Why I am a global warming sceptic: part 92

Someone please take this as an invitation to PROVE that there is climate change going on. Most of us are pretty foggy and unconvinced on the matter.

Bad science versus bad science: Round 1 – both sides declare themselves the victor.

I’m off out to burn some tyres. With kittens in them.

I think it’s something to do with LIES LIES AND DAMNED LIES! Janet, as we’re discovering.

Haven’t you heard, Janet, it is exactly what their models projected? As it would have been if the temperatures had risen!
Never mind, the money machine will roll on undaunted.

Badger..
putting the kittens in burning tyres ruins the meat…oak chips are recommended.

One’s strong suspicion is that this is a carefully choreographed act of terror designed to found the basis for States to mulct their own people of lots of money AND for it to be considered a thought crime to complain about that basis and the attendant taxes.

If one is wrong about that, can anyone proffer an alternative reason why so grand a confidence trick might be conducted against us?

I don’t know what sort of philosophy you taught Janet but can you understand a function of the form:

X = f(A,B,C,D…)?

Let’s say X is global temperature and A is CO2 levels. X may fall as A rises if other factors are exerting as counter-vailing influence. This does not mean X is unaffected by A.

To Brian Tomkinson

Ah but their models didn’t predict it. From one of the e-mails revealed: “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.” Quite.

This is what happens if you assume that you know the answer and build an edifice to confirm you in your assumption, and decry as cranks and lunatics those who disagree. What is happening with climate change is not science, it’s politics. And the politicians are using the issue to do what politicians love best: accreting power to themselves.

There are two questions in my mind:

* How much longer does the cooling trend have to continue before the whole AGW argument is totally discredited?

* How much damage will science have done to itself by the time that happens?

Janet, and a very good philosopher you are

And of course, you are right in your conclusions.

However, I’m sceptical for different reasons. We are being told that the planet is in an emergency situation, yet the actions of politicians don’t reflect that conclusion.

The EU alone has been responsible for a massive expansion of ‘greenhouse gasses’.

* Foodstuffs transported all over Europe
* Air travel deregulated between Europe & USA
* Air travel exempted from appropriate taxation
* EU ‘citizens’ encouraged to move round Europe
* Hypocritical EU business & employment regulation & costs forces businesses from emissions regulated EU – to emissions unregulated Asia
* Massive expansion of EU ‘politics’ means ‘MEPs’ & employees permanently traveling between their Principality constituencies & Brussels.

Of course, ALL non essential air travel would immediately banned if the planet was facing a proven climate emergency.

It isn’t, so I don’t believe there is one.
.

I hope that when Bilderberg nominated Van Rompuy statrs levying carbon taxes against us all, we’ll be brave enough to say:

Enough is enough

You aren’t having another penny

NOW BUGGER OFF!

This will be a real test of British resolve.

AGW is the bastard child of globalist masons and lunatics who want to reduce us all to penury.

Can you believe the headline on the BBC News online page?

…( “Global warming dangers alarming”.)

Actually it’s just been moved to their science and environment page, but they chose to banner this rather than the lying and cheating revealed yesterday.

No mention yesterday about the bullying and lying revealed by the UEA emails ( which Watson dared to defend yesterday on BBC2 Newsnight, although he had modified his earlier simplistic sole defence/attack of the law being brought to bear on the hackers.)

The BBC and Met Office are up to their necks in this propaganda.

As many have been saying for years: Climate does indeed change, and has done, over the life of Earth.

To believe that Man can alter this fact, whether negatively or positively, suggests extreme naivety or incredible pomposity.

“Deniers” as some of the “Greens” seek to imply of those who can still think for themselves, should more aptly be put in the category of those who refuse to acknowledge that climate does indeed change, has always changed, and will continue to change … WITHOUT Man’s help.

Concerning the global warming propaganda,and the new “religion” that brooks no argument, David Bellamy wrote in The Times 22.10.07 …

“I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests.

“But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts.

“The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming.

“Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models…”

Whatever it is something is causing climate change. We have icebergs off the coast of New Zealand, widespread flooding and milder temperatures. Instead of fighting among yourselves, could someone please give us the reason for this change and just leave the politics aside for a moment.

