Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

The Great Global Warming Swindle


Mondy

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
William Connolley (British Antarctic Survey, Wikipedia editor, etc...) has a comment on the programme here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_..._1.php#comments

Some feedback on this from people who have their doubts about AGW would be useful.

:)P

Well, it's just the kind of dismissive hand-waving post that I would expect from someone who doesn't seem to want to talk about it very much. It's interspersed with links to a couple of pictures, and to a couple of RealClimate articles, and vaguely mentions "Laut" (wihtout explaining what or who that is). It's hardly the hard scientific rebuttal I was expecting when I clicked on your link, and no better than several skeptics' arguments that you, yourself, have dismissed as being without reference or merit.

I look forward to something meatier!

:cc_confused:

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
William Connolley (British Antarctic Survey, Wikipedia editor, etc...) has a comment on the programme here: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/the_..._1.php#comments

Some feedback on this from people who have their doubts about AGW would be useful.

I wouldn't say I have my doubts, but I am unconvinced by either side (my balls hurt so much for dangling my legs on both side of the fence!!)

Interesting link. Certainly enough stuff to go look at and confirm, or otherwise. Especially the aerosoidal cooling between 1940 and 1970 . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Well, it's just the kind of dismissive hand-waving post that I would expect from someone who doesn't seem to want to talk about it very much. It's interspersed with links to a couple of pictures, and to a couple of RealClimate articles, and vaguely mentions "Laut" (wihtout explaining what or who that is). It's hardly the hard scientific rebuttal I was expecting when I clicked on your link, and no better than several skeptics' arguments that you, yourself, have dismissed as being without reference or merit.

I look forward to something meatier!

:cc_confused:

C-Bob

Damon & Laut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Well, it's just the kind of dismissive hand-waving post that I would expect from someone who doesn't seem to want to talk about it very much. It's interspersed with links to a couple of pictures, and to a couple of RealClimate articles, and vaguely mentions "Laut" (wihtout explaining what or who that is). It's hardly the hard scientific rebuttal I was expecting when I clicked on your link, and no better than several skeptics' arguments that you, yourself, have dismissed as being without reference or merit.

I look forward to something meatier!

:cc_confused:

C-Bob

There's a detailed response to the Svensmark cosmic ray theory here (apologies for posting the link twice) : http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...othes/#more-412

This includes more references to Laut (a person) and provides a link to the paper, as well as several others.

Why would you think Connolley doesn't want to talk about it? He blogs on climate change, after all. Can I suggest you post your doubts on the site and see what he says in response? He's a nice bloke; I'm sure he'll be gentle.

The TV programme's 'science' (which in the end, was pretty much only the cosmic ray stuff), is rebutted in the above links and the papers they link to; there are others if you wish to compare. The other material is old ground which has been answered many times over (though if you continue to dismiss the rebuttals as wrong, I really can't argue with you), so doesn't really merit much more effort.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Bad me; double post! There is a new paper in GRL which causes a problem for the GCR theory. Because you can only link to the abstract unless you subscribe, I've nicked this discussion of it wholesale from a blog called Nexus 6. My apologies to them:

A new paper by Evan et al. in Geophysical Research Letters may well be the final nail in the coffin for cosmic ray-induced climate change. Central to the theory are data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) showing that cloud levels have decreased by up to 4% over the past 20 years. Decreased low-level cloud cover due to decreased cloud-nucleating cosmic rays is proposed to lead to warming. However, for some time it has been noted that a portion of ISCCP data did not match surface-based observations, and that low-level cloud cover may not have actually reduced in recent times.

When Evan and team investigated the ISCCP D2 data set they found that cloud-cover almost immediately dropped when satellites were moved and the angle at which they observed cloud-cover was reduced. The reason for this is that as more weather satellites were put into orbit, each satellite had a smaller area to observe and could look directly down through the cloud layer, rather than covering a larger area where the edges are observed at an increased angle. The latter, more direct observations made it appear as though there was less cloud when, in fact, cloud-cover hadn’t changed. The data appeared to contain observational artefacts that weren’t corrected for before use in other studies.

The paper’s concluding paragraph is devastating:

We have demonstrated that the long-term global trends in cloudiness from the ISCCP record are influenced by artefacts associated with satellite viewing geometry. Results from earlier studies based on these trends may be influenced by these non-physical artefacts, and we therefore suggest that development of a correction for the data is warranted. As the number of publications on the subject of climate change continues to grow [stanhill, 2001], this paper highlights the need to critically explore the source of any trends in global, multi-decadal satellite data sets.

