A look at the “97.4% of climate scientists” meme
by Sapere Aude as part of our “dissident denial” series
c
On 4 February, 2017 the Daily Mail published an article entitled: “World Leaders Duped by Manipulated Global Warming Data”.
“…The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Eight years ago, the “Climategate” scandal enjoyed some brief exposure. A large cache of emails had been discovered (possibly hacked into) at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.
The mails revealed that in 1997, in the runup to the Kyoto Climate Change Conference, a similar manipulation of data had taken place relating to the 1995 global climate report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The original report contained statements from scientists to the effect that there was no risk of a CO2-caused climate catastrophe.
On the Jesse Ventura talk-show of 19.12.2009, Dr. Ben Santer, lead author of the IPCC reports, admitted that he had deleted from Chapter 8 of the 1995 report those sections which had explicitly denied the claim of human-caused climate change. On the show he was confronted by Lord Monckton (a leading so-called ‘climate denier’) about the changes he had made.
Monckton: After scientists had submitted their finished draft, Santer came and rewrote parts of it – specifically where, in five different places, it had been explicitly stated that there is no provable human effect on global temperature. I have seen a copy – Santer went through the draft, deleted the relevant parts and wrote a new summary … which remained as the official conclusion.
Santer: Lord Monckton has pointed to cuts in this chapter … and there were cuts. In order to preserve harmony with the other chapters, we dropped the final summary.
Because the original 1995 report had already been signed by more than 100 scientists, Santer had to quickly find new signatories for the amended (falsified) report. Santer was just then in a conference in Kassel, Germany and he had no chance of quickly finding another 100 scientists to sign the amended report. However, at that time Kassel University was the home of the Center for Environmental Systems Research.
Its head, Professor Joseph Alcamo was responsible for looking after climate affairs in Germany on behalf of the UN, UNEP and the IPCC. On 9 October 1997, Prof. Alcamo sent an email to his assistants, who were waiting in Kyoto, telling him to secure the required new signatures for the falsified report. The email was discovered in November 2009 among thousands of other emails at the CRU Institute at the University of East Anglia. The key parts of the email are reproduced below:
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
If the report comes out only a few days before Kyoto I’m afraid that the delegates we want to influence won’t have any time to consider it. We should give them a couple of weeks to take note of it.”
Simultaneously, Greenpeace activists were also working to get signatures on a document of their own to influence the media, using a tried-and-tested technique for signature gathering: Don’t read the fine print — just sign!
To showcase their campaign, Greenpeace was organizing a media event ahead of the Kyoto meeting to display the document signed by concerned “scientists.”
Alcamo continued:
If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a different day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two very different directions.
These two high-profile cases should surely raise some doubts about the truth of what has frequently been hyped as the ‘greatest threat humanity faces’ – the threat of runaway global warming. Are we dealing merely with a few minor ‘touch-ups’ to official reports and the views of a small minority of dissenting scientists – or is the whole story of global warming/climate change an enormous scam?
We are told ad nauseam that global warming is “settled science”; that there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists as to the reality of human-caused global warming. Figures such as “98% of scientists”, even 99.5% according to ex-president Obama, are routinely trotted out.
Anyone who questions this “truth” is immediately vilified as a dangerous “climate denier” – one of the many derogatory accusations hurled at Donald Trump.
But President Trump was not always a ‘climate denier’. In December 2009, Trump and three of his children signed a letter to President Barack Obama (the letter was also signed by dozens of business leaders and was published as an ad in the New York Times), calling for a global climate deal:
We support your effort to ensure meaningful and effective measures to control climate change, an immediate challenge facing the United States and the world today. If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet. [Emphasis added].
The day after announcing his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination, Trump appeared on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show (17 June, 2015), where he said that he is “not a believer in man-made” warming, adding:
When I hear Obama saying that climate change is the No. 1 problem, it is just madness.”
And in early December of that year he criticised the Paris climate summit, saying:
While the world is in turmoil and falling apart in so many different ways … our president is worried about global warming. What a ridiculous situation”.
(At the conference, President Obama urged world leaders to agree to an ambitious deal to combat global warming).
During a campaign speech at the end of December Trump said:
So Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and the – a lot of it’s a hoax, it’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, ok?”
In January 2016, after Bernie Sanders had criticised Trump for his earlier suggestion that global warming was a hoax invented by the Chinese, Trump expands on the idea that ‘climate change’ is a “money-making industry”:
I think that climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money …”
And in September, some six or so weeks before the presidential election, but at a time when the contenders are already choosing their “transition teams”, word is leaked that Trump has chosen Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute to head the transition at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ebell had previously accused climate scientists of “manipulating and falsifying the data”.
On the same day, Trump’s campaign manager tells The Huffington Post that Trump “believes [climate change] is naturally occurring and is not all man-made”.
What is the truth?
One of the most quoted percentages of scientists who support the IPCC’s claims is 97.4% – a remarkably precise figure.
We have to ask: 97.4% of what?
It cannot be 97.4% of all the scientists in the world – how could all of them have been canvassed? Perhaps 97.4% of ‘climate scientists’? But there are relatively few of these. Today’s “climate scientists” are primarily biologists and geologists and mathematicians and physicists who happen to have brought their varied scientific training to bear on the issues of weather and climate.
A figure that is not so often quoted (almost never, in fact – suggesting a deliberate suppression of unwelcome data) is that of the 31,487 scientists (more than 9,000 of them with a PhD) who have signed the following petition letter to the US Congress:
We urge the US government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and any other similar proposals.
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other greenhouse gases, is causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and/or the disruption of earth’s climate.
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth”. [Emphasis added]
The signatories support the Global Warming Petition Project. The website explains that:
The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists.”
It should be evident that 31,487 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,029 PhDs – are not “a few.” These scientists are convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.
To the 31,487 signatories of the Global Warming Petition Project we must add the 4000+ scientists (including 72 Nobel Prize winners) who have signed the “Heidelberg Appeal”: an appeal (issued to coincide with the opening of the UN-sponsored Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992) against…
an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress, and impedes economic and social development [and] against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.” [1]
Another document urging caution was circulated among reputable scientists in the wake of the Kyoto Climate Conference. This document is known as the Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change.
The document expressly states the following [emphasis added]:
As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that — contrary to the conventional wisdom — there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, most climate specialists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes (i.e. weather balloons) show no current warming whatsoever — in direct contradiction to computer model results.
Among the signatories of this declaration are scientists from NASA, the Max Planck Institute, one of the former Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, and many members of the American Meteorological Society. These people are not lightweights in the field of science.
Clearly the so-called “consensus of scientists” so often referred to is not a consensus at all. But the many voices of dissenting scientists have been drowned out – at least until recently – by the constant repetition by politicians and the media of the ‘human-caused global warming’ myth, and by biased sources such as Wikipedia, which uses the “climate denier” slur to attack anyone who challenges the official myth.
If the 97.4% figure were correct, one could reasonably assume that the 31,487 scientists who have signed the petition must represent a large part of the 2.6% of scientists who, according to the 97.4% claim, oppose the consensus view. However, that immediately reveals a problem with the calculation.
If 31,487 is 2.6% of the grand total of scientists who must be assumed to have expressed an opinion on the matter … then that grand total is in the order of 1,180,000 scientists.
Did someone really canvass nearly 1.2 million scientists worldwide? There is no evidence of that.
It is, however, known that in 2009 a paper by Professor Peter Doran and graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmermann of the University of Illinois in Chicago was published based on a survey Zimmermann had sent to 10,257 earth scientists, with two questions. Answering the questions was expected to take no more than two minutes:
- When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
- Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
[Note that the second question already presumes what was left open in the first question i.e. change. Note also that the second question is too vague to be scientific …. what does “a significant contributing factor” mean? Is a 1% or 2% contribution “significant”?].
3,146 of the scientists replied (a 30.7% response rate). Of those, 82% answered “yes” to question 2.
Only 77 of the scientists polled identified themselves as “climate scientists”. The student singled out the 75 of them who agreed that human activity was “a significant contributing factor” in changing global temperatures.
Coincidentally, 75 is precisely 97.4% of 77. But 75 out of the original 10,257 is a risible 0.73%!
As might be expected (for example, from its track record of routinely describing any challenge to suspect modern dogmas as “conspiracy theories”), Wikipedia reveals its bias in favour of the establishment’s “global warming” myth by claiming that the Doran and Zimmermann paper shows that “active climate researchers almost unanimously agree that humans have had a significant impact on the Earth’s climate” – when the original wording, as noted above, was that human activity was merely “a significant contributing factor”. Predictably, the article fails to mention the selection process involved – or the vastly higher number of dissenting scientists who signed the petition.
In a 2013 paper published by the Institute of Physic’s IOPScience and cited by NASA, University of Queensland climate communication fellow John Cook also stated that 97 percent of scientists who took a position on global warming agreed that humans were the primary cause. According to
Cook and his co-authors:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW [anthropogenic global warming], 97.1% endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming”.
However, a peer review of Cook’s paper by David Legates (a former state climatologist and professor at the University of Delaware), published in the April 2015 issue of Science and Education, debunked the 97 percent consensus figure.
Legates pointed out that only 41 of the 11,944 academic papers Cook examined in his meta-analysis (0.3%) explicitly stated that most of the global warming since 1950 was caused by human activity:
It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when in the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%”.
Cook’s paper was also criticized by other scientists for what they said was a number of methodological errors. In a book published by the Heartland Institute and entitled Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming, its three authors stated:
Probably the most widely repeated claim in the debate over global warming is that “97% of scientists agree” that climate change is man-made and dangerous. This claim is not only false, but its presence in the debate is an insult to science.”
Despite the general media support for the IPCC’s claims, there have been notable exceptions – as shown by the Mail on Sunday quote with which I began.
More than six years ago, on 13 October, 2012, the same paper published another surprising article with the headline: “Global warming stopped 16 years ago [i.e. around 1996] reveals Met Office report quietly released
… The figures reveal that from the beginning of 1997 … there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures … This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years. […] The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
The article included a graph (see below) which charts the fluctuations in average global temperature between 1997 and 2012. There are peaks and troughs, but the significant finding is that the average global temperature in 2012 (just half a degree above the world average of 14C) was exactly the same as in 1997. That pattern has continued to the present, with warmer and colder years, but no average increase.
graph provided by the Daily Mail in 2012
Even more surprisingly, on 11 December, 2016, another British newspaper – the Sunday Express – published another remarkable article with the startling headline: “World on BRINK of MINI ICE AGE: Fears sparked as solar activity reaches new low. SOLAR ACTIVITY has reached its lowest point since 2011, prompting fears the Sun has reached its solar minimum early.”
The writer explains:
If the Sun has reached its solar minimum early, it could mean we could be in for a prolonged cold period. Images captured by NASA between November 14 and 18 shows that there are barely any sunspots. NASA says that solar activity has dwindled at a much faster rate than expected following a peak in 2014. The Sun follows cycles of roughly 11 years where it reaches the solar maximum and then the solar minimum.”
2014 was a year with record high temperatures. It was touted by the ‘climate change’ lobby as proof of man-made global warming. The Express article may well have puzzled many of its readers since it would have been the first time for many or most of them that global temperature had being linked to sunspot activity and sun cycles. But this was not a new suggestion. In 2002, an issue of the magazine Science included the editors’ “prognostications for next year’s hot research topics. Such as:
What is happening to the world’s store of ice?
What exactly is the sun-climate connection, now that “researchers are grudgingly taking the sun seriously as a factor in climate change” and in “triggering droughts and cold snaps.”
They could have added a whole bunch more, such as: Why is the atmosphere not warming appreciably in contrast to all model predictions? Why the disparity between temperature trends of the atmosphere and surface? What’s happening to CO2?”
Piers Corbyn is the older brother of Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the British Labour Party. He runs a very successful long-range weather forecasting business which has consistently proven to be more accurate than the ‘official’ meteorological offices such as the UK’s Met Office. Corbyn based his predictions on solar cycles and sunspot activity.
He has been challenging the ‘global warming’ swindle since at least 2008. In September of that year he posted an “initial response” to the BBC’s “Climate Wars” programme, in which he stated:
..This ‘Climate Wars’ production is a shameful and desperate effort from the BBC’s ‘green religion department’ to shore up the failing theory of CO2-driven Global Warming and Climate Change….
..The piece – and the Global Warmers camp in general – while pretending to be objective, skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no answers to the mounting evidence which refutes the crumbling Global Warming theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud – but it remains fraud.
The website’s ‘mission statement’ includes the following:
WeatherAction supports True-Green-Policies to defend biodiversity and wildlife and reduce chemical and particulate pollution, and points out that CO2 is not a pollutant, but the ‘Gas of Life’ (plant food).
WeatherAction defends evidence-based science and policy-making. WeatherAction completely supports campaigns for geo-ethical accountability and CLEXIT (Exit from UN Climate Change Deals) and is against data fraud and the political manipulation of data and the so-called ‘scientific’ claims now dominating climate and environmental sciences.
Evidence shows that man-made climate change does not exist and the arguments for it are not based on science, but on data fraud and a conspiracy theory of nature.
If Corbyn and the many thousands of scientists now speaking out about the ‘climate change’ fraud are correct, how and why did a situation come about in which the world was told that it faced an imminent catastrophe if CO2 emissions were not drastically cut?
How many trillions of dollars, pounds, euros etc. have been spent promoting the urgent need to “reduce our carbon footprint”. And why would scientists and politicians lie on such a scale?
The origins of “the great climate fraud” will be examined in a further instalment.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
If Anyone is still reading this article, do they have knowledge of the original court decisions over what occurred? My memory is certain that the scientists and/or UEA were found negligent, but I cannot now find any reference to it. There are lots of subsequent hearings and inquiries that seem to drown out what happened.
CO2 is heavier than air. Thats why people suffocate when those African lakes turn upside down. It cannot be a greenhouse gas.
It should be noted that John Bates has said that he has not accused his colleagues of data manipulation. Also, the Independent Press Standards Organisation ruled that the Mail article was inaccurate and misleading. Later, the Daily Mail, more or less, acknowledged as much. So, putting that story up front wasn’t exactly an auspicious start to the piece. From then on things get even worse. For instance the scientists involved in the ‘climategate’ scandal, (and, yes, the emails were hacked – or stolen, to be precise), were cleared of any wrongdoing by a number of independent investigations from different countries. As for the Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, it is probably the most frequently petition quoted by those who deny the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming. What this “petition” has in spades is largely unverifiable signatures on slips of paper. The Seattle Times reported… Read more »
Your mistake is that you do not seem to understand that it is not the current CO2 from plants, humans, animals etc. causing the problem, because it is simply recycled back into the Earth’s system, as it always has been. The Earths system was in perfect balance.
The problem is the millions of tons of pre-historic CO2 being released from burning fossil fuels by man – CO2 captured from sunlight that last hit planet Earth millions of years ago – and nature cannot keep up with the new rate of re-cycling needed to trap this rush, hence the increase in CO2 levels.
Should be common-sense, really.
Well, well, well. And here I was thinking this site was both left and progressive. How wrong one can be. De-bookmarking oG will give me little more screen space. But how disappointing. Just another bunch of climate-change deniers with specious arguments and no overall vision.
OffG has never denied climate change, but we do publish a variety of opinions on this important topic. We are also aware of the attempts to bully and manipulate people into conforming to the current corporate fake Green agenda. Thanks for your totally spontaneous first contribution here
OK – I mostly agree with you that there is an attempt by big money to manipulate Green issues. However, giving space to assorted climate deniers is not the way to counteract that. As for my “totally spontaneous” contribution – sarcasm is not the way to win converts, and I am not some kind of corporate shill – you can research my comments on various internet sites as ‘Jams O’Donnell.
Re my comments possibly not so easy as I assumed, – but try on Disqus
its a scam to justify am imposed one world dictatorship. Brought to you by the lie masters of the universe.
@Sorry Not Buying It You talk a lot about the scientific method and how you read peer reviewed papers to avoid the oversimplifications of the media; you also accuse me of “scientific gaffs”; but then you say stuff like this that makes me not take you seriously at all: “Though of course the amounts in terms of percentages of the whole atmosphere are very small. 400 parts per million. With such tiny fractions it’s very hard to offer certitude.” As you should know by now, it isn’t the concentration that is important, but the total MASS of carbon in the atmosphere. You’re suggesting that C02 would have the same impact on the environment whether it’s 4ppm or 400ppm, providing the “total mass” remains constant? How exactly do you see that working? [I’m ignoring the repeat ad homs; hope you don’t mind] You also keep talking about “certitude”; then you switch… Read more »
Meanwhile, I’d be curious to see how many AGWers drive vehicles with internal combustion engines (or charge their Teslas with electricity from coal-burning power stations)… and consume on a Western Level of environment-damaging consumption. Personally, I’d be delighted to see private cars banned from most parts of the city, and people like me (who walk, or take public transport, everywhere) given substantial tax breaks. I’d like to see fossil fuels phased out entirely… not because of C02 (regarding which there is no proof of danger, still) but because of all the other direct and corollary toxins, erosions and degradations of Life. I’d like to see us all buying lots less bullshit, and energy-gorged tech, and living simpler lives. We don’t need even a quarter of the plastics or conflict minerals we consume as though they’re birth rights. We don’t need sweatshop clothing or Monsanto-supporting pseudo-foods. Why not focus on the… Read more »
One of the worst examples of the people who acknowledge acceptance that global warming is man made is set by those who spout it whilst driving around in massive gas guzzlers ‘cos they’re cool and wouldn’t dream of wasting their money on eco friendly alternative forms of reducing their carbon footprint when there are so many wonderful ways to spoil themselves on the latest technology or handbag with matching shoes. Their answer when asked whether they should be contributing to lowering that foot print? “Well what can I do, I’m only one person?” or “There aren’t enough of us to make a difference, so why bother?” I can’t tell you in words, just how stupefying such responses are. It’s far worse than being a denier, they at least have good reason to ignore what they consider to be a flawed science. I must look like my elevator doesn’t go all… Read more »
Amen, M! Amen (in a non-Judeo-Christian way, of course)
As a good friend of mine used to say: ‘you poor old atheists’.
Well, I’m a Warmish Lukewarmer. And I ride a bike and put a brick in my toilet tank, and don’t fly anywhere that can be got to by less fuel-extravagant means.
But I am pretty sure the Goldman Sachs and Al Gore breed of alarmists don’t plan to allow any carbon restrictions to apply to them
Excellent, MLS! How would one start applying pressure, do you think, to get some timetable started re: phasing fossil fuels entirely out….? While boosting APPLE-style leaps-and-bounds Solar Energy Tech improvements? Because why quibble over C02 when it’s fossil fuels wreaking terrible ongoing (ramifying) environmental damage with or without AGW?
Sadly I’m not optimistic. Genuine research into renewables is patchy. Scams and get-rich-quick schemes predominate. Only nuclear currently provides a viable large scale replacement for fossil fuels, unless we want to see a massive and potentially civilisation-threatening decay of living standards and infrastructure, and nuclear is a worse potential pollutant than hydrocarbons in many ways.