As a sceptical Skeptik, I think that I ought to comment.

I posted this in the Independent on Sunday, 22 November 2009 at 08:52 am (UTC)

“Most of the stories put about by the global warming advocates are based upon the outputs of mathematical models . . . .

It was the use of a mathematical model, (the Black-Scholes model for option pricing), that led to the downfall of LTCM in 1998. This almost led to a collapse in the world’s financial system, (according to the “authorities” at the time). All this despite, or perhaps because of, the two Nobel economics laureates, (one of whom was Scholes), being its principal economic advisors.

It was the use of a similar mathematical model, (that produced by David Li), that caused so many bankers, their regulators and the ratings agencies to underestimate the risks inherent in the mortgage backed securities that have caused so much harm. Many people, far removed from the financial services industry, have lost their jobs as a result.

Most “serious” economic forecasters also make use of mathematical models.

Back in June 1993, the OECD published a study of the accuracy of a number of different economic forecasts for growth and inflation covering the period 1987-1992. Forecasts made by the OECD itself, as well as the IMF and the Treasuries of the seven largest economies were compared with the very simple “know nothing” rule that the figures in any one year would be the same as those for the previous year. Guess what – the “know nothing” rule performed better than any of the professionals!

A similar survey carried out by the London Business School, (also in 1993), found that the difference between the forecasts made using each of the commonly used, but different, theoretical models was less than the difference between the actual outcomes and what the models predicted!”

SO, BEWARE MATHEMATICAL MODELS!

Again in the Independent on 11th March 2009, there was an article about predicted rises in sea levels. I quote:

“Only two years ago, the UN’s Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its Fourth Assessment Report, or AR4, that the worst-case prediction for global sea-level rise was 59cm by 2100. But the scientists in Copenhagen suggested that the 2007 report was a drastic underestimation of the problem, and that oceans were likely to rise twice as fast.”

I have to say that any model that is so sensitive to input parameters that it can alter an output by a factor of two must be almost totally unreliable.

Basically, the truth is that we just don’t know!

Travesty or parody?
The science is clear, settled and beyond dispute… the “scientists” don’t have a clue what’s happening.

It’s known that the climate has changed over the centuries so there’s no reason to suppose that it won’t do so again.

The claim that man is implicated in such a change is simply a nice little earner for governments and entrepreneurs which, if pursued to its natural conclusion, will devastate the world’s economy, or what’s left of it, and lead to millions dying of hunger worldwide.

Climate is basically an average of weather over a long period – the accepted period is 30 years, but longer periods can also be considered and compared. Weather is the observation of phenomena such as wind velocity and direction, air pressures, air and ocean temperatures, precipitation, cloud cover, etc over a short period – two or three days or so.

Since climate is an average of a range of data over time, any change can only be seen retrospectively in comparison with another period, once all the data has been collected and averaged.

Since the very nature of an average means data will deviate around a point, most observations will be either side of that point. Taking just one datum or even a number over a short period cannot be regarded as proof the average has changed or will.

Furthermore change in average of one aspect of climate – temperature – on its own is no evidence of climate change.

Those who can see climate change happening must be having visions. See a doctor.

It doesnt matter what the true figures and facts are, global warming is now an industry headed up by people like brown and Obama. People who are desperate to steal our money in the name of tax. No doubt Cameron will decide to believe in it as well when he sees the benefits of the tax increases.

Tuvalua has apparently been sinking for 40 years and now the Maldives are as well. Well I guess they need our money as well.

Our best attempts at defining measuring the “temperature of the earth” show it has warmed a small and statistically insignificant amount since 1998. It’s worth noting, however, that these 10 years include 9 of the hottest years on record.

There is no contradiction with the rising levels of C02 in this period. Increased C02 concentrations are predicted to cause global warming in the long term. 10 years is simply not a long period when compared to meteorlogical, oceanic, and even sunspot cycles that have a much stronger effect in the short term.

