The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Bobby]

Magpie I have to query your stats for 2007. According to CRU 2007 comes in at 8th place globally and 4th for the northern hemisphere.

NASA says it is the second warmest, behind 2005.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Thus, it really depends on what stats you are using. For the record, NCDC (which I often use as its stats are updated monthly) agrees more with CRU than with NASA on this one.

Whatever, 2007 was another globally warm year despite the onset of a La Nina near the end, and did not signify a reversal of the warming trend- though at the same time did not signify an acceleration of it. Most of the warmth of 2007 stemmed from the outstanding warmth early in the year over the Northern Hemisphere land masses.

[laserguy]

As the dam breaks,watch the trickle of AGW types who said they never believed it all in the first place turn into a torrent,as predicted by yours truly ages ago. This taken from a 'green' site,at that. Ah well,there'll be another passing wagon to jump on sooner or later.

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=453

[Devonian]

As the dam breaks,watch the trickle of AGW types who said they never believed it all in the first place turn into a torrent,as predicted by yours truly ages ago. This taken from a 'green' site,at that. Ah well,there'll be another passing wagon to jump on sooner or later.

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=453

Marc Morano,? "Marc Morano is communications director for the Republicans on the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Morano commenced work with the committee under Senator James Inhofe, who was majority chairman of the committee until January 2007 and is now minority ranking member. In December 2006 Morano launched a blog on the committee's website that largely promotes the views of climate change skeptics. This article is reprinted here with permission from the author."

Oh, that Marc Morano...

'Green' site? Astroturf green more like.

Edited March 16, 2008 by Devonian

[BUSHY]

Would it not be more mature to critique the content instead of dismissing it all out of hand by badmouthing the author and site.

[Devonian]

Would it not be more mature to critique the content instead of dismissing it all out of hand by badmouthing the author and site.

Odd that you don't address your comment to Laserguy who wasn't exactly ringing in his endorsement of climate science - but, there we are...

Anyway, lets firstly look at the editors note:

"...global warming alarmism..." Oh, I see very respectful and mature towards people like me that. I wonder if he'll use alarmism again "...completely apart from global warming alarm..." and "...the agenda of the global warming alarmists..." ah, alarmist and an agenda - yes people like me really are up to something. You honestly think I should treat this article with more than the respect it treats people like me? Moving on "...If there is a hidden agenda, it is more likely coming from the "alarm industry...." more of the same (but hey, if you want to plant an idea, do it properly) "...Maybe if all of this AGW alarmism were true!..." and there are other mentions of alarmism.

DO you really think this is balanced 'mature' reporting? Should I read further?

Well OK, on to the main event (remember, science content so far - zilch). Firstly, note how many 'link's there are. To rebut this piece properly I'm going to have to spend the whole day going through it. I don't (none of us do) have that kind of time!

We start out with a few scientists whinging about how hard it is to get published. Two possibilities. One there is a conspiracy to deny them publication, or two, what they say is bunk. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theory...

A Hungarian chap claims to have re written greenhouse effect science - but he hasn't he is wrong (well, unless there is another conspiracy to silence him by those evil climate scientists). Another claims to have "the math and realized that you just can't get to global warming with CO2." - pure tosh. (again, evil climate scientists conspiracy to ignore him, excepted).

Sorry, I can't take this piece seriously. There is no science in it, it's full of whinging and paranoia.

There is one solution. Read the science in say IPCC or read the science in other places like this

Edited March 16, 2008 by Devonian

[SnowBear]

One there is a conspiracy to deny them publication, or two, what they say is bunk. I'm not a fan of conspiracy theory...

Or three they may just have hit on something which means that usual scientific means might just not work, is maybe not advanced enough yet and will be less then accurate when it comes to something as complex and intertwined as Climate Change. Maybe their voice is valid and it needs to be taken into account along side the scientific data but not as a theory as a whole. But it won't get published because it goes against current scientific theories as a whole at this moment in time.

At one time heavier than air flight was called bunkum, absolute piffle, not possible was the cry! The guys who said it was possible were ridiculed and cast out pretty much by the scientific community. Later we have? Heavier than air machines which fly.