If the C02 question had not been hijacked by cowboys and opportunists we’d have far more chance of getting a rational deployment of funds for research. The Green movement has been completely played by the clever use of the wrong sort of alarmism into backing stupid and expensive over sensible and cheap.
Thi is why I want to see a realistic understanding of the issues. less panic and more sense.
“Genuine research into renewables is patchy.” Which must be by design; with such a huge potential market, where’s the competition/ innovation….? Squelched by the same forces pushing alarmism, imo: a vicious circle designed to keep things profitable (and under control) for a closed circle of players.
“Squelched by the same forces pushing alarmism, imo” Errrr…no. The “alarmists” are the ones pushing governments to invest in renewables, and have met with real success in Scandinavia (where a far, far greater portion of total energy production is from renewables) and have been stiffled in the US where the government has consistently FAILED to invest in renewables AGAINST the wishes of the very people you blame for this lack (note also in Scandinavia, public opinion and government policy is far more acknowledging of the reality of AGW than in the US). When governments DO invest in renewables, you whine “they’re taking my tax dollars away over a fad!” When private enterprise invests in renewables, you whine “See?! This is proof that AGW is a for-profit scam!” When there’s not ENOUGH investment in renewables you whine “It’s the fault of the alarmists! They just want to keep the profits among… Read more »
“Your misdiagnoses are becoming disgusting.”
Your use of the OTT-propaganda-vocabulary (“disgusting”? why not “despicable” like that other feller? Do you two ever appear in the same comment thread at the same time, btw…?) is becoming blatant. Or, as you might put it, “repulsive” or perhaps “satanic” or “pustulant”…?
Why not stick to “facts” (as you see them) and “logic”? You undermine your case with those rhetorical hissy fits.
“and people like me (who walk, or take public transport, everywhere) given substantial tax breaks” Seriously? You had to smuggle THAT in? You’ve shown the petit-bourgeois content of your outlook on multiple occasions, but this is becoming silly. As for solar energy, it is certainly a very important component of transitioning away from fossil fuels and one that can surely be developed much further, but it’s doubtful that it represents the panacea you make it out to be. It also comes with serious corollary costs having to do with toxins, and is green only in a relative sense. Ultimately, the real solution will come from reorganizing the way that societies consume resources, and that has to do with replacing capitalism with a production and social system based on the fulfillment of human needs rather than endless accumulation. “Any excuses for the ambiguous state of Solar Energy Tech, today, can only… Read more »
Well, Sorry, old chum, your talent for missing the point, spinning things self-servingly and garbling perfectly-logical assertions from your “opponents” will serve you well if you’re looking to make a living as a shill/troll! I won’t fall for the trick of trying to untangle and unpack the mess you’ve made of my perfectly good comments (giving you the opportunity to garble, tangle and obscure even more)… I’ll just wish you well! Your job is to hinder discussion and polarize the debate and make a general mess of the threads and you’re about 30% there! Luckily, the discussion isn’t limited to this thread and you’ve got a helluva big job ahead of you if you want that bonus…! Good luck!
“Well, Sorry, old chum, your talent for missing the point, spinning things self-servingly and garbling perfectly-logical assertions from your “opponents” will serve you well if you’re looking to make a living as a shill/troll! I won’t fall for the trick of trying to untangle and unpack the mess you’ve made of my perfectly good comments (giving you the opportunity to garble, tangle and obscure even more)… I’ll just wish you well! Your job is to hinder discussion and polarize the debate and make a general mess of the threads and you’re about 30% there! Luckily, the discussion isn’t limited to this thread and you’ve got a helluva big job ahead of you if you want that bonus…! Good luck!”
Worthless retort. NONE of that came anywhere close to an argument.
Come back to gum up the rest of the threads, eh? Get to work, Man/Woman! Dangerous amounts of clarity were poking through….!
“As for solar energy, it is certainly a very important component of transitioning away from fossil fuels and one that can surely be developed much further, but it’s doubtful that it represents the panacea you make it out to be. It also comes with serious corollary costs having to do with toxins, and is green only in a relative sense. ” Sounds suspiciously like an argument from the Fossil Fuels industry…. or the Nuclear. There is no source of energy on the planet that comes close, in magnitude, to the energy provided by the Sun itself, though all the fossil fuels on Earth come to us, in the end, via the Sun. The “toxins” associated with producing solar panels with today’s tech is obviously an issue to be addressed with the kind of innovations possible in a field of research that isn’t being sabotaged by the competition. Solar energy comes… Read more »
“Sounds suspiciously like an argument from the Fossil Fuels industry…. or the Nuclear.” Only to someone who thinks in absolutes and who believes in panaceas. “There is no source of energy on the planet that comes close, in magnitude, to the energy provided by the Sun itself, though all the fossil fuels on Earth come to us, in the end, via the Sun.” Irrelevant for two reasons: 1) I was talking about the effects of heavy metal contamination; 2) what matters isn’t the magnitude of the source, but the magnitude of what we can EXTRACT. “The “toxins” associated with producing solar panels with today’s tech is obviously an issue to be addressed with the kind of innovations possible in a field of research that isn’t being sabotaged by the competition. Solar energy comes in a myriad of forms… it isn’t limited to the electricity-generating-panels we know today.” Fair enough; I… Read more »
“You do know that solar energy isn’t the only form of renewable energy, right? We need a series of new technologies, not only solar.” List the ones that make better sense than solar, please. I’m sure wind power/ sea-based turbine can be fine supplements. But what could possibly best Solar? “No, you are. After all, you’re an AGW denier who aligns himself with the same forces making it difficult to bring more renewables online.” Nah, either you’re just not sophisticated enough to catch the nature of the con (the AGW industry, as is, in no way works toward the total replacement of Fossil Fuels) or, yeah… you’re part of the nonsense. Nuclear and Fossil Fuels are both prohibitively and necessarily toxic for very different reasons; Solar is only toxic to the extent that the tech’s development has been stunted (powerful Oil Bastards at work, eh?) for half a century. A… Read more »
I agree almost entirely [em]. The almost [em] refers to the big problem of ‘de-industrialising’ developed economies, and conversely of attempting to prevent ‘undeveloped’ economies from achieving even a modest level of comfort and self-sufficiency. It’s not too difficult for individuals or smaller groups to ‘drop out’ and ‘go green’ (live off the land etc), but for the vast majority in the cities it’s simply impossible. Using only solar energy for heating etc may be possible in Florida and southern Spain, for example, but people in much colder places – like Scotland, where I live, and certainly anywhere much further north – would freeze in the winter without oil or gas (or electricity generated in large power stations). Of course it’s possible to imagine a ‘clean, green’ way of living for everyone on the planet. But getting from here to there – whether it’s ‘undeveloping’ our unsustainable industrialised societies or… Read more »
Paul! The main form of Solar would have to be from satellites in Geosynchronous orbit, probably, sending energy (microwaves? laser?) from the constant high noon of space. Supplemented by the diurnal, cloudless-skies-willing varieties.
Re: moving two-thirds of Humanity. that’s the Evil Eugenicist’s dream. With the will, the conversion from one energy format to the other would be no more implausible than the conversion of farmland-to-super-highways was (or the conversion to Internet Infrastructure). Thirty years? Forty? The major obstacle is the Very Powerful Fossil Fuel Lobby, which is, of course, also “The Government” and The (Petro-Dollar) Economy. Hard to make things happen that THEY are against (whether or not they pretend they’re “for” these things).
I didn’t suggest it wasn’t possible … just that I’m not aware of any detailed study or proposal as to how the transition could be made. The basic requirements are food, water and shelter … sounds simple, but a convincing experiment would need to involve a largish city (minimum 100,000, preferably 2-300,000) – like a massive “Eden Project”. In colder climates, food production would be the biggest problem. I know there are some very clever integrated systems, but they mainly use hydroponics, which I don’t like (though presumably better hydroponically produced food than starvation …). It would have to be a government-funded project – a kind of “Great Leap Forward” (but we know how that turned out …) – possible in a centrally planned state like China. I read today that the Tory government has slapped a huge tax on solar panels. Is this TM following in the footsteps of… Read more »
Well, obviously, initially you’d be gradually phasing Fossil Fuels out while phasing Electric-via-Solar in. It would happen over a period of decades… it wouldn’t be a matter of abruptly starting from scratch, like all the great paradigm shifts in housing, communication, transportation and energy we’ve seen from the 18th century forward.
“… just that I’m not aware of any detailed study or proposal as to how the transition could be made.”
That’s exactly the point: such studies or proposals, if attempted, are only ever undertaken to show how Solar fails… because such a change is the last thing TPTB want. I’m merely saying, overall, that we shouldn’t buy the absurd notion that Solar is still at a relatively primitive stage of development for natural, innocent, inevitable reasons. It has been, and will continue to be, sabotaged, for quite some time. The Empire is based on Oil.
re: ‘de-industrialising’: I’d call it “RE-Industrialising”
My sole contribution to the climate change is this: Does anyone know how much of anthropomorphically caused weather and climate change is due to wars around the planet, especially wars where DU weapons are used and uranium oxide and other chemical compounds (that may trap heat) are released into upper as well as lower atmosphere levels?
Short answer – no.
We just don’t know enough about natural variables to have much idea of what specific manmade activities (if any) will have enough impact on climate to make a perceptible difference. But one thing is for sure war does degrade and pollute our environment dangerously. Though I doubt this will factor largely in the MSM discussion of “climate change”.
“We just don’t know enough about natural variables to have much idea of what specific manmade activities (if any) will have enough impact on climate to make a perceptible difference.”
Not according to science.
I’m very puzzled. In previous comments you have admitted there are huge levels of uncertainty about how the climate works. You have admitted we don’t know the extent C02 acts as a forcer, you have admitted we don’t know the extent solar activity influences climate. You have admitted we don’t know what caused the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Ages. You have admitted we don’t know how much human activity may be responsible for the warming. So, why do you reflexively respond to me when I say exactly the same thing by claiming “science” has all the answers?? How do you rationalise these reflexive rejections of the uncertainty on the one hand with your own acknowledgement of the uncertainty on the other? It’s as if you have been so trained to see uncertainty as an enemy that you have to reject it – even when you also know… Read more »
“I’m very puzzled. In previous comments you have admitted there are huge levels of uncertainty about how the climate works.” You’re puzzled because you don’t pay attention (to me OR to the science. Proof of that is in this statement: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” Such BASIC errors – which you then try to laugh off by introducing other ones – mean that you’re not interested in the science, only in how you can weave together an “argument” to appear contrarian): I said that there are uncertainties about the RANGE of change that is predicted, but that the DIRECTION and overall TREND of these changes holds across the board (and is actually what we see). Each of the scenarios has a probability estimate attached to it,… Read more »
MLS responds to Sorry Not Buying It You’re puzzled because you don’t pay attention (to me OR to the science. Proof of that is in this statement: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” Such BASIC errors – which you then try to laugh off by introducing other ones I did apologise for writing 1.800 as 1800. I don’t remember any other errors being pointed out to me, but I can be a bit vague, so if I’ve forgotten I apologise for those too. I THINK the underlying point is correct though. Water vapour is by far the most potent greenhouse gas. you’re not interested in the science, only in how you can weave together an “argument” to appear contrarian) I am extremely interested in science. In fact… Read more »
“I did apologise for writing 1.800 as 1800.” Please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence. Here’s what you actually wrote: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” That wasn’t a typo, but an instance of ignorance on your part. Why are you now trying to brush it off as a typo, as though you could substitute 1800ppm with 1.800ppm and still maintain the meaning of that sentence? Here, let’s try it: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1.800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly. ” See how that doesn’t make sense? Therefore, you’re lying. ” I THINK the underlying point is correct though. Water vapour is by far the most potent greenhouse gas.” Except… Read more »
Here’s what you actually wrote: “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” That wasn’t a typo, but an instance of ignorance on your part. Why are you now trying to brush it off as a typo, as though you could substitute 1800ppm with 1.800ppm Yes it really is a stupid sentence. I don’t know what else to say. I do know the composition of the atmosphere though, and my real point was the percentage of water vapour which I managed to omit altogether. Therefore, you’re lying. Friend, I have been more than courteous about your many and baffling science gaffs, and I’ve declined to respond in kind to your rudeness. But if you want to continue talking to me please stop insulting me and focus on the far… Read more »
You talk a lot about the scientific method and how you read peer reviewed papers to avoid the oversimplifications of the media; you also accuse me of “scientific gaffs”; but then you say stuff like this that makes me not take you seriously at all: “Though of course the amounts in terms of percentages of the whole atmosphere are very small. 400 parts per million. With such tiny fractions it’s very hard to offer certitude.” As you should know by now, it isn’t the concentration that is important, but the total MASS of carbon in the atmosphere. We’re talking many billions of tonnes. The majority of the atmosphere is nitrogen. You’re offering – sorry to use these word again, but they’re entirely appropriate here – sophomoric, denialist tropes that rest on personally incredulity (“I can’t IMAGINE how such small concentrations could add up to such a large effect. Therefore, they… Read more »
MLS is entirely correct that we (scientists) cannot say anything with certainty about the causes of variations in weather and climate. The 1995 edition of The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference has this to say about “Global Warming”: “There is no real consensus concerning the increase in global temperatures. Some studies have show that the world’s average temperature has risen by 0.5 degrees C since 1600. Other studies have noted a 0.3 degrees C rise in mean surface air temperatures in the past 100 years. It is unknown [em] whether the rise is part of the Earth’s natural climate cycle or a result of the greenhouse gases from human activity. Solid evidence for greenhouse warming has not yet been found, though there is agreement that atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing. But warming is difficult to determine: Natural fluctuations in local climate, and even the world climate,… Read more »
I’m afraid that your information on the Global Warming Petition Project (GWPP) is wrong. The number is repeatedly often because it supposedly counters the actual overwhelming consensus based on 200 years of theory and mountains of data that industrial climate disruption (my preferred term for AGW) is real. And contrary to what you believe, 31,487 is actually a “few” people when you compare it to the number of people who meet the GWPP organizers’ absurdly broad criteria. First, just having a Bachelor’s of Science (or higher) degree doesn’t make one a scientist. Having a degree, working in a scientific field, getting your climate science published in journals, etc. – that’s what makes someone a scientist. The GWPP is a list of doctors, engineers, veterinarians, and other mostly non-scientists who are not climate experts. The number of actual climate experts is probably less than 200. After all, would you expect an… Read more »
thanks for a very useful comment and also the link you provided.
But as a scientist I’m appalled at the use of consensus in place of data. Science doesn’t measure a theory by how many scientists believe it, Science is about data not belief. The data is what it is. And it’s ambiguous. Which is why there are so many shades of opinion. And look at the wording of so many of the “consensus” statements. carefully worded to try and wring agreement from those who don’t agree! One scientists will sign a statement claiming a “significant” human impact on global warming because he feels sure his models demonstrate CAGW is a high probability. Another will sign the same statement because he thinks the evidence is good enough to show a reasonable likelihood of CAGW Another will sign the statement because – while he doesn’t accept the CAGW theory – he still thinks human impact on climate i likely to be large enough… Read more »
MoriaritysLeftSock, consensus has a place in science. It always will, and it should. We don’t have to re-prove the existence of gravity or the wave nature of light before we calculate trajectories of propelled objects or how much a He-Ne laser beam will diffract when it hits a knife edge. There is so much data underlying those positions that they’re accepted as fact. And that’s ultimately what a scientific consensus is – a consensus of opinion based on the mass of underlying data. And at this point, the data is truly overwhelmingly in favor of the reality of industrial climate disruption (my preferred term). I’ve been studying and writing about climate for over a decade, including replicating some of the key papers on my own when something about the math pegged my bullshit detector, and everything I’ve studied says that climate is changing, that greenhouse gases are the culprit, and… Read more »
1) Observation by repeat experiments that establish a given law or theory is NOT the same as “science by consensus.” We all know that 2+2=4. But this is not a “consensus”. We haven’t all agreed to believe this. We all know it, because it is demonstrated to be a fact. Newton’s Laws of thermodynamics can be confirmed by observation. We haven’t just all got together and agreed they’re probably true! Numbers of scientists who believe something is not evidence for it being true. Period. 2) This claim of “overwhelming “ evidence is so often made, and always in abstract. The “overwhelming” evidence is never detailed or defined or sourced. Where is the overwhelming evidence? Where is the research that removes all the numerous ambiguities that were still there last time i checked? Where’s the data on forcing, which proves the current warming is not associated with solar activity? Where’s the… Read more »
First, I’m not a scientist. I’m an electrical engineer who works in aerospace. But I have a masters degree in optics and communications, which combined to give me a decent background in stuff like the physics of IR absorption by the atmosphere and enough statistics (albeit rusty at this point) that I can follow most statistics in climate papers. I will not claim to be an expert, however. We can say 2+2=4 is a fact because that’s math, and 100% certainty with positive proofs are possible in mathematics. But we can’t say that the Laws of Thermodynamics are “facts.” They’re scientific laws, which are merely theories that have been tested thoroughly and found to always be predictive and reproducible under the specific conditions they apply to. But they’re still subject to revision if we learn something new. That happened with Newton’s Laws of Motion when Einstein came along and proposed… Read more »
You asked for evidence, so here you go: Modern warming cannot be due to solar heating because the sun would be heating the stratosphere more than it would be heating the troposphere. Oh please. If only we knew enough to make such pronouncements. The climate is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system remember. Even if we had 2,000 years of good observation data we could not make specific statements such as this. Ask any climate scientist to put his reputation behind that claim. They won’t. The evidence for a correlation between sunspot activity and global climate is very good. The precise way these variations interact with other variations, such as the accumulation of greenhouse gases is an ongoing exploration, and some interesting work is being produced http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Edouglass/papers/PLA_Sun_II_in_press.pdf Anyone who tells you we “know” anything much as yet is a liar or a fool. The exact opposite pattern is observed (tropospheric heating… Read more »
Simple response: there is no “overwhelming scientific consensus on the causes of global warming”. The incessant repetition of a lie does not make it a truth, despite what Goebbels said. There has been no global warming since about 1998. The “hockey stick” was pure invention – in real terms a blatant fraud. Satellite data (the most reliable) contradict both weather station data and computer models (the GIGO phenomenon). The ‘great climate change lie’ is sustained by dishonest scientists and governments and others i.e. by those who stand to gain financially or otherwise from it.