Evan’s work has yet to be reproduced and the exact extent to which the change in observation area has artificially changed cloud-cover over the past 20 years quantified. Still, things are looking decidedly grim for cosmic ray-induced climate change, which will probably end up in the dust-bin with the similarly artefact-ridden ‘troposphere isn’t warming’ theory.

I can find more, if you want...

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Why does everything have to turn into a conspiracy theory? It really does seem that the same people who deny AGW are the same type who think aliens are being kept in Area 51, we didn't land on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job etc.

Being politically aware is not the same as believing in conspiracy theory. The use of scientific knowledge in this field is being used with political agendas, fact, not fantasy. In an ideal world science and politics would work hand in hand to the mutual benefit of all, we don't live in an ideal world, never have and I doubt we ever will. Where there is power and money to be made, there will always be winners and losers. I question AGW or at least the extent of our input, dismissing me and like minded people as loony conspiracy believers serves no one. Questions about the validity of the theory are there and need answering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dublin, ireland
  • Weather Preferences: Snow , thunderstorms and wind
  • Location: Dublin, ireland

Hi all,

Just came across this item in "Iceage now" AGW's protaganists favourite website, NOT!.

Further supports the non AGW camp that I would be part of.

Long-time

"global-warming-caused-by-man"

scientist changes tune

5 Mar 07 - Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming some 20 years ago

Dr. Allegre has now recanted his views. "To his surprise," said in a recent article in the National Post, "the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank."

"His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

"Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.

Dr. Allegre is "a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the nihilistic nature of the climate research debate.

---------

Claude Allegre received a Ph D in physics in 1962 from the University of Paris. He became the director of the geochemistry and cosmochemistry program at the French National Scientific Research Centre in 1967 and in 1971 he was appointed director of the University of Paris's Department of Earth Sciences. In 1976, he became director of the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe. A renowned geochemist, he is an author of more than 100 scientific articles and 11 books. He is a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Science.

See entire article by Lawrence Solomon at:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...05-fc28f14da388

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

Just reading through this thread at the moment and noticing the dismissive replies towards Svensmark's theory - his latest paper can be found here

Stunning thread this is. Probably the best thread ever on NW.

I'm kinda occupied until later today so will pop back in and see how things are panning out..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Birmingham U.K.
  • Location: Birmingham U.K.

To be concise: western vested interests are hyping the AGW argument as a key strategy in hindering developing industrial development and progress in the Third World.

Comments?

Regards,

Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Huddersfield, 145m ASL
  • Weather Preferences: Lots of snow, lots of hot sun
  • Location: Huddersfield, 145m ASL

Talk about head in a spin !

Just hoping for answers to a few questions :

Firstly, if AGW is not true and this is a natural warming cycle, and no-one knows how much warmer we are going to get, does that mean that there is actually nothing we can do and that much of the predicted climate-based catastrophes, (rising sea levels, devastating droughts, killer heatwaves etc), are going to happen ???

Also, having noted that the -AGW side of the fence often refer to the fact that, in particular, Greenland was much warmer 1200 years ago without any man-made CO2 around worth speaking of, was there the commensurate warming in more equatorial climes i.e. the associated catastrophes as mentioned above, or was Greenland warmer whilst other parts of the earth were actually considerably cooler ?

And finally, if my first point is true, then the whole argument seems to be based on allowing intellectuals of different leanings to sleep at night i.e. the +AGW lot, who all sleep soundly knowing that man has the power to control his environment if only he has the will, the 'I'm doing my bit and therefore I'm happy' brigade, and the -AGW lot, who enjoy the current state of affairs too much so desperately fight anything which might rock this boat, the 'I'm happy with my lot, and you can't make me change' brigade.

Essentially my point is this, demanding scientific rigour and searching for the real answer, (the truth is out there :cc_confused: ), is fine at a purely intellectual level, but it does strike me that this particular argument is no longer a discussion but more like two entrenched factions lobbing bricks at each other over a high fence, and if there ever was a door it's been boarded up for a while now !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liphook
  • Location: Liphook

I think it was a very good program. Even if the global warming is caused by Humans the way its been rammed down our throats is quite silly at times, they do make it sound like the end of the world and as someone said, every event is nowadays blamed on Gw, which is complete fantasy.

The really intresting part was the last 30 mins though, it was a really insight into how it all occurs and also intresting to find out about those environmental reporters and its true I have noticed them getting more and more...rampy!

Not only that but they make some good points, if the Arctic is warmer then the thermal gradient decreases and at least in theory the world should become less stormy with it, at leas tin theory.

