What global warming?

[David Griffiths]

I haven't read it but, let me guess, it says some things that you agree with therefore it is "where things really stand"?

Post it again and I'll look at it.

The obvious interpretation of this is "I haven't read the article, but if Steve agrees with it, it must be wrong"

Sorry, but that comes across as the kind of closed minded attitude that's all too common in this topic.

 

[cjd]

The link is here, and the following are quotes from it (my highlighting)

Don't you think it's a bit off-centre to give more credence to an journalist with a degree in history than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Even if it was a journalist that had some sort of intellectual respect and background in the field, it would be a silly thing to do, but this guy is a crackpot - a total fruitloop.

Via his long-running column in the UK's Sunday Telegraph, Booker has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008[1], that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health[2], that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[3] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans"[4]. He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Booker

Seems to me you've backed the wrong horse, again.

 

[Cornish Steve]

We're not talking about the guy's other views. For goodness sakes, the science czar in President Obama's inner circle believes in adding chemicals to tap water to sterilize the population, and filling the upper atmosphere with dust particles to turn the sun blood red (and hence reduce 'global warming'). Everyone on the planet has an agenda. What matters is cold, hard data and interpreting it in an objective manner.

Throughout this thread, I've quoted example after example of data for global warming that is fabricated or exaggerated. I've also quoted example after example of data that denies man-made global warming, often published by leading authorities, that is being suppressed by politicians. The principal conclusions presented in that article are consistent with the facts - and you can check them out for yourself. I highlighted in bold the most poignant and telling statements, and these just cannot be denied. Let me repeat them. Don't they strike any chord of concern here?

It is commonly believed that the IPCC consists of "1,500 of the world's top climate scientists", charged with weighing all the scientific evidence for and against "human-induced climate change" in order to arrive at a "consensus". In fact, the IPCC was never intended to be anything of the kind. The vast majority of its contributors have never been climate scientists. Many are not scientists at all. And from the start, the purpose of the IPCC was not to test the theory, but to provide the most plausible case for promoting it.

Almost every single scientific claim in Gore's film was either wildly exaggerated or wrong. The statistical methods used to create the hockey-stick graph were so devastatingly exposed by two Canadian statisticians that the graph has become one of the most comprehensively discredited artefacts in the history of science.

Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly exaggerated computer predictions combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Let me also add that this was not my reference. I don't agree with every statement written there, but some of its main points are well put.

 

[cjd]

The obvious interpretation of this is "I haven't read the article, but if Steve agrees with it, it must be wrong"

Sorry, but that comes across as the kind of closed minded attitude that's all too common in this topic.

No. I was making a prediction which could be proved right or wrong.

I was saying that Steve will have picked an oddball article by a maverick - because it fits his world view and he suffers from chronic confirmation bias.

It was a risky prediction because the article was in a mainstream, conservative UK broadsheet. But I was right.

This isn't a article written by a respected scientist working in the field but a bonkers journalist with a degree in history and a believe that passive smoking does no harm and that asbestos is talcum powder, promoting his book. To say it has no merit would be to flatter it.

Please get some balance and develop some critical thinking before you accuse others of having 'closed minds'.

(For the record, I am not at all convinced about the case for global warming - but so far, the evidence against is sparse.)

 

[Cornish Steve]

The obvious interpretation of this is "I haven't read the article, but if Steve agrees with it, it must be wrong"

Sorry, but that comes across as the kind of closed minded attitude that's all too common in this topic.

Colin and I have quite a history of disagreeing on 'Time Out' topics, and we each have our own didactic style. Underneath it all (I think!), we don't take things like this personally and we do respect each other as people. For sure, I can tell you that I've learned a lot from him.

 

[Cornish Steve]

And let me repeat the quote from the Wall Street Journal. Maybe you'll prefer these writers.

In retrospect, a significant moment was the falling apart or debunking of two key attempts seemingly well-suited to clinch matters for a scientifically literate public. One, the famous hockey stick graph, which suggested the temperature rise of the past 100 years was unprecedentedly steep, was convincingly challenged. The other, a mining of the geological record to show past episodes of warming were sharply coupled with rising CO2 levels, fell victim to a closer look that revealed that past warmings had preceded rather than followed higher CO2 levels.