Paul, you’re wrong. Flat. Out. Wrong. First, the hockey stick is present in pretty much all the data that exists – boreholes, stalagmites, ice cores, as well as tree rings. And multiple independent reconstructions, using improved statistics, all show the same thing – the hockey stick is not an artifact of the analysis method, but is embedded in the data itself. As for whether it was a “fraud,” Penn State and the National Science Foundation both investigated those claims after Climategate and both found that claims of fraud were unsubstantiated. Second, satellite data does have greater geographic coverage than surface stations, but most satellite experts disagree that it’s the most reliable. Microwave sounding units used to indirectly measure the temperature of the atmosphere at various altitudes are subject to far more sources of error and bias than surface stations are, and so satellite data is inherently less accurate. The fact… Read more »
The hockey stick is most definitely NOT present across the board. It was a blatant and quasi-fraudulent contrivance by Mann et al, the product of poor methodology and conflating data from different sources. Not only did it controversially omit both the MWP and the LIA, but it used flawed programming that produced hockey stick-shaped spikes even from random data. It’s no longer used as a reference in serious studies.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/
MLS, you are also incorrect about the hockey stick. Even if the original methodology was fatally flawed (and it wasn’t, regardless of what you and others might think), the hockey stick has been replicated using alternative and improved methodologies, additional proxies, and on and on and on. But so you don’t have to take my word for it, here’s links for you:
Boreholes
Huang et al 2008 (look at Figure 2, specifically the spike at the 0 years BP end of the figure) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL034187/full
Pollack and Smerden 2003: http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/smerdon/Pollack_and_Smerdon_Journal.pdf
Stalagmites
Smith 2006: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1329/pdf
Ice cores
Oerlemans et al 2005: http://spordakost.jorfi.is/data/fraedigreinar/Oerlemans_2005_science.pdf
Shrubs
Weijers et al 2013: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stef_Weijers/publication/235341966_Reconstructing_High_Arctic_growing_season_intensity_from_shoot_length_growth_of_a_dwarf_shrub/links/54a7ea3b0cf267bdb90b2ddf.pdf
Alternative methodologies
Barboza et al 2014: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1403.3260.pdf
Marcott et al 2013: https://www2.bc.edu/jeremy-shakun/Marcott%20et%20al.,%202013,%20Science.pdf
Ljungqvist et al 2012: http://www.clim-past.net/8/227/2012/cp-8-227-2012.pdf
Kaufman et al 2009: http://denverclimatestudygroup.com/OTHER-MISC/ArcticCoolingScience200909041236.pdf
The hockey stick is in the data.
WTF Brian? NONE of those links express any support for the Mann et al (1999) Hockey Stick. NONE. Your first link specifically references the “controversy” of Mann et al (1999) IN ORDER TO DISTANCE ITSELF FROM IT. The graphs in this link are NOT Hockey Sticks specifically because they include the MWP and LIA which Mann et al ignored. Your second link DOES NOT REFERENCE THE HOCKEY STICK (Mann et al 1999) AT ALL. It does not even cover the same period as that covered by the Hockey Stick. Why did you link to it? Your third link only briefly mentions the Hockey Stick (Mann et all 1999), and again it draws attention to the fact it was anomalous due to its removal of the MWP and LIA. NONE OF THE GRAPHS AT THIS LINK PORTRAY HOCKEY STICKS. Your fourth link has NO REFERENCE TO THE HOCKEY STICK AT ALL,… Read more »
Did you just get “busted,” Brian? 7 out of 8 times? 7 out of 8 times only because one link failed? And then who would bother following up that failed reference after your previous 7? Unless MLS is the one who purposely misrepresenting your sources. When I have the time, I’ll have a look, too.
Not very good for your “integrity” as a poster of comments if nothing you linked to “proves” what you clearly contended they support, i.e., that contrivance by Mann et al known as the hockey stick.
Excusable if you don’t understand what you are linking to. But it’s called “lying” if you do.
So which is it, Brian? Tell me before I have a look for myself.
Thanks for the links, I investigated all but one of them, which does not work. I recognized several of them and had them already downloaded, but then my laptop crashed and I did not have Word backed up. Lost the lot. Here are the ones that linked: 3 Science 325, 1236 (2009); Darrell S. Kaufman, et al. Cooling Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Clim. Past, 8, 227–249, 2012 http://www.clim-past.net/8/227/2012/ doi:10.5194/cp-8-227-2012 © Author(s) 2012. CC Attribution 3.0 License. Climate of the Past Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries The Annals of Applied Statistics 2014, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1966–2001 DOI: 10.1214/14-AOAS785 c Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 2014 RECONSTRUCTING PAST TEMPERATURES FROM NATURAL PROXIES AND ESTIMATED CLIMATE FORCINGS USING SHORT- AND LONG-MEMORY MODELS By Luis Barboza∗,1 , Bo Li†,2 , Martin P. Tingley‡,§,3 and Frederi G. Viens¶,4 Universidad de Costa Rica∗ , University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign† , Pennsylvania… Read more »
None of his links support his claim. I took the trouble to explore them all. His claim the hockey stick is still valid is not sustainable, because it has been abandoned by all serious climate scientists after the faulty maths was exposed. I don’t say this as an opponent of AGW. I”m NOT, as I apparently have to keep repeating, an opponent of AGW. I’m an opponent of bad science and bogus claims. It’s so frustrating to read non-scientists who can’t tell the difference between good science and snake oil airily claim that anyone who questions any part of the AGW mythos – even those parts that are now officially rejected by all sides – are peddling nonsense. The nonsense in this case is the claim the Hockey Stick is still regarded as valid. It patently and demonstrably is NOT, and that much is proved by reading Brian’s own links!… Read more »
I “liked” your comment, for reasons I have already given in an earlier comment. I don’t think you’ll get anywhere with “facts” and “truths” with certain people on this subject, it would appear that lies and misrepresentations have replaced honest responses to genuine queries, but I wish you luck. The problem, as you have pointed out, is that much of the strategy these days in denying the man made GW theory is the promulgating of generalizations based on one aspect only and even within this deceit, there are the “omissions” either deliberate or just not taken into account, even though no correlation is possible on such threadbare argument. but it does win grants and attract prestige if it sits on the right side of the fence. I know this because I have been obliged to point out the egregious nature of such research, based entirely on refuting only one element… Read more »
Forgive me but you seem stuck in a version of reality that is now about twenty years out of date. I have friends on both sides of this debate. And I know who gets the big bucks and the TV exposure. It really isn’t any longer the denialists. There is far more money to be made in conducting a study that promotes climate alarmism than in promoting climate “denialism”. This is a simple fact. I don’t suggest this should not be the case, I happen to support the general hypothesis of AGW, and the alarmist interpretations of feedback need to be explored. But it’s simply untrue that alarmism is a poor, underfunded and overlooked discipline. On the contrary it’s worth millions of dollars in grant funds and attracts some of the most prestigious sponsors. If you want to feel overlooked, try getting a mainstream media station in Europe to fund… Read more »
MLS: “And do please try to get beyond the idea this is a bogus debate with idiot an shills one one side and heroes on the other. It;s silly and frankly insulting to the many good people who work in this area.” I have already stated that several times had you been reading the comments and not entirely locked in your own argument. Your comment and insulting attack is rather redundant given your current investment in this debate. I will repeat again what I made clear earlier, there are people on this site currently lying(or presenting argument without context) in order to promote their side of the argument and that makes a mockery of “debate”. The man made GW side may have delivered lies when they promoted their theory (Al Gore certainly misrepresented certain facts)but the deniers are no better when they do the same. If you can’t get your… Read more »
People lie. That isn’t an excuse for refusing to listen to both sides of a debate.
What lies are being spread on this forum? What truths do you see being concealed?
Let’s discuss the state of the data and not hide behind generalised arguments for failing to engage
I don’t buy this. Why are Polar ice caps melting in front of our eyes, extinction of species, soil erosion, sea levels rising, extreme weather events: bushfires, floods, etc… Yes we’ve always had floods and fire …
Maybe this will say it better than me. https://grist.org/series/skeptics/
New paper finds that Arctic sea ice is modulated by solar activity:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indicates-there-is-more-arctic-sea-ice-now-than-for-nearly-all-of-the-last-10000-years/
No it doesn’t-faked ‘pseudo-science’. So the OFFGuarian is now the On Daily Mail. Unbelievable!
My thanks to those who took the trouble to answer my earlier questions. I think the resulting conversations were helpful. I have a couple of new questions. 1) How do current temperatures compare to a) the Medieval Warm Period (now renamed the “Medieval Climate Anomaly”) b)the Little Ice Age c) most of geological history (viz – are we currently above or be;ow average) 2) What caused the Medieval Warm Period a) solar activity b) increased CO2 c) we don’t know 3) Is the relation between climate fluctuation and CO2 levels a) a good observation of correlation with some accompanying physics to suggest causation b) a debatable observation of correlation with some debatable physics to suggest causation c) completely proven to be causation 4) Is the relation between climate fluctuation and solar activity a) a good observation of correlation with some accompanying physics to suggest causation b) a debatable observation of… Read more »
Well done MLS. Now we are entering the real debate, but be warned, there are very few absolutes in a science that can only be, at best, well intentioned and at it’s worst, deliberately misleading, but you are at least doing the right thing by asking questions. Although I choose to believe in the man made GW theory, it in itself can never prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is factually correct in it’s analysis and sometimes the answers leave you with even more questions. I know, I chased the subject matter down for many years and still am no closer to being able to state without reservation that the MMGW is beyond question the whole truth and nothing but. Keep asking questions – always.
Great series of questions, yet again. And none can really be answered without some serious investigation of the scientific literature. And I believe each question raises ‘contentious issues’ within various branches of specialization within the overall field of climatology and much else besides. To take but one of the issues you raise: climate fluctuation and solar activity, which cannot be sorted out without tapping the expertise of specialists in solar physics, astronomy, geology, paleontology, ecology, and the list goes on, and on. . . To answer these questions, in my estimation, will require years of diligent research on my part, either that or access to someone with credentials or an experience equivalent to that of a Phd. in climate science, and who has done his or her best to dispassionately distill the mass of conflicting data from each of the relevant specialized fields of study down to a series of… Read more »
Seriously don’t like the way Admin & Catte interact with website, I’ve never come across it before. LOL even in their ijon70 got it right & I agree with them; “Sorry, I have neither time nor patience for dealing with crap. You either stick to “because facts should be sacred”, or publish provably false, completely unverified nonsense like the above. Can’t have the cake and eat it. I could spend hours dissecting every sentence of this bullshit and showing why it’s wrong, as I have done on occasions, but there comes a time when you just accept that someone is wrong on the Internet. It’s just that I don’t need to waste time reading stuff coming from a source that assumes the posture of moral superiority only then to prove that for the sake of stoking an argument it will sacrifice fundamental journalistic integrity.” and “OK, that was a brief… Read more »
As we said last time you made the (exact) same suggestion, we are talking to climate scientists and a couple of them are indeed posting in the comments.
Goodbye and thank you for your contribution.
One last link before I go which I think is really good to take a look at, http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
Take care & Adios
Exactly! Sapere aude is, of course, a fake name, for Monckhausen by the look of this vile, omnicidal, pile of excrement. Every dirty denialist lie, regurgitated in the name of-cheques from the fossil fuel industry? Hatred of future generations? Utterly, utterly, despicable.
I fear you are not well sir.
I fear he’s (or she’s) just an actor; no one can be that unrelentingly (cartoonishly) OTT, from start to finish, can he/she? An actor and sock puppet of another avatar already participating in the threads, I suspect. Someone among the AGWs was feeling impatient with merely sticking to the AGW talking points…?
Just saw an apt cartoon – What if it’s a hoax and we create a better world for nothing – haha
That’s assuming that the world we would make as a result of “climate action” would be quantifiably better. Can we take that for granted?
Agreed – it all depends on who is driving the direction and this particular subject is entrenched in BIG money. Any change in direction taken too quickly at the moment could have just as many negative ramifications as positive as there are so many people, businesses and governments who are so deep in the present shape of things (one example, car sales – changing to electric could destroy billions in existing stock). There are thousands of things that change would effect but it will come, so be prepared for it.
Obviously you are either ignorant of how dire our situation is, or are a denialist pretending to accept reality. Unless we TOTALLY decarbonise as fast as possible, catastrophic climate destabilisation will wipe us out by 2050. Going slowly because some capitalist might be annoyed is a recipe for mass suicide, or, more correctly, mass homicide.
This is when politics overtakes science – I never said go slow, I said going too fast will have ramifications, so being aware you can plan against the negative. It is not just a few capitalists who would be effected, it is everyone as this subject is so much a part of the fabric of our society. It needs governments to actually take control but as the capitalists own those governments, I don’t see what is necessary to happen, happening. In all my other posts here I have said as such. 2045 is what I have read for all the graphs to intersect and the world is no longer able to be a good habitat for the human race, but no-one in power is listening so all I can do is point in the correct direction.
What if all the conspiracy theories are one big conspiracy to distract everyone.
“What if all the conspiracy theories are one big conspiracy to distract everyone.” You mean what if Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin, Enron, Iran Contra, the Madoff/Goldman Sachs episode, BCCI Bank Scandal, Teapot Dome and the Black Sox Scandal, et al, had never happened…? Erm, what’s your point? Something to do with Time-travel? Those and thousands of other conspiracies happened, and the various “conspiracy theories” associated with each (nb: even the “mainstream” and/or false, Gov-supported, conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, Boston and 7/7, and so forth, are conspiracy theories) were either accurate in the first instance or not. You might just as well ask, “What if Geology is one big conspiracy to distract everyone?” Perhaps you’re so acculturated to the Cointelpro function of the term “conspiracy theory,” as a debate-stopping pejorative (like “Commie” or “Libtard”), that you no longer understand the meaning of the term in plain English. “Conspiracy,” in the sense… Read more »
ESSENTIAL READING from a scientist and teacher about how Big Science is often used as a tool of deception, profit and control:
http://activistteacher.blogspot.de/2010/06/some-big-lies-of-science.html
Maybe he should have stuck to teaching his students physics like he was paid to do & then refrained from calling a colleague a “house negro” & he wouldn’t have been dragged through court over a racist slur & end up in debt for over $1million dollars.
Rancourt is a radical in the classic (late-’60s) sense and radicals often suffer difficulties within the context of the mainstream institutions people like you appear to rely on for a sense of the Normal. Rancourt’s use of the term “house Negro” was justified (if a little risky) and his greatest “crime” was teaching his students to learn to think. And, btw, shouldn’t you be leaving harmless comments over at The Guardian instead of flailing around over here, out of your depth?
Essential reading.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
It seems obvious to me that the use of the word “denier” to describe anyone who is not full retard on the Catastrophic AGW bandwagon is a deliberate rhetorical device to conflate such people with “Holocaust denial”.
And we all know that’s beyond the pale, right? Clever psychology.
Except that basically makes it an ad hominem, which means they don’t have an argument.
I said “Essential reading” & provided a link about the dark money. Someone has investigated the dark money funding climate change contrarians, where’s the “they don’t have an argument” in that.
Actually, calling the rabble of knowing liars and disinformers and moronic dupes ‘denialists’ is utterly apt. The Holocaust that anthropogenic climate destabilisation will cause will kill orders of magnitude more people than all the victims of the Nazis. And these are victims who might yet be saved, but the climate destabilisation denialists are doing their vile worst to ensure that they are NOT saved. Moreover the truth of anthropogenic climate destabilisation and the details are better understood than the facts of the Nazi Holocaust. You are WORSE than Nazi Holocaust deniers.
Looks like a few quid of that dark money has found a home at OffGuardian.
Margaret Thatcher’s role in the genesis of the great global warming scare:
https://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Hmmm, I got a “your connection us not private” warning when I clicked the link…!
I didn’t follow the link, either, although it’s probably safe to do so if you don’t enter any information at that site, and then again even doing so would probably not result in any difficulty. Better safe than sorry, I guess. But to address the issue of Margret Thatcher and the very real role that she played (and why) in raising AGW as an “urgent international issue” to be raised sort of runs along this line (and I think it is a line that is very plausible): Mrs Thatcher is now often considered to have been a great UK politician: she gave her political party (the Conservative Party) victory in three General Elections, resided over the UK’s conduct of the Falklands War, replaced much of the UK’s Welfare State with monetarist economics, and privatised most of the UK’s nationalised industries. But she had yet to gain that reputation when she… Read more »
Great, N!
Was exactly the same text. Not sure what is going on with the dodgy SSL certificate. Use one of Norm’s links instead.
And now I notice that the second link I provided, which should direct to John Daly’s blog doesn’t work. And that is why, when I find what to my mind is an interesting piece of info., I copy and paste albeit ensuring that links to the place of origin are prominently displayed. That way I always have the article, whatever may happen to it elsewhere.
But yes, that is a good piece of analysis by Courtney. Glad you reminded me of it.
Mrs. T was already planning a way of cutting off the subsidies our coal mining industries were getting – because they weren’t making any money and she had a landslide victory because the coal industry was the root cause of the crippling strike action with everyone and his uncle coming out on strike. There was criminal bodily harm taking hold, so she took hold of the reins. The global warming argument was just the excuse she needed to pull the plug, so she always had a vested interest in promoting GW as man made. Nothing she said at that time must be taken out of the real context of her agenda. I certainly wouldn’t want her on my side if I wanted any credibility.
A truly moronic ‘argument’. Two hundreds years of science and observation, plus the total concurrence of ALL the Academies of Science of the planet, negated by a puerile argument based on Thatcher’s desire to destroy the coal mining unions in the UK. Are you really this stupid?
As a proponent of man made global warming I find it irksome that someone like you with your insulting and arrogant deliberate attempts to belittle others for their beliefs, are on the same side as me on the matter in question. You are a dazzling example of the wrong kind of support the subject needs. Please decide to become a denier, it would help our cause immeasurably to be without you as the voice of reason.
The best thing that can happen if the global warming people are correct and we act is that we save the world. The worst thing that can happen if YOU guys are wrong and we don’t take action is social and ecological disaster. But it seems that all too many people are banking everything on whether we can be “certain” before they’ll get behind taking action. It’s the equivalent of facing a loading gun, but rather than moving your head out of the way you instead postpone doing so pending more “confirmation” even though you’ve already determined a 95% probability that there is a bullet in in the chamber. It’s weird that so many people are willing to play Russian roulette with civilization just to get back at “the establishment”.
“It’s the equivalent of facing a loading gun…” Inaccurate analogy. It’s much closer to facing a guy who says he has a gun in his pocket, and if you don’t sign this, and this, and that legal document, things could get nasty. If there were a referendum on curtailing industrial development in the already-over-developed West, I’d vote on it tomorrow. If there were a binding referendum on clean air and clean water that would mean fewer conveniences and higher prices but a greener, quieter world: they’d get my vote in a heartbeat. Legislation to strictly monitor and control biotech monsters like Monsanto: all for it. Abolish private autos in “urban zones”: yes! Tax the hell out of fossil fuels and finance the solar energy tech they’ve been deliberately retarding for 70 years? Fuck yes. But what they want, instead, is for the world to enter into a scheme of arcane… Read more »
“Inaccurate analogy. It’s much closer to facing a guy who says he has a gun in his pocket, and if you don’t sign this, and this, and that legal document, things could get nasty.” I got it right the first time. Climate change scientists don’t have the power to threaten governments and people, so it’s your analogy that fails. “But what they want, instead, is for the world to enter into a scheme of arcane fiddles, mumbo-jumbo and heavy-hitter-favoring-loopholes involving a kind of Wall Street for “Carbon Credits” and unknown powers of control and enforcement (I’ve mentioned before that it’s not hard to imagine the “Humanitarian Interventions” of 2025 being supposedly environmental in nature)…” Like I said before, you got the last part comically backwards. It’s countries who would protect their environments against the encroachment of Western capital that are likely to be under the gun of military intervention. As… Read more »
“I got it right the first time. Climate change scientists don’t have the power to threaten governments and people, so it’s your analogy that fails.” We’re being threatened with supposed “extinction”, no? The Boogieman, in this case, is nothing short of Apocalypse. But there is no proof that it’s more than a scary story designed to elicit the desired response (hysteria). Anyway, all the rest of your responses are written from the perspective of someone who believes (but does not know) that the science is settled on this matter; it’s precisely like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness: fun up to a point. Then the circular logic becomes tiresome. Neither of us has proof; we aren’t scientists; no one is in possession of equipment up to the task of measuring the supposed effects you’re alarmed about and I’ve shown your Faith has a serious down side. That’s all any logical commenter… Read more »
At least here, StAug, you drop the pretense and show yourself as simply another fanatic denialist. In fact anthropogenic climate destabilisation is proceeding far faster than the most pessimistic IPCC Reports, and will, if creatures like you continue to win, cause human extinction and that of most higher life on Earth, this century. Whether you are just a liar, or a Rightwing ideologically-driven moron, is irrelevant-you are an enemy of Life on Earth.
