What global warming?

[Rhyl Lightworks]

What ever next, a connection between News of the World and Climategate?
Seriously, this is interesting. Relates to the enquires in the UK after CRU e-mails were leaked:

Well here is a link. Climate change deniers are largely big business, or those that support them, who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, so that they can make more money - such as News Corporation. One of the biggest deniers of climate change is Fox News in USA owned by guess who.

Climate change is undoubtedly happening, and the debate should be 'what is causing this?' As far as I can see, there are two schools of thought on this - those who maintain it would happen anyway, irrespective of human behaviour, and those that think it is largely caused by human behaviour. It is so difficult, I have seen no conclusive scientific evidence either way. I do tend to think the latter, without conclusive evidence, because scientists that believe the opposite are largely funded by these so called big businesses, including oil companies, and they are adept at covering up their links to such scientists (how long did News of the World succeed in covering up its misdeanours). Scientists who think the latter are largely funded by Governments, the likes of Greenpeace, etc. and we have seen how businesses such as News Corporation can run rings round them (for many years anyway).

Barrie

 

[Davek0974]

Over the last 3 years we've all experienced significant rapid changes in the the pattern of taxation as well as minimum and maximum climate change levies, leave alone carbon footprints in unexpected places. Agreed that some part of it is natural and expected. But at this rate? Obviously there's profit to be made?

Edited for accuracy

Couldnt help myself :redface:

 

[Cornish Steve]

Since the thread was reopened, let me post the latest in a series of news articles showing that there's been no measurable warming for several years. Plus, what evidence there is appears to contradict theory.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Climate change is undoubtedly happening, and the debate should be 'what is causing this?'

Barrie, you need to keep current in your reading! How can you claim that "climate change" (no longer "global warming", of course ) is "undoubtedly happening"? The most recent evidence is that there is precisely zero warming.

 

[Davek0974]

I never had a doubt that it was ever happening, its just a money making scaremongering tactic used by governments to keep the populous scared of something i.e.under control. Any scientist or expert to say otherwise is rapidly hushed or made out to be a fool.

Sad thing is, what can we do about it?

 

[cjd]

Since the thread was reopened, let me post the latest

How come the tempature data from UEA is a credible source when it appears to confirm your bias but not when it doesn't?

[not that seeing no warming over a short period proves anything one way or another anyway]

 

[Cornish Steve]

How come the tempature data from UEA is a credible source when it appears to confirm your bias but not when it doesn't?

[not that seeing no warming over a short period proves anything one way or another anyway]

I can quote other sources if you wish! I chose to quote data from UEA because they have a vested interest in proving global warming. If their own data contradicts the notion, it's particularly damning. And, as long as data is explained in context, ten years is a viable sample period. Do you remember how many earlier UEA graphs were based on a decade's worth of data?

 

[Podge]

I have no idea if climate change exists or not.

What I do know is it's the middle of July and I'm sat with a jumper on cause it's bloody freezing.

 

[cjd]

Yeh, we just had the dryest May on record and one of the coldest winters. But we all know the difference between climate and weather don't we?

It seems a lot still don't.

 

[Podge]

I'm not too sure if that was a dig at me cjd, but if it was would you be so kind as to enlighten me on the difference between climate and weather.

 

[cjd]

I'm not too sure if that was a dig at me cjd, but if it was would you be so kind as to enlighten me on the difference between climate and weather.

It wasn't a dig at you, it was the tinniest of weeniest of pokes at Steve who needs reminding of the difference every few months or so.

Weather is what's happening outside your window now. Climate is the general weather conditions that prevail over time. Climate tells you that it will be colder in January next year than July this - on average.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

As I have said, the science of 'global warming' is incredibly difficult to decide one way or the other - there are conflicting reports on this. But I only have to look at the macroscopic evidence for 'climate change' - the increasing floods and increasing desertification in parts of the world, the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers, etc. to be convniced that climate change is happening now. I do not need any evidence of this other than that of my own and other's eyes.

Barrie

 

[Davek0974]

As I have said, the science of 'global warming' is incredibly difficult to decide one way or the other - there are conflicting reports on this. But I only have to look at the macroscopic evidence for 'climate change' - the increasing floods and increasing desertification in parts of the world, the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers, etc. to be convniced that climate change is happening now. I do not need any evidence of this other than that of my own and other's eyes.

Barrie

Yes but climate change has been happening since the planet was formed some years ago

What makes anyone believe that slapping a levy on our fuel bills is going to make any difference??? Its just a con and another tax on us.

 

[WorldofBooks]

Referencing a story on fox news...hmmm

 

[WorldofBooks]

As I have said, the science of 'global warming' is incredibly difficult to decide one way or the other - there are conflicting reports on this. But I only have to look at the macroscopic evidence for 'climate change' - the increasing floods and increasing desertification in parts of the world, the melting of the polar ice caps and glaciers, etc. to be convniced that climate change is happening now. I do not need any evidence of this other than that of my own and other's eyes.

