Jump to content
IGNORED

smacks of desperation?


trevw

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Winchester
  • Location: Winchester

I generally believe from the evidence that AGW is a real effect that will probably have an ever growing effect on our world, my only doubt lies in what proportion of the currently observed warming is down to us, as such I would like to see any articles from sceptical scientists that point out real issues with the idea that it's all down to CO2 - unfortunately things like the below smack of desperation and can surely only have been put together by someone who was knowingly trying to misrepresent facts to generate a false impression?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ation-lesson-2/

given the importance of the issue I find this kind of thing quite disturbing..

Trev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply
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

Check out the global warming sceptic links thread; there are dozens of reputable papers and articles in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
I generally believe from the evidence that AGW is a real effect that will probably have an ever growing effect on our world, my only doubt lies in what proportion of the currently observed warming is down to us, as such I would like to see any articles from sceptical scientists that point out real issues with the idea that it's all down to CO2 - unfortunately things like the below smack of desperation and can surely only have been put together by someone who was knowingly trying to misrepresent facts to generate a false impression?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...ation-lesson-2/

given the importance of the issue I find this kind of thing quite disturbing..

Trev

The same was done with the SIPLE ice cores to 'fit' the AGW bill. All as bad as each other hence my continued scepticism

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: London, UK
  • Location: London, UK
I generally believe from the evidence that AGW is a real effect that will probably have an ever growing effect on our world, my only doubt lies in what proportion of the currently observed warming is down to us,

You'll never know.

No one will.

Too many variables, impossible to scientifically validate or ever prove. Even 'rough' estimates are not acceptable in a 'true or false' likelihood.

I believe that humanity has already pushed things off to a new equilibrium (which we are now moving to), but I fully accept I'll never know what the real cause was.

--

The irony, is that few people would even state or agree with the very basic notion I just stated. So much for 'real scientific thinking'.

-

Calrissian: time for tea

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
The same was done with the SIPLE ice cores to 'fit' the AGW bill. All as bad as each other hence my continued scepticism

BFTP

Ahh, that's what Jaworowski says isn't it? Well, he's about as 'good' and his methods are indeed similar. He's another one to view with suspicion....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
I generally believe from the evidence that AGW is a real effect that will probably have an ever growing effect on our world, my only doubt lies in what proportion

Despite there being no historical evidence whatever that CO2 has ever had a causal effect on Earths climate ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Despite there being no historical evidence whatever that CO2 has ever had a causal effect on Earths climate ?

Sorry, but CO2 IS (that's IS) a greenhouse gas - fact. It has effects on the way LW radiation works it's way out of the atmosphere - fact . Changes CO2's concentration (as we are doing - fact) and you change the climate. Question is - how much not if?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Arran
  • Location: Arran

Newbie, but long time lurker..hi all.

Won't beat about the bush as i'm quite annoyed.

Have read through so many of these topics in the past - not only here - and feel people like Devonian are burying their heads in the sand. As an onlooker, and i'm sorry to be so blunt Mr Devonian, every reply of yours is aggressive, dismissive and generally unhelpful. There are people on here, from what i can work out, trying to distinguish facts and lies and you seem hell bent on twisting every single post they make. I'm all for arguing and debating, but from what i can see, you're flogging a dead horse, erratically at that.

Over the course of time i've been reading these sorts of topics, i don't think you've ever agreed, even slightly, with a sceptical viewpoint.

I make no apologies for my first post being "to the point". However, some things have to be said. Newbie or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
Newbie, but long time lurker..hi all.

Won't beat about the bush as i'm quite annoyed.

Have read through so many of these topics in the past - not only here - and feel people like Devonian are burying their heads in the sand. As an onlooker, and i'm sorry to be so blunt Mr Devonian, every reply of yours is aggressive, dismissive and generally unhelpful. There are people on here, from what i can work out, trying to distinguish facts and lies and you seem hell bent on twisting every single post they make. I'm all for arguing and debating, but from what i can see, you're flogging a dead horse, erratically at that.

Over the course of time i've been reading these sorts of topics, i don't think you've ever agreed, even slightly, with a sceptical viewpoint.

I make no apologies for my first post being "to the point". However, some things have to be said. Newbie or not.

Congratulations on your First post Windy a pleasure to have you along.