“you are an enemy of Life on Earth”
Hilarious! No hyperbole there, eh? Am I dealing with the B Team now? Do go on…
“you are an enemy of Life on Earth.” Whose life? The Syrians, Iraqis, Libyans, Serbians, Donbass ethnics? Or are we talking Orangs, gorillas, snow leopards? Climate deniers are not necessarily the enemy of Life on Earth, unless they have been actively promoting the many wars that certain “civilized” cultures of the larger economies, who by the way, are the ones who contributed the most to global warming, if we accept that it is man made. Whilst I acknowledge the man made science as having merit, I do not “KNOW” that they are, without doubt, correct. Do you expend as much vituperation in denouncing the 1% money hoarding or the constant warmongering by the “civilized” Atlanticists? I haven’t noticed you on any sites where life and death in war torn countries is being discussed, so you obviously do not consider the lives of those who are living now as important as… Read more »
“We’re being threatened with supposed “extinction”, no?” Please don’t twist words. You know exactly what I’m talking about. “The Boogieman, in this case, is nothing short of Apocalypse. But there is no proof that it’s more than a scary story designed to elicit the desired response (hysteria). Anyway, all the rest of your responses are written from the perspective of someone who believes (but does not know) that the science is settled on this matter; it’s precisely like arguing with a Jehovah’s Witness: fun up to a point. Then the circular logic becomes tiresome.” Translation: you have nothing to counter what I’ve actually said. Just accuse me of having “faith” and then walk away. “Neither of us has proof; we aren’t scientists; no one is in possession of equipment up to the task of measuring the supposed effects you’re alarmed about and I’ve shown your Faith has a serious down… Read more »
Dude, I missed you! Your bumbling team member (“Mulga Borat”, I think; intern?) was making a total mess of it! So, where were we? Ah, yes: your unfounded certainties. Your unwillingness to admit that all you “know” about the topic is what you read from partisan, non-objective (deeply vested) sources… like all the rest of us. Lovely. Feel free to pile more passionate opinions atop the stack we’ve already amassed. It will neither help nor hurt but you’ll enjoy venting a bit more, I’m sure.
I’m sorry that you have such a religious aversion to Earth systems science and mistake it for “partisan, non-objective sources”. Truly, I am. In any case, you’re still holding an empty bag. That can’t be laid at my door, unfortunately, regardless of whether you choose to childishly skulk around and designate people as “Borat”.
“Earth systems science” of which you are a leading Scientist, right, Sorry? Or are you just a punter with an opinion like the rest of us? Laugh
We GET IT, StAug: you neither know nor believe anything, and are committed to keeping the world proletariat in the capitalist death-trap with your perpetual pessimism and proud agnosticism about everything. Earth systems scientists are themselves mere “punters” in your book.
I find the denialist lie that they accept the truth of anthropogenic climate destabilisation, but oppose any concrete action to prevent it because the financial parasites are hovering, looking for opportunities to suck blood, utterly unconvincing. We have to do something, anything, everything, or we are history.
The 1% “own” this planet including commerce, government, military, science etc. etc. How can we make any kind of decision on the way forward, when a) we cannot decide whether the science is even accurate, b) that governments, owned by the 1% will deploy fair and just practice in committing to a resolution of a problem that many perceive does not even exist – because the science is overly confusing, c) that it is worth the price that must be paid, usually by those who have the least and d) if we cannot even control the incessant attacks(wars) against those countries who stand in the way of the 1%’s who in their pursuit of their own agenda pay no heed to the carnage they leave behind. Please also note, that vast swathes of the population on this planet have a vested interest in a future, but are not, generally, the… Read more »
There is no loaded gun. There is no global warming. In fact, we are apparently heading into a significantly cooler period. But industrial civilisation has done and is continuing to do immense harm to the planet and to its ‘life-support’ systems (especially clean air and water). It has also brought immense benefits. Just about everything we tend to take for granted in our lives is a result of advanced technology and engineering. Try living in a mud hut somewhere where you have to spend three hours a day getting water and looking for wood to cook whatever meagre food you have. Actually, even people as poor as that are often doing terrible harm to their environment by cutting down the trees. It’s not an either:or situation. We should be taking much greater care with the natural resources of the earth. But we should be doing it for the right reasons… Read more »
Paul’s is a really slimy, but familiar, denialist trope. Deny the greatest of all ecological disasters, and PRETEND to be more concerned about lesser, if still dreadful, ecological crises. A despicable, but as I said, well-known, denialist canard.
“There is no loaded gun. There is no global warming. In fact, we are apparently heading into a significantly cooler period. ”
Errr…no. We’re not “apparently” heading into a cooler period.
I’d like to pose a couple of questions to those here who believe the theory of man-made global warming is “settled science” (and no I am not a “denier, “ I am, if anything, a warmish lukewarmer). 1)Do you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing? Do you – for example – believe we know what caused the Medieval Warm Period, or the numerous Ice Ages? 2)To be able to know this we would need to have sufficient data on every other force that influenced climates in the past so that we could exclude all of it. Do you know where this data is and how we acquired it? 3)Do you have any idea how many other potential climate-forcers there are? Do you have data on why none of these are relevant? 4)Do you understand why the current warming… Read more »
Finally, a category into which I can finally pigeonhole myself with respect to the whole AGW thing: “warmish-lukewarmer-ism.” Thank you for sorting out that part of my identity. I was lost, but now I am found.
Good questions, by the way.
And lo and behold – none of the loudest voices here has even tried to answer my little questions!
Please- everyone who has posted here about how the data is beyond all doubt and only idiots could not realise this – answer my questions. You know about the science, right? You read all the research papers, didn’t you?
You didn’t just read a few headlines and jump on a bandwagon…did you?
“You didn’t just read a few headlines and jump on a bandwagon…did you?”
Your sophomoric statements make it seem that this is perhaps what you’ve been doing, what with your claims about how “only” CO2 is a significant factor for climate modelers.
“1)Do you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing?” Who told you that only carbon forcing is meant to be significant? CO2 isn’t even the most potent greenhouse gas; the importance of CO2 is that it’s building up in the atmosphere and that it’s indeed a greenhouse gas. But there are other gases that humans are also emitting. CO2, however, seems to be the overall most important one. “3)Do you have any idea how many other potential climate-forcers there are? Do you have data on why none of these are relevant?” Who said they’re “not relevant”? Some climate forces are acknowledged as negative forcers. This doesn’t mean that the overall trend and direction of change is still in the positive forcing side of the equation. “4)Do you understand why the current warming is predicted to be catastrophic? Do you… Read more »
Who told you that only carbon forcing is meant to be significant? I believe it was in a previous comment, someone said that all natural forcers had been eliminated as a potential cause for current warming, and that therefore only manmade C02 could possibly be causing it. It’s a fairly oft-repeated claim among lay alarmists. CO2 isn’t even the most potent greenhouse gas; Yes I know, which is why I don’t think the case for manmade warming has yet been proven. What surprises me is that you know this and still believe the case is proven. the importance of CO2 is that it’s building up in the atmosphere and that it’s indeed a greenhouse gas. But there are other gases that humans are also emitting. CO2, however, seems to be the overall most important one. Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is… Read more »
You wouldn’t have that problem if you paid attention to your units.
Methane is measured in ppb not ppm.
Oh dear. Well that’s a garbled sentence all right. Should say “and methane is 1.800ppm and water vapour is around 10,000ppm….”
Water vapor isn’t technically a forcer, because it relies on other factors to get it going and is very sensitive to these other factors. What it does do is to magnify what the forcers are already doing.
“I believe it was in a previous comment, someone said that all natural forcers had been eliminated as a potential cause for current warming, and that therefore only manmade C02 could possibly be causing it. It’s a fairly oft-repeated claim among lay alarmists.” But not non-lay alarmists? Because that’s what we’re talking about here: what do the data actually show and have the scientists gotten it right? Or aren’t we talking about that? “Given that C02 is only 400ppm and methane is 1800ppm the idea that C02 is the most potent greenhouse gas is counter-intutive and needs to be established pretty firmly.” The concentration of atmospheric methane is 1,800 parts per billion, not million. Therefore, it’s 1.8 parts per million, compared to 400 ppm for CO2. “What does this statement mean? I can’t find anything in it that applies rationally to anything I aid or any of the science behind… Read more »
I appreciate the argument, but – going with this 5% risk for the moment – don’t we need to discuss how much the world should do to avoid something that has a 95% chance of not happening? Should we at least understand what the risk/benefit ratio is before signing off on this? Aren’t you worried these “precautions” could become just another avenue of exploitation by the 1%?
I can assure you with some degree of certainty that the 1% have already capitalized on the disparate ramifications of this debate. I really don’t think it would matter whether the man made GW “truthers” had got it right or the alternate “truthers” could prove their case. The 1% will always be one step ahead of the rest of us. I made a comment earlier whereby I explained that many of those who were advocating the man made argument whilst buying up and otherwise acquiring Africa’s rich coal reserves, which makes them a liability in every sense. I don’t know with any degree of certainty that man is responsible for the current GW situation, with the poorer countries struggling to find the means of “catching up” with the rest of the world, unless their was a consensus to support such countries with vast funding(which is never going to happen)I couldn’t… Read more »
@ Catte I agre with u 1 million % The Climate change debate has been manipulated by and for the anglo-zionist oligarchs. Look at their proposals CARBON TAX and floating it on the stock exchange. Weather and Climate change totally different things. The facts that the polar caps r melting is scientific evidence and this alone is effecting the weather patterns thru out the world. The other angle is what most third world leaders have been arguing for at least since the 80’s that the anglo-zionist r using and formulating arguments with regards to climate change in order to hamper third world development and guarantee the western WASP exceptionalism stays supreme.
“The Climate change debate has been manipulated by and for the anglo-zionist oligarchs. Look at their proposals CARBON TAX and floating it on the stock exchange.” By this exact same logic, climate denial is manipulated by and for the “Anglo-Zionist oligarchs” (use the proper term, please: capitalists), since the fossil fuel industry has invested heavily in spreading denialist claims. It should be clear that whether or not a phenomenon is taking place is entirely independent of how capitalists interests take advantage of a debate. Capitalist interests are investing in solar energy; they’re also investing in fossil fuels. Furthermore, capitalist states have been dragging their feet for decades about taking serious action towards climate change, and conservative administrations have have tried to suppress the possibility of such action. Your stance is therefore hyper-reactionary Jew-baiting one that reduces world events to the machinations of “Zionists”, thus obstructing the structural and historical processes… Read more »
“I appreciate the argument, but – going with this 5% risk for the moment – don’t we need to discuss how much the world should do to avoid something that has a 95% chance of not happening? Should we at least understand what the risk/benefit ratio is before signing off on this? Aren’t you worried these “precautions” could become just another avenue of exploitation by the 1%?” Yes, I am. That’s why I advocate for revolution, not just reform of the exploitative capitalist dictatorship. As long as capitalism is maintained, the “1%” will find avenues for exploitation regardless of whether we do anything substantive about anthropogenic climate change. We have to get rid of this system to close of ALL avenues of exploitation, without exception. There’s GOING to be massive disruption, one way or the other; it’s up the international working class to decide who gets most disrupted: the world’s… Read more »
Good God, Moriarty-you are a moron, or deliberately appealing to ignorant morons. The argument that CO2 is ‘only’ 400 ppm and therefore unimportant, is cretinous. Anyone awake during high school science lessons knows how stupid this canard is.
Response to your questions: 1) Yes and yes 2) Yes. You need to read the climate modelling literature. Admittedly that is not an easy task as it spans hundred of highly technical papers published over many decades. But it exists 3) The error of the models so far has all been mostly on the side of being too conservative and the newly discovered components of the system have mostly made things worse. For example, nobody predicted such drastic warming of the Arctic and such a rapid collapse of sea ice in the Northern hemisphere. As another example, ice sheet dynamics is modeled quite crudely (because it’s very complex) and with assumptions that do not match the known historical rates of melting from the end of the last Ice Age. 4) Because it will lead to massive worldwide famine (quite some time before it lead to an inundation of coastal cities).… Read more »
My responses to GM’s replies… 1) Yes and yes So, “yes you believe we know enough about how climate works to positively exclude all other sources of warming beside carbon-forcing? And yes, you believe we know what caused the Medieval Warm Period, or the numerous Ice Ages?” That’s very interesting. Can you tell me where you found this information? And – most importantly – what did cause the MWP and the ice age? The last I talked to my climatologist friends there were still nothing but competing theories about that. If it’s finally been solved they’d love to know. So would the IPCC, who also seem to think we are still in the theory stage there. 2) Yes. You need to read the climate modelling literature. Admittedly that is not an easy task as it spans hundred of highly technical papers published over many decades. But it exists. So you… Read more »
Moriarty, your ‘…my climatologist friends’ is pure, unadulterated, confabulation. Only the really lowest denialist pretend that they know ‘climate scientists’ who blow the whistle on the Great Climate Change Conspiracy. What a vile creature you are.
I am not a climate scientist but I have some understanding of science. I cannot answer all of your questions but I have some observations that I would like to make. Is it possible that the medieval warming was caused by the rapid industrial development of both China and India that took place at that time and the massive clearing of forests to make rice paddies that also took place at the same time? The Chinese were certainly producing enormous quatities of porcelain that must have taken really massive quantities of wood to provide the very high temperatures required while the Indians and also the Arabs were developing an iron and steel industry that likewise must have used a lot of wood. At the same time as both countries were cutting down trees they were both making huge rice paddies out of what had been forest. Rice paddies produce large… Read more »
Is it possible that the medieval warming was caused by the rapid industrial development of both China and India that took place at that time and the massive clearing of forests to make rice paddies that also took place at the same time? Well since we have almost no data for what caused the MWP it has to be possible it was somehow caused by human activity. But that’s the point – there’s no data to substantiate whether the current warming is due to human activity either. We an see from observation that the earth’s climate is in constant flux, following cycles of warming and cooling over decades, centuries and millennia that we barely understand. These cycles overlap and mesh like cogs in a machine. Given this the probability has to be quite high that the current warming is following one of these cycles – probably a continuation of the… Read more »
Fair and balanced response to MLS which suggests you have a methodical approach to information. It’s a shame that more scientists don’t follow your example.
Mohander, your boot-licking groveling to Moriarty is nauseating. That you prefer his truly ignorant lies and distortions to the science of climate destabilisation, elicited by real scientists and peer-reviewed in real journals, shows you to be an ignorant idiot.
Your cheap and demeaning insults are an offence perpetrated in the belief that you are able to repudiate ALL the deniers claims. The science that Global Warming is man made is something I believe in, but unlike you, I am aware that the current available studies do not prove conclusively that the assumptions adopted are based on absolutes, neither side of the debate can make that claim. It is your kind of insulting ignorance that makes life for those of us promoting man made global warming that much more difficult. Do the planet a favour and go play with the traffic on a four lane highway and please stop trying to hinder constructive debate, you are nothing more than a bombastic liability.
Cut the specious verbiage, Mohander. You’re the plainest denialist, denying that he is one, and covering his trail with nonsense. There is no even near equivalence between denialism and the mountain of climate science research and the mounting evidence from reality. ‘Absolutes’ are not required, you fool-just probabilities, and the probability of Near Term Human Extinction caused by anthropogenic climate destabilisation grows by the day, thanks to swine like you.
Moriarty, EVERY one of your points has been investigated and explained, more and more completely, since climate science began about 200 years ago with Fourier and Tyndall. If you really are so ignorant as not to know the details of the science, then perhaps you’d be better off at the Daily Mail or some similar dung-heap. If, however, as I suspect, you are just a denialist disinformer, then you are quite a nasty specimen.
Here is something that I think anyone who is not a professional in a particular field of scientific research, whatever it may be, and even if one happens to be a professional in a given field of science, should keep in mind, because it places an emphasis on a “fact” that tends to be elided and forgotten but that has enormous implications for the manner in which any scientific consensus, in our capitalist context, becomes THE consensus — I’m quoting in full the epilogue to a study by Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein and David Rasnick, and titled, “The chemical bases of the various AIDS epidemics: recreational drugs, anti-viral chemotherapy and malnutrition,” an “epilogue” that might well have justifiably been titled, “What’s Wrong with the ‘Peer-review System,’ Anyway ? Quote begins: Epilogue 5.1 Why is AIDS research not free to investigate non-HIV hypotheses? The probable answer to the question, why HIV-AIDS… Read more »
I don’t know where you find these gems, but this one in particular could either nullify every claim by both sides of the man made climate debate or elevate them to their own perceived lofty heights. Cracking up with this one.
Indeed, you are quite correct. But the upshot is that Duesberg et al. highlight exactly what is currently the state of the “peer review” vetting process in pretty much the entire field of scientific research, excepting, perhaps, the fields of engineering proper.
Exactly, so the Peer Review System needs to be overhauled and have rules instituted and show due diligence to apply their judicious responsibility without favor or hindrance – fat chance methinks.
Fat is good for you. The cholesterol theory is also dead. Finally.
Does that mean I can stop taking my Statin tablets? Mind you, last time I did that I ended up in Papworths with a heart attack and my first stent(don’t recommend it-either of said). Shame, because I still keep forgetting to take them. Oops.
Mohandeer, I don’t know that you should be on the Statin’s or not. I’m on an anit-coagulant because, well, without it my clod clots, and twice I’ve been hospitalized for a “major P.E.” There is no underlying genetic marker for what ails me — it is, as they say in the business, idiopathic. But the clotting does happen, I do have a ‘condition,’ so I’ll keep taking the anticoagulant. However, my doctor wanted me to start taking Statin tablets, and after some throrough reseach, some of which is referenced on my blog, I opted not to. I don’t have an underlying heart condition, and so called “high cholesterol” is proven to be unrelated to cardio vascular disease. On this issue, it may very well be that I know something my physician does not. He’s been wrong about things before. Who hasn’t? But I’ve strayed off topic, haven’t I? Apologies to… Read more »
The consultant who fitted the stent gave me such a ticking off, scared the bejeebers out of me and I don’t want to get on the wrong side of her any time soon. Phew! Strewth, but she should come with a medical warning attached to her!