Edited by kold weather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lichfield, Staffordshire (84m asl)
  • Location: Lichfield, Staffordshire (84m asl)

Having watched the programme in question; whilst some of the arguments against AGW were interesting, the lack of explanation for the recent warming (1975-2007) was a huge ommission.

I think it's easy to confuse the past with the present on this one. I think that there is good evidence to support solar radiation influencing global temperatures up to 1975, the graphs that were displayed last night were quite impressive. IMO solar radiation drove climate change at this time. However since this period the correlation falls away quite badly, so is there something else now driving climate change?

Put it this way, pre-industrialisation the world displayed a pretty stable carbon balance for hundreds of years. Suddenly man begins pumping billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Now I know that as a percentage of the total amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere this may be small but it's this extra CO2 which is causing atmospheric levels to rise. We know CO2 to be a greenhouse gas so isn't it reasonable to expect the planet to warm? Just because it may not have been the precursor to warming in the past does not mean it cannot influence now or in the future, thanks to man's intervention.

What also concerns me is the fact that as oceans warm, they release yet more CO2. This positive feedback mechanism feeds CO2 levels even higher and so on. If the programme had been able to satisfactorily explain the recent warming (other than AGW) then I might have been swayed but as it stands I'll keep my feet just inside the AGW camp.

TCBTS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland

One element the program touched on and this is very important in my view is the actual politics behind this debate and the consequences for Africa and the Western World. There is no doubt that the whole pro AGW debate has been hijacked by those with very sinister anti-development motives and extreme hard left environmental activists in the middle who see this as the best opportunity to tackle the one thing they really hate - the US. This has to be considered because many of these people are fanatics and completely insane. The programs take on the consequences to Africa of not being able to develope is particularly stark and very dangerous. Ironically of course its the same people who complain about the evil West's treatment of Africa. Like the program mentioned - how is a solar panel or wind turbine going to power a steal industry!?

CO2 was also given a rough ride and this is exemplified by, ironically, the charts Al Gore used to show proportionality of temperature change against CO2 emissions. Temperature rises ahead of CO2 increases. This is quite damming tbh of the whole emphasis on CO2 which is misplaced considering the oceans are by far the biggest culprit in that respect. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas.

Edited by Darkman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Eastbourne and Larnaca,Cyprus .
  • Location: Eastbourne and Larnaca,Cyprus .

Overall I think the programme was very interesting although when Piers Corbyn appeared and went into a gloat over his so called accurate forecasts it lost a little credibility!

The political angle was really the most interesting part and that IMO was very accurate in terms of its depiction as to how any dissenting voice against GW is frowned upon and that political leaders see this now as a vote winner and a way of making themselves look good. The biggest impact was when it dealt with problems poor developing countries would have for the sake of cleaner fuel, its okay for westerners in their comfortable surroundings to go on about GW but for people in the third world they have more important issues to worry about concerning whether they can put food on the table etc.

If the west really wants the third world to act it needs to help them have affordable energy, why should these people suffer even more because everyones obsessed with GW! There was of course some ommissions from this documentary but overall it did give a pretty decent case for those that sit on the opposite side of the debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Liphook
  • Location: Liphook

Yes Darkman I noticed that as well and its something that I've never seen mentioned...ever.

I also noticed the undertones about how the thousands of corprates go on planes across the world to talk aobut ways of enforcing Co2 cuts...how hypocrtical is that!!!

I personally think GW is being caused by Humans, but even if this is the case this programe raises some very intresting quesitons and as I suspected, these Gw messages are driven mainly by Goverments.

Edited by kold weather
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

Wikipedia is perhaps not the highest-level research source available as it can be edited by anyone etc, but it's a reasonable starting point and is free. This Wiki article goes into some explanation on alternative theories to "CO2 = higher temperatures" type global warming theories.

One possible concern is that if the scientific evidence suggests that CO2 increases mainly as a function of temperature increases rather than the other way round, but increased CO2 concentrations may lead to increased absorption of radiation and thus a net warming of the surface layers of the atmosphere, the relationship between CO2 and temperature may well amount to a positive feedback mechanism.

I agreed with the points against the extremists, but it's worth noting that even if all of what the program said was correct, it wouldn't disprove AGW, as there are many ways, other than carbon dioxide forcing, in which humans could be impacting upon global climate. E.g. releases of methane, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, contrails from aircraft, albedo changes from land use, previous use of CFCs, chopping down large areas of rainforest, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: south lanarkshire,scotland
  • Location: south lanarkshire,scotland

I started watching this programme sitting on the fence and ended it remaining there regarding my thoughts on man made global warming. Yes i thought this was a good programme however i was a little dissapointed in the lack of satisfactory explanations for recent warming other than man. I would have liked to have seen more about the sun's role in our climate than was shown,1975- onwards.

