What global warming?

[StephenW]

".......snow would disappear from Everest by 2025"

Ahh, that is the melting glacier story.....


"Highlighted in The Sunday Times yesterday, Dr Hasnain was the scientist responsible for claiming that the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. This was picked up by the New Scientist and then by a 2005 WWF report, and subsequently published as a definitive claim in the IPCC's 2007 fourth assessment report, masterminded by Dr R K Pachauri.

But, while Dr Hasnain, who was then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, has admitted that the New Scientist report was based on "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research, he is now a direct beneficiary of that speculation."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...the-mystery-of-the-non-disappearing-glaciers/

 

[StephenW]

While reading the above blog I see:

"The Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into "the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA)"

But here's the really surprising part: it's planning to ask the right questions.

- What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?
- Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)?
- How independent are the other two international data sets? "


Some references to USA in that post as well

"Joe Barton, the man behind the US Senate's 2006 hearings on the Hockey Stick, has been stirring things up in Washington again"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...tion-into-climategate-may-not-be-a-whitewash/

 

[Cornish Steve]

".......snow would disappear from Everest by 2025"

Ahh, that is the melting glacier story.....


"Highlighted in The Sunday Times yesterday, Dr Hasnain was the scientist responsible for claiming that the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

Yes, I'm sorry. I misquoted the date.

So, while it's fresh in my mind, let me point out why the person who gave the quote didn't point it out. He told (the Times, I believe) that he worked for the head of the IPCC and didn't want to lose his job. In his words, he's not paid to point out mistakes. Unbelievable! So much for the integrity of science.

Other errors in the same section of that IPCC report are really basic. For example, the report claims that the total area of Himalyan glaciers will likely shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035 - but there are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.

How can such nonsense get through peer review and into a report that won its authors a Nobel Prize? It just shows this is all about politics. When it came to content, they were cherry-picking - and some of the cherries were really lemons.

 

[cinddy]

Global warming is really effecting our globe day by day and it is the time for the other global organizations to come ahead and make solid planning to get out from this global disaster ..

 

[StephenW]

From Channel 4 website today:

"The Information Commissioner has said that the University of East Anglia, which is at the centre of the 'climategate' row, broke the law when its scientists refused to hand over raw data requested under the Freedom of Information Act."

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/science_technology/climategate+the+email+trail/3519452

Nothing new for regular readers of this thread but interesting to see the story in the mainstream media.

 

[Atilla]

Global warming is really effecting our globe day by day and it is the time for the other global organizations to come ahead and make solid planning to get out from this global disaster ..

Yerrr, right. And on what basis do you make this assumption?

 

[Big Pete]

I feel sorry for the scientists. Imagine if you had to answer every question anyone could ask you, and provide any data that you produced on a day to day basis. It will get to a point where they wont be able to do thier work

You dont call guesswork work do you ?

 

[cjd]

Decent un-biased, summary:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

 

[RBS]

All this global warming is biggest scam the planet has ever seen. Climate does change, but there is nothing to do with mysterious gases coming out from your exhaust. Climate changes just happen due to different sun activity and there is nothing we can do about it.
Governments want to suck money out of people and businesses by implementing extra taxes.

 

[cjd]

Right, it's written on a T shirt; game over

 

[Cornish Steve]

And it's written in green, to boot.

 

[Fill-Your-World]

I can see no reason why our extreme impact on this earth would not be affecting the planets natural cycles and climate. However, I am not a scientist, and do not know all of the facts.

What I do know however, is that anything that makes people wake up a abit to humans devasting and irresponsible behaviour in day to day life is no bad thing. Climate change or not, we should all take the time to think abit more about the other inhabitants with whom we share this planet and be responsible enough to try to lessen the footprints we leave.

 

[bookluver321]

I agree with RobCCTV... it is a scam- the earth is just going through its usual cycle. I have heard from other great scientists that this is typical and that we are coming off a polar freeze.

 

[cjd]

I have heard from other great scientists that this is typical and that we are coming off a polar freeze.

Did they also have T shirts?

 

[RBS]

Did they also have T shirts?

Come on I dont wear such a t-shirt. Image was just taken from google images.

 

[StephenW]

If you like the humour of The Register then you might enjoy this:

"Climategate witchhunt fingers scientist
Police quiz tests the faith"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/05/climategate_questions/

 

[StephenW]

"IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry"

"Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is to face an international inquiry into the performance of his organisation."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...dra-Pachauri-to-face-independent-inquiry.html

 

[StephenW]

quote: UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom was one of the hundereds of people who complained. He said: "UKIP are the only party that believe man-made climate change does not exist, and our view has been vindicated by today's ruling.