I just to continue to try and get my head around basic facts, the IPCC and the government tell us that we humans are responsible for the majority of GW and that if we reduce our emissions all will get better. This is banded about as the consensus view. The problem is that wherever I look and read and see the results of polls the answer comes back loud and clear, the majority of people believe that humans may play some part in GW but to a lesser extent than that stated by the IPCC. We don't know what that extent is we need to do more research the fact is that we are being lied to, what our government say is the consensus view is just untrue! I want to know how untrue it is and to what extent governments are deliberately misleading people and why they choose so to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland

Who needs Mondy eh....although I wonder....well bless my soul, it IS Mondy!

How appropriate that the thread's entitled "Smacks of Desparation"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Newbie, but long time lurker..hi all.

Won't beat about the bush as i'm quite annoyed.

Have read through so many of these topics in the past - not only here - and feel people like Devonian are burying their heads in the sand. As an onlooker, and i'm sorry to be so blunt Mr Devonian, every reply of yours is aggressive, dismissive and generally unhelpful. There are people on here, from what i can work out, trying to distinguish facts and lies and you seem hell bent on twisting every single post they make. I'm all for arguing and debating, but from what i can see, you're flogging a dead horse, erratically at that.

Over the course of time i've been reading these sorts of topics, i don't think you've ever agreed, even slightly, with a sceptical viewpoint.

I make no apologies for my first post being "to the point". However, some things have to be said. Newbie or not.

I'm aggressive...

You think I don't try to distinguish facts from 'lies'?

You accuse me of twisting things? In what way?

Which of what I called facts aren't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Despite there being no historical evidence whatever that CO2 has ever had a causal effect on Earths climate ?

Never heard of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? :good: Then there's the 'Cool Sun' paradox - how do we explain high temps in the distant past, when CO2 levels were higher but solar output was significant;y less than today? Unless the CO2 was acting as a greenhouse gas and maintaining a warmer climate.

There is plenty of evidence. There is of course no proof. So we can't entirely dismiss the possibility that a 100,000 mile wide woollen blanket (in the MacDonald tartan) didn't drift pass, having fallen off off the back of a Betelgeusian Space Truck, and briefly encompass the Earth to raise temps and thus the increase in CO2 was just coincidental.

What we do have though is plenty of theoretical evidence that CO2 has an effect on temperature - we have calculations which prove an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temp (dating back to the 19th century, btw) and although there is now some dispute over these calculation, with suggestions that the effect may be less than originally thought, no-one has yet produced calculations to prove that an increase in CO2 has no effect.

This is the problem facing the 'deniers' - if climate change is not caused by human activity, why isn't it? Why does deforestation, changes in land use, creation of high level cloud cover, changes to atmospheric quantities of CO2 or sulphur or soot, not have an effect? If you can explain that, you're finally on the way to showing that climate change is not down to human activity.

Any takers for the challenge?

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
Never heard of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum? :( Then there's the 'Cool Sun' paradox - how do we explain high temps in the distant past, when CO2 levels were higher but solar output was significant;y less than today? Unless the CO2 was acting as a greenhouse gas and maintaining a warmer climate.

There is plenty of evidence. There is of course no proof. So we can't entirely dismiss the possibility that a 100,000 mile wide woollen blanket (in the MacDonald tartan) didn't drift pass, having fallen off off the back of a Betelgeusian Space Truck, and briefly encompass the Earth to raise temps and thus the increase in CO2 was just coincidental.

What we do have though is plenty of theoretical evidence that CO2 has an effect on temperature - we have calculations which prove an increase in CO2 causes an increase in temp (dating back to the 19th century, btw) and although there is now some dispute over these calculation, with suggestions that the effect may be less than originally thought, no-one has yet produced calculations to prove that an increase in CO2 has no effect.

This is the problem facing the 'deniers' - if climate change is not caused by human activity, why isn't it? Why does deforestation, changes in land use, creation of high level cloud cover, changes to atmospheric quantities of CO2 or sulphur or soot, not have an effect? If you can explain that, you're finally on the way to showing that climate change is not down to human activity.

Any takers for the challenge?