Not always wise to say some theory or paper is completely wrong and it will never be the truth. You just never know, especially on something like climate change, complex, incomplete data, scientific practises which are still evolving as we go along, new mechanisms, cycles and systems we are finding which interact, events which seem to buck the trend when we think we have got a theory right, its all a work in progress and wont be complete for some time yet and to dismiss any theory or piece of knowledge as trash before the end result in many years time is I say unwise. You just don't know.

[Chris Knight]

...read the science in other places like this

I agree that this is an excellent site on the history of climate change thinking - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_0141 provides plenty of ideas from the 20th century that may have to be revisited in the light of the rapid disappearance of the Arctic sea ice last year and the following northern hemisphere winter extremes. CEP Brooks, Ewing and Donn, Budyko etc., well, the experiment is running at the moment.

I loved the following paragraph:

Some senior climatologists, attacking "the glibly pessimistic pronouncements about the imminent collapse of our terrestrial environment," stuck by their traditional model of climate as a self-regulating system. They continued to expect, for example, that a negative feedback from cloudiness would stabilize global temperature. But others were taking a new view of their field. Not only theoretical studies, but a flood of data on past climate changes were hard to reconcile with the old definition of “climate” as a long-term average of weather. An average made sense only if you calculated it over a period where things were roughly the same during the first half as during the second half. But was there ever such a period? As one prominent climatologist explained, "it cannot be ruled out... that [climate] varies on all scales of time." He admitted that "it can be argued that the very concept of climate is sterile," unless you gave up "the classical concept of something static."

[laserguy]

Would it not be more mature to critique the content instead of dismissing it all out of hand by badmouthing the author and site.

Bushy my friend,that's usually the way it goes around here. Don't get me started on the IPCC and governments! I suppose it's fair to assume that most AGW believers cannot understand the sceptics/deniers,and vice versa. It's ridiculous really,as if the sceptics were waging some kind of war with the believers. Speaking on behalf of myself only,that's nonsense. I mean,ultimately we're all in it together are we not? I have no vested interest whatsoever in denying AGW,why should I? I've said this before too; I've got a five year old son and he's by far and away the most important 'thing' in my life. I have serious and well founded fears of the world he'll be living in when he's older. Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever else they'll have coined it before long,does not register on the list in any way,shape or form.

I sense a great deal of unwarranted hostility from Dev,everytime I post. It's a shame;the feeling is not mutual. I also get the impression of an animal being backed into a corner and reacting accordingly. This is what I meant by the breaking of the dam,because I just know that it will most certainly let go soon.No,the growing band of sceptics/deniers (of whom a far greater number are more qualified/not dependant on gov.money etc than the massed and varied ranks within the IPCC and other bodies who rely on government funding for their very existance), will reach a level where they can't be ignored. It's not easy to turn the tide of public opinion after telling them precisely the opposite after so many years,but the high water mark has been reached. Trickle becomes torrent.

As a denier I feel the incessant and frankly tedious need to reiterate my stance,lest anyone gets the impression that I burn piles of old car tyres for fun whilst cackling manically at imagining the great wafts of CO2 thus produced making their merry way into the atmosphere. Stop the waste,the greed,the rampant consumerism,recycle,just think about what you're doing ferchrissake and treat the world with respect,but don't confuse those noble aims with climate change. The sooner that the real need to reduce CO2 gets out into the open,the better. Perhaps then the populace will be moved to actually get off their backsides and do something rather than being tittilated with half-baked stories of cities under water and hurricanes in Hampshire etc. Even if such things did come to pass (courtesy of natural change of course),they'd be dealt with (or not,as the case may be) at the time. To suggest that reducing CO2 from today's levels to *whatever* will put things to how we'd like them to be is utter nonsense and deception of the highest order. Ah,deception. Whaat,from governments?? No,tell me it's not so!