Barrie

Of course climate change is happening now, climate change is always happening. The question is - has it been cause by anthropogenic factors and has that causation accelerated the speed of change.

 

[Rhyl Lightworks]

It is true climate change has always happened, but more gradually than now. The times when it has changed dramatically fast have usually been caused by factors beyond our control, such as a large meteor hitting the earth. I do believe that at the present time it is accelerating and the main cause is the actions of humankind.

Maybe a tax levy on fuel bills is not the best way to stop it. I don't know what is. I think it is impossible to stop now anyway.

Barrie

 

[wangyong2008614]

our human don't protect our earth.just want to get from it but not pay.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I do believe that...

But for the government to justify the billions collected in taxes, dispersed on research projects, redistributed to other nations, spent on attending world conferences, and otherwise wasted on administration, they need a better argument than "we do believe that..." It needs to be "beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence tells us that..." This, quite frankly, they are unable to do.

I take your point about being more careful in our consumption of energy, but that's more of a political issue. It's dangerous to be dependent for our energy on some of the world's most brutal and unstable regimes. That could be remedied rather quickly with a focus on an expansion of our nuclear energy program. We should also lean on Finland and the US, for example, to develop their huge untapped oil fields.

 

[cjd]

So now you can work it out yourself if you don't believe it. Not that it will change anyone's mind.

Temperature records going back 150 years from 5113 weather stations around the world were yesterday released to the public by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK. The only records missing are from 19 stations in Poland, which refused to allow them to be made public.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20739-ok-climate-sceptics-heres-the-raw-data-you-wanted.html

 

[Cornish Steve]

And another report came out last week that shows raw data from NASA contradicting computer models about the dispersion of heat into space. Far more heat is lost than anyone realized - which has an obvious impact on temperature. (FYI, the report was published by the University of Alabama in Huntsville, which is one of the major HQs for NASA.)

 

[Mike Hussey]

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

 

[cjd]

The latest major study confirms climate change and validates UEA's results.

Massive study concludes: 'Global warming is real'

A massively thorough study – funded in part by a pair of US oil billionaires who are opponents of climate-disruption remediation – has come to the conclusion that the earth is, indeed, warming.

In fact, it's warming just as much as more-limited studies conducted by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA, and the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change said it was: about 1°C since 1950.

The study – the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project – was set up by a University of California astrophysicist who was concerned about the "climategate" dustup over email messages hacked from the UK's University of East Anglia (UEA) that led many observers to believe that climate data had been fudged to exaggerate global warming.

The core of UC Berkeley scientist Richard Muller's concern was not, however, that the UEA scientists were getting a raw deal; in his opinion they had brought the worldwide criticism upon themselves.

"I was deeply concerned that the group [at UEA] had concealed discordant data," Muller told BBC News. "Science is best done when the problems with the analysis are candidly shared."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/10/21/berkeley_earth_surface_temperature_study/

 

[Mike tells it like it is]

The green agenda is bs for people to make money.

Warming is due to the earth tilting on its axis giving us periods of ice age and periods of warmth-as has been the case since the dawn of time.

Once upon a time Mcr central library was so black those living in the slums thought it was made of coal.

 

[cjd]

Warming is due to the earth tilting on its axis giving us periods of ice age and periods of warmth-as has been the case since the dawn of time.

My god, really? I suggest you get onto UEA and Berkeley immediately, they'll be terribly embarrassed.

 

[Dave Kinnel]

Global warming is the continuing rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans. Global warming is caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, resulting from human activities such as deforestation and burning of fossil fuels.This finding is recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized countries and is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.

Very valid point and you can't argue against that or the fact it's all down to humans then can you.

But what caused all the previous global warming/climate changes that have occurred before man even walked the Earth then!

 

[Mike tells it like it is]

My god, really? I suggest you get onto UEA and Berkeley immediately, they'll be terribly embarrassed.

yawn

we are not now going to have a discussion about whether scientific research is ever impartial now are we?

The UK government has a long history of firing scientists who's results and views they don't like.

 

[Mike tells it like it is]

Furthermore the American government not only fires people who's views they don't like they also shoot them dead.

 

[cjd]

One of the real problems trying to discuss this issue is that those denying the evidence, don't discuss the evidence or when they do so, they do it partially. They prefer conspiracy theories and hand waving statements.

Their objections resolve to beliefs of various kinds, not evidence - like religious zealots, their position isn't informed from evidence so it can't be changed by evidence.

 

[hmmm]

to get evidence to argue for or against one must surly have the concrete evidence of history to go on..
4billion years of earth is a long time.
its a very beaudacious claim for anyone to say whats normal and what isnt.
whats natural and whats not.