I was lucky. There was nothing they could do for me but send me up to palliative care and wait and see if I’d come through, so I didn’t have to suffer the distemper of any overworked medical personnel, and how they are overworked!
Oddly, I wasn’t at all perturbed by the prospect of possibly dying, but the dyspnea was rather severe and in itself anxiety inducing, as I understand it, an uncontrollable physiological reaction.
(We sound like old people, don’t we, I mean going on about our ailments and all?)
I am old(before my time)physically dysfunctional but not quite senile. I too while being rushed in an ambulance having been told I was having a heart attack was curiously indifferent except for my dogs at home(I was genuinely worried what would happen to them and that Gracie would be found a good home. The heart attack helped me put my own mortality into perspective and rather relieved me of the fear of dying, my sympathy is for the living, because for many, that is the real battle – one day at a time and often losing that battle simply because they are too poor to change their circumstances. Pity the child born into poverty rather than my sheltered if not luxurious life of readily available food, medical care and safety. Sometimes I come across as rather maudlin, not for myself so much as all those who rely on people like… Read more »
Would you site the “peer reviewed articles”, please.
The above article is not well researched at all. My issues with this article are; The Daily Mail as a source for anything. The Daily Mail also known as The Crazy Mail, & Daily Heil is not a good source of news or any information let alone science, it’s a trash newspaper along the lines of your Murdoch rags. https://www.skepticalscience.com/this-is-why-daily-mail-unreliable.html Dr Bates https://www.skepticalscience.com/bates-knew-people-would-misuse-accusations-to-attack-climate-science.html Climategate https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm Over 30,000 scientists Maybe the reason that the figure is not often quoted or almost never is because it is misleading. http://www.snopes.com/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ Lord Christopher Monckton If the author had bothered to do proper research they would have found that Lord Christopher Monckton is not what he claims to be. He is not a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication & has been asked to “desist from claiming to be a Member “without the right to sit or vote” ” by… Read more »
Oh dear. Scientists refute data not people. A fact is a fact regardless of who supplies it and a lie is a lie even if our best friend tells it to us.
There are numerous peer-reviewed articles available that question all or part of the CAGW hypothesis. I agree with some of them, not with others. Beyond the rather oversimplified science of popular media there are all kinds of nuanced opinions on this matter. Because that’s how real science works.
Moriarty, a truly villainous denialist like you talking of ‘real science’ is vicious nonsense. You are a disinformer, pure and unalloyed, nothing more.
Mulga, you need better programming. Your algorithm is unintentionally comedic. I’m starting to read your comments to myself with a “Borat” accent.
I imagined him to be an unkempt bearded loser living in a squat with nothing else to do except take his anger out at the rest of the world for his own failings by name calling and generally being a total prat with extreme nuisance value.
The Bearded Bellicose Borat Bot! If that’s an actual person I imagine him/her wearing a preposterous hat, for some reason
Denialist liars in what the Yanks call a ‘circle jerk’, all ‘pissing in each others pockets’ with admiration at what arrogant, duplicitous, clever little swine they are. This garbage discredits this whole site-it’s like the worst of the Murdoch denialist sewer.
What a wonderfully persuasive argument, Borat! Your many facts + ice cold logic = a chastening experience. I’ll just watch in awe as you save the world with spit and vituperation. Thanks!
I loved you response to grumble mumble or whatever pseudonym he has taken and couldn’t stop laughing. Made my day – thanks.
M.
Well a hat would keep his brain cell warm.
Knitted with holes in it to ensure everyone knows his “creds” or a “rasta man” type with the accompanying dreadlocks?
By the way I am certainly not a “denier.” I don’t deny the climate has warmed. I don’t deny it may be due to the increase in carbon in the atmosphere, since carbon is known to be a greenhouse gas. I don’t deny that if the worst case scenario of positive feedback man-made warming is true we might be in a lot of trouble. I am just scientifically literate enough to know what can be ascertained through science and what is simply guess or conjecture or – sometimes – snake oil. I am aware we don’t have enough knowledge of climate to be sure of the extent to which carbon is a major forcer. I am aware we can’t tell at all whether the recent warming is man-made in part or at all. I an aware that science literacy in the general population is so poor they are easily duped… Read more »
Just start with one simple fact: there has been no warming for the past 19 or so years. Therefore the fundamental claim of the scaremongers is false. From that it should be obvious that CO2 has a minuscule effect on temperature. There have been times in the past when CO2 levels appear to have been 200 times as high as at present – but the planet did not overheat. The graphs show that CO2 levels always rise AFTER a temperature rise, not before – so there is no causal link between CO2 and temperature. That’s all the science you need to know.
Paul, you’re an example of the truly deranged denialist fanatic. The last three years have successively been the hottest ever recorded, yet you have the psychotic impudence to say the world has NOT warmed for 19 years. You show yourself to be the vilest of the vile.
Moriarty, you deny being a denialist, then spew a string of denialist canards. Despicable.
My goodness but you are the epitome of despicable. Calling someone trying to engage in reasonable debate despicable is very much the pot calling the kettle black whilst throwing stones at anybody and everybody from inside your glass house. Careful you don’t scrape your knuckles on your way home to your cave tonight.
M, there’s something a little off about our new friend “Mulga Mumblebrain”… almost Bot-like. The generic pool of ad hominems deployed in generic sentences… and the awkward insertion of each name of each target for attack… plus the pre-packaged AGW talking points wedged in with the ad hominems… it all seems seems rather formulaic, eh? If that isn’t software, it’s someone who isn’t much more clever than software, doing a very poor job of simulating a passionate opinion.
A bit like the ‘phone bank operators ringing numbers over and over again(as in what I describe as nuisance calls) then reading from a pre-determined script with the hope of a hit in order to boost heir earnings? The lengths some of them will go to when they get a “No thank you” are quite extraordinary and outright dishonest. The bullying, threatening and general insidious way in which they operate?
It did occur to me that the performance was just a tad OTT(over the top), so you may be onto something there.
Was I as bad as this vicious little creature? Lord above, I hope not. How would you like him on your side of the debate, instead, me and mine have that particular pleasure – what a liability he is proving to be. I wish Admin would interject.
No, M, you were/are a Human Being with a Passionate Opinion… big diff. But I think “Mulga” is good to the extent that it he/she/it shows how the OffGuard will tend to attract infiltrators… maybe the standard term “shill” even works. We should all be on our (off)guard(ian)…
Shill is probably a close approximation. If someone wants to persuade others to their point of view, it is rather redundant if in doing so they not only insult and reduce the argument to mud slinging and alienating those you wish to “inform”. Possibly deliberate, in this particular case.
You’re not ‘trying to engage in debate’, you mendacious pustule. You and you little cabal of really smarmy denialist scum are simply having fun peddling the most moronic denialist canards, and congratulating each other on how clever you are. Considering that human existence is in deep peril, that makes you truly evil swine.
Borat, is the word “canard” your fave, or what…?
@STAug, I think Mr. Mumbler makes a point: you are a pustule. I guess that settles that. AGW is real and catastrophic and upon us. How else to explain your “pustulence,” StAug? And then there are all those other things that you are if it weren’t for the “fact” of AGW. Your “denial” is the “climactic fact” that proves the disaster. You have been “comeuppanced.” And Mumbler has another point: you don’t ever engage in debate, because you don’t ever agree with everything people who engage with you believe as the Gospel Truth. And that is the Gospel Truth about you, StAug. And how dare you deny that you know for sure that AGW is not happening, not any more than you know whether it is happening. Really, it is just so enraging to try to have a level headed exchange with you. And just to clarify something to the… Read more »
Damn! DIRECT HITS! (now excuse me, I really must go emit some Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere… I’m on a rather tight schedule… Manhattan needs to be under water, like, YESTERDAY)
Ad hominem attacks fail to address the issues.
No doubt the AGW promoters will find an attack to level at each and every scientist that challenges their hypothesis. But that does not constitute making their case in any way.
Ad hominem attacks. If you’re referring to my comment about ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton it’s a statement fact he is a fraud & a clown with plenty of evidence to support that fact.
Please respond to evidence with counter-evidence. Tell people why you believe the science is so settled there can be no valid criticism of any part of it. This will help a discussion. Ranting about individuals will not.
The denialist cabal you are giving space to are NOT producing ‘evidence’- they are regurgitating long discredited lies, in the most arrogant, even snide, manner. You have turned this place into a simulacrum of the Daily Mail or any Murdoch sewer. Why? And don’t give me crap up ‘freedom of opinion’-this issue is far too important to allow malicious disinformers to hide behind that canard.
That’s right, Borat! No more of this “freedom of opinion” nonsense! Let’s all just snap out of it and jump in line behind you! Your opinion is LAW. To disagree is pure insolence.
So are many of those promoting man made argument. There is no right or wrong when both sides are lying.
Sapere aude = dare to know: from Latin.
Yes I know, still sounds like a pseudonym.
It is a pseudonym. Many of our writers use them as there can be a real price to pay for saying things deemed unacceptable in our increasingly surveilled age. But please (this is the third time of being asked) critique the article not the author.
What crap! What ‘price’ do denialists pay? Much more likely is that they are paid, by the fossil fuel industry. Are you?
“Judith Curry is wrong …”
Wow.
Deborah Harris, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Stupid comment.
Well done Deborah, to fight these vile hypocrites. I’m interested in their mob tactics. Is this the usual clientele here, or has the Daily Mail got a surplus of Dunning-Krugerites determined to cause human extinction, so just loaned a few to this place? Either way it is truly DESPICABLE to see lies, idiocies, long discredited disinformation etc, all still being regurgitated, with a slimy veneer of a criticism of a ‘carbon industry’ that doesn’t exist, and the usual denialists’ lying denial that they are deniers.
Erm, you forgot the word “canard”.
And that’s the only reason I gave him a “down vote.”
Seems fair, N
See http://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2017-02-28/who-was-the-biggest-climate-change-villain/
“In 1991 the Shell oil company produced a half-hour film, Climate of Concern, for showing in schools and universities, that set out the dangers of climate change, apparently with unnerving accuracy.”
Anyone wondering why Shell Oil would produce a “prescient” half-hour film, for showing in schools and universities, against the practise generating its own profits? One would almost think TPTB are playing the game at a level above most of our heads…
“In 1991 the Shell oil company produced a half-hour film, Climate of Concern, for showing in schools and universities, that set out the dangers of climate change, apparently with unnerving accuracy.”
Only with “unnerving accuracy” if you are a Guardian journalist. As every honest person over 30 should be able to testify, the climate has not changed perceptibly since 1991 beyond its fluctuations over the normal natural 60+ cycle. No countries or regions have changed their Koppen climate classification. Miami’s climate has not migrated to New York, Dr. James Hansen’s 1988 prediction that the Westside Highway in Manhattan would be underwater by 2028 looks unlikely to materialize, our children DO know what snow is, and it is still quite futile to attempt to grow avocados outside next to the south side of Hadrian’s Wall.
Climate 101:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
Maybe because Shell and the other oil companies would actually stand to gain when governments raised the price of fuel to discourage drivers? I’ve read a suggestion that the Yom Kippur war was engineered to produce a temporary shortage of oil, thus raising the price and making it economic to start exploiting the North Sea oilfields.
Indeed, quite often, several nefarious goals are achieved with one deception. What the Radicals need to develop, that the Right has been profiting from for quite a while, is the tradition of the Thinktank to come up with these chess moves. The Radical Internet is a vast, disorganized Thinktank, of a kind, but a focused effort (with the Randoms filtered out) would probably work wonders.
Reblogged this on Floating-voter.
So, to recap: The same “Scientific Consensus” supporting Magic Bullet Theory, and the notion that steel-frame buildings can melt and collapse owing to office fires, and that the essential ingredient in rat poison is perfectly safe (even health-giving) as an added ingredient to a national water supply, and that there’s not enough evidence to justify a large-scale study of the possible link between certain vaccines and Autism… the same “Scientific Consensus” that, not long ago, argued that smoking cigarettes was good for you… is also asserting “Global Warming… erm… Climate Change”… and some of us trust this without a bit of skepticism? Interesting. I suspect there’s an “Original Sin” component in the “AGW” narrative that the misanthropists (antiquatedly-gendered term, I know) among us find appealing (cue: Biblical Flooding). It’s not as though we’ve made our own measurements/observations and plugged these into our own climate models and therefore agree with the… Read more »
You’re saying that the Chinese have been duped (they’ve signaled that they’ll continue to lead the world on climate action, with or without US help) while Trump got it right. Sorry, but do you really believe that?
I’m not privy to the Machiavellian maneuvers of intra-governmental schemes, so I can’t say any more than you can whether the Chinese are “in on it” in exchange for certain advantages. Which “sides” are the various governments on? We have no way of knowing. But Climate Alarmism would certainly be a good way to scare the world’s Serfs into acquiescing to a New Global Control System (aka a “NWO”).
I’m not as settled on one view of the atmospheric realities, or another, as I am fascinated with the mechanism of getting people to believe, passionately, in a theory they can’t have any natural sense of without promptings. Again: how many of us are amateur climatologists, with home made weather stations in our backyards, for whom the AGW is merely a confirmation of our own growing fears? It’s a wholly artificial scare. A function of Propaganda.
So they’re either duped or they’re “in on it”.
The real point being: neither of us can possibly know. And I’m fascinated with people who Believe without being able to know.
BTW How’s the home made weather station in your back yard holding up? Data still flowing…? Laugh
“The real point being: neither of us can possibly know. And I’m fascinated with people who Believe without being able to know.”
It’s okay, you’ve made it clear on many occasions: you neither know nor believe anything.
“It’s okay, you’ve made it clear on many occasions: you neither know nor believe anything.”
Not being a faith-driven zealot, I tend to be honest about the limits of my actual knowledge. It’s probably less fun than clueless self-righteousness (right?) but, oh well! I can live with that.
Being honest about the limits of your knowledge emphatically isn’t the same thing as strategic nihilism and helplessness in the face of concentrated wealth and power. Your individualist, life-stylist “people just have to DECIDE to stop feeding the system” is a dead-end to nowhere and is even less of a threat to the system you rail against (but have no real prescriptions against) than the revolutionaries that you’ve denounced as “paid opposition”.
“Being honest about the limits of your knowledge emphatically isn’t the same thing as strategic nihilism…”
I’m no version of Nihilist and you’re no version of good at reading, I’m afraid.
By the way: I’m still curious about the data flowing in to your private weather station(s), the obvious source of your certainty. I may not agree with your interpretation of the info but I can admire your industriousness in the search for the unambiguous truth. Unlike so many Dupes, hypnotized by Mass Media, you’re using primary sources.
“I’m no version of Nihilist”
Perhaps “defeatist” would be a better term. I’ll be generous and let you pick.
You’re a born propagandist, Sorry. A born propagandist! As long as you’re not a professional (are you?) that’s okay, I guess.
That’s not entirely fair. Just because someone does not agree with your point of view, doesn’t mean he is not entitled to that view. You can do better than this. Use your arguments in a constructive way, your judgments will have better authenticity if you remain focused on the argument and article.
‘SO they’re either duped or in on it’ I reckon the comment ignores human nature and the bandwagon effect. SCience isn’t the isolated search for the truth that scientists would have us believe. Scientists must attract funding for their research, much of which comes from commercial bodies which may or may not have political or commercial axes to grind. Scientists know areas that are ‘safe’ and will attract funding and they know too areas of endeavour that might be accused of being ‘unscientific’. A few years ago Luc Montaigner gained a Nobel Prize for his research on the aids virus. Part of his research demonstrated the virus’ ability to ‘communicate’ elecromagnetically with other viruses. He was asked if his work had validated claims by homoeopaths that microdoses of homoeopathic were capable of influencing cells in the body. He was careful to state that whilst he couldn’t support all the claims… Read more »
“Scientists must attract funding for their research, much of which comes from commercial bodies which may or may not have political or commercial axes to grind. Scientists know areas that are ‘safe’ and will attract funding and they know too areas of endeavour that might be accused of being ‘unscientific’.”
This ignores that scientists who switch to the side that pleases the fossil fuel industry are often much more handsomely rewarded. It’s easy enough to “attract funding” for your research whatever your view on global warming, and those willing to find the naysayers are not at all short on cash.
“It is tempting to suggest that the west’s loss will prove to be China’s gain.”
The Chinese government is fully on board with the standard scientific narrative about global warming. Why are you talking about homeopathy?
There’s a bit of over-simplifying in the meme that the “fossil fuel industry funds everyone (yes absolutely EVERYONE) who questions the most extreme versions of the CAGW theory.
How well does this idea stand up to any form of analysis? For one thing it assumes there is some form of separation between the billionaires who make their money from fossil fuels and the billionaires who don’t. But come on, we know that’s naive and silly. The people who own the fossil fuel industry are also making money out of alternatives (lapping up the grant funds and tax breaks), nuclear, weapons manufacturing, banking, and every other form of exploitation.
The point is the 1% always diversify and always run both sides of the game. The fossil fuel industry funds climate alarmists as well as “deniers.” The interesting question is ‘why?’
“There’s a bit of over-simplifying in the meme that the “fossil fuel industry funds everyone (yes absolutely EVERYONE) who questions the most extreme versions of the CAGW theory.”
There’s no need for them to do this. They only have to fund SOME of the naysayers in order to provide a scientific veneer for their claims, and then they sit back and watch as petit-bourgeois elements in the West act as their ideological shock-troops. Third World peoples living in arid regions where there are serious problems with food and water security, and peoples living in coastal regions and small islands, however, don’t have the luxury of waiting for chauvinist constituencies and right-wing politicians in the West to get their act together, which is why they’re rather more anxious to see substantial action instead of luxuriant denial-wallowing.
The 1% always hedge their bets and will use every opportunity that presents itself to make money while making monkeys out of the rest of us – no matter which side we’re on. Imagine having subsidiary companies all moving in the direction of where the money is, that affords them a lot of scope while we are all busy looking in a different direction.
“he same “Scientific Consensus” supporting Magic Bullet Theory”
Hilarious coming from someone who thinks in terms of technological panaceas.
“Hilarious coming from someone who thinks in terms of technological panaceas.”
Very efficient, there, Sorry! You managed to make very little sense and be untruthful in one pointless (long-after-the-fact) comment! Top marks!
St. Aug. There are people on both sides of this argument who are both dishing out misinformation, lies and information taken out of context. Anyone, but most especially those purporting to be scientists, trying to demolish the arguments of people quoting “facts” by using lies, is as the title of this article suggests, merely supporting their own “meme”. Such people are not just dishonest but a disgrace to their supposed profession. The whole point of this article was to expose the sundry lies being proffered to support one side of the argument over the other. It is not helpful when those who have a vested interest in supporting one side of the argument over the others, to lie in support of their position. Notice that several who are making pronouncements (on both sides) in several cases, are not giving links to their arguments, probably because the links would lead to… Read more »
“I will not entertain argument from those who lie…”
M! Yes, exactly. Some are just normal people locked, for personal reasons, in ATTACK MODE and have no desire to contribute to an actual debate or conversation. Others are Disinformation Bots, here to muddy the threads beyond comprehension. It’s not difficult to see who is what…
It would appear political science trumps empirical science.
