Politics And AGW/GW

[Solar Cycles]

So to speak one's mind is not tolerated, and yet warmist can say far worse and seem to get away with it. I'm off!

Edited April 16, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[osmposm]

So to speak one's mind is not tolerated, and yet warmist can say far worse and seem to get away with it. I'm off!

I suspect the phrase "AGW drones" - not the first time you've used it - is what tips it over. "Pretty little graphs" doesn't add much either. Again I ask - as I repeatedly ask LG - why is it apparently so hard for you to accept that many knowledgeable - even expert - people who are both honest and thoughtful still believe in one degree or another of AGW? Why in your mind do we have to be mindless drones - can we not just be independent-minded, concerned individuals who hold different views to you? Keep arguing your corner intelligently, but spare us the cheap jibes. And note that what TWS said were arrogant and narrow-minded were your & LG's recent posts, not necessarily you personally....unfortunately, though, that is all we have to go on. Sorry if that's a bit "grey" for your tastes, but the relentless needle has given me sense-of-humour failure lately.

Now back to the issues.......this is pure straw: "Not one warmist can show me any proof, that we have warmed through excess CO2 alone." I wasn't aware that anybody suggested that we had?

Edited April 16, 2009 by osmposm

[laserguy]

- why is it apparently so hard for you to accept that many knowledgeable - even expert - people who are both honest and thoughtful still believe in one degree or another of AGW?

Dunno. Why do some intelligent,rational adults still believe in Santa? Who knows - maybe one day he'll appear in Times Square then vanish in a puff of smoke leaving everyone agog and wondering if he really was real? Same as AGW then. . A smiley just for you,Ossie.

[noggin]

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=32...mp;linkbox=true

A "warmist" turned "sceptic" (Claude Allegre) could be France's next environment minister. That will be interesting, if it happens. It would be good, too, in that it is always good to have an opposition in politics to try to put the brakes on any extreme policies of those in power.

[osmposm]

I wholeheartedly agree, Noggin

[laserguy]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_con...t/energy_update#

Said ages ago that 'AGW' was a dead duck. Anyone see a 'trend' here(!),and are the warmers now the new deniers?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Interesting- 34% of voters said global warming was caused by human activity, and 62% of Americans said global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem. Are we talking different cross-sections of populations or are a lot of Americans of the view that global warming is serious but it is largely or entirely of natural origin? Another question would be, by "was caused by human activity" does that mean "is there any anthropogenic input at all", or "is it mainly humans" or "is it entirely humans"?

You can't read too much into these surveys I'm afraid- the most that the article shows is, perhaps, that scepticism among the general public is growing, which shouldn't come as a surprise really with the stagnation of global temperatures and exaggeration of the AGW case by the media.

Re. France's next environment minister, that would certainly be interesting. Reading about his stance, it sounds like he's got some very good general points about the issue, but when it comes to the specifics some of his scientific arguments are somewhat dubious. But considering that most environmental political groups tend towards the "pro-AGW" extreme and tend not to be good at the science either, then maybe adding someone like him might at least dampen the degree of overall bias?

[laserguy]

Interesting- 34% of voters said global warming was caused by human activity, and 62% of Americans said global warming is at least a somewhat serious problem.

Yes,but that 34% is the current bottom line of a falling trend. How low will it go? As for the 62% who still think that the world is warming thanks to the sterling efforts of the MSN and the powers that be - well,they'll learn given time. And Obama has acted in the nick of time before the awful truth dawns by declaring CO2 a pollutant (!!!). Watch the clamour over AGW now fall silent. Too late to save them now,the end of the 'kwa is imminent!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Interesting stuff...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...u-asa031809.php

...so by Laserguy's "public opinion equals truth" arguments, AGW is a given, no? The point being there is so much debate over the issue you can cherry-pick whatever you like to fit a pre-conception.

[laserguy]

Interesting stuff...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...u-asa031809.php

...so by Laserguy's "public opinion equals truth" arguments, AGW is a given, no? The point being there is so much debate over the issue you can cherry-pick whatever you like to fit a pre-conception.