Accurate records of atmospheric C02 concentration can be found in air bubbles from antactic ice cores. The relationship between atmospheric C02 and temperature is very strong over geological time scales (see here) and if this relationship doesn’t break down we are in trouble. This chart shows that atmospheric C02 is highly correlated with global temperatures, and to my mind the burden is on the skeptics to show why increased C02 wouldn’t correspond to higher temperatures.

I have no idea whether climate change is man-induced or a naturally recurring phenonemon. But by all reports, the Arctic is increasingly ice-free, desertification is increasing in Africa, southern Europe and Australia, the ozone layer is shrinking, sea levels are rising: the list goes on.

The measures being debated at international fora seem all to be aimed at stopping and then reversing permanent climate change (assuming that it exists) in 20, 50 or 100 years. All very well, but what about the practical measures we need to take to alleviate the impacts that are happening right now? If it turns out that we can’t do anything about climate change, what then? We need to start thinking about how to deal with that, now.

Solar cyclic activity is a much more likely reason for the recent warming period. According to scientists who study solar activity, the planet is likely to cool significantly in the coming years. No doubt, the hysteria will not go away. AGW will merely be replaced by AGC instead.

The whole AGW movement is much more about powerful global interests raping the people of their money. They wont give up this crusade because they consider humanity to be a virus. They absolutely detest humanity (except for themselves of course. They believe they are ethically and morally superior to everyone else. They are eugenicists.)

They want the world for themselves, a safe clean world for THEIR children and THEIR Volvos. They don’t give a stuff about the rest of us. It’s all about narrow self interest.

Al Gore can burn in hell forever as far as I’m concerned.

Peter51 on Nov 24th, 2009 at 10:01 am:

“X = f(A,B,C,D…)?

Let’s say X is global temperature and A is CO2 levels. X may fall as A rises if other factors are exerting as counter-vailing influence.”

This can only happen if the effect of A, (CO2 levels), is less than that of the other factors, (natural ones perhaps?) The trouble is that the global warming alarmists are claiming that man’s influence is larger than the natural ones!

If this is true, then, presumably, our output of CO2 has been wholly beneficial in that it has prevented another ice age! Some of us may remember the global cooling scare of the early 1970s – which involved many of the same scientists!

Janet- to the extent that there is any “proof” it is not based on rigorous scientific method but more on intuition and the need for some people to “ride on a social action bandwagon” rather question nebulous data and interpretation. In scientific terms the “n” or sample size is simply not large enough to draw accurate conclusions, and there is too much contrary data to make conclusions credible.

There is huge skepticism at Harvard and MIT among the more experienced faculty, who by the way live and breathe discoveries for which they become part of the awareness and solution.

Even for those who believe in climate change such as the militant Sierra Club (supported by CalTech) there is unsteady and weak support for any urgency on either legislation or carbon footprints (a phrase that has almost no traction in the US) but the SC shows strong support for nature and wildlife preservation and eco-balances just as it always has. It is in their interest to be as vocal as possible on causes of any supportable fact-based merit… and they just aren’t there on this one. Nor is the incredibly powerful and heavily-endowed (US) Nature Conservancy nor are the reputable scientific foundations. People here still look at the bottoms of their shoes for carbon when hearing this UK catch-phrase.

And anything associated with Al Gore lacks credibility here almost as though “if Gore is involved, it’s horsehockey”. He is at best Clinton’s running mate, a rich kid with lotsa Beltway contacts and a hanger-on to causes that are well in-hand by others.

mrtom on Nov 24th, 2009 at 10:45 am

“We have icebergs off the coast of New Zealand, widespread flooding and milder temperatures. Instead of fighting among yourselves, could someone please give us the reason for this change”

That’s weather, not climate. Climate is long term trends, changes in the system. For temperature that’s normally defined as ten years or more of consistent change.

That’s where the problem lies, the last ten years saw first a standstill till 2001 and then a slow decline. By 2011, if this continues, they’ll start screaming that global cooling is caused by CO2 and predicting an ice age.

By the way the Russian Weather Bureau are already predicting a cooling trend for the foreseeable future – that is the next 30 to 50 years.

@ James Bull, desertification is a consequence of farming, not temperature.