These episodes from a decade ago testified to one important thing: Even climate activists recognized a need for evidence from the real world. The endless invocation of computer models wasn't cutting it. Yet today the same circles are more dependent than ever on predictions made by models, whose forecasts lie far enough in the future that those who rely on them to make policy prescriptions are in no danger of being held accountable for their reliability.

For a while the media could patch over the scientific shortfall by reporting evidence of warming as if it were evidence of what causes warming. Inconveniently, however, just as temperature-measuring has become more standardized and disciplined and less reliant on flaky records from the past (massaged to the Nth degree), the warming trend seems to have faded from the recent record.

 

[TFGtv]

I'm sick of the BS on this....

We're running out of oil... it's finite. And the great CO2 swindle is about noting more or less than how to maintain the same revenue/tax stream from a dwindling resource...

As a theory/credo global warning stinks.... To high heaven! and much of the impetus drives us towards ever-increasingly polluting and unsustainable technology!

...don't build sustainable cars that last 25, 30, or even 50 years. Don't run them on fuels derived from plants... instead scrap them after 10 years (thus almost trebling the effective pollution the process of ownership creates) and repalce them with something more disposable and FACTUALLY more damaging to the environment....

'Scuse me while I pour another 60l of veg oil from Makro straigh into the tank of my middle-aged 15 year old 4X4!...

 

I think it would be nice to have a list of things that have actually been adversely affected by global warming at this moment in time.?

What happens in the future is theory to me .

When I was young I was told by science that we would all be working 20 hours a week by 1990 for twice the pay,and our major problem would be what to do in our spare time.

Earl

 

[YODspica]

why is USA planning to go to the Moon quite soon instead of Mars, do they know something we don't?

 

[TFGtv]

I think it would be nice to have a list of things that have actually been adversely affected by global warming at this moment in time.?

What happens in the future is theory to me .

When I was young I was told by science that we would all be working 20 hours a week by 1990 for twice the pay,and our major problem would be what to do in our spare time.

Earl

funny that....

My Great Grandmother died when i was 7. I remember it well because having been born on her 90th birthday she always made a fuss of me... November 14th 1969 she passed away... 22 years before my middle daughter was born (weird because my birthday falls on the 22nd of July)...

Wonderful old lady. Pure bread Romany, Gadge' by marriage.... at her funeral I remember being told (by some random uncle who was a design engineer) how I'd never drive a petrol powered car. Hydrogen fuel cells were the future... how the coming ice age woudl affect me...

This P!sh has being going on for the best part of a half-decade that I know of!!!

 

[TFGtv]

why is USA planning to go to the Moon quite soon instead of Mars, do they know something we don't?

Why did they first (allegedly!) go there the day before my 7th birthday.... and yet STILL failed to ensure the plcae is hoaching with lycra-clad south east asian women as per Space 1999/UFO?

It's closer???

 

[frockery]

I seem to be stalking you tonight, Matt.

I worry about finite resources, but not particularly about global warming/climate change. There is no doubt that oil will run out, but the jury's still out on the climate.

Minimising waste by redesign/reuse/recycling makes sense to me as we are rapidly running out of land to fill.

 

[Cornish Steve]

But what about the government doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the cost of fuel to fulfill its ideological opinions? Or forcing you to use this type of light bulb, that type of car, or the other type of heating? Or restricting imports and exports to reduce the number of flights? Or forcing you to eat only fruit and veggies grown within a certain radius? Or forcing you to install a bidet when it bans toilet paper? You may laugh, but I've read article about all these things and much more. In the end, it's all about power. Does the government serve the people, or do the people serve the government? The whole global warming scam trends to the latter.

 

[casado]

There is a scientific consensus. It has been formed around peer reviewed science.

Does that suit you better?

This does not mean that there are is no peer reviewed science that comes to a different conclusion, merely that those that do are utterly swamped by those that don't.

So picking facts here and there that seem to go against the theory and then claiming that the whole argument is therefore defunct is bullsh1t.