"What is truly nauseating is that the Government wasted £56 million on this propagandist rubbish

end quote.

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1496-asa-climate-change-ad-was-propaganda

 

[LicensedToTrade]

I think this sums up my thoughts on Climate change...if it is real and we are taking measures then great, if it is a myth then look at what we gain anyway...

 

[Cornish Steve]

But it's not as simple as that, because other bullet items should be on the list:

- We cut energy production (fossil fuels, in particular) so there will be acute energy shortages
- We double or triple the cost of fuel by relying on particularly inefficient and inadequate sources
- We burden businesses of all types with onerous and unnecessary regulation and risk a global economic downturn
- We sacrifice personal freedoms and become much too dependent on government bureaucrats
- We waste trillions of pounds that could have been used to eradicate poverty and disease
- We sacrifice our healthy economies and lifestyles while most countries around the world do nothing

It would be healthy to ban driving and airplanes and drinking and sports and running with scissors, but do we really want to ban all these things and recreate the Middle Ages?

 

[iaynm]

Indeed. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that cartoon makes out.

I also feel that the pre-occupation with "carbon" basically takes attention away from all other forms of pollution, most of which are far more concerning and harmful. I am not of the opinion that the changes coming about as a result of ACC posturing are necessarily of much benefit to the planet.

It has basically simplified, indeed cartoonised, the issue of environmentalism and packaged it in a really friendly and easily-digestible way. In doing so it has ofcourse removed all meaning from it and got everyone talking about things they don't understand at all.
I generally detest any situation like this where millions of uneducated, ill-informed sheep add their irrelevant voices to an issue that's quite simply beyond them.

 

[cjd]

Well it seems to me that the deniers are prepared to take a huge bet, against the odds, on their children's futures. Brave souls, let's hope they get lucky.

 

[sysops]

Well it seems to me that the deniers are prepared to take a huge bet, against the odds, on their children's futures. Brave souls, let's hope they get lucky.

1. I strongly object to being called a 'denier' - it's a loaded label whose sole purpose is to discourage open-mindedness on climate change by linking it with holocaust denial.

2. Climate change is the least of the problems which are going to plague future generations.

3. I don't have any children.

4. I am right, because I don't look at the evidence with blinkers on.

 

[cjd]

1. I strongly object to being called a 'denier' - it's a loaded label whose sole purpose is to discourage open-mindedness on climate change by linking it with holocaust denial.

2. Climate change is the least of the problems which are going to plague future generations.

3. I don't have any children.

4. I am right, because I don't look at the evidence with blinkers on.

If you deny climate change, you are, by deduction, a denier of climate change. Sorry if that offends you.

If you are merely sceptical - as I am - that a different position altogether.

I read the same stuff you do and I see a pile of argument on one scale pointing to change and a much, much smaller one on the other saying no. So, being rational and not myself an expert, I am forced to conclude - at least for the moment- that the ayes have it.

That doesn't mean that there isn't room for doubt, the climate change juggernaut has behaved very clumsily and needs to get it's act sorted out.

There's still room for plenty of doubt but very little for denial - particularly from those of us that actually unqualified to have a real opinion, like me.

 

[quikshop]

If you deny climate change, you are, by deduction, a denier of climate change. Sorry if that offends you.

The problem with the language being used is that it allows those with an agenda to liken those sceptical about man-made climate change to Holocaust deniers - that is the only other place the word 'denier' is used in the public arena.

Its a purposely emotive word used to suffocate debate.

The climate changes all of the time, the question surely should be what impact we as a species are having on the natural process of climate change?

 

[sysops]

If you deny climate change, you are, by deduction, a denier of climate change. Sorry if that offends you.

If you are merely sceptical - as I am - that a different position altogether.

My position is more complex than that, and I think most people being labeled 'deniers' share similar views.

- The earth's climate does change over time - fact

- Global temperatures are currently (over a timescale of decades) increasing - probably yes

- How much of that is due to man's activities? Unknown, probably minor

- Would climate change occur if humans weren't here? Sure

 

[cjd]

The climate changes all of the time, the question surely should be what impact we as a species are having on the natural process of climate change?

- How much of that is due to man's activities? Unknown, probably minor

Well of course, that's the entire argument.

That's why it's called anthropomorphic global warming - we're only arguing about the man made bit. I think we all agree that climate changes all the time.

The evidence being put forward by almost all of science at the moment is that man made climate change is happening and it could be devastating.

If you think that it's false, then you have a belief that is unsupported by the current evidence. It doesn't mean that you're wrong, just that you are probably wrong. And, because you have no expert knowledge on the subject (like me), your opinion is not particularly relevant (like mine).

 

[iaynm]

The evidence being put forward by almost all of science at the moment is that man made climate change is happening and it could be devastating.