Gore may be a ‘hanger-on but he has gone from being a millionaire to a MULTI-MILLIONARE all with his GW fantasies including his moneymaker film. Someone mentioned once that some of that film, the inconvenient truth, was lifted from Space Odyssey or one of the spae films. Anyone know whether this was true? I did not bother adding to Gore’s millions.

Meanwhile, global temperatures continue to fall, the polar ice continues to increase, polar bear numbers continue to grow and sea levels stubbornly refuse to rise.

When we had a couple of mild winters a few years ago, we were told that this was evidence of global warming (GW). We then had a series of cold winters and were told that this too was evidence of GW because GW causes seasonal extremes.

It is worth remembering that, after the severe winters of the early 80s, the climatologists told us that we were entering a new ice age.

It’s not so long ago that we were being warned that we must get used to living in a permanent state of drought in a landscape similar to that of Greece full of vineyards. It now seems that the recent floods are the result of GW because GW causes greater rainfall.

The only sensible course of action for a politician to adopt is to prepare for the day when the penny finally drops and people realise that they are the victims of the biggest tax and subsidy scam in history.

Nigel Lawson’s book “An Appeal to Reason” starts by questioning the science, and the idiocy of the Stern report in particular, but he then goes on to accept, for the purposes of his argument, all the worst case predicitons of the warmist tendency. More devastating than any scientific case is his demonstration that, even then, even in the worst of all their cases, the counter-measures that are being proposed are morally insupportable and economically insane.

There should be a copy in every politician’s briefcase.

I believe that the following four points are particularly relevant:

1. It had been common knowledge for a couple of years before Al Gore’s ‘Inconvenient Truth’ came out that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere lagged behind temperature changes, typically by 800 years, so was driven by temperature rather than causing it. His graph was therefore a falsehood.

2. Solar observers predicted that temperatures would cease to rise about now. The IPCC computer models didn’t, which means that it is no longer controversial to say that they are worthless. In addition, computer models do not produce evidence – they only produce whatever their programmers want them to produce. The computer models have only proved that the computers are working, and that the models have been wrong every time, so far.

3. CO2 is already absorbing almost all that there is to be had in the relevant bands. The effect is logarithmic so increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere only has a slight effect. The effect of mankind’s contribution is therefore insignificant. Moreover, CO2 and the other trace gases are pretty unimportant as greenhouse gases. Water vapour is the gas that counts.

4. There is no evidence of increased greenhouse warming in the atmosphere that was predicted by the models. However, we don’t hear much about that from the warmist brigade.

Without real evidence of more than an insignificant amount of AGW, or of increased greenhouse warming, the warmists are dead in the water. Hence the concentration on the fictitious positive forcing by the computer models, which are the only things producing a ‘doomsday’ scenario.

Unfortunately, after a huge campaign over decades, including in the education system, by many organisation with many different agendas (mostly anti-west or anti-industrialisation) there are a large number of brainwashed voters out there who erroneously believe that mankind has some control over these natural climatic changes, and where the voters go, the politicians follow.

There is also a conspiracy theory prevalent that the some shady organisation is trying to use the Copenhagen treaty as a vehicle to set up some kind of supra-national World Government.

mrtom on Nov 24th, 2009 at 10:45 am

“Whatever it is something is causing climate change. We have icebergs off the coast of New Zealand, widespread flooding and milder temperatures. Instead of fighting among yourselves, could someone please give us the reason for this change and just leave the politics aside for a moment.”

——-

I’m no expert but I’d answer your question like so “Climates change…”

What ended the last ice age? It certainly wasn’t the result of man made climate change

The ONE extremely IMPORTANT!!! and pressing issue NEVER debated is the geo engineering around the world. Persistent contrails filled with microscopic metals, barium salts and other crap that aids the weather modification or weather wars some countries have been causing for years now. WHERE’S THE DEBATE IN THAT?
Look at the stories that came out of Beijing when they decided to create rain. OOps, instead of rain, they had the 1st snow in a decade, that wouldn’t stop for days! In the north, 15,000 buildings collapsed and 32 people killed from the heavy snow. The Chinese, at first, bragged they put “special chemicals” into the atmosphere.
newyorkskywatch.com and bluenomore.com are sites explaining the assault on our planet.