Sorry cjd, that doesn't suit me better, as the consensus has never been a test of truth in science.
The only test of truth in science are the experimental/observed facts, there is no more science that that, as long as we talk about natural sciences.
If you measure the average temperature of the planet (however that concept is defined, which this is another issue with I refrain from elaborating on here) and it has been dropping for the last 3 years, is hard to talk of any scientific truth that consist on stating that global temperatures are rising.
And it they were rising, it is hard to persuade anyone that the whole Kyoto Protocol estimate for the CO2 emissions to the atmosphere caused by human activity, which is less than 1% of the total CO2 already in the atmosphere, and much less than the natural variation of the concentration of CO2 by the seasonal change of the consumption of CO2 by plants, can cause it.
If you what to talk about science, then lets talk about it, bring in the scientific papers not the political declarations of committees set up ex profeso to produce an orchestrated declaration. I doubt very much that you, or anyone, can produce a peer reviewed scientific paper (published in a science magazine) that categorically says that there is a anthropogenic climate change going on.
Only the people who have never been involved in science use the authority argument when it comes to talk about science. There was a "consensus" formed in the XIX that brought Charles Darwing into a trial, but the consensus was hardly scientific.
Another thing, scientist not only do science, they sometime have sex, eat, and, yes, some of them, or many of them do politics. So, if someone pays to set up a forum, a council, or a committees to produce a prescribed declaration, if people involved in it are scientists in their other job it doesn't mean they act as scientist there.
The good thing about science is that it needs to stand by itself, not by the reputation of the people who produce it. Reputations can be created to measure and destroyed when needed, scientific facts no.

 

[cjd]

Sorry cjd, that doesn't suit me better, as the consensus has never been a test of truth in science.

Which is why I have said that being a concensus doesn't make it right - twice now I believe.

However, while we wait for your perfect proof (which of course is impossible in the natural sciences), we have a global consensus which we would be foolish to ignore just because we don't like it. Statistically, you'd be an idiot to bet against it at the moment.

Regardless of the facts about global warming, we know that carbon based energy is just about over and we need cleaner and more sustainable fuels and that waste at the levels our modern society is spewing out is both morally wrong and also un-economic; we need better answers anyway.

 

[ne-it]

Dear Net-it, or whatever your real name is.

I am not quite sure, because I don't know you, I don't even have a real name for you, if you so used to fly over peoples heads as to talk in such a way as if nothing touched you, dropping from such aloof a position, indications of what we should do or shouldn't do, while hinting to assumptions that were dismissed by you in your first intervention.

If you are not a politician, you sure should be, not because you may make a good one, but you good make an X Factor politician because you certainly talk the talk. Only a person of such character can state one thing and the opposite in the same argument and keep the composure. So, in your first post "From a personal view, whether or not "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" are influenced by human activity is too narrow a point upon which to argue. It's fairly straightforward to come to this conclusion because as has been indicated by the responses to this thread, it's easy enough to produce the results of quantitative research to support either argument...", and in your second post "Herein lays the poignant reminder that these challenges (which include man’s impact on Global Warming/Climate Change) need to be understood" .
So, what should I take with me? that in your opinion there is no clear evidence for anthropogenic climate change(ACC), of that there is?
Or is it that your position goes more or less like "there is no scientific reason for considering the existence of ACC, but lets pretend there are"? Well, may be can be an excuse to do something, or rather to pretend being doing something, team building and all that.
As for the comment on the Capitalist System, I think on the lines of Ortega (Ortega y Gasset is one both surnames) that those challenges, more the ones that I mentioned rather than ACC, are not the real problem but the symptoms, and that there would be of little help if I tried to get into the Parish Church Council or some order organization/group/political party or whatever. Besides, Nature has its laws, and the old needs do die for the new to florish, and the Western Civiliztion is the old thing in this story. Wheather the new will come from the same poeple who live in these lands or people far away is jet to be seen.
As for the suggestion that I should try to be frugal in my use of transport fuel, I can only point out that you can not possibly know how frugal I already am. But in any case, what should I listen to? to those who say that if I take the next flight we will all die of sun burns or to those whose jobs depend on that people like me fly regularly? I can also point out that private energy consumption is a small proportion of the overall energy use. Before I get wet riding my bike into work, I would expect that formula one races, shopping mall ilumination, fabrication of silly things that nobody needs, like the ones in the shops now for Xmas, silly magazines, etc. would be limited.
I agree that a debate is needed on the direction our civiliztion is taking but this is prety much independend of the pretended ACC, if you like a debate on the meaning of life and why we should do things, which has been replace by goebelian propaganda y the last decades. But this debate, and I think Ortega would agree with me, would not be a debate for the masses.
I another thing that I strongly feel is that we have exceeded, with this debate, the scope for which this forum has been set up, and we may run the risk of boring anyone else to death, not to mention the fact that it is difficult (at least for me) to condense ones opinion about such a braod subject (the crisis of the current system) in a few lines.