Is this evidence available for me to see anywhere :|

 

[sysops]

That's why it's called anthropomorphic global warming - we're only arguing about the man made bit. I think we all agree that climate changes all the time.

I think it's called anthropogenic ;-)

The evidence being put forward by almost all of science at the moment is that man made climate change is happening and it could be devastating.

This is the bit that we deniers have a problem with. If by evidence you mean articles on the BBC, then you are correct. But if you mean evidence as in scientific evidence; numbers that actually prove a causal relationship, then there is no such evidence.

 

[cjd]

I don't get the 'there's no evidence' thing at all. There is an enormous quantity of it and it's all publicly available online.

If you want to see it just read the IPPC's 4 report and follow up the references. The wiki on it is a good start.

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

Climate Change 2007, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is the fourth in a series of reports intended to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information concerning climate change, its potential effects, and options for adaptation and mitigation. The report is the largest and most detailed summary of the climate change situation ever undertaken, involving thousands of authors from dozens of countries, and states in its summary,

• "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
• "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

 

[sysops]

I don't get the 'there's no evidence' thing at all. There is an enormous quantity of it and it's all publicly available online.

If you want to see it just read the IPPC's 4 report and follow up the references. The wiki on it is a good start.

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

The IPCC report is nothing more than a tool to generate more funding for the climate research machine.

There is no evidence in the report of a causal link - there is a hand-waving argument which relates the increase in greenhouse gas emissions to the observed temperature increase. But that is not scientific evidence. Having spent 4 years in the lab doing original research and collecting data, I have a good feel for what evidence is, and it just isn't present in that report.

The 'evidence' the IPCC presented is this:

Point 1. We know that greenhouse gas emissions have resulted in an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Point 2. We know that temperature has (maybe, kinda) increased a bit recently.

Point 3. We know that there is a mechanism whereby greenhouse gases can lead to increased global temperatures.

Conclusion - it's very likely that the current warming is caused by the increased greenhouse gas concentration.

That's it! There is no more to the 'evidence' than this hand-waving argument.

 

[cjd]

The IPCC report is nothing more than a tool to generate more funding for the climate research machine.

I wish someone would explain to me how a disorganised academic lobby could overwhelm the combined forces the oil and gas industries globally and provoke the entire Western world into doing something that is entirely against its economic self interest.

I also wish I could find a single person who has actually read the IPPC report.

 

[Atilla]

I also wish I could find a single person who has actually read the IPPC report.

Do you not find it odd that even the authors of the relevant sections of the report claim not to have read it when they are questioned on it's accurancy?

 

[StephenW]

On the subject of carbon credits (being a possible motive to push AGW)

"WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion..........<snip snip> while making no contribution to lowering overall CO2 emissions."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...opes-to-find-60-billion-growing-on-trees.html

 

[Cornish Steve]

As always, follow the money.

 

[StephenW]

Speaking of "follow the money".....

(from El Reg)

"Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship
'Dracula's in charge of the blood bank' "

"The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/

 

[quikshop]

Speaking of "follow the money".....

(from El Reg)

"Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship
'Dracula's in charge of the blood bank' "

"The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it."


http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/24/climategate_oxburgh_globe/

Priceless

"Follow the money" is absolutely what is going on here, and it's a crying shame.

There are genuine issues, no doubt some very serious ones pending because of climate change but all that observers with open eyes can see are Governments and private industry using the issue as a cash cow.

We are no nearer having a grown up debate about how much our species is affecting natural climate change.

BTW the next moronic ignorant fool to say "we are causing climate change" should be exported to a small island off the coast of nowhere and left to rot

 

[cjd]

P
BTW the next moronic ignorant fool to say "we are causing climate change" should be exported to a small island off the coast of nowhere and left to rot

You must be a pretty smart guy to know more than the scientific community.

"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming"

On the off chance your interested in what the science actually says, it's here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

 

[quikshop]

You must be a pretty smart guy to know more than the scientific community.

I would have thought a smart fella like yourself would understand the difference between causing climate change and contributing to natural climate change, a process that is as persistent as the gravitational pull of the moon on our oceans.

Or are you suggesting the global warming and subsequent ice ages that preceeded the explosive growth of our species was down to dinosaurs emitting too much CO2 from their heated terraced homes... and do you have any Government sponsored scientific papers to prove this

 

[cjd]

I would have thought a smart fella like yourself would understand the difference between causing climate change and contributing to natural climate change, a process that is as persistent as the gravitational pull of the moon on our oceans.

O please move on, we all know that the issue is about how much people are contributing to climate change and whether it matters or not.

The science tells us that we very probably are and that it very likely does.