Why is the geo engineering of our planet NEVER DEBATED?
What extreme harm must be going on with microscopic metals and barium salts etc.

newyorkskywatch.com and bluenomore.com are sites explaining the assault on our planet.

Janet
you have missed how clever this group are. They do not talk about global warming so much as climate change. They are losing the argument on global warming but nobody including me can ignor the reality of climate change. After all every study from before and after the ice age is incontroverible proof. The only argument is to whether man can control climate change.It is politicians who have the necessary confidence fed with material from scientists/consultants who give the advice they know they want to recieve

What a way to try and win an election!

More and more people are beginning to have grave doubts about the EU – so David Cameron breaks his promise on the Constitution/Lisbon Treaty referendum.

More and more people feel we are being duped about AGW and the movement is primarily about enriching those involved personally and to justify taxes which are then not used to help ‘the environment’ – so David Cameron boasts that his party allows you vote blue and be green.

More and more people are hugely cynical about ‘positive discrimination’ and the fact that local people are being excluded from the political process – so David Cameron imposes ‘women only shortlists’ and tries to ensure that his preferred candidates from London are imposed upon rural constituencies.

This week a poll showed that the Conservatives have only a 6% lead: this would not win them a majority in Parliament.

Any decent opposition party leader – up against the most incompetent, unprincipled and corrupt government Britain has ever suffered – would be 30 points ahead now. But David Cameron is a dud who is completely out of touch with the electorate.

Expect even worse results for David Cameron’s party in future polls.

Dear Janet.
I think your entire essay should begin and end with this line from your piece:
“I am not a scientist.”
Correct.
You are not.
To the average person living in Medieval Europe, the earth looked very flat indeed.
The the average person in Galileo’s time, the sun certainly seemed to revolve about the sun.
Since you are not a scientist, why don’t you leave the science to the scientist. Casual observation and ‘logic’ have generally proven wrong.

@ Rosenblum

” Since you are not a scientist, why don’t you leave the science to the scientist. Casual observation and ‘logic’ have generally proven wrong.”

I see.

So, the logic of your argument is that only an artist may criticise another’s work ‘ similarly composers, sculptors et al.

Okay, I know that in those cases we are not dealing with realy science … but hey, where’s the REAL science in AGW?

To their eternal disgrace — and our extreme detriment, *experts* of various flavours have so debased scientific peer review as to render it utterly useless.

A writes a crap paper ; B, who has the same agenda to prove then cites A’s work, both of which in turn are quoted by C,D,E and F and so on.

And LO! A new religion is born.

And it must be true, because so many expert high priests say that it is.

And to deny it is heresy.

And here I was thinking that whole sound, provable, enduring scientific theories have been spurred by initial casual observation.

Where, pray is there any baseline in the so-called science of climatology

Gases, metals and other substances will always and everywhere act, and react to external factors in identical, predictable and infinitely repeatable ways.

Their qualities are their baseline from which unfailingly accurate conclusions may be drawn.

But that cannot, nor will it it ever be possible with a pretend science that is based only upon what is known of the past, and what is observable in the present.

It does not now, nor will it ever afford a firm and accurate prediction of what will happen to the climate in any selected future era.

” If this trend continues, then X will result” has no value whatsoever when the trend itself at any moment may cease, or chgange radically, instantly rendering all the collected data worthless.

One can know all that there is to know of weather, oceanic, terrestrial patterns and currents, but any deductions are only valid as long a the parameters remain constant.

But they never are.

To attempt to predict weather patterns, say, a hundred years hence, is huruspication pure and simple.

As well cast the runes, or read the steaming entrails of an eviscerated fowl. An organically reared Waitrose one, of course.

And, the biggest abyss in this AGW scam ; human behaviour.

Fess up, now, how many of YOU five, ten years ago thought that today US car manufacturers parking lots would he thick with unwanted 4X4s rusting away?

How many of you dare to predict human attitudes to ANY particular issue in a hundred years?