It seems what has been articulated so far hasn't gone over your head,at least Unfortunately, I feel it is you who adopts the lofty position, combined with a propensity for throwing in meaningless insults, that don't really match the maturity of your writing. There is no contradiction from my original post because the first posed a question that was meant to open the debate, rather than continue focus on a particularly contentious aspect of the issue. Indeed you seem to have adopted a position of agreement regarding the “old hat” question?

The second reply I posted reiterates my original position in highlighting the need to understand “anthropogenic climate change(ACC)” as a critical factor. To qualify this statement consider the preceding posts and the various arguments supported by the statistics used. Then let us also consider, according to some informed views that “scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.” (Pielke). The other “symptoms” you refer to are not divorced from ACC in any way but are fundamental in forming an understanding of a series of interlinked hypotheses. It therefore seems pertinent to ask if the language of understanding is something that's missing from your fountain of knowledge? I'm in agreement regarding your statement, “ Whether the new will come from the same people who live in these lands or people far away is jet to be seen”, since none of us are blessed with the ability to foretell the future.

Forgive my intrusion and assumptions relating to frugal energy consumption but I thought you invited comment in this regard? I'm also confused by some aspects of the logic you employ to present your arguments. On one hand you suggest that people's gainful employment is reliant on a choice to fly but you also refer to those most obvious symbols of capitalism as a fabrication of “silly things that nobody needs”?? You can bet your bottom dollar that the 0.1% forecast by the Treasury for growth in the economy, in January 2010, won't be solely down to folk taking their winter jollies but may also have something to do with the traditional seasonal upturn, leading up to and after, Christmas!

Could you also qualify the observation that “private energy consumption is a small proportion of the overall energy use”, as I'm not sure this is at all true?

Finally, I don't believe we've exceeded the scope of any discussion on this forum. The discussion falls within the rules and further I hold the opinion that this kind of debate should occur in arenas such as this. I'm able to accommodate any difficulties you experience in condensing your opinion.

Best regards,

Mo.

(Pielke) http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/interview-with-roger-pielke-sr.html

 

[ne-it]

The statistics quoted throughout this thread are not extremist at all.

Hi Steve,

Just an opinion but if stats are used to support either pole of the argument, how can they not be extremist? If it were as easy to agree on a set of statistics that supports an argument irrefutably then there wouldn't be a debate?

As for Al Gore, well he never had any political credibility so why would anyone suddenly regard him as a world authority on the subject? Forget Al Gore and focus on achieving a greater, wider understanding of the issue... Besides Mr Gore is probably kicking back right now, looking for his next feature film opportunity!

Best regards,

Mo.

 

[ne-it]

Why did they first (allegedly!) go there the day before my 7th birthday.... and yet STILL failed to ensure the plcae is hoaching with lycra-clad south east asian women as per Space 1999/UFO?

It's closer???

Must be something in the water!

 

[casado]

Which is why I have said that being a concensus doesn't make it right - twice now I believe.

However, while we wait for your perfect proof (which of course is impossible in the natural sciences), we have a global consensus which we would be foolish to ignore just because we don't like it. Statistically, you'd be an idiot to bet against it at the moment.

Regardless of the facts about global warming, we know that carbon based energy is just about over and we need cleaner and more sustainable fuels and that waste at the levels our modern society is spewing out is both morally wrong and also un-economic; we need better answers anyway.

Sorry, the proof is not impossible, the proof is there, it during the next 5 years the temperatures cool, we would have 8 years of cooling, therefore a proof, as perfect as it can be that there is no worming, anthropogenic or otherwise. If the evolution of the temperatures on the earth follows the same pattern as in other planets in the solar system in the neighborhood of the Earth, with or without warming, we have the proof that is not anthropogenic.