The problem with empiricism is that it observes and reports what it sees. It is left to others to reach conclusions. There is little doubt that after the mini ice age centred on the 1820s, temperatures have risen, but the whole argument about whether the rise is man made is another issue entirely.
If you allow empirical science to dictate your thinking on the wrong side of the future of this planet you are virtually guaranteed to be accused of pimping a political agenda, because a future for those still to be born is really not that big an issue for them, whether it is a mere possibility or otherwise.
Something more pertinent to the what this post is about and that I’m stealing from Judith Curry, from a piece titled, “RICO!, which everyone should read:
Quote begins:
[. . .] the consensus on human caused climate change is not as overwhelming as you seem to think. See my recent blog post The conceits of consensus, which includes a detailed analysis of an extensive survey of climate scientists (not to mention extensive critiques of the Cook et al. analysis).
Third, the source of funding is not the only bias in research, and the greatest bias does not necessarily come from industry funding, see these posts:
Conflicts of interest in climate science
Is federal funding biasing research?
Industry funding and bias
Industry funding: witch hunts
Scientific integrity versus ideologically fueled research
quote ends.
A few years ago- since 2008 I listened to a news report on the BBC about global warming which came out with the usual guff about the trend being ever upwards but it added a strange comment, the exact words I fail to remember. It claimed that we were in for either ‘two’ or ‘three’ cold winters but nevertheless these were simply a slight aberration and the trend was still upwards. Now the strange thing was that the next two winters were very cold- unseasonably so nowadays and I remember driving up a pennine road in May and seeing snowdrifts well above the level of the cars. Now my question is: How on earth could the weather during two winters be predicted well over a year beforehand? I have often wondered whether this item on the BBC should really have got through and what do the people who shape the… Read more »
Who cares about why it’s changing – surely we should just be prepared to deal with the changes. Sadly, a lot of science has been hijacked by money and you always have to check who is funding what before you can trust anything. I quite like the wind and solar technologies for power production (decentralises production) and higher efficiencies in the use of that power. All the problems we get from global warming could be fixed if all governments took responsibility and paid for it (I remember when the thinning ozone layer in the southern hemisphere had a solution that would have cost £50 million but no single government would cough up and they even argued over who caused most pollution to have caused the problem in the first place). Always money.
Pretty obviously though, the reason why the warming is happening dictates what (if anything) should be done about it.
Not necessarily so, the example I gave was to build a solar powered ozone producing factory floating (using balloons) in the stratosphere which would ‘mend’ the ozone layer. The polluters and farting cows could continue trying to destroy the ozone layer but the factory would continue to mend it. I understand that it would also be advantageous to stop polluting but the people responsible for that never listened to reason before, so I think ‘just clean up after them’ (like you do with children!).
“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” — climatologist Dr. John Christy In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ― Galileo Galilei Forget the politics, whether of the business lobbies fighting over taxpayer funds or of the bureaucratic scientific “consensus” manufactured by careerists on the make. Look to the data. If a hypothesis, like “anthropogenic global warming,” explains everything, it explains nothing. The world is more complicated than our vaunted “climate consensus scientists” make it out to be, and we have some way to go yet before we really have a handle on all of the complicated climate related interactions in our world, which isn’t to say that we don’t understand some of them . . . As merely one example of many of the “tabloid media hyping… Read more »
Oh God, don’t tell me YOU’RE also a denier, Norman. One would think that a Marxist would be immune to the oil-industry backed petit-bourgeois First Worldist fad of climate denial. I took special issue with this whopper: “Without a thorough understanding of a) your (proxy) data and b) an army of actual experts carefully collating and cataloging mountains of such “understood” (proxy) data from around the world (a work that is still very much in its infancy) and c) without a theory taking into account all actually known factors making for climate and average temperature — YOU CANNOT KNOW THAT THE WORLD IS IN A WARMING OR EVEN A COOLING PHASE.” Actually, you can easily do that: you can simply MEASURE temperature around the world (measuring temperature really isn’t that hard to do) over the course of many years, and plot the long-term trend. You can also plot the concentration… Read more »
Umm, so “measuring temperature around the world isn’t that hard to do”? Really? How many weather stations would you need to get a decently reliable answer? Where would you site them? It so happens that by 1960 there were some 6000 stations around the world (not a lot if you want to get a good global average). By 2010 the number of active stations was down to around 1200 and most of them were sited in or near urban areas and predominantly in North America and Europe. Almost none in either polar regions or the tropics. So how accurate would the information be? It;’s very interesting that the IPCC prefers ground-based stations – because the data they produce is closer to their (absurd) projections. Satellite monitoring is vastly more accurate and covers a much greater surface area – and it contradicts the IPCC scenarios.
“By 2010 the number of active stations was down to around 1200 and most of them were sited in or near urban areas and predominantly in North America and Europe.”
Dropping the other measuring stations had, if anything, the effect of making warming appear to be LESS severe.
“Almost none in either polar regions or the tropics. Satellite monitoring is vastly more accurate and covers a much greater surface area – and it contradicts the IPCC scenarios.”
Not when you remove the bias of the stratosphere.
Can you tell readers about the ‘bias of the stratosphere?’ It sounds as if it may be significant.
It’s indeed very significant, and as such it’s something that needs to be canceled out if we’re to get an accurate picture of what’s going on in the troposphere. When that’s done, the trend from satellite data lines up very well with that from measuring stations:
https://skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere-advanced.htm
Ozone absorbs ultra-violet radiation and warms up so the stratosphere is warmer than the top of the troposhere – as ozone depletes, the temperature in those areas is less than it would have been – it all just confuses the data. (or at least the interpretation of the data)
Is this an established fact or a theory?
Temp. gradients in different layers of the atmosphere – measured by high altitude balloons, ozone layer absorbs ultraviolet radiation (I thought this was accepted, well known fact). CO2 and methane destroy ozone. Go out in the sun in NZ and Australia and get extra special burns compared to UK summers (more UV getting through, thinner/non-existent ozone layer). So…. looking from space you will see different temp. layers. Surface temps. under thin/non-existent ozone layers will be higher than they would be with ozone absorbing that energy. Checkable science. Higher temps. in specific areas will produce higher temp differences which feed the weather. Stabilising world average temps. does not preclude more violent weather patterns when ozone is thinned in specific areas – this is exactly what seems to be happening. So, theory formed from facts.
@Sorry Not Buying It
But what if some trends are upward and some not? If 90% of locations show zero warming and 10% show warming then the net average shows warming. But how much sense would it make to say it actually indicates “global warming”?
This is a real issue and not simply one of semantics. Obtaining an accurate idea of global temperature is extremely difficult.
This is also a side effect of thinning ozone layers in places – this causes warmer surface temperatures and so temperature differences increase and give storms more energy. Overall temperature averages could be unchanged but the weather becomes noticeably different.
“If 10% of locations show zero warming and 10% show warming then the net average shows warming.”
True, and also irrelevant, since it isn’t “10% of locations” that show warming, but actually MOST of the locations in which there are measuring stations. Yes, some show little or even no change (or change in the opposite direction), but on the whole, they do.
“But how much sense would it make to say it actually indicates “global warming”?”
Also irrelevant, though of course it WOULD be relevant if we saw a pattern like what you’re talking about.
“This is a real issue and not simply one of semantics.”
Ironically, the semantics are all coming from your end, and the real issue is what the measuring stations actually show, even if it’s the issue you want to talk about.
Hey,
Look. I’m not a knee-jerk denier. If you want my very Marxist take on the issue — and no, I’m not being facetious in calling it “Marxist” — my reply to you is a short piece that I’ve posted online here
And if you do a search at my blog under the word “climate,” you should come up with some very interesting papers and content by a number of “scientists” who know something about what they are talking about.
I also recommend that you read Jim Steele’s piece, Coral bleaching debate. Among other things, it underscores that a lot of what has been interpreted as evidence of “global warming” is anything but. You should also visit his website, as it is an excellent archive of original analyses by Steele. Really, it is an education.
Regards,
–N
You might at least offer an opinion before giving up the ghost. Just because you don’t agree with this particular OffG’s post, doesn’t mean you have the right to judge all their very good articles. That’s a bit unfair. Name calling to the degree you have doesn’t advance your case at all. Stay and put your own thoughts down. I am among many commentators (on the other side from me in this particular article) who are intelligent and considerate and whose opinions I have learned to respect. At least read some of the comments, many have valid criticism and if you cannot give a come back then perhaps you are not able to contribute. That’s not the fault of OffG.
Mohandeer,
Is your comment for me or was it intended for someone else?
“Sorry, Not Buying It” was the one threatening to leave forever, so I assume M was addressing him/her. This reply-system gets incredibly confusing by the fourth round of replies…
Aye. Not yet done reading every reply posted while I slept. I was puzzled (but kinda figured it really was intended for someone else).
Incidentally, N: more than once, perusing the material on your website, I’ve wished that comments were possible! Why not…?
Why not? It is because I would rather be spending my time trawling the internet for the pleasure of availing myself of other people’s insights than moderating comments, that is to say, having to deal with trolls and such.
On the other hand, though there is some consistent traffic, it’s moderate, so it is unlikely that would have to deal with a whole lot of comments, let alone the occasional piece of bait.
Perhaps I should reconsider . . . I’ll give it a think . . .
I’m in sympathy with your feelings on all that, certainly. But, still… yeah. Give it a think!
““Sorry, Not Buying It” was the one threatening to leave forever,”
Please, show me where I was “threatening to leave forever”.
Some prat just rubbished the article without making any useful contribution – why post the comment in the first place if he didn’t have a point to make? Can’t find him now, but no N. it wasn’t for you – pranny. I don’t care which side of the argument you are on, at least you take the matter seriously to want to investigate it. Besides which, what makes you think I’d be so polite if it were you. Big grin right now.
😘
Of course you’re a denier, Pilon-and an impudent one in having the gall to deny it. Steel’s denialist garbage relies on the usual impertinent denialist claim to know better than the scientific community who are the experts in the field, in this case reef scientists. Meanwhile the Great Barrier Reef is bleaching again, and most Pacific reefs are bleached, and many are stone dead, while odious liars like you pretend that it is not so,
“Of course you’re a denier”
And, of course, you are a Mumblebrain. ’nuff said.
Well, Mulga Borat may not come to us overburdened with persuasive rhetoric or information of any kind, but I’ll bet she/he’s fun at a party! He’d probably “canard” the hell out of the place!
I visualize him as being somewhat comatose at his kind of party, something which the other guests at the party would be extremely grateful for.
“overburdened with persuasive rhetoric or information of any kind” – you do know it’s wrong and very naughty to mock the afflicted don’t you? But by golly, it’s fun.
It’s all targets these days.
Arthur Neslen’s article in the Guardian about the Black Black Book of Bioenergy is available here: Protected forests in Europe felled to meet EU renewable targets – report (24 November 2016)
http://www.birdlife.org/europe-and-central-asia/black-book
Husq. thanks for the link. Drax in Yorkshire is one of the companies who until recently was using lignite coal with pellets from the US in their Biomass production. I wrote to them for data ie whether they had carbon capture figures and whether the forests they were using in the US were protected or (their claim was that for every tree chopped down another was being planted). Needless to say, I did not get a response and I seem to remember that Drax have since announced they are closing down their Biomass “green” energy production.
Watch the video here: http://en.newsner.com/man-points-camera-at-ice-then-captures-the-unimaginable-on-film/about/nature.
Really good video, scary but amazing.
The climate has always changed naturally. Is man having a significant effect on the climate? Are we heading for more warming or cooling? There are hundreds if not thousands of climate experts and scientists (independent from fossil fuel funding) who disagree with the IPCC which only investigates man made climate change ignoring all natural causes. Some astrophysicists believe we are heading for a cooling period due to reduced solar activity. The science is far from settled and the so-called 97% consensus that AGW is “catastrophic” has been debunked many times. Most skeptical scientists agree that man is having just a small impact on the climate. Even Nuttycelli and the rest of the AGW zealots at skepticalscience and The Guardian do not say that 97% of scientists think that man is having a “catastrophic” affect on the climate, they just say man is having “an” affect. “Catastrophic” global warming is just… Read more »
Those that are concerned about the environment and who have been paying attention understand that the biggest benefit for US air quality since the 1970s has been the boom in natural gas use.
Natural gas has much cleaner emissions than coal or biofuels and does not carry the hazards of nuclear.
Natural gas is cheap and abundant.
Co2 emissions are not harmful to health but the “global warming” swamis make nuclear out to be the preferred alternative after admitting wind and solar will never work.
It was a bait and switch scam from the start:
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/three-mile-island-global-warming-and-the-cia/
https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/bait-and-switch-climate-alarmists-have-religious-conversion-to-pro-nuclear/
“The climate has always changed naturally. Is man having a significant effect on the climate? Are we heading for more warming or cooling? There are hundreds if not thousands of climate experts and scientists (independent from fossil fuel funding) who disagree with the IPCC which only investigates man made climate change ignoring all natural causes.” Wrong. The IPCC cites models that take into account the contributions of natural forcings and compares them to empirical findings. Only by factoring in anthropogenic contributions can we account for what we actually see. I seriously don’t know where you get the idea that the ICC “ignores all natural causes”. This is not only not the truth, it’s the exact opposite of the truth. “Some astrophysicists believe we are heading for a cooling period due to reduced solar activity.” Yet the world clearly hasn’t been “cooling”. If there is indeed reduced solar activity contemporaneously with… Read more »
Wrong. The IPCC cites models that take into account the contributions of natural forcings and compares them to empirical findings. Only by factoring in anthropogenic contributions can we account for what we actually see This is typical of the pseudo-science peddled to lay people on this subject. The climate guys justify talking this nonsense because it will help to get people on board with what may be essential policy changes, but no serious scientist on either side would dream of saying such things when talking to other scientists. You see, this statement of yours is basically saying “well we know about how much warming we’d get from solar fluctuations, el Nino effects and so on and when we factor those in we still have warming that can only be explained by man-made factors.” Do you know why this is nonsense? Every climate scientist does. it’s because we emphatically do NOT… Read more »
My point was addressed to Geoff Bridges, who wrote “…the IPCC which only investigates man made climate change ignoring all natural causes.” This claim is emphatically not true. Radiative forcings are one of the foundations on which the climate models are built (they also take into account air and water currents and heat exchange between the two) and not some side-show as you’re implying; they’ve been calibrated and tested using hind-casting (comparing historical and pre-human patterns to the models) to test their accuracy in making predictions about the contributions of natural forcings. Sure, we don’t know everything about the natural forcings; this in no way is the same thing as saying that there isn’t clear evidence, based on what we DO know and from the data we DO have, that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. For you and a lot of naysayers, it seems that climate science is perpetually in… Read more »
“. . .you guys making sweeping assumptions and claims that imply that you think YOU’VE got a handle on climate science (“CO2 is a harmless trace gas”; “it’s the sun”; “it’s methane”; “we’re entering a cooling period”).” There is a difference between having a handle on “climate science,” i.e. the qualitative state of that science as a discipline, and having a handle on “climate,” per se. On both sides of the debate (“AGW is real and a portent of catastrophy” vs. “AGW is not real and not a portent of anything”), there is one equivalent “assumption,” namely, that the “science is already settled in one way or another.” But there is a second kind of presumption that can be taken with respect to the debate, critical of the former category of an asserted certitude, namely, that the science is not near settled one way or another, and this presumption is… Read more »
“There is a difference between having a handle on “climate science,” i.e. the qualitative state of that science as a discipline, and having a handle on “climate,” per se.” True, and the denialists on this forum (most of them) don’t have ANY sort of handle on the science. I’m not an expert myself, but what I do know makes it clear to me that the sophomoric statements floating around here, about CO2 being a “harmless trace gas” are the same tired, oft-repeated claims swindled into the public “debate” over anthropogenic climate change to undermine societal resolve to do anything substantive about a potentially disastrous outcome. When such basic errors as “if methane is at 1800 ppm [it’s actually at 1.8 ppm] while CO2 is only at 400ppm, why should we be so worried about the latter” are the norm, it makes me think (quite reasonably, I submit) that many people… Read more »
Radiative forcings are one of the foundations on which the climate models are built (they also take into account air and water currents and heat exchange between the two) and not some side-show as you’re implying; they’ve been calibrated and tested using hind-casting (comparing historical and pre-human patterns to the models) LOL. Well, this is certainly the wooly and vaguely-worded message we find in most media and in the statements made by the IPCC intended for popular consumption. But it’s more word-fog that substance. Firstly, let’s understand that a computer model isn’t magic. it isn’t even experiment in the true meaning of the word. It can’t know things we don’t know. It can just do lots of sums very fast and spit out the results. Those results are only as good as the data we put in. If we don’t know why climate fluctuates we wont be able to find… Read more »
“Firstly, let’s understand that a computer model isn’t magic. it isn’t even experiment in the true meaning of the word. It can’t know things we don’t know. It can just do lots of sums very fast and spit out the results.” Yes, that’s precisely why they’re useful. Humans can also do the sums and spit them out. So what? Nice caricature there with models being thought of as “magic” by climate scientists. No one ever claimed them to be. They’re an additional tool for analyzing the world; they can make testable predictions, and can be checked against what actually happens. The more we discover about nature, the more can this knowledge be integrated into models. That you derisively cite “magic” is a reflection of your own ignorance of scientific development, not of any shortcomings of models per se. Secondly, models can indeed tell us about things we don’t know and… Read more »
Yes, that’s precisely why they’re useful. Humans can also do the sums and spit them out. So what? Nice caricature there with models being thought of as “magic” by climate scientists. Not climate scientists, lay people. Scientists know the limits of modeling, but computer models are indeed presented as if they were magic in the popular literature of alarmism. Hilarious and infuriating. [computer models]y can make testable predictions, Yes, and how many of the predictions made by the vast array of climate models have proved to be accurate so far? That’s not a rhetorical question. I mean it as a point of discussion. But you have to admit, unless or until a model prediction is verified by real word observation it’s only so much maybe – that’s the point. In the popular media climate models are presented as if they were evidence of something. How often have you read the… Read more »
GB. “the IPCC which only investigates man made climate change ignoring all natural causes” Not true, so why would you make such a claim?
A collection of the most moronic denialist canards, all long debunked, some decades ago. Are you scum really so stupid, so ineducable, or are you just trying to impress a new generation of vicious dullards?
I take my hat off to you posting this article. I see there are some who have already got their fingers in their ears and are running away. The AGW debate is going to run and run and run, it is now so deeply entrenched in so many brains there is no room for discussion or looking at other views.
Why did AGW become “climate change”? AGW is very specific and what is said to be a major danger to us all and the planet and what is forming policies. “Climate change” is something the earth has gone through for billions of years, even since human ancestors appeared. I find it irksome “climate change” has become something to fear via almost blanket conflation with AGW.
Well done Manda-the most moronic denialist canard of all. When did ‘AGW’ become ‘climate change’. You are the winner of today’s ‘Dunning-Kruger’ Award for advanced stupidity.