Ha! Your poll is now six months old (conducted Sept' Oct' last year). The times they are a' changing,and quickly. Still,it doesn't matter a jot what anyone thinks - the die is now cast. Good luck to 'em. We're next.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/NewsReleases/nr041709a.cfm

[Thundery wintry showers]

...and while the article suggests that being overly draconian about it will cause more trouble than it's worth (something that I largely agree with) does not say anything about whether or not AGW exists or its intensity. It is a point that would be good for discussion if only we didn't have someone latching onto every shred of nonsense on the internet in order to fit the pre-set view "AGW is a myth", connect it to itself in a circular argument, disguise this by launching cheap jibes at anyone who happens to challenge or question it, and keep posting it ad nauseum and therefore stifling any attempt at a civil discussion.

As for the finding, it only opens the door to such excessive draconian regulation, it does not make it a certainty (and it certainly doesn't bring us any closer to making it a necessity). I have always believed in the approach of carrot first and stick second (the latter being used to force complete shifts in behaviour when they are desirable, when the carrot only induces a partial shift). The mainstream approach does seem to be draconian- this is probably more a symptom of the recent move towards authoritarianism across the developed world, rather than anything to do with AGW specifically.

[osmposm]

Yes,but that 34% is the current bottom line of a falling trend. How low will it go?

Hardly, Barrie. April: 34%. March: 41%. February: 38%. January: 44%. December: 43%. Up and down like a yo-yo, like all public opinion. And in this, as on all things, not really of much interest to those seeking the truth of the matter......IMHO.

As for the 62% who still think that the world is warming thanks to the sterling efforts of the MSN and the powers that be - well,they'll learn given time.

Ah, so public opinion is significant when it confirms your views, but valueless when it doesn't? Hey-ho.

[laserguy]

Ah, so public opinion is significant when it confirms your views, but valueless when it doesn't? Hey-ho.

No not really,just that in this instance it shows that finally,folk are starting to realise the enormity of the scam which has allowed the declaration of CO2 to be a 'pollutant'. It's nothing of the sort,and 'carbon trading' has nothing whatsoever to do with this preposterous idea of 'tackling' our ever-evolving climate. I know it,and deep down I think you do too Ossie. Just a snapshot of a moment in time,but where is this warming,the destruction of Arctic ice etc etc after all these years of increasing CO2 emissions and ever increasing cumulative totals? Ah,it's in the pipeline of course!

All those electric cars they're hoping to flog come 2011 - hope they hurry along and build more power stations in readiness for the surge in demand,otherwise we'll all end up walking everywhere,erm...?

[jethro]

Just out of curiosity...

Anyone have any ideas how the government intend to ensure they comply with their self-imposed carbon reductions announced today?

Can't see how home insulation, a few hundred thousand electric cars and wind turbines are going to achieve their goal. A massive switch over to Nuclear in the offing perhaps?

[Thundery wintry showers]

We have an interesting climate thread in the weather archives here.

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=40273

That discussion seems light-years better than what we get all too often these days.

A very interesting blog here with some contributions by Laserguy:

http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/2007/08/1...whats-the-fuss/

LG, you can argue in a civilised manner instead of firing constant pot-shots at those who aren't completely closed to the possibility that AGW might exist- as your past contributions bear out- so it's about time you cut out the current nonsense.

Re. Government complying with its carbon reductions, I think they'll really struggle. The cynic in me, unfortunately, thinks that they'll come up with a set of haphazard attempts at "carrot" policies that never get off the ground, and once they fail to approach the targets, then bring in the heavy "sticks" in desperation.

[laserguy]

LG, you can argue in a civilised manner instead of firing constant pot-shots at those who aren't completely closed to the possibility that AGW might exist- as your past contributions bear out- so it's about time you cut out the current nonsense.

Yes you're absolutely right TWS,and it's a point Ossie has been labouring for a while. Don't know what's got into me of late but can appreciate that my tone and attitude have been,er,testing. Maybe a good idea to take a break for the benefit of myself and the good folk on here (that's all of you,warmers an' all!) Hope to see y'all around and in a better frame of mind .

[noggin]

Maybe a good idea to take a break for the benefit of myself and the good folk on here (that's all of you,warmers an' all!)

Don't stay away too long!

[noggin]

....and here comes Poland with it's doubts about AGW......