False again that hydrocarbons as a source of energy are about to be used up completely. This is the same thing we have been listening to for several decades now. In the early 80's we were supposed to have oil reserves that would only last for 20 years at the, then, current consumption rate. We are more than 20 years later and they didn't run out but we are consuming much more than we were then. There are plenty of oil, ans above all natural gas, and coal (that the Germans, despite their green credentials are using like crazy these days) for many many decades. That's the hard fact.

Another different issue is the dependency on energy sources that come from other parts of the world, and the dependency both economical an political of the west on these regions. But this is a far more complicated issue that it may look at first sight. The real dependency on oil is of our government, or of all the governments in the west. I always ask the same question, if we had a source of clean unlimited energy, that may not be so far away, may be 50 or 60 years (google ITER), what would the governments do? would they refrain form taxing us to death on the energy we consume since there would be no green/political excuse for it? I think not. The cost of natural gas, that Europe is flooded with this year and the next coming years, is 1/3 of what you pay for it.

One of the problems is that Europe, and the rest of the west is not based on the informed will or aquisence of the informed people. The facked democratic system that the west is trying to export to the rest of the world by bombing it, is a patronizing manipulative system where, as you nearly admit, lying or exagerating is admisible as long as it serves a higher purpose, higher in the eyes of the dominating groups.

Would it be convenient to use less oil? in my oppinion it would. But the same politica groups who advocate the things that you are advocating, do nothing to that effect. On the contrary, they insist in organizing the economy in a way that a drop in the sale of cars is a tragedy. On one hand they say that we should drive less (5% less as a TV advert says these days on TV) on the other hand, it needs to create the conditions for cars to be manufacture and sold (the amount of energy the manufacutre of a car takes, would wash away the 5% savings they advocate). Could we have smaller electrica cars to go to work every day? of course, if there was an interest on it, after all is not such a cutting edge technology, electric cars have been around for decades, but, if those cars were manufactured, and people would be using them on mass, how much tax revenue would be loss?

It is pure hypocresy, this scam and many other, are not create to solve any real problem, are created to make people feel guilty and then tax them to death (reducing their living standards hiding the facts that we are getting poorer and poorer and, the bear truth is that the system has failed long ago) an meke them believe that they are to blema for the taxes.

 

[masterofnone]

Ed Griffin (not related to Nick ) has catalogued a whole series of news items and reports exposing the highly dubious claims of those suggesting global warming is man-made or that we are in for some worldwide disaster:

freedomforceinternational.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=globalwarming

I also came across this excellent blog recently:

climatescience.blogspot.com

It's well worth a read.

As someone who understands that business - and especially small businesses - are the lifeblood of any nation's genuine prosperity and success, I have been a strong supporter of The Freedom Association and they and their associates often provide good debates and presentations etc. on the whole climate issue.

Businesses should make decisions based in reality and not yield to scare tactics or bullying by those who blindly take up causes with little more information than a vague idea that there is some consensus on the issue - which, btw, there is not (a recent survey of practising climatoligists showed a third supported man-made global warming, a third said that mankind was not responsible and a third said they did not have enough data yet to have a view) - a scientists have their own biases and vested interests like any other profession.

p.s. you'll have to cut and paste the links as I do not have enough posts to activate them as of yet (prefix them with the hyper text transfer protocol !).

 

[casado]

It seems what has been articulated so far hasn't gone over your head,at least Unfortunately, I feel it is you who adopts the lofty position, combined with a propensity for throwing in meaningless insults, that don't really match the maturity of your writing. There is no contradiction from my original post because the first posed a question that was meant to open the debate, rather than continue focus on a particularly contentious aspect of the issue. Indeed you seem to have adopted a position of agreement regarding the “old hat” question?