Here's a link which strictly speaking doesn't belong here (though it does reference global warming/decades of consumerism etc), but I'm gonna post it anyway. Why? Because it harks back to my comment earlier regarding things to genuinely fear. Gray-Wolf would love this. Have a nice day,y'all.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Evensen/greg26.htm

[0000]

I've had a thought to settle this once and for all............................ask 1 member to pick 5 numbers out of 10 in favour and the remainder numbers are counted against the arguement,we blindly post our choice of number and at the end of the alloted time the poll is counted and we abide by the result for a couple of weeks?

Surely we'll get just as far forward.

[azores92]

I've had a thought to settle this once and for all............................ask 1 member to pick 5 numbers out of 10 in favour and the remainder numbers are counted against the arguement,we blindly post our choice of number and at the end of the alloted time the poll is counted and we abide by the result for a couple of weeks?

Surely we'll get just as far forward.

can i ask someone, what is the likelihood of this year being a positive NAO year? many thanks.

[Roo]

I sense a great deal of unwarranted hostility from Dev,everytime I post. It's a shame;the feeling is not mutual. I also get the impression of an animal being backed into a corner and reacting accordingly. This is what I meant by the breaking of the dam,because I just know that it will most certainly let go soon.

If I may speak for Devonian, I really don't think that's a fair comment. Dev's posts are always well considered and backed with well referenced evidence and material. He is as far from backed into a corner as I can imagine.

The dam is not breaking. The sceptics still largely rely on the likes of e.g. Mr Casey and the NSCC, and we all know where that leads. The balance of evidence and systematic theory lies on the side of AGW, with the other camp still comprising a few unsubstantiated theories in obscure and unrefereed publications. So far, none of these have stood up to any kind of academic rigour.

It doesn't matter what we think: the scientific consensus is still holding.

[laserguy]

It doesn't matter what we think: the scientific consensus is still holding.

The "scientific" consensus has to hold otherwise they'll all be down the labour exchange . For how many more years and how many more thousands of them does it take to keep saying the same thing? It's gotten tedious and annoying and judging by the evidence,completely wrong. The sceptics are driven by integrity,not the grant cheque. Funny how so many previously staunch AGW advocates are jumping ship,rather than the other way round. Canny souls,they see the writing on the wall. Just like me abandoning my twenty years in dentistry when I saw what the government was doing to the profession.Following the up-to-now consensus is easy. My point was missed anyway- of things to worry about,climate change of any cause does not register.

Anyway Roo,Dev etc,I've stated my 'green' credentials often so it seems the only crime I'm committing is not falling to my knees and praying to the altar of AGW? Oh ok,I believe,I believe!! Feel better now?

[Devonian]

Bushy my friend,that's usually the way it goes around here. Don't get me started on the IPCC and governments! I suppose it's fair to assume that most AGW believers cannot understand the sceptics/deniers,and vice versa. It's ridiculous really,as if the sceptics were waging some kind of war with the believers. Speaking on behalf of myself only,that's nonsense. I mean,ultimately we're all in it together are we not? I have no vested interest whatsoever in denying AGW,why should I? I've said this before too; I've got a five year old son and he's by far and away the most important 'thing' in my life. I have serious and well founded fears of the world he'll be living in when he's older. Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever else they'll have coined it before long,does not register on the list in any way,shape or form.

I sense a great deal of unwarranted hostility from Dev,everytime I post. It's a shame;the feeling is not mutual.

Well, you should sense an opinion that's different to yours. This is a debate, there is no need to try and make out I'm what I'm not

Or three they may just have hit on something which means that usual scientific means might just not work, is maybe not advanced enough yet and will be less then accurate when it comes to something as complex and intertwined as Climate Change. Maybe their voice is valid and it needs to be taken into account along side the scientific data but not as a theory as a whole. But it won't get published because it goes against current scientific theories as a whole at this moment in time.

Nope, they are wrong.

At one time heavier than air flight was called bunkum, absolute piffle, not possible was the cry! The guys who said it was possible were ridiculed and cast out pretty much by the scientific community. Later we have? Heavier than air machines which fly.

And what these to chaps are doing is the equivalent of saying 'we've done the calculations and we're shown heavier than air flight is impossible'. They're trying to un-invent the wheel...