As it’s getting near Christmas … * Bah! Humbugt!”

cdawson on Nov 24th, 2009 at 11:50 am:

“Accurate records of atmospheric C02 concentration can be found in air bubbles from antactic ice cores. The relationship between atmospheric C02 and temperature is very strong over geological time scales”

I knew somebody would bring up this chestnut.

First, most of these changes took place before man arrived on the planet – and so neither the changes in levels of CO2, nor the temperature changes can have been man made.

Second, as Scott on Nov 24th, 2009 at 1:35 pm points out, the rise in temperature appears to come before the rise in CO2 levels. I may be old fashioned but I do still believe that causes should come before effects! So, if there is a causal relationship, it must be increasing temperature that causes increases in CO2 levels.

This is exactly what any physicist would expect. The solubility of a gas, (such as CO2), in a liquid, (such as sea water), is inversely proportional to the absolute temperature. This is known as Henry’s Law – see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry’s_law

The truth is, as I wrote in my first contribution – WE SIMPLY DON’T KNOW

Tell that to my family who live on the tiny islands of Kiribati.

Surely even if there is dispute amongst scientists as to whether it is real or not, its better to plan for the worst lest our children and our childrens’ children end up in serious trouble.

The amateurs run riot!
Let’s unleash Janet on the search for a cure for cancer.
What does your logic tell you Janet?

@Peter51 and @skeptic:
Peter51 is correct on his analysis, but skeptic is closer on the conclusion. If we accept that there are other significant factors driving climate change (and Lord knows we never hear of them from the AGW fanatics), then why are we so focused on spending incredible amounts of money to try to change but one factor? Surely, if we want to change the climate at all, we should consider which factors are easiest and cheapest to influence. However, this all raises the more important question of if it’s even possible to predict climate change based on the many other factors involved (several of which are currently unknowable). I would wager that it’s not possible with current technology, and the failure of all the computer models to predict the current cooling period bears that out. What guarantee to the Warmists have that the “underlying warming trend” will continue, if their models are inherently faulty?

The thing I always find funny is that here we are in the 21st century and with all the technology and computer modeling we have we are still unable to predict next weeks weather with any confidence.

Yet we appear to be able to predict how the atmospheric structure of the Earth will change many years from now (the very thing that controls our weather patterns) and how it will effect the planet.

It would be worth toughing out a winter like 1962-3 just to savour the excuses from the ecofanatics.
No doubt, like the floods in Cumbria, they will somehow twist facts to place the blame on us wicked humans.

“The the average person in Galileo’s time, the sun certainly seemed to revolve about the sun.” Rosenblum 3.09

shurely shum mishtake: they’d have all become cross-eyed

Janet…it’s all about “time frame” and “trend.”

Looking at a 10 year slice of time on earth, is like looking at a 1 week slice of time on the stock market. The stock market may be up for that week, but it may be in a distinct downtrend over months or years. The Japanese stock market is at 9,500 which is above its March 2009 “bottom”…but far below its 1989 high of 39,000. The trend is still down.

I am also NOT a scientist….but I have done a fair amount of reading on climate change because I don’t trust EITHER SIDE, and I do a LOT of “looking”. So let’s discuess what can be SEEN by our eyes:
1) Mount Kilaminjaro in Africa has been losing its glaciers over the past decades and it is losing them at an increasing rate (they will be gone in 15 yrs).
2) Western Alaska has lost significant sea ice over the past 30 years and the permafrost is starting to melt.
3) In 2005 a study in Russia found that an area the size of France and Germany had stated to lose its permafrost for the first time since the last ice ended 11,000 years ago.
4) The Carteret Islands in Papua New Guinea are losing their land to the rising ocean level over the past 30 years and inhabitants are moving to another (higher) island.
5) New Zealand’s “Southern Alps” have lost 50% of their snow and ice over the past 30 years and over the fiscal year ending this past March 2009…lost more snow and ice than they gained during the past winter.
6) The glaciers in the European Alps are melting and some ski areas are resorting to COVERING THEIR HIGHER SLOPES IN THE SUMMER WITH SPECIAL FABRIC to slow metling.
7) The Artic Ocean is becoming more “ice free” during the summer.