The second reply I posted reiterates my original position in highlighting the need to understand “anthropogenic climate change(ACC)” as a critical factor. To qualify this statement consider the preceding posts and the various arguments supported by the statistics used. Then let us also consider, according to some informed views that “scientific rigor has been sacrificed, and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow.” (Pielke). The other “symptoms” you refer to are not divorced from ACC in any way but are fundamental in forming an understanding of a series of interlinked hypotheses. It therefore seems pertinent to ask if the language of understanding is something that's missing from your fountain of knowledge? I'm in agreement regarding your statement, “ Whether the new will come from the same people who live in these lands or people far away is jet to be seen”, since none of us are blessed with the ability to foretell the future.

Forgive my intrusion and assumptions relating to frugal energy consumption but I thought you invited comment in this regard? I'm also confused by some aspects of the logic you employ to present your arguments. On one hand you suggest that people's gainful employment is reliant on a choice to fly but you also refer to those most obvious symbols of capitalism as a fabrication of “silly things that nobody needs”?? You can bet your bottom dollar that the 0.1% forecast by the Treasury for growth in the economy, in January 2010, won't be solely down to folk taking their winter jollies but may also have something to do with the traditional seasonal upturn, leading up to and after, Christmas!

Could you also qualify the observation that “private energy consumption is a small proportion of the overall energy use”, as I'm not sure this is at all true?

Finally, I don't believe we've exceeded the scope of any discussion on this forum. The discussion falls within the rules and further I hold the opinion that this kind of debate should occur in arenas such as this. I'm able to accommodate any difficulties you experience in condensing your opinion.

Best regards,

Mo.

(Pielke) http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/interview-with-roger-pielke-sr.html

Sorry, I do not discus with moderators. If you want to direct a debate just buy a TV station. Either you state what you "think" and participate in the debate or I am done debating with you.
I don't find it honest for you to say that on one hand you only "ask questions" to start the debate and then you imply that there is a undisputed phenomenon, namely “anthropogenic climate change(ACC)” that needs to be understood. Some thing that has no existence can no be understood, therefore the first thing that needs to be established is whether ACC is a fact or not. But you seem to adopt the attitude oof not wanting to talk about the core issue but to take it as a fact becaue everybody talks about it.
And yes, I think that we have exceeeded the escope of these forums that, as far as I understand it, were set up to talk about business in the UK. And we are talking about science, politics, literature, etc, and very rearly talking about business.
I would assume that people who registered in this website are interested in business and may have some experience in the matter that would be interesting to share. But that hardly gives ground to asume that one can learn anything about science, politics or philosofy. As an example, there are people here pushing pretended scientific argumetns, and I bet they hardly understand the concept of temperature that is in the very beginning of the problem at hand, and the isuse with definind a temperature average across the globe, and what the difference would be between averaging the temperature of the squered value of the temperature, and how, it may even give very different result (temperature rising of falling) using these different quantities.
Talking about literature with someone who has never read a book is a waste of time, same as talking about science with some one who has not spend time and effort to understand the fundamentals. What people is talking about here is Science Politics that contains as much science as Science Finction.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Regardless of the facts about global warming, we know that carbon based energy is just about over and we need cleaner and more sustainable fuels and that waste at the levels our modern society is spewing out is both morally wrong and also un-economic; we need better answers anyway.

The real reason we need less dependence on oil is to reduce our dependence on unfriendly regimes. The US, for example, has hundreds of years' worth of natural gas resources, so why not use them? Finland and Norway are sitting on some huge oil deposits, so why not access them? Nuclear energy is very clean and efficient, so why not build more of them? Instead, governments talk as if solar and wind will solve everything, but they'll meet only a minority of our energy needs for decades to come.

 

[cjd]

The real reason we need less dependence on oil is to reduce our dependence on unfriendly regimes.

So that's yet another reason.

......the renewable crap will get done and be useful eventually; meanwhile here in the UK, we've finally got the politicians to re-start the nuclear power industry. Which is fine by me.

 

[Cornish Steve]

It's rather ironic. Environmentalists used to be very anti-nuclear energy. Indeed, they brought nuclear power programs around the world to a halt. These days, they are often the ones arguing for nuclear power - save the die-hards. All this goes to show it's about political power and inflicting your will on the population.

 

[cjd]

It's rather ironic. Environmentalists used to be very anti-nuclear energy. Indeed, they brought nuclear power programs around the world to a halt. These days, they are often the ones arguing for nuclear power - save the die-hards. All this goes to show it's about political power and inflicting your will on the population.