 

[internetspaceships]

Yes we are increasing the natural temperature cycle of the earth with our greenhouse gases.

A bit like standing at the back of a train doing 125 miles an hour and blowing makes the train go faster.

 

[cjd]

The second problem with climate change deniers is that they think an uninformed opinion and a snide comment counts as a substitute for knowledge.

 

[internetspaceships]

The second problem with climate change deniers is that they think an uninformed opinion and a snide comment counts as a substitute for knowledge.

You're really turning into a self opinionated twit lately arent you CJD. What's with the "disagree with me and therefore you must be wrong and a fool to boot" attitude that you've developed?

You're behaving exactly lke those people you despise on the "god" thread.

 

[cjd]

You're really turning into a self opinionated twit lately arent you CJD. What's with the "disagree with me and therefore you must be wrong and a fool to boot" attitude that you've developed?

So far, all I've heard you say is that you don't think that climate change is happening (I paraphrase). Well thanks for that - did you you perhaps want to explain why you think that or are you done?

 

[internetspaceships]

As some people have said, we really do not have the long term data to show the ACTUAL potential dilemma caused by carbon gases. Nor can we see how we are excascerbating what appears to be a natural cycle.

It's not something that we have the grass roots empirical facts for.

We have speculation and that's about it. Nothing is based in cast iron data, only supposition and hypothesis.

We are also in the position where scientists are afraid to even suggest that it may not be as large a problem as previously though, for fear of their careers.

The whole thing appears to be turning into an almost biblical debate where people who disagree are treated as heretics in the scientific community.

I'm a sceptic CJD, just as you are a sceptic with regards to the religious debate. For once we are on opposing sides.

 

[cjd]

As some people have said, we really do not have the long term data to show the ACTUAL potential dilemma caused by carbon gases. Nor can we see how we are excascerbating what appears to be a natural cycle.
It's not something that we have the grass roots empirical facts for.

We have speculation and that's about it. Nothing is based in cast iron data, only supposition and hypothesis.

We have a global scientific and political consensus. We have as much hard evidence and facts as we need to put the case beyond reasonable doubt.

We are also in the position where scientists are afraid to even suggest that it may not be as large a problem as previously though, for fear of their careers.

No we're not and no they're not.
(ie. My assertion is as strong as yours - neither has any factual content.)

I'm a sceptic CJD, just as you are a sceptic with regards to the religious debate. For once we are on opposing sides.

I'm the worlds biggest sceptic, so get behind me. But there is a point where reasonable scepticism becomes unreasonable denial.

As it happens, I have no 'side' in this debate because I have no knowledge whatsoever on climate science - I can't possibly have an opinion that counts. That's why I get so pi33ed off with uniformed comment that amounts to plain ignorance and hubris.

If there is a global scientific consensus all a thinking layman can do is accept it, act on it and hope they're right. Any other opinion is just an act of faith based on something you don't like personally, like increase prices for energy, multiple re-cycle bins or, as in Steve's case his personal right to buy a tungsten light bulb.

I'm all for scepticism - let's not give it a bad name.

 

[internetspaceships]

Yeah but.. no but...

A global scientific consensus doesn't make it right. The global scientific consensus used to be that the world was flat.

With regards to a global political consensus, I don't feel that any political consensus has any validity when it's being used to raise taxes and generate money in an underhanded manner to prop up economies.

If there were no hidden agendas I would feel a lot more confidence in accepting these "facts."

I could start quote mining regarding the persecution of scientists who don't agree with global warming but that really wouldn't achieve any more than has been shown in other threads.

There are scientific arguments and debate for both sides of this, I think we just have to agree that both may have validity, yet are unproven.

Jon

 

[Davek0974]

We have a global scientific and political consensus. We have as much hard evidence and facts as we need to put the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Forgetting the political side of this data (because i wouldn't believe a word that a politician breathes), can this data actually be believed 100%???

Is it fully independent or funded by oil companies, governments etc who all have hidden agendas and are doing very well financially out of the green debate?

 

[cjd]

A global scientific consensus doesn't make it right. The global scientific consensus used to be that the world was flat.

A global scientific consensus makes it highly improbable that they are wrong but actually impossible that YOU know better.
[The earth was discovered to be round before the birth of modern science - in those days we just made stuff up and assumed that our personal beliefs counted as fact]

It's irrational to hold a position against a scientific conclusion without having any scientific credentials and research of your own to back it up. Saying simply that I don't believe it, is sort of interesting but total irrelevant to the sum of knowledge.

With regards to a global political consensus, I don't feel that any political consensus has any validity when it's being used to raise taxes and generate money in an underhanded manner to prop up economies.