I think Essan that there are very few sceptics who would say catagorically that NOTHING we do as a race has an impact upon climate. The vast majority are simply trying to sort the wheat from the chaff so to speak and decifer the extent of our impact. The Government and IPCC view is based primarily upon one simple equation, that being, that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, GHG's cause warming, Co2 emissions are increasing so are temperatures, ergo one caused the other. I'm afraid it really isn't that simple. There are plenty of reputable, experienced scientists and climatologists who raise the same questions as sceptics, they're not loony deniers, neither am I and as far as anything I've read on here, neither is anyone else on this forum. The trouble I find is that to question any part of AGW theory results in dismissive claims that the IPCC is the answer for everything, they have got it sorted and quite frankly, that's complete nonsense. There are many, many issues where our contribution to AGW just do not stand up to scrutiny. I'm all for cutting emissions and being responsible people who do not endlessly consume and pollute but we have to be more certain of the complete picture before making sweeping changes which could have an even greater impact. One instance which springs to mind is the AGW driven campaign to become Carbon Neutral, hundreds if not thousands of companies and individuals participate in schemes to plant trees to off-set their carbon tariff. Fantastic idea in principle but not thought through and weighed up against a planet wide impact, research has now come to light which says extra trees planted in temporal climates actually increase global temperatures and make the situation worse. Ditto the plans and ideas to grow more crops for eco fuels. None of this is clear-cut on either side of the fence and in my view jumping on the flag waving band wagon and blindly following the eco warriors cry is foolhardy. A steadier, calmer, rational way forward has to be sought.

Who needs Mondy eh....although I wonder....well bless my soul, it IS Mondy!

How appropriate that the thread's entitled "Smacks of Desparation"

Oon, what's your stance on AGW? I apologise if you've made your points somewhere before but speaking as a relative newcomer to here, I've never read your point of view. Do you think AGW is proven? That it's down to us and the IPCC are spot on? Or do think there is some room for doubt and questioning?

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
Newbie, but long time lurker..hi all.

Won't beat about the bush as i'm quite annoyed.

Have read through so many of these topics in the past - not only here - and feel people like Devonian are burying their heads in the sand. As an onlooker, and i'm sorry to be so blunt Mr Devonian, every reply of yours is aggressive, dismissive and generally unhelpful. There are people on here, from what i can work out, trying to distinguish facts and lies and you seem hell bent on twisting every single post they make. I'm all for arguing and debating, but from what i can see, you're flogging a dead horse, erratically at that.

Over the course of time i've been reading these sorts of topics, i don't think you've ever agreed, even slightly, with a sceptical viewpoint.

I make no apologies for my first post being "to the point". However, some things have to be said. Newbie or not.

Hello Windy and welcome to the fray.

I'm curious, you say you've read through these topics, here and elsewhere, can I ask what your viewpoint on all this is too? What lead you to these topics? Did you just want to learn a bit more or did you have specific questions you wanted answered? Are you any the wiser or like me, have even more questions now you've started looking?

I do wish more lurkers would join in, believers and sceptics alike. It took me quite a while before I dared to post but hey, if I can run the risk of looking a complete tit, you all can too. Come on in, no one bites, honest. The more views, questions and opinions the better.

Well done Windy for being brave!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland
  • Location: Nr Appleby in Westmorland
Oon, what's your stance on AGW? I apologise if you've made your points somewhere before but speaking as a relative newcomer to here, I've never read your point of view. Do you think AGW is proven? That it's down to us and the IPCC are spot on? Or do think there is some room for doubt and questioning?

I have actually said my viewpoint many times, but perhaps not recently.

I am of the firm belief that the vast majority of scientists and climatologists are broadly right, and that humans are altering the climate to a fairly significant degree. I find it baffling how people can think that we're not capable of doing so; we have altered almost every single aspect of our environment, be it on a local scale, a large scale (ozone hole) or a global scale (polluting the oceans). so why not the climate? Even more baffling that people think there is some sort of swindle going on trying to fool us into thinking it; I simply can't understand why there would be a motive to fool us on such a large scale. But regardless of that, and the point I've made time and time again is, even if the scientists are wrong about the causes for global warming, so bloody what?! If those that deny humans have any influence are wrong, then the consequences of that could be fairly catastrophic.

I know I can't back up what I say with science, but I can apply common sense. I have yet to see a single argument from a sceptic which has managed to sway me at all, and that's not because my mind is made up. There are times when I'm afraid I think that those who say it's nothing to do with humans are simply trying to be maverick in a strange sort of way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
I have actually said my viewpoint many times, but perhaps not recently.