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/...y-43618922.html

Hearsay at the moment, but I have read that New Zealand is also beginning to have doubts about AGW. I must investigate further.

Perhaps as more and more countries express their doubts, it might encourage other doubting countries to speak out.....

[Methuselah]

Seriously noggin - how can a piece of land have an opinion? :lol:

Individuals can always possess doubts - I do too! But the whacky outpourings from Landscheit (The name couldn't be more apt!), Corbin and IceAgeNow et al spread nothing but confusion. Yes, they denigrate the Great AGW Conspiracy tirelessly - but, what is their alternative??

Oh yes, a blanket natural cycles did it...Not much better than God Diddit IMO? :lol:

[Admiral_Bobski]

Oh yes, a blanket natural cycles did it...Not much better than God Diddit IMO? :lol:

Well, quite...and in the 21st Century Man has clearly supplanted God...

:lol:

CB

[Methuselah]

Well, quite...and in the 21st Century Man has clearly supplanted God...

:lol:

CB

Damn. You got me. But it's only a flesh wound! :lol:

[Admiral_Bobski]

Damn. You got me. But it's only a flesh wound! :lol:

lol

:lol:

CB

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I have previously stated AGW as unproven 'theory' but thinking about it, it is not even theory.

Political influences designated AGW as 'theory', implying as such the completion of a scientific method. But it is really only an 'hypothesis' because it is unproven and not complete. Some things in science are not proveable yet AGW prematurely announces conclusiveness on the basis of 'hypothesis'. Stating that the 'science is settled' is the best example here.

My own and others thoughts are 'not settled' but are as valid as AGW hypothesis. It would just be good if large areas of the AGW movement adopted a similar principle in terms of that. In this way I think that less vitriol would be seen from some sceptics who react to attempts at being forced to accept that the 'science is settled' when it plainly is not. Such vitriol is an unfortunate reactionary consequence of the initial arrogance.

[Thundery wintry showers]

But are they as valid as the arguments for AGW? There is a lot of scientific evidence behind the AGW hypothesis, including stuff published in hundreds, maybe thousands, of scientific papers that explore the dynamics behind possible AGW forcings (and this includes anthropogenic influences other than CO2). There may well be flaws in some of the arguments, and in the assumptions that are being made, but there is no lack of evidence out there.

In contrast I'm yet to see any research claiming to debunk AGW that doesn't contain holes a mile wide- and a large majority of it is littered with straw man attacks, spin, and circular reasoning. There is plenty of research out there that points to areas of uncertainty, and correspondingly, the chance that the AGW contribution may be being overestimated, but providing evidence of uncertainty does not tally with "greater certainty over alternative theories such as natural cycles and the sun being responsible". I will, however, be very interested to see if anything useful comes out of this "Leaky Integrator" thing.

I completely agree with the points about those saying "the science is settled" saying something's certain when it isn't. But the problem is that it seems that anyone whose belief deviates from "AGW is a myth" gets lumped together with them, as part of setting up straw men to undermine AGW.

If it's going back to the "everyone's entitled to their opinions and all opinions are equally valid" argument, I'll quote an analogy. A says, "Since the sun is stronger on 31 May than on 1 May, and it's slightly later in the season, 31 May is likely to be warmer than 1 May." B says, "31 May will be cooler than 1 May, and you've got to let me have my opinion, therefore A's opinion is no more valid than mine." Surely A's view carries more weight than B's view here?

[VillagePlank]

The problem is, that there is no engagement.

I have provided a method, that I have clearly made available to any one who is interested, of integrating, in a simple manner, four natural indexes - all of which have been published and peer reviewed. I have shown a different method of showing the modern warming, I have shown historical trends, and it even predicts precisely what the MetO are predicting for the next decade.

And what's it for. You don't care, nor does anyone else who has bought into the AGW dogma. It's difficult to break a line you've held for years without question - especially when it's based on deference to authority (a logical faux paus), even more difficult when the science that supports such dogma is actually true and it's only the conclusions that are at fault.

The AGW camp has asked for an alternate hypothesis, the leaky integrator is the best I can give. What do you have to say about it?

Happy days.

Edited April 27, 2009 by VillagePlank