I think the majority of old school environmentalists are still opposed, bless 'em.

But what is unforgivable is that our politicians have known for over 10 years that we need nuclear for all sorts of reasons but didn't have the balls to do what we pay them to do.

 

[Cornish Steve]

So what about this late-breaking news? Some quotes from emails purportedly issued at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that reveal deliberate rigging of data, deception of the public, and punishing scientists who dare challenge the doctrine of man-made global warming. Is this a potential 'Climategate' or just someone fabricating a story to make the newspapers?

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

"I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to "contain" the putative "MWP", even if we don't yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…."

"This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?"

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.""It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !"

 

[casado]

So what about this late-breaking news? Some quotes from emails purportedly issued at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that reveal deliberate rigging of data, deception of the public, and punishing scientists who dare challenge the doctrine of man-made global warming. Is this a potential 'Climategate' or just someone fabricating a story to make the newspapers?
[/i]

I didn't have the proof but I strongly suspected. There is alway an amount of horse trading between scientists, editors, and referees when it comes to publish a paper (if you insist, when I have more time I'll explain), and tension about different groups of opinion when there is no political pressure on the subject. So, I can only imagine the amount of scientific fascism that must be rampant in this field these days.

 

[cjd]

Gosh, an alleged conspiracy in UEA. The whole of Norwich will be......well mostly bored. It might go as far as the Ipswich Argus

 

[Cornish Steve]

Gosh, an alleged conspiracy in UEA. The whole of Norwich will be......well mostly bored. It might go as far as the Ipswich Argus

Now who's guilty of confirmation bias? This is actually a big deal.

- Scientists 'massaging' data to suit their political purposes because the real data contradicts their ideas

- Scientists moaning that their equipment must be faulty because it reveals temperatures dropping and not rising

- Senior scientists trying to shut down a scientific journal because the editor accepts peer-reviewed papers from researchers with different opinions.

We all agree that credibility comes in part from the peer review process within science. When scientists funded by the government try to subvert that process because their own data doesn't pass muster, that fundamentally undermines the credibility of establishment science.

The emails, by the way, are genuine. The head of the research group admitted that their email system was breached and that the published emails are authentic. Heads ought to roll over this.

 

[cjd]

Now who's guilty of confirmation bias? This is actually a big deal.

You are joking? But I suppose not.

There is a global scientific consensus on one arm of the balance and couple of scientists from an lessor UK University accused of messing with their data on the other, and it's supposed to tip the scales somehow?

I would be utterly astonished if it wasn't the case that both sides of this unequal argument didn't have numerous scam and frauds like this happening. It makes absolutely no difference the science or the consensus.

And, if true, heads will roll - in UEA. And it won't change anything one way or another.

 

[Cornish Steve]

There is a global scientific consensus on one arm of the balance

There is a global scientific consensus among politicians and the media, but not so among scientists. For example,

In Japan: there was widespread scepticism...about the IPCC's fourth and latest assessment report that most of the observed global temperature increase since the mid-20th century "is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations". When this question was raised at a Japan Geoscience Union symposium last year, he said, "the result showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report".

From the Wall Street Journal: The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled.

I can't find the reference now, but I read a few months ago that one climate conference, which used to be overwhelmingly in support of man-made global warming, saw more papers presented this year against it than for it. That's not global scientific consensus.

 

Nice little article here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ith-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

Whats this carbon offset scam all about,nice little earner wish I had got in on it.

Totall bullsh1t.

Earl

 

[Cornish Steve]

Just for the record...my earlier quote.

It's pretty much beyond doubt at this point that global warming is not man-made. It's part of a cycle that's existed for as long as we have records. But, I go even further. From a scientific perspective, I'm not even convinced that there is such a thing as global warming at all.

And a dismissive reply.

I think you've finally lost the plot Steve, you've always had a remarkable tendency towards confirmation bias and irrational thought but you're excelling yourself on this subject ;-)

And now from the article quoted by Earl.

for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)

 

[Cornish Steve]

What is so interesting about Der Spiegel's take on the lack of recent global warming? Here's how Yahoo News puts it:

In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."

We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?