Yet again someone has read an article in the Daily Mail and has assumed it is true. Its the Daily Mail FFS!! Of course it is not true. When was the last time you read anything in the Daily Mail that was true? Wikipedia no longer allows the Daily Mail to be used as a reference because it is so unreliable. When it comes to climate science the Daily Mail ALWAYS distorts and misquotes in order to fulfill the wishes of its oligarch owner. If you want to know what is really behind this story then you will either have to study the scientific papers yourself (after completing a University degree in climate science so you can understand them), or you can go to a suitably qualified person who has. (That does not incude David Rose of the Daily Mail or ‘Lord’ Monckton) I recommend the YouTube videos by ‘potholer54’.… Read more »
“Wikipedia no longer allows the Daily Mail to be used as a reference because it is so unreliable.”
I’m afraid I do not find Wikipedia ‘the oracle’ nor you tube videos. I certainly do not trust Wikipedia unquestioningly!
You seem to be suggesting the article is using the Mail as its only source. It also refers to several peer-reviewed articles and a great deal of scientific opinion.
And please remember that claims of evidence are not refuted by saying “oh HIM, he just talks rubbish,” or “no one EVER listens to HIM!” That’s just a species of avoidance and is not valid. In future please refute specific claims of fact with data or with counter-claims – not with generic dismissals of alleged personal credibility.
You’re right , the Potholer videos debunk much of what is being discussed here , but I wouldn’t expect to get much buy-in from this crowd. The “establishment” lies to us a lot , and more and more people are becoming aware of that. If they’ll lie to us to get us into a war – which they clearly have done , repeatedly – then they’d lie to us about anything. Since global warming is an establishment concept , it makes some sense to just assume it’s a lie. You can’t go wrong claiming that anything – heck , everything – advanced by the establishment is a lie. Just be off-establishment , so to speak , and you’re cool , dig ? Therefore , the earth is flat. No , really , it must be , otherwise why would the establishment tell us it’s round ? Believing the establishment line… Read more »
Climate science is NOT an ‘establishment’ concept-it is a scientific concept, worked on by tens of thousands of scientists for 200 years. Climate science denialism, which this vile cess-pool of lies and disinformation most certainly is, IS an ‘establishment concept’. It is a lie created by the fossil fuel industry, the great capitalist power on the planet. That you have denialist frauds here, arguing that they criiticise climate science for some vague ‘Leftist’ motivation, is just lying, or advanced self-delusion verging on dementia,
Great Britain is an US Intelligence poodle specializing in screaming false reports on Syria (gas, children, etc.) , Libya, Ukraine, Russia (Crimea) , the United Nations (convoy bombing), etc. and even Amnesty International (prisons), WikiLeaks, what’s one or two more?!
You are right of course, yet during the recent battle for Eastern Aleppo, one of the only balanced reports, accurately describing the activities of the fighters in the east and calling into question the activities of the white helmets, was published in the Daily Mail.
I am a homoeopath and am still here in large part thanks to the treatment I had from a homoeopath who has dedicated her life to treating cancer patients. I had been given a terminal diagnosis in January 1999 after an operation to remove my left kidney with its large grapefruit sized tumour four monthes earlier. I see most newspapers especially the Grauniad routinely reviling homoepathy and Wikipedia doing likewise. The Daily Mail sometimes prints positive articles about homoeopathy and sometimes negative ones. It is reassuring to know that at least there seems to be a degree of editorial independence.
And who could forget the Great Freon Hoax of the 1970s…?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/05/the-ozone-scare-was-a-dry-run-for-the-global-warming-scare/
Watts Up with That??? That’s your true milieu, StAug-but at least there is NO doubt left that you are just another vicious denialist dissembler.
Yeah!
Offer evidence please, not ad hom. There are many people on both sides who are informed enough to debate this issue with data. If you haven’t researched enough to do this you should probably stop interjecting. These streams of abuse do not do credit to your position.
He trolls.
From 2015, this (below), featuring comments by Dr. Richard Lindzen (“American atmospheric physicist known for his work in the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides, and ozone photochemistry. He has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983[1] until his retirement in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.[2] He was a lead author of Chapter 7, “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.”) NASA and NOAA today proclaimed that 2015 was the ‘hottest year’ on record. See: Warmist Joe Romm: ‘We Just Lived In The Hottest Year On Record’ & Claim: ‘With 2015, Earth Has Back-to-Back Hottest Years Ever Recorded’ Meanwhile, satellite data shows an 18 plus year standstill in global temperatures. MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen balked at claims of the ‘hottest year’ based on… Read more »
Coal powered supercomputer!
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
The power will be generated primarily from “clean” coal (coal that has been chemically scrubbed to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants) via Cheyenne Light Fuel and Power. NCAR is also aggressively working to secure the provision of alternative energy (wind and solar) for the facility, hoping to attain an initial level of 10%.
Measuring 108,000 square feet in total with 15,000-20,000 square feet of raised floor, it will be built for 8 megawatts of power, with 4-5 megawatts for computing and 3-4 for cooling.
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/staffnotes/0702/datacenter.shtml
Well at least the kind of “scrubbers” they will be using will be an improvement of the Chinese “carbon capture” model which only reduces the output to a lower level rather than the lowest level. The Yorkshire power Group have now decided they cannot “afford” to use US dirty lignite coal and carbon capture production in their bio mass alternative supply.
The longer you go, the more you drop your mask, StAug, and there you are-a truly vicious, but boiler-plate, lying, disinforming, denialist.
Mask? I was hoping you’d notice my viciousness the moment you came spitting and vituperating into the virtual room, Baby!
Having lived in the Alaskan Arctic not all long that long ago I’m prepared to believe my own eyes, scientific measurements, and the reports of local Inupiat peoples who’ve lived their entire lives in that climate. Climate and temperate has and is changing dramatically in that region. That is a fact not open to debate unless of course one values “opinions” over actual measurement. What percentage of scientists agree or disagree about what is happening in the Arctic, is actually, well, a rather a moot point I’d say.
As we understand it, no one disputes there has been warming. The debate is about what has caused it and whether it poses a threat to human life and the planet.
Admin always jumps in to defend the denialists. You don’t bother hiding your intrentions, do you.
We are routinely accused by both sides of being biased. We take that as an indicator that we are not. 🙂
There’s lots of factors to take account of it seems. Will the models cope?
Plumbing a 90 million-year-old layer cake of sedimentary rock in Colorado, a team of scientists from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Northwestern University has found evidence confirming a critical theory of how the planets in our solar system behave in their orbits around the sun.
The finding, published Feb. 23, 2017 in the journal Nature, is important because it provides the first hard proof for what scientists call the “chaotic solar system,” a theory proposed in 1989 to account for small variations in the present conditions of the solar system. The variations, playing out over many millions of years, produce big changes in our planet’s climate — changes that can be reflected in the rocks that record Earth’s history.
http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/
“Their Sky Has Changed!” Inuit elders sharing information with NASA regarding Earth’s “WOBBLE”
http://www.thebigwobble.org/2016/06/we-are-all-obsessed-with-weather-here.html
One of the reasons that GW is not evidencing itself the way it was calculated is the recently discovered phenomena known as Magnetic Polar Shift. Europe sent two probes to orbit our planet to ascertain whether any evidence could be found to catalogue the changes. Since MPS is known to have occurred previously but the consequences cannot be determined we can only wait until the scientists can cobble together a theory. The only scientist studying MPS was not, until recently, taken seriously. The evidence, however, is available and science is now investigating it. In the end though, this planet is now probably beyond the point of salvage in relation to GW, so it matters not a jot whether we reduce our carbon footprint or not, if GW doesn’t finish us off, MPS may soon relieve us of the concern. The planet could do with a good cleansing – it doesn’t… Read more »
“We as a species are just not that exceptional as any self respecting existentialist will tell you.” We don’t need to be any more exceptional than snails or elephants for me to love my children, my Wife, (some of) my friends and relatives and the notion of billions of other humans and their children and the paintings they will paint or the music they will play or the lunches they will eat or the holes in the roofs they will patch, today or centuries in the future. I can’t say I trust people who consider Human Beings to be a kind of plague on this Earth… the politics that follow from that kind of worldview can’t be exactly Humanity-friendly, eh? It just strikes me as a modern extension of the “Original Sin” meme that poisoned Indo-European thought for centuries… the contempt for Humans used to justify every kind of Evil… Read more »
St . Aug: I have reduced my Carbon Footprint by 40% and give 10% of my paltry pension to charities trying to provide clean water and schooling, meds and food. In 25 years times, if the man made GW argument proves true I will be able to look into the children’s eyes and tell them I did my bit. Any denier who made the conscious choice to gamble away their future can wear the mantle of guilt, not me. It is you who chooses to reject a scientific argument that purports that mankind itself may be responsible for climate change, rather than concern yourself of the consequences if your choice should prove to have been wrong. As for the insult regarding “politics” not being “human friendly” I merely stated an observation. This planet’s evolution over four and a half billion years never had any single species so rapacious or destructive… Read more »
” I have not advocated the murder of, or utter contempt for, the starving and dying children of this world, so many others conveniently avert their gaze from. Mankind itself will bring about it’s own doom precisely because it is self serving and can find every excuse under the sun for not making the necessary changes that might affect their own status quo to the detriment of others less fortunate. So which one of us is the misanthrope?” M, I don’t consider mankind a “plague” or a threat to the Earth (“Mankind” being a blanket term containing within it children, of course) that deserves to destroy itself; the threat to the Earth (and the other Humans on it) comes from a tiny cluster of powerful psychopaths, not every one of the 7+ billion people on the planet. Also, the corollary trope, which you may or may not subscribe to, about… Read more »
The comments and replies are getting confused. St. Aug or whoever it was/is, is referring to someone else who really wasn’t contributing anything, just criticism. St. Aug is fine with argument(well almost)but not with people who make empty promises of leaving.
I just sent a reply to you which was for someone else – disregard please. What do we as humans try to do when we have super swarms of another species we share this planet with? We try to find ways of relieving ourselves of the problem. Wear the shoes of this planet’s other species, who are, for the most part at our mercy and tell me they have no right to their existence and you will have confirmed to me what I have known for more than forty years. Despite humankind’s arrogance in believing they have the right to do whatever is their will with this planet, we are the problem, this planet would not miss us and it would not care, neither would the other species who would have the chance to live according to the limits of the planets caprice. Since when did we appoint ourselves GOD… Read more »
PS: wouldn’t it make sense for you to unlike the comment of mine you just railed against…?
Why? You are entitled to your opinion, regardless of whether it does not resonate with mine. You live your life in one part of the world, I live mine elsewhere, as such, I can only ever be the sum of my own experience and knowledge gained. You yourself, have shown me a different view of the world you inhabit from your view. That’s worthy and notable.
I have no axe to grind with you just because we are at odds with each other and if I choose not to “like” your comments that would reflect more on me than it does you.
Have you investigated the reliability of those water-charities before donating your money? There have been alarming stories of scams and money-making schemes. Ecology, or rather faux-ecology is a huge money-maker now, more’s the pity.
Yes I have tried to. Bill Nighy is currently asking for donations to one of the charities I support and as far as I have been able to deduce, it is genuine. If you know of any such scams involving charities supposedly helping children, then do a big service to those who want to help and put out an article relating to the scams. I really don’t know any other way in which to help these blighted souls except through charitable donations.
The Inuits and other indigenous peoples have passed down their knowledge for many centuries and the fact that they have now been observing the changes rather establishes, not refutes the GW situation. It is they who know the changes are dramatic and understand that it is not something that should be happening in the span of half a lifetime. so well done you for stating the obvious point which some on this site would rather disingenuously try to do a “put down” number on it. Their bias is peeping through the cracks in their argument, not yours.
We will have to wait for the next instalment but – in the meantime – the only thing I can contribute to this debate is the very obvious point that the human population of planet Earth has increased substantially and its consumption of carbon has also increased – possibly geometrically. This logically suggests that human presence and activity on planet Earth has increased substantially and that this surely must be contributing towards the overall climate of planet Earth – especially when bearing in mind phenomena like con-trails from aircraft, smoke and soot from coal-powered power stations and factories, methane from meat-producing animals, etc., etc., etc. No one is surely arguing that they have no effect at all? Another thing I see from time to time is photographs of parts of the world taken decades apart, from which it is absolutely obvious that ice shelfs and similar structures have retreated substantially… Read more »
Climate Change is a vast amalgamation of different studies all interrelated. Not only has the human population grown along with the emissions that is a consequence, but the forests that at one time might have kept apace are all but gone and the ice and snow cover that reflected back the dangerous UV rays have also been melted away. Because of snow cover disappearing, perma frost coverings of methane deposits which is 34% more potent than CO2 are going to be exposed. Flat earthers can believe what they like, but if Larson D “plops” rather than slides into the Antarctic Ocean, they can explain how they were right whilst shoving other people out of their way making sure they get into the lifeboats. They won’t have any right to a position in the lifeboat though, will they? After all, aren’t they the biggest obstacle mankind has in dealing with the… Read more »
“On a personal level, I have given up trying to reason with deniers, they can keep their heads right where they are, we don’t deserve this planet and do deserve whatever mother nature decides to throw at us for making FUBAR of a gift we should have treasured.” We neither deserve nor un-deserve the planet we’re on, we’re simply on it and doing all kinds of weird things to it. There is no (anthropomorphic) “Mother Nature” deciding who gets to stay… I have as little patience for these crypto-Judeo-Christian morality narratives as you have for “Deniers” (a term which sounds an awful lot like “Truthers” to me). Unless you have a weather station of your own and understand the science better than anyone else posting, here, M, wouldn’t you say your passionate certainties are out of proportion to what you can possibly know? I think a few decades of scare… Read more »
Mother Nature is just a term which is more to do with a paganist interpretation of our planet’s natural elements and is no more indicative of a benign/malign conscious entity than the supposed God descriptor as a “being”, intelligent or otherwise. The planet has no conscience and no awareness and yes, it too, merely “exists” which is why it doesn’t care about our continued presence on it’s surface. The planet did not willfully decide to unleash the Russian Lava Fields which plunged the planet into another ELE many millions of years ago and it could take another oblique hit by an asteroid which would render any discussion on the merits of GW very moot. the planet, does however, have a will as in the saying “Nature abhors a vacuum” and mankind’s determination to thwart that “will” or the natural essence of nature’s nature is as futile as Canute holding back… Read more »
I agree that our civilization is destructive of the environment, unconsciously so, given the primary value that is the organizing principle of our economies, namely, production for profit. The culture is in that respect, as Prof. John McMurtry has put it, “life-blind.” Some days, I feel as you do, and really believe that given the nature of things, that life processes are in themselves and predominantly ‘unconscious,’ there is nothing that anyone can do to stave off our inevitable destruction if we continue in the present vein. On other days, I’m more optimistic, because not everything that humans have collectively accomplished were matters of blind good luck, and I think that more and more people either have or are on the cusp of realizing that we must make “human need,” as opposed to profit, the essential value underpinning human purpose. And sometimes I’m just optimistic because Chantal’s (my wife’s) flower… Read more »
I know what you are saying. I do actually give to charities to help the helpless, not because I don’t care, but because I do. I wish I could make the world realize where we as a species are headed, instead I put bird feed out on the feeder and just enjoy the moment as they in their multitude of colours and habits flit back and forth in their busy schedules. My post was deliberately controversial and not just to antagonize the non believers but those who feel as I do, that global warming in this era is “probably” man made but worse than the deniers, do nothing whatsoever. Sometimes it’s good to light a fire under people, if for no other reason than they damn well ought to care. (I think I once accused you of playing devil’s advocate – bloody cheek coming from me, the arch nemesis of… Read more »
Yes, people have lied and exaggerated out of good intentions (probably). But they have still lied and exaggerated. We need to remember that nothing good comes from suppressing truth in a “good cause.” Because people are too fallible and too often wrong to be allowed to make such a call.
The best way to arrive at the truth is to allow all the facts and all the data to be freely evaluated. Once any section of society decides it knows what the truth is and is therefore entitled to suppress any pesky fact that might make people doubt – well they’ve become guardians of a faith haven’t they?
Catte: “Yes, people have lied and exaggerated out of good intentions (probably). But they have still lied and exaggerated. We need to remember that nothing good comes from suppressing truth in a “good cause.” Because people are too fallible and too often wrong to be allowed to make such a call.” That people on both sides of the argument are lying is not in dispute. “. Once any section of society decides it knows what the truth is and is therefore entitled to suppress any pesky fact that might make people doubt – well they’ve become guardians of a faith haven’t they?” Clever girl. It’s one thing to denounce a scientific purported fact with the same false counter arguments used to produce it, but when that argument, right or wrong, shows how dire the consequences could be if ignored, that is a greater crime. How’s that for a “pesky” fact.… Read more »
It’s one thing to denounce a scientific purported fact with the same false counter arguments used to produce it, but when that argument, right or wrong, shows how dire the consequences could be if ignored, that is a greater crime. So, if a prediction is dire enough we have a duty to take it seriously – even if it’s wrong? That doesn’t seem to make very much sense does it? Anyone willing to ignore the possibility that GW is man made is willing to take a gamble that will not affect them for their future, but generations to come. OK, I can get on board with what you say. But questioning the theory of manmade global warming isn’t the same as ignoring it. In fact it’s the very opposite of ignoring it. It’s subjecting it to analysis. Surely you aren’t suggesting that any extinction-prediction should be a priori assumed to… Read more »
“Can’t rational amounts of positive action go hand in hand with further discussion and research?”
They can and do, that’s why sometimes I am D’agent provocant, or should that be L’agent provocateur? It isn’t just mischief on my part, it serves another purpose, but sometimes I’m too clever for my own good. At least it got people moving in the right direction.
Catte. If there is one thing I feel more disheartened about than even the deniers it is those who suffer from an acute attack of apathy. They believe the science and still will not do anything that will inconvenience their lifestyle. Being a denier is not a sin, but doing nothing is. The people on this site are actually engaging in debate(heated in some cases) but that in itself is a good thing. Much better that the debate rages furiously than gets consigned to the bin or swept under the carpet as either “An Inconvenient Truth” or a “Convenient Lie”. Confrontational often gets the desired results, people should be passionate about what they believe or get off the bus. Can you think of a better way to get passion into the debate than the way I have achieved it. I’m not afraid of their condemnation, words don’t kill, deeds or… Read more »
Have you? Become a guardian of a faith, that is?
What pompous garbage. No-one on the side of science and rationality has ‘lied or exaggerated’ out of any intentions, good or bad. In fact they have consistently erred on the optimistic side as climate destabilisation has proceeded far faster and broader than the worst IPCC predictions. The liars, exaggeraters, disinformers and deceivers are the denialists you have made very welcome with this odious pile of denialist disinformation. To publish these odious LIES, not ‘opinions’ is in fact, disgraceful. Just what twisted ideological reasons are really behind it, who can say, but it is PRECISELY what one sees in the worst denialist sewers like the Murdoch fake-stream media.