Not always wise to say some theory or paper is completely wrong and it will never be the truth. You just never know, especially on something like climate change, complex, incomplete data, scientific practises which are still evolving as we go along, new mechanisms, cycles and systems we are finding which interact, events which seem to buck the trend when we think we have got a theory right, its all a work in progress and wont be complete for some time yet and to dismiss any theory or piece of knowledge as trash before the end result in many years time is I say unwise. You just don't know.

See you next year, or in five. I say we wont find that the fundamental physics of the atmosphere have been re written.

The "scientific" consensus has to hold otherwise they'll all be down the labour exchange . For how many more years and how many more thousands of them does it take to keep saying the same thing? It's gotten tedious and annoying and judging by the evidence,completely wrong. The sceptics are driven by integrity,not the grant cheque.

Odd, I'd have though everyone needs to be paid to get by? Do sceptics somehow not need money :lol:

Funny how so many previously staunch AGW advocates are jumping ship,rather than the other way round. Canny souls,they see the writing on the wall. Just like me abandoning my twenty years in dentistry when I saw what the government was doing to the profession.Following the up-to-now consensus is easy. My point was missed anyway- of things to worry about,climate change of any cause does not register.

Anyway Roo,Dev etc,I've stated my 'green' credentials often so it seems the only crime I'm committing is not falling to my knees and praying to the altar of AGW? Oh ok,I believe,I believe!! Feel better now?

Oh come on LG that last paragraph is ridiculous.

You go on about me being hostile and then you put the boot in with the old AGWers are part of a religion mantra imposing (LOL) our will. We are not, but perhaps (as ever) the aim is that such accusations will do damage?

Edited March 16, 2008 by Devonian

[SnowBear]

Yep, we shall see Devonian, after some of the mistakes that science have made in the past I sure am not going to follow blindly any theory until its proven beyond all doubt, and nothing in Climate Change is for now proven beyond doubt in my vew, we have theories bandied about, some more likely than others, some with more political and commercial influences involved, some more thorough than others, but none giving the whole picture and no doubt the end result may well be very much different than we think right now. We can put probabilities on possible outcomes, but, right now I am not even sure we can do that as so much is involved and so much still unknown. But to make a statement that someone who maybe sees things slightly differently than you or the scientific community as a whole are out and out wrong is not wise nor even right, they may just have a valid point which is being overlooked by the main stream groups or they see a mechanism at play others don't.

But, seems many follow blindly on both sides at the moment. In reality the truth will I think be somewhere in the middle of the two sides and arguing about it wont make any difference right now. So much time and effort is being wasted on this issue its amazing. Just keeps going round and round in circles, which to me says we don't know all what is going on and maybe we are lacking the capability to understand all the complexities at the moment, we need to wait for the next advancement or "evolution" of science and technology to be able to get the complete view on climate change. Are we possibly trying to figure out something way ahead of our time. Regardless of if we are contributing to warming or not, its not right to pollute like we do and we should be looking to do the best we can to reduce our impact on the Earth.

[Devonian]

Yep, we shall see Devonian, after some of the mistakes that science have made in the past I sure am not going to follow blindly any theory until its proven beyond all doubt, and nothing in Climate Change is for now proven beyond doubt in my vew, we have theories bandied about, some more likely than others, some with more political and commercial influences involved, some more thorough than others, but none giving the whole picture and no doubt the end result may well be very much different than we think right now. We can put probabilities on possible outcomes, but, right now I am not even sure we can do that as so much is involved and so much still unknown. But to make a statement that someone who maybe sees things slightly differently than you or the scientific community as a whole are out and out wrong is not wise nor even right, they may just have a valid point which is being overlooked by the main stream groups or they see a mechanism at play others don't.

AGW isn't going to be proven until the event (the future). That's a long time.

But, seems many follow blindly on both sides at the moment. In reality the truth will I think be somewhere in the middle of the two sides and arguing about it wont make any difference right now. So much time and effort is being wasted on this issue its amazing. Just keeps going round and round in circles, which to me says we don't know all what is going on and maybe we are lacking the capability to understand all the complexities at the moment, we need to wait for the next advancement or "evolution" of science and technology to be able to get the complete view on climate change. Are we possibly trying to figure out something way ahead of our time. Regardless of if we are contributing to warming or not, its not right to pollute like we do and we should be looking to do the best we can to reduce our impact on the Earth.