What strikes me is that politicians and the mainstream press are actually disappointed that we aren't facing calamity.

 

[cjd]

So, just a reminder:

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

We have an international scientific consensus on global warming. Period.

And just to be sure we all understand, consensus does not mean it's guaranteed to be right or that everyone agrees, or that there is no evidence that goes against it - just that the overwhelming scientific opinion is that it is happening. In other words, at the moment, the odds are that the world is changing in ways that will harm future generations or even destroy them.

Which means that we have to make plans, because even if it turns out to be wrong, not to do so would be both stupid and immoral.

We fit cars with safety belts not because we know we are going to crash but because we know we might.

 

[cjd]

Nice little article here......Total bullsh1t.

I know zilch - like everyone else here - about the science of climate change but I am getting jolly interested in the people being quoted here that are climate change deniers.

The last Telegraph article was by a well known crackpot with no science training and a book to flog. That should have been dismissed out of hand.

This one is at least by a scientist, and one that might have some real knowledge

Robert M. "Bob" Carter,is an adjunct research professor in the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Queensland[1] and the University of Adelaide South Australia, Australia.[citation needed] He is a geologist specializing in palaeoclimatology, stratigraphy, marine geology, and environmental science. Carter is a former Director of Australia's Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling Program and a Co-Chief Scientist for drilling leg 181.[2][3]

Unfortunately we then learn this:

Carter's website states that his research "has been supported by grants from competitive public research agencies, especially the Australian Research Council (ARC)", and that he "receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments."[18] However, he is on the research committee of the Institute of Public Affairs, a right-wing group that has received funding from corporate interests including oil and tobacco companies.[14]

Now it may be that funds for dissenting opinions are in short supply, but it's worth a thought.

Regardless, carbon offsets are total b0ll0x and a complete fraud. (In my humble opinion).

 

[cjd]

I did think that he had a point when he said this tho'. It's an obvious point and I'd like someone to explain to me why he's wrong.

The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown. We are fortunate that our modern societies have developed during the last 10,000 years of benignly warm, interglacial climate. But for more than 90 per cent of the last two million years, the climate has been colder, and generally much colder, than today. The reality of the climate record is that a sudden natural cooling is far more to be feared, and will do infinitely more social and economic damage, than the late 20th century phase of gentle warming.

And I also found this easy to agree with

As mooted recently by Tony Blair, perhaps the time has come for Britain to join instead the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6), whose six member countries are committed to the development of new technologies to improve environmental outcomes. There, at least, some real solutions are likely to emerge for improving energy efficiency and reducing pollution.

 

[Cornish Steve]

it's very true that we have more to fear from global cooling than from global warming. It would reduce significantly crop yields from around the world. On the other hand, global warming, while creating more deserts, would actually open up more land for farming. In other words, if the climate has to change, it's far better for us if the temperatures increase than if they decrease.

 

[Cornish Steve]

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 that states:
An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-committal positions.

Statements by dissenting organizations
With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[70]

Statements by individual scientists opposing the mainstream assessment of global warming do include claims that the observed warming is likely to be attributable to natural causes.

So, just a reminder:

We have an international scientific consensus on global warming. Period.

Since we're questioning sources, let me just confirm your source: It's Wikipedia, right? Can you guarantee that this entry was written by an objective scientist and not a political ideologue? I'd also point out that the vast majority of the organisations announcing their support are government organisations. Plus, the IPCC is not a neutral body of scientific experts; it's a political body that includes many non-scientists with the specific mandate to justify the claims of man-made global warming.

The truth is that it's very difficult to find many objective sources. Even some scientists feel able to state their real opinion only when they no longer work for or need funding from the government (see the quote from Joanne Simpson at the top of this page). If they criticise while still working, they lose their jobs or funding. There have been several high-profile examples of this.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Now it may be that funds for dissenting opinions are in short supply, but it's worth a thought.

Regardless, carbon offsets are total b0ll0x and a complete fraud. (In my humble opinion).

You're beginning to get it! Governments control funding and the message. Governments are imposing these policies because it gives them more control over big business (their biggest threat). Over time, it also gives them more control over our daily lives. Ultimately, this is what it's all about: Some people believe it's their right to tell others how to live.