When you look at climate change….and the DIRECTION of climate change….you need to look at longer period of time. There are MANY THINGS that affect the warming/cooling of the earth: (1) tilt of the earth’s axis (yes….this changes over time), (2) the amount of sunflares, (3) the amount of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere, (4) ocean currents, etc.

If you look at “things” we can see…WITHOUT listening to paid lobbiests on EITHER SIDE of the argument, I think you will begin to see that the earth is indeed warming….the ice is metling…..and the oceans are indeed rising.

In “earth terms”…..10 years is a blink of the eye (by the way….some say that 2006 was warmer). It is the TREND you need to watch. And that trend over the last 200 years has been clearly WARMING….and warming at an increasing rate. You need to look at trends over a longer period of time.

All things move in trends. Now the trend is warmer…and we need to do our best in order to SLOW DOWN THAT TREND…and adapt to it.

Beegle at 4.50.

We might be invaded by purple people with green spots from another galaxy. There again we might not.

But, ought we not prepare for the eventuality for our descendents even if the preparation completely destroys the economy of our planet and reduces us all to penury?

.

1) there is climate change. There has always been climate change.
2) But is it getting warmer and if so, is that a bad thing?
3) did man cause it?
4) can man do anything about it?

OK, the climate is not static. It never has been.
Of course there is a great situation for the alarmists in that any excess of weather will always be for the worse – but it doesn’t prove a thing without a causal relationship….

Think about it.

It was getting warmer and we may conclude that at least 50% of the time it will be getting warmer i.e. when we are headed out of an ice age, and 50% getting colder i.e. when we are heading into an ice age.
Take your pick where you are and for which period you want to collect data. If you only have data for a few cycles at most or for less than a complete cycle, then end effects and the amount of data available will be very important in shaping the trend you create.
If you have data that runs over a goodly number of cycles the end effects are less significant.
Now reliable temperature data and CO2 data is only available for a very short time period, far less than a complete major cycle.
Then we have minor cycles to contend with, the medievil warm period, the little ice age but which were suppressed in the famous hockey stick and the current (since 1998) decline in temperatures which they have done their best to hide. So, at the moment, it looks like we have entered a decline or cooling period.
The warmists say this is a temporary setback (when they admit it at all) which is like saying you are only a little bit pregnant.
Oh, and http://www.surfacetemp.org has been evaluating those “reliable weather stations and the results are not encouraging.

But even if it were warming, is this bad for us? Yes, more people may die in hotter summers according to warmists but even more people would die in colder winters. Warmer weather with more CO2 would mean more and better plant growth and more animals.

Did man cause it?
Not according to a great many people. And CO2 is not the cause anyway.

Can man do anything about it?
Well, can we do anything about CO2. WE can spend a lot of money but with no tangible results.
Unfortunaetly there are lots of other things we could do very effectively, perhaps too effectively. Its one thing to cause accidental damage but when man sets out to do something it often has a habit of going badly wrong. Man hasn’t been terribly successful in any attempts to manage anything.

Rosenblum….depending on “experts” is not very clever. I regularly look at the Met Office site and find that ( forinstance )in my area it’s going to rain….hmm…..and then it doesn’t.

Well there you are, obviously as ordinary punter my oservations of reality are as nothing to the forecasts of the “experts”.

Doom! Doom, I say! WE are all doomed.

The end is nigher than you think!

What a load oF Old Mother Hubbard!

Hasn’t any Warmist ( horrible word ) noticed that some placves on the surfacve of the earth are … well, a teeny bit different from others.

Thye do tell me — with what degree of thruth I know not ( can’t trust anyone these says, can you? ) that some folk actually live in a place called … what is it now?

Ah, yes, Siberia, that it.

Where summer and winter temperatures can vary by 100 DEGREES. But they all go about their business as if it’s all the same the year round.

Iceland has a mean temperature of 5C degrees ; Singapore and its neighbours a mean temperature of 30C.

Doesn’t that, and a thousand other Inconvenient Truths tell the doom mongers anything?

But no, we’