But, the whole point about my 'side' is it's about gathering evidence, do experiment NOT blindly following, indeed I don't think more than a tiny number on either side 'follow'. The physics of AGW is well understood, check out he links I gave.

[SnowBear]

The physics of AGW/Climate Change isn't well understood nor more importantly proven, which you agree in your post, else we would not be having debates, arguments, claims for one thing, then counter-claims etc going on.

Often it seems that more questions come about than are answered in this whole climate change affair, we think we have them all answered then something happens which brings a whole new set of questions, and at times in conflict with what we think we know and at that moment in time have evidence for.

I have read much, and sit on the fence and will do for some time until the results are in whenever that may be and no amount of persuasion from anyone while change my view for now, on either side. You cannot call a right or wrong answer in any experiment until it is complete. This one is a very long term experiment and I feel many in the scientific community think its all over, the results are in and all is set in stone. All I say is beware, science has been known to be wrong in the past in its ever onward procession, it could be on this, its not unprecedented, especially in something as complex and vast as the subject of climate change.

[BUSHY]

But, the whole point about my 'side' is it's about gathering evidence, do experiment NOT blindly following, indeed I don't think more than a tiny number on either side 'follow'. The physics of AGW is well understood, check out he links I gave.

I could not have contradicted myself that perfectly if I tried my best.

[rob48]

"Odd, I'd have though everyone needs to be paid to get by? Do sceptics somehow not need money"

They need to get theirs from sources other than governments, i.e taxpayers, i.e. us!

[wysiwyg]

"Odd, I'd have though everyone needs to be paid to get by? Do sceptics somehow not need money"

They need to get theirs from sources other than governments, i.e taxpayers, i.e. us!

Don't get that - if you get money from the government it is taxes. I think the implication was that skeptics are funded through non-government sources hence their funders cannot by definition be taxpayers.

[rob48]

"if you get money from the government it is taxes"

I'm sorry, that's what I thought I'd said by using i.e.

If your financing depends on a certain result, it's not unlikely that you'll continually achieve that result.

That's one of the reasons Stalin always thought his Five Year Plans were working.

[wysiwyg]

I'm sorry, that's what I thought I'd said by using i.e.

Well to me you implied that sources of funding "other than governments" which by definition cannot be tax.

Agreed on the other points though - again I think the previous poster was inferring that skeptics were not funded by the government. However, you have to weigh up the possibility that they are being funded by those organisations that have a vested interest in us continuing to use fossil fuels.

[rob48]

Definition of the meaning of ie:

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/i-e.htm

I trust that is clear enough.

[wysiwyg]

Definition of the meaning of ie:

http://www.legal-explanations.com/definitions/i-e.htm

I trust that is clear enough.

So humour me and tell me who exactly the taxpayer is funding wrt the GW debate - protagonists or skeptics or both?

[rob48]

Hello again

"tell me who exactly the taxpayer is funding wrt the GW debate "

The protaganist of course.

It's win win. I'm surprised more people don't get it.

The protaganist's are funded by the government (and we've established who pays) and tells them what they need to tell them.

Secretly they both know that this is EXACTLY what the government wants to be told.

It gives the government the excuse it needs to admonish us for being such naughty children and to punish us further with draconian tax-raising measures on the pretext that it's good for the environment/climate/little girl who lives down the lane etc. It helps to take the electorate's mind off the fact that the economy is totally screwed and borrowing is out of control. All this after (allegedly) ten years of "prudence" and sustained growth. Hmmm.

The extra revenue generated by these "green" taxes can be used to fund the "research" by the government appointed climatologists to produce more propaganda, oops, I obviously meant data, to perpetuate the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Unless it's to aleviate boredom, I can't understand why anybody at all would bother to read "scientific" research.

As someone (with his trousers around his ankles) once said, "It's the economy, stoopid!"