One thing that does concern me though is goverments jumping on the bandwagon and using AGW as a way of increasing their incomes through green taxes,especially as even scientists cannot agree on the reasons of global warming.It does make me smile when i hear people claiming that certain sceptical scientists are being paid by large fossil fuel companies,does this mean any research paid for by goverment has no agenda and is all truth and enlightenment?. This however is probably for a different discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
(Piers Corbyn) did not do himself any favours on last nights programme. He effectively misrepresented (avoiding the word 'lied', Devonian!!) the success of the MetO winter forecast compared to his own. Naughty naughty man, and in my opinion, completely discredited. He might well say something one day that is important, rational, and relevant, but it is unfortunate, that I won't be listening.

I fear that "lied" in this case may be justified: certainly it was libellous. The Met Office sells a lot of its 'product' these days, and such an entirely unfounded statement about its value - or lack of it - must impact on their commercial success. I hope they sue him, and indeed Channel 4, who could and should have checked what the Met Office actually said about winter 05-06.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
  • Location: South Woodham Ferrers, height 15 metres
One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free. Can we really say that our media are open and free? I doubt it.

The media is free? Are the journalists smart? They are experts with words, not with disciplines. This is why one moment they are pro- one view or one celebrity and next week against. News journalists really are that shallow and superficial.

An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. I think the media do just that. It's threads and forums like these that keep the debate out in the open, democratic and free from censorship.

Discussion forums are another form of media and are subject to censorship from Admins, moderators, and self-censorship from the hounding of individuals who speak against the forum's accepted ideology etc.

Like I've said before one of the most important comments on deceit, I think, was made by Adam Smith. He pointed out that a major goal of business is to deceive and oppress the public.

I've never heard you say this before, if you had I would have called you on it. Adam Smith was a libertarian. He was pro-business. How you got anything else from the Wealth of Nations, the foremost text on the benefits of untrammeled capitalism is beyond me. Smith spoke of capitalism as "natural liberty."

One of the striking features of our modern period is the institutionalization of that process, so that we now have huge industries deceiving the public—and they're very conscious about it, the public relations industry. Interestingly, this developed in the freest countries—in Britain and the US—roughly around time of WWI, when it was recognized that enough freedom had been won that people could no longer be controlled by force. So modes of deception and manipulation had to be developed in order to keep them under control.

If the bimbos in public relations pull society's levers that's a good marker how far gone your theory is down the hall of mirrors in Satan's house of paranoia. There is deception and manipulation in the world. Take Al Gore, he "off-sets" his own massive "carbon footprint" purchasing "carbon credits" from his own company.

These are huge industries with enormous financial interests. They not only dominate marketing of commodities, but they also control the political system. As anyone who watches a US election knows, it's marketing. It's the same techniques that are used to market chewing gum. That's the media as I see it.

As much as it's been fantisised politics cannot be controlled by any individual or set of individuals - at least not for very long. It's a bit like the climate in that sense. In Iraq we've seen how difficult it is to *force* democratic change on a fairly well educated but dispirate, nepotistic peoples. Just as the evidence humans have *forced* climate change is open to question we cannot guarantee anything about the future, it's a common fallacy of left-wing revoluntaries to think otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

I do worry about all these graphs and charts used by both sides, I just got this image that all you need to do is turn them upside down or sideways to get what answer you like :)

Edited by HighPressure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
I fear that "lied" in this case may be justified: certainly it was libellous. The Met Office sells a lot of its 'product' these days, and such an entirely unfounded statement about its value - or lack of it - must impact on their commercial success. I hope they sue him, and indeed Channel 4, who could and should have checked what the Met Office actually said about winter 05-06.

I had hoped that Piers was referring to some earlier winter (as 1991 was mentioned shortly afterwards); is there any evidence to show that he was talking about winter 2005/06?

If he was, then it was a massive misrepresentation; the only people who said the Met Office predicted a very cold winter were in the media. The Met Office were suggesting a near average to fairly cold winter if I remember rightly; their predictions were very slightly out for northern and western areas (where it ended up milder than expected) but pretty much spot on in the southeast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Birmingham U.K.
  • Location: Birmingham U.K.
The media is free? Are the journalists smart? They are experts with words, not with disciplines. This is why one moment they are pro- one view or one celebrity and next week against. News journalists really are that shallow and superficial.

Discussion forums are another form of media and are subject to censorship from Admins, moderators, and self-censorship from the hounding of individuals who speak against the forum's accepted ideology etc.

