to realise what AGW science is all about, confusing the tax hiking/money laundering racket that is the IPCC with Climate Change, a natural process that the earth has managed well for the last 4bn years or so. At some point very soon IPCC is going to have to acknowledge the observed slow down in warming, we're making those observations regularly.... we'll all expect your apologies at that stage.

Global Warming and Cooling or it's correct title Climate Change will continue till the sun has us for lunch in about 5 bn years whats happened over the last couple of hundred years won't even register as a blip