I am of the firm belief that the vast majority of scientists and climatologists are broadly right, and that humans are altering the climate to a fairly significant degree. I find it baffling how people can think that we're not capable of doing so; we have altered almost every single aspect of our environment, be it on a local scale, a large scale (ozone hole) or a global scale (polluting the oceans). so why not the climate? Even more baffling that people think there is some sort of swindle going on trying to fool us into thinking it; I simply can't understand why there would be a motive to fool us on such a large scale. But regardless of that, and the point I've made time and time again is, even if the scientists are wrong about the causes for global warming, so bloody what?! If those that deny humans have any influence are wrong, then the consequences of that could be fairly catastrophic.

I know I can't back up what I say with science, but I can apply common sense. I have yet to see a single argument from a sceptic which has managed to sway me at all, and that's not because my mind is made up. There are times when I'm afraid I think that those who say it's nothing to do with humans are simply trying to be maverick in a strange sort of way.

We know with CFC's and the ozone hole that we can affect the environment, no question.

I would call myself a bit of a "flipper" on the subject, on the fence but prone to fall off one one side or t'other. The biggest problem I have, is that there is no evidence of CO2 being a driver of our climate in Earth history. If someone can show me peer reviewed, convincing evidence then please do.

Having said that, with the cost of fossil fuels I have to keep use to a reasonable minimum, I don't like lining the leccy and gas companies pockets, so we do make the effort to cut down.

Re: Governments/swindles , you would think that they would actually do something if they thought there was a big problem - but they do diddly squat really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
We know with CFC's and the ozone hole that we can affect the environment, no question.

I would call myself a bit of a "flipper" on the subject, on the fence but prone to fall off one one side or t'other. The biggest problem I have, is that there is no evidence of CO2 being a driver of our climate in Earth history. If someone can show me peer reviewed, convincing evidence then please do.

It's better, imo, to think firstly, and rightly, that CO2 is a ghg. Now, once you accept that fact, then anthro increases in CO2 are clearly a +ve climate forcing. CO2 can be, usually is, a feedback, but atm it isn't - we're forcing the climate via our increases in it. No need for peer review, it's just how it is.

Having said that, with the cost of fossil fuels I have to keep use to a reasonable minimum, I don't like lining the leccy and gas companies pockets, so we do make the effort to cut down.

Re: Governments/swindles , you would think that they would actually do something if they thought there was a big problem - but they do diddly squat really.

Imo, much of the time modern govt is led by the electorate. In the past when politicians held strong views, when ideology was important, they led, (still do I suppose occasionally - look at Iraq) but these day they mostly do what they think the majority of voters (not population, voters) want. Voters are concerned about climate change, but in a conscience excusing way. Voters also like cars, foreign holdays, cheap everything. Until that changes little will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

The most vocal 'skeptics' are the Americans (it would seem) and you have to wonder why other nations (including ours) go along for the ride. You could see why the folk gobbling 25% of the planets energy would wish to keep the status quo (or move for and increase in energy production/consumption) but you can also see why their govt would be reluctant to inform their gun toting populace that their days could be numbered................not the most civilised of folk in times of civil unrest are they?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
The most vocal 'skeptics' are the Americans (it would seem) and you have to wonder why other nations (including ours) go along for the ride. You could see why the folk gobbling 25% of the planets energy would wish to keep the status quo (or move for and increase in energy production/consumption) but you can also see why their govt would be reluctant to inform their gun toting populace that their days could be numbered................not the most civilised of folk in times of civil unrest are they?????

Well global warming or not the US have 2 choices reduce demand for oil or find some more as within a few years continued growth of countries like China will mean a real squeeze on supply. They could of course acidentially go to war with a country which has a massive reserve outside the control of OPEC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Well global warming or not the US have 2 choices reduce demand for oil or find some more as within a few years continued growth of countries like China will mean a real squeeze on supply. They could of course acidentially go to war with a country which has a massive reserve outside the control of OPEC.

So look out South America and it's oil shales then? (they never liked those commie meso Americans did they????)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
So look out South America and it's oil shales then? (they never liked those commie meso Americans did they????)