If there were no hidden agendas I would feel a lot more confidence in accepting these "facts."

I've asked this before and got no answer but here goes. Please explain to me why it is in the interest of the developed world to fake global warming? Which industry lobbying groups are more powerful that oil, manufacturing, transport, pharma etc etc whose interests are harmed by it? Why would the Western democarcies put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to China and India and Brazil by increasing their costs of production and slowing growth. (We're actually seeing the opposite happen now that we have a recession.)

It's against almost every major power and political group to admit to climate change - for a good conspiracy theory to work, there has to be some kind of global vested interest to protect or promote, especially as you have to get virtually every scientist in the world to lie and fake it too.

I could start quote mining regarding the persecution of scientists who don't agree with global warming but that really wouldn't achieve any more than has been shown in other threads.

Yes, you could quote mine, but at least you understand how worthless that process is.

 

[internetspaceships]

A global scientific consensus makes it highly improbable that they are wrong but actually impossible that YOU know better.
[The earth was discovered to be round before the birth of modern science - in those days we just made stuff up and assumed that our personal beliefs counted as fact]

It's irrational to hold a position against a scientific conclusion without having any scientific credentials and research of your own to back it up. Saying simply that I don't believe it, is sort of interesting but total irrelevant to the sum of knowledge.



I've asked this before and got no answer but here goes. Please explain to me why it is in the interest of the developed world to fake global warming? Which industry lobbying groups are more powerful that oil, manufacturing, transport, pharma etc etc whose interests are harmed by it? Why would the Western democarcies put themselves at a competitive disadvantage to China and India and Brazil by increasing their costs of production and slowing growth. (We're actually seeing the opposite happen now that we have a recession.)

It's against almost every major power and political group to admit to climate change - for a good conspiracy theory to work, there has to be some kind of global vested interest to protect or promote, especially as you have to get virtually every scientist in the world to lie and fake it too.



Yes, you could quote mine, but at least you understand how worthless that process is.

Whether I know scientifically or not it doesn't matter one jot as to my opinion on this. You're taking the approach of discounting what somebody says based upon the lack of their own scientific findings or qualifications.

In effect you're making out that as I'm not a scientist I therefore cannot have a valid or relevant input to this debate.

Waggling your finger round and effectively saying that I'm irrelevant doesn't get us anywhere especially since you are no better positioned to offer an opinion than me.

I'm not using the conspiracy theory argument here. I'm suggesting that a new theory has been mooted which suits the current financial agenda and has therefore been accepted and utilized far quicker than one which would NOT benefit governments financially.

As to why Western governments would disadvantage themselves with regards to India, China and Brazil. Are they really doing so considering that Western countries are investing in all those countries heavily for production?

Surely if this argument was correct, the Western countries would be prevented from doing so on "green" grounds.

This isn't the case though is it?

 

[cjd]

Whether I know scientifically or not it doesn't matter one jot as to my opinion on this.

I have no difficulty believing that. What I find hard to grasp is how you feel you can have any sort of dissenting opinion by knowing absolutely nothing about it. Since when did ignorance become a winning argument?

You're taking the approach of discounting what somebody says based upon the lack of their own scientific findings or qualifications.

You seem surprised? Do you have an opinion on the speed of neutrinos in a vacuum? If you do, why should I choose your opinion over a physicist's? If you had a heart attack, would you prefer the opinion of a cardiac specialist or ofthat bloke in the pub that has an opinion on everything?

In effect you're making out that as I'm not a scientist I therefore cannot have a valid or relevant input to this debate.

Not in effect, I'm saying absolutely that unless you're qualified to have an opinion on the science of climate change, you don't have an opinion that matters to anyone but yourself

especially since you are no better positioned to offer an opinion than me.

I completely agree, that's why I say that I don't have my own opinion on climate change. Because I'm rational as well as sceptical, I have established for myself that the work has been done, by the right people in the right way and has been confirmed to the best of science's ability, I'm forced to accept that outcome. Just like I'm forced to accept quantum mechanics - even though I can never understand it.

As to why Western governments would disadvantage themselves with regards to India, China and Brazil. Are they really doing so considering that Western countries are investing in all those countries heavily for production?

It's a question of scale - Western investment in China is infinitesimally small compared to china and the west's GDPs.

Surely if this argument was correct, the Western countries would be prevented from doing so on "green" grounds.

I don't follow this. But really, western politics are utterly incapable of running any kind of globally coordinated conspiracy that deniers need to invoke. It's simply impossible - they can barely organise a Greek bale-out without falling out on every level, how on earth do they do this? It's just silly.

What this boils down to is that it's unreasonable to hold an uniformed opinion on whether climate is changing and why. The only rational position is to accept the consensus until science tells us different.

But it's perfectly reasonable to have an opinion on what should be done about it - that's just politics.