On a personal level, I have given up trying to reason with deniers, they can keep their heads right where they are, we don’t deserve this planet and …. As someone you would regard as a “denier”, I have not given up trying to reason with climate alarmists, although in my opinion very few of them demonstrate the ability to use reason rationally or reasonably and on the whole they prefer condemnations, ad hominem attacks and bandwagon arguments to discussing relevant theories and facts, so my efforts are usually wasted. But since you don’t believe that we (including, presumably, you personally) deserve this planet, I would start my reasoning by asking why do you believe this? What seems to be the problem? And how do you propose to solve it? CAGW as promoted by people such as Gore, Hansen, Clinton and Obama is a classic “problem, reaction, solution” gambit. They… Read more »
Carbon fuels are abundant. Not just for centuries but millennia.
Even the earth’s core is now thought to be carbon.
Look up methane hydrates.
Carbon is as natural as oxygen.
“Carbon is as natural as oxygen.”
Irrelevant.
Carbon is as natural as Oxygen?
Carbon dioxide at levels that have never pre-existed except as prior to an ELE are the problem. Of the many elements – see the periodic table – many are toxic, but at levels we can survive. The compounds, however, can be favourable as in H2O or lethal as in C2O – especially if the mitigating factors have been removed. Which is where mankind comes in.
Co2 composition of the atmosphere has been much higher than current levels at many times over the Earth’s history. There are natural forces which moderate the level, primarily absorption into the oceans as well as through rainfall, plant respiration, and even dissipation into space. Co2 is a normally fluctuating component of our atmosphere. Plant life is adapted to far higher levels and is presently experiencing co2 drought.
I’m not arguing for geoengineering higher levels of co2, but currently we are dealing with a very minor increase of a trace component.
Mohandeer – may I ask where you got the impression that current Co2 levels are at a high only previously associated with ELEs? Whoever is telling people this is being egregiously misleading.
Co2 levels have been higher than they are now through most of the last 650 million years, if not longer.
http://geologys.hol.es/carbon-dioxide-levels-in-the-jurassic-period/
Much higher. 1,000ppm and more.
Yes, the C02 levels were also high immediately before ELEs, but they had been just as high for millions of years before as well! For most of this time life flourished far more abundantly than it does now. And even with such huge levels of C02 there was no sign of a positive feedback catastrophe
C02 has been at an all time lo in our epoch. This is beyond question.
Tell us where you got that dreadful piece of misinformation please!
The same fossil records those scientists have misrepresented because they failed to mention the relevant die offs and fauna/flora distribution/type and a vast range of other details. It’s easy to manipulate information if the agenda is specifically geared to promoting a biased view. It’s egregious to pretend that the answers are known when the absence of evidence is the basis for the argument. Failure to mention compounds that mankind and most of the previous fauna were not able to tolerate that existed during the periods you mentioned is just as deceitful. Anybody can publish a paper on perceived facts and wonderful tables and diagrams to explain a theory, there will be a whole bunch of others who will jump on the bandwagon right up to the point where the theory and “known facts” are disproved by those who said it was fundamentally incorrect, precisely because the evidence doesn’t stack up.
“As someone you would regard as a “denier”, I have not given up trying to reason with climate alarmists, although in my opinion very few of them demonstrate the ability to use reason rationally or reasonably and on the whole they prefer condemnations, ad hominem attacks and bandwagon arguments to discussing relevant theories and facts, so my efforts are usually wasted.”
I’m so used to getting that sort of treatment from Bush/ Clinton/ BHO supporters, for nearly 20 years, that it feels nearly natural, now, to be treated like a raving lunatic/ moron/ baby-killer by everyone on the other side of any other debate I’ll ever enter. The new rules of “civil debate”: get emotional! Go for the eyes! Won’t someone think of the children? Laugh
Agree with your argument in as much as the solution was probably never attainable, but simply by acknowledging the science and rubbishing it, is in effect, accelerating the process. You have the choice to denounce the science or recognize it’s possibility, but feel free to hurtle towards oblivion if that is your wont. I’m not standing in your way. I fully accept that the problem will never be resolved, most of the economies are run by greed with their own wealth being uppermost in their concerns and I know this and cannot change it. I observe it whenever I can, without emotion. We could be hit by another huge asteroid in the next five years and I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and the “problem” of man’s future or lack of it, will be moot. When a problem is just “too hard” to fix, so let’s not try,… Read more »
When a problem is just “too hard” to fix, so let’s not try, becomes the “meme” as in the title of this article, then giving up trying is pretty much the human default setting in so many instances. So perhaps they are right and we should just give up, So here we are, 7.5 billion people have had no negative impact on the rate of global warming and it’s all just a lie – OK, that argument has real merit for some. The three wise monkeys comes to mind. When a problem is incorrectly diagnosed, it becomes impossible to fix because incorrect solutions will be applied. As Grey wrote in his Anatomy, “sometimes doing something is worse than doing nothing”. We here from time to time about how our economies are decarbonizing, leading to a future scenario in which we can all live happily ever after without using fossil fuels.… Read more »
“Once we throw that attitude away, the barbarians will be us.”
We already are in too many instances.
Barbarians – guilty of barbaric measures, throughout the ages.
“And why would scientists and politicians lie on such a scale?” Scientists follow the herd or lose funding. Politicians lie because that’s their function; they represent powerful concerns with needs and desires inimical to our own, so Good Liars are always useful. Al Gore warned of rising sea levels, then promptly purchased luxurious ocean front property (Montecito, on the Pacific). Either Al Gore is stupid or we are. “Climate Change” spawned carbon trading (lucrative for some), puts in place a framework for stunting the development of smaller energy-producers and developing nations… provides, in a word, more Control for those in charge… and is yet another progressive cause all kinds of geopolitical monkey business can hide behind. I was a “believer” until Climategate. I downloaded and read many of the emails. Then I did quite a lot of reading that informed me as to fact that A) there’s no way to… Read more »
I can defend Gore’s behaviour by pointing out that he was probably referring to long-run climate change and – as the great economist Keynes once pointed out – “In the long run, we are all dead”.
In the short run – i.e. his own life-time – it would make sense for him to live in a nice home in Montecito.
Any negative impacts on his former home would only set in long after he had finished living there.
I would be more concerned about the San Andreas Fault, myself!
I believe Tipper – Al’s wife – got the Montecito home after they separated.
Maybe Al doesn’t care any more – about the house or his ex-.
“I can defend Gore’s behaviour by pointing out that he was probably referring to long-run climate change”
Nah, Gore was claiming, back in 2006 (while hyping his promo vid for the Carbon Trading market) that we had ten years, at best, before apocalypse. How much of a margin for error did Al calculate when he bought that property? Maybe he planned to re-sell at a substantial loss as all the data came pouring in…?
And maybe he missed the fact that six years before his film premiered, “The San Jose Mercury News reported on June 30, 1989 that a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, [said] entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”
erratum: 17 years before his film, I meant to say
“Climate Change” spawned carbon trading (lucrative for some), puts in place a framework for stunting the development of smaller energy-producers and developing nations… provides, in a word, more Control for those in charge…”
Yet “those in charge” have consistently dropped the ball when it comes to climate change and made only non-binding agreements to maybe do something substantial in the future. You would think that if the the “scam” of climate change provided such an avenue for control, those in charge would stop undermining their own efforts to use this lever.
“You would think that if the the “scam” of climate change provided such an avenue for control, those in charge would stop undermining their own efforts to use this lever.”
Well, no. The “rules” they want to put in place should apply to others (as ever). Which explains why there are no NATO “humanitarian interventions” in, say, France over the mistreatment of minorities and so forth.If they can get India to obey these rules while not injuring the bottom line of industry within the governing Empire, all the better. If they can get AGW to really stick… really fly in the minds of the Serfs… I can well imagine it being used, in the future, as a pretext for NATO invasions of AGW-“violaters”! That would be an ideal bonus of the scam.
“If they can get India to obey these rules while not injuring the bottom line of industry within the governing Empire, all the better.” Except that the existing climate change agreements have been fought against in the imperialist centers precisely because of the chauvinist feeling that the rules disproportionately FAVOR the poorer countries, who are given more leeway to pollute and build up their industries. The corporations want the government to lift off the brakes and be loose everywhere, not just in the Third World (which, by the way, is the site for a lot of new CO2 emissions from imperialist corporations who move their precisely because of the more lax environmental regulations) but in the First World, too. As for NATO intervention, you got it comically backwards: NATO interventions take place against countries that are more inclined to protect their environment against the interests of imperialist capital; it’s those… Read more »
Sorry, not buying it: Good one. When the original summit discussions were due, 123 scientists refused to endorse it. They did so, primarily, not because they disputed the science, but because it disproportionally penalised the poorest countries like Africa who had vast resources from being able to use their fossil fuels in an attempt to catch up with the rest of the world. Enter the corporates and the plotters and schemers. Now most of those resources have been “acquired” and “appropriated” by stealth or outright theft by those who still denounce the man made global warming theory, but were savvy(if that’s the word to describe their greed and guile)enough to seize the opportunity and the resources whilst condemning the science. Others were even cleverer than that and advocated the science while secretly doing the same thing. Ain’t life grand? Damned if you don’t and damned if you do.
““Photosynthesis removes CO2 from the atmosphere and replaces it with O2”)
Photosynthesis can only occur if the forests and jungles exist to keep apace. The problem, which is what so many “alarmists” have been trying to get across, without, I have to say, much success, is that the supporting combatant has been removed at a rate which outstrips the levels of harmful CO2.
The clear-cutting and paving over of rainforests is precisely the kind of crime we are not being conditioned, in general, by TPTB, to be alarmed about. The “Alarmists” have been misdirected in the aid of scheme they can’t see through, in my opinion, in a very forest-for-the-trees sort of way. The “Deniers” are not a monolith of pro-“development” stooges… some of us think our energies can be focused against the bastards ruining everything, not in concert (however well-meaningly) with them. And the term “harmful C02” is equivalent to the term “harmful 02” or “harmful copper”… it’s not a scientific term, it’s a propagandistic scare tactic developed by a Thinktank to expedite a Global Control framework.
“And the term “harmful C02” is equivalent to the term “harmful 02” or “harmful copper”… it’s not a scientific term, it’s a propagandistic scare tactic developed by a Thinktank to expedite a Global Control framework.”
I’ll say it again: even though human emissions of CO2 are a small fraction of the total amount of CO2 that is cycled through the Earth’s geochemical system, this system cannot reabsorb all of it, which means that more and more of the CO2 stays in the atmosphere (rising ppm). Whether CO2 is harmful or not depends on the context. It’s supremely ironic that so many naysayers rail against assessments based on models for being overly “simplistic” and that climate change is “in its infancy” and that everything is super complex, yet are happy to make broad-brush and very un-holistic claims about CO2 being simply “a harmless gas”.
Just take a look at what the earth’s natural systems are doing. Massive crash in Arctic sea ice. It is now one quarter of its 1979 volume and has not been re-growing during the long Arctic winter night. Methane releases as permafrost around the Arctic melts. Carbon dioxide over 400ppm. Last year it grew by between 3 and 4 parts per million. Plants to seem to have passed their peak CO2 uptake point, as do the Oceans. 93% of extra warming goes into the oceans and gets released during an El Nino. We may be about to experience another El Nino, just a year after the last one ended. Coral bleaching events – sucha sthat afflicting the Great Barrier Reef – are becoming more common. Oceans ph is decreasing, thus putting the viability of organisms with carbonate shells at risk. Greenland ice sheet melt is continuing at a faster rate… Read more »
With respect this is the meaningless jumbled up soundbite science of the popular media. A mix of decontextualised observations, inaccurate summations, false assertions and computer projections presented as real world events. It’s not real, and no one, even in the core of serious climate scientists talks like this about the subject amongst themselves or in their studies. This is the nonsense churned out to get headlines and grab research grants. – Not that this makes the underlying claims wrong, of course (in fact I happen to endorse the general idea of AGW), but it’s just not reflection of the real, highly complex and and nuanced issues. Just to take one thing as an example – the Arctic ice sheets. Every year the media highlights the “destruction” of these sheets, as if it were an extraordinary and heretofore unknown event. But of course it’s not. The Arctic ice sheets melt every… Read more »
With respect this is the meaningless jumbled up soundbite science of the popular media. A mix of decontextualised observations, inaccurate summations, false assertions and computer projections presented as real world events
And your post is not more of the same??
You are about to receive a lot of oft repeated negative remarks – the usual narrative in denouncing provable facts, with absolutely no acknowledgement of these very real and provable truths. If the Larsen shelf causes a gigantic tsunami wiping out the Eastern Sea Board, you can bet it will not be due to man made global warming. Let me think now, Oh yes, it will be more on the lines of “well, it was always going to happen, because these kind of things have happened before”. You are wasting your time, if you did but know it. The deniers do not want your provable facts and undisputed observations, they have chosen their side and will stick with it, no matter what information flies in the face of their side of the argument. It is worth noting also, that NOAH couldn’t find their arse with both hands and they just… Read more »
Tsar Nocholas
I just finished my comment to you and the very next comment I read had this: “this is the meaningless jumbled up soundbite science of the popular media. A mix of decontextualised observations, inaccurate summations, false assertions and computer projections presented as real world events”….side splitting in it’s doubly attributable to the commentator himself, especially as I had just warned you of what would follow.
It is so very satisfying to be proved right sometimes, but I do feel for you.(Please note, I am NOT laughing at you or your attempt to put the facts out there, but please try to see where I am coming from.
If you were to read the comment you are referring you’ll see the commenter happens to accept the idea of AGW and is merely discussing how the science tends to be dumbed down and simplified for popular consumption.
We see a tendency on all sides here to respond with instinctive rejection without reading and digesting first.
You forgot to place the “With respect” bit in front which is what DavidKNZ used in re-quoting MoriartysLeftSock, who I know is largely accepting of man made global warming, just not necessarily on this site(there are other sites you know?) You might also have noticed – if you weren’t in too much of a rush, that I added an addendum thus: “Please note, I am NOT laughing at you or your attempt to put the facts out there, but please try to see where I am coming from.” Where I was coming from, but you lost your sense of humour? My way of letting him know that the crap was going to hit the fan from all sides – which it did. It’s why I, for the most part don’t try and persuade the deniers any more. “If you were to read the comment you are referring you’ll see the… Read more »
OK, that was a brief acquaintance — I started reading OffGuardian a few weeks ago because Syria, today I’m stopping reading it because the above crock of brown, smelly substance. I’m sorry, but these lies and distortions have all been extensively debunked, for a long time now. Do yourself a favour, subscribe to something like Skeptical Science, wait a a few months, accumulate knowledge, compare sources. Maybe even — gasp, shock — talk to actual climate scientists. There’s a lot of patient, kind guys among them who will gladly explain why what you propagate is nonsense. In the meantime, if you publish this, you’ll publish any bull. You have just miraculously sunk a hundred feet beneath rock bottom. Good bye.
Before running away you might like to read our other article on “free speech, censorship and the right to be wrong.” It’s aimed at people who scream and panic when confronted with cognitive dissonance. None of us are “climate deniers”, but we do understand the need for open debate. Nothing is gained by refusing to hear both sides of an argument.
If you’d like to tell us where the points raised in this article are – specifically – “debunked” we’d be happy to publish your reply.
And you’ll be interested to know we are interviewing a – gasp, shock – climate scientist, later this week.
🙂
Sorry, I have neither time nor patience for dealing with crap. You either stick to “because facts should be sacred”, or publish provably false, completely unverified nonsense like the above. Can’t have the cake and eat it. I could spend hours dissecting every sentence of this bullshit and showing why it’s wrong, as I have done on occasions, but there comes a time when you just accept that someone is wrong on the Internet. It’s just that I don’t need to waste time reading stuff coming from a source that assumes the posture of moral superiority only then to prove that for the sake of stoking an argument it will sacrifice fundamental journalistic integrity.
Sir, are you by any chance a parody account?
Science simply can’t do what you demand it do. I am persuaded that manmade global warming is real to some extent, but the amount of certitude you want to claim is just not available.
LOL – I love that the expressed views of 30,000+ scientists is “crap” to you, because you don’t have time for nuanced thinking!
Maybe make time? It helps
“sacrificing fundamentals of journalism”?
No.
Arguing with the journalist from fundamentalist belief?
Yes.
Bye iJon.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Incidentally, there are a lot of overexcited alarmists out there who are going through tantrums as result of the election of Donald Trump. This seems the best explanation of why their language has become so much more colourful and unrestrained by the dictates o protocol of late. For instance, proper scientist Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama posted a nasty piece of “fan mail” he received the other day that make’s iJon’s potty mouth prose sound like John Keats by comparison. Here’s a sample, with the expletives asterix-ed as I know nuns and vicar’s daughters visit this site Like every other idiot who thinks 7.4 billion human beings cannot alter our planet, you fail to ask yourself the most important question you should be asking: what if you’re wrong. If you are wrong, and mankind is desequestering carbon, nitrogen, and hydrogen in the form of fossil fuels, then you… Read more »
So Spencer loses patience with the flat earthers and this is what? Proof that people who are totally exasperated by man’s ignorance, stupidity and arrogance finally snap and resort to bad language in dealing with the ostrich tribe? Hope your logic pans out for you in the not too distant future. On a personal note, I find such logic slightly flawed. ExxonMobil and shell on the other hand along with all the other huge corporations making mega bucks from the continued depredations and denudations are probably rubbing their hands together in glee believing their money is safely winging it’s way into their already stuffed bank accounts.
Being in denial won’t change the facts – Climate Change is a Rich Man’s Trick adjusted & morphed from Ozone hole that turned out to be fake & then Global Warming that wore thin & now gets called Climate Change. Per capita we pumped out 23 times more carbon 100yrs ago than we do today & each time a volcano goes off it pumps out 10 years worth of human emissions in each 24hrs. Did you ever think why Birmingham area was called the ‘Black Country’? QUOTE: “The Black Country is an area of the West Midlands in England, West of Birmingham,[2] including Dudley, Walsall and Sandwell. In the Industrial Revolution, it became one of the most industrialised parts of Britain with coal mines, coking, iron foundries and steel mills producing a high level of air pollution.” Un-QUOTE Its clean today! Ding Ding Ding……… Why did Al Gore stop his… Read more »
Yes leruscino, I worked in the power industry a long time ago and the (state owned) British Coal and the (state owned) Central Electricity Generating Board had an joint operational “fluidised bed” pilot power generating plant which would have given coal a cleaner and more efficient future but not to my knowledge any reduction in carbon dioxide. This research was of course shut down, shortly to be followed by the privatisation of the power industry and the coal industry. The liquidation of what in the north of England is known as “men’s work” seems to have gone hand in hand with AGW, so much so that AGW could be seen as a nice tool for the gender agenda whereby instead of women having to do these jobs (equally of course) they have merely done away with the jobs, but that’s another issue….
“Being in denial won’t change the facts – Climate Change is a Rich Man’s Trick ”
The delicious irony of that is that this canard ensures that you continue to do the bidding of the Rich Man. “Climate change is a conspiracy for manipulate the world’s poor” is a demagogic slogan in the pocket of reaction, national chauvinism and First World privilege.