They got lots of Shale in North America just a few problems with it, its very expensive I think oil has to be @$100 a barel before its anything like commercially viable. Secondly its as about as bad for the environment as you can get as it has to be heated using large amounts of enegy, they really would get a frowned on for that. They will be working on a method of cold extraction I guess and then you can forget any international deal on Carbon??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
They got lots of Shale in North America just a few problems with it, its very expensive I think oil has to be @$100 a barel before its anything like commercially viable. Secondly its as about as bad for the environment as you can get as it has to be heated using large amounts of energy, they really would get a frowned on for that. They will be working on a method of cold extraction I guess and then you can forget any international deal on Carbon??

Again, it makes you think of their motivations in both stymieing research and muddying the waters so far as predictions to future impacts are concerned. They really are over a (Oil) Barrel aren't they? committed to ever increasing energy usage/production but unable to survive the nationwide ravages of climate change. I guess the 'powers that be' just try and keep on 'keeping on' until the brown stuff hits the fan and they launch plan 'B'................ to save the asses of the few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
Again, it makes you think of their motivations in both stymieing research and muddying the waters so far as predictions to future impacts are concerned. They really are over a (Oil) Barrel aren't they? committed to ever increasing energy usage/production but unable to survive the nationwide ravages of climate change. I guess the 'powers that be' just try and keep on 'keeping on' until the brown stuff hits the fan and they launch plan 'B'................ to save the asses of the few.

The US certainly are caught between a rock and a hard place they have left themselves in a position where as they have no choice but to secure oil reserves for themselves. Failure means having to compete for limited reserves against China with a falling dollar against a strong YEN, the oil will only be going one place. This is I think is the only thing that may force the US to the AGW table because it would suit them to reduce internal oil consumption, but America being America they would more then likely attempt to blast their way out of the situation.

Europe is not the production base it once was with manufactoring reducing year on year still needs to cut its oil consumption. It needs to champion a cause to allow it to go for neuclear power and reduce its ever growing dependancy on black gold?

Now that does not make me a skeptic of the science of AGW but it is where the real world is at and I do ask supporters of both sides of the AGW argument to at least bare this in mind when considering govermnent responses. Many supporters on here suggest that those who are skeptics doubt the science but I suggest the vast majority doubt the providers of the information and are extremely doubtfull of the motives of those who either wish to see action on AGW or those who don't. It is certainly my conclusion that both for and against positions have bodies within them which seek to muddy the waters to further their own political agendas. I believe that is is true of both the US and UK neither of which are being entirely honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Let us just consider, in a general sort of way, the path you would choose if;

A/ Climatic change was set to destabilise the developed world and catastrophically affect the developing world (both by natural disasters brought about by climate change and the inability of the developed nations to give aid)

B/ Our technological dependence within the first world will lead to mass starvation of developed world populace and the rise of water bourne diseases amongst them as water supplies run dry (pumping stations/purification plants cease to operate) as natural disasters compromise oil production/distribution and large areas of agriculture are blighted by 'extreme weather' (both events and periods)

C/ you had both the knowledge and wherewithal to survive the 2 yr predicted period of mass dying/civil unrest.

Would you inform the greater populace of the gravity of the situation or would you keep them guessing until the point of no return?

Would it serve to have many people survive to find out how much you knew prior to the event or would it serve better for the problem to die with them?

If the USA 'ruling classes' are fully aware both of the fast approaching challenges and that civil unrest will result for a period of time (either as a result of you declaring the peril or the onset of the peril itself) then it would serve them best to obfuscate the issue for as long as they are able and then 'go to ground' for the duration.

Sure, climate change will go on and the challenges will continue to amass but with only 1/3 of the global population to service and technology as it stands today continuance would not be too greater problem (for technology will survive and thrive on after any global population 're-adjustments').

Sadly the developed world (you and I) are least equipped to deal with the collapse of the structures we depend upon for our day to day continuance (food, water, heating, medicine) and the concentrations of population in small geographical areas negates the usefulness of any natural resources to be found there to hand.

These events could happen well before any grand Eco-disaster as they demand only the interruption of one global commodity and it's safe transportation (R.N. Vessels commandeering tankers and fighting off foreign powers and their at temps to usurp our intentions etc.)

Ho hum, I'd rather be a skeptic...........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...