I've never heard you say this before, if you had I would have called you on it. Adam Smith was a libertarian. He was pro-business. How you got anything else from the Wealth of Nations, the foremost text on the benefits of untrammeled capitalism is beyond me. Smith spoke of capitalism as "natural liberty."

If the bimbos in public relations pull society's levers that's a good marker how far gone your theory is down the hall of mirrors in Satan's house of paranoia. There is deception and manipulation in the world. Take Al Gore, he "off-sets" his own massive "carbon footprint" purchasing "carbon credits" from his own company.

As much as it's been fantisised politics cannot be controlled by any individual or set of individuals - at least not for very long. It's a bit like the climate in that sense. In Iraq we've seen how difficult it is to *force* democratic change on a fairly well educated but dispirate, nepotistic peoples. Just as the evidence humans have *forced* climate change is open to question we cannot guarantee anything about the future, it's a common fallacy of left-wing revoluntaries to think otherwise.

I'm glad that you're comfortable with your beliefs.

Regards,

Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
  • Location: Putney, SW London. A miserable 14m asl....but nevertheless the lucky recipient of c 20cm of snow in 12 hours 1-2 Feb 2009!
I had hoped that Piers was referring to some earlier winter (as 1991 was mentioned shortly afterwards); is there any evidence to show that he was talking about winter 2005/06?.........If he was, then it was a massive misrepresentation

Somebody who recorded the programme should be able to confirm this (or not), but I believe he specifically mentioned the MetO's forecast for "last winter". It is clear that he could not have been referring to 06-07, so unless the interview is very old indeed, that is indeed what he was referring to. He seems to have been talking about the media-hyped version, which talked of the coldest winter for a generation, etc, etc, and not of the original.

It is ironic that, as I understand it, he himself actually DID make such a hopelessly off-beam forecast for late winter this year!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
This includes more references to Laut (a person) and provides a link to the paper, as well as several others.

Thanks to Devonian and P3 for these links - What I meant when I said "...vaguely mentions 'Laut' (without explaining what or who that is)..." was that he didn't provide a reference or any further informaion on this cast-off comment, which isn't an overwhelmingly satisfying form of rebuttal. (I did do a quick Google for "Laut" and "Cosmic Rays" and found plenty of links, but many internet users wouldn't do that, and would be none the wiser from Connolley's comments.)

Why would you think Connolley doesn't want to talk about it? He blogs on climate change, after all. Can I suggest you post your doubts on the site and see what he says in response? He's a nice bloke; I'm sure he'll be gentle.

Connolley's post on the "Swindle" programme was brief, dismissive and fairly uninformative - obviously he didn't have much to say about the show. I may well post something on his site at some point in the future, but right now I am consolidating my position and my understanding of various processes involved in climate change theory. I would far prefer it if I knew exactly what my doubts were before expressing them - or rather I would like to be able to express my doubts in an appropriate and unambiguous manner.

The TV programme's 'science' (which in the end, was pretty much only the cosmic ray stuff), is rebutted in the above links and the papers they link to; there are others if you wish to compare. The other material is old ground which has been answered many times over (though if you continue to dismiss the rebuttals as wrong, I really can't argue with you), so doesn't really merit much more effort.

Let's be honest - there was very little actual science in the show - there were graphs, animations and suggestions which warrant further investigation. I have problems with the rebuttals I have read so far (not counting the above links) of the cosmic ray theory, mostly because they talk of cloud formation as if a few dozen stray particles can lead to the sudden spontaneous creation of a full-blown cumulonimbus - if the cosmic ray theory were correct it would be far more likely that clouds themselves wouldn't form, but a fine "haze" of water droplets over (large portions of) the globe. Has anyone looked at global humidity graphs (if there are such things), as opposed to cloud cover graphs...?

The "old ground" which is gone over time and time again is probably brought up so often because the rebuttals have not been sufficient to dismiss the claims (either entirely or in part). The CO2/temp lag, for example, keeps coming up because there is a very real problem with it...I shall elaborate on the "GW & EM Radiation" thread if you're interested.

C-Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Brixton, South London
  • Location: Brixton, South London
Like I've said before one of the most important comments on deceit, I think, was made by Adam Smith. He pointed out that a major goal of business is to deceive and oppress the public.

Regards,

Mike.

I rather think that you have misrepresented/misunderstood Adam Smith: here (I assume) is the famous quotation from "An Inquiry Into The Wealth of Nations" taken from Wikipedia...

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary."

I.x.c.27 (Part II)

It is not a "major goal" of business to deceive and oppress but it is a feature of business that in the absence of effective competition policy/law businesses will always be tempted to from cartels.

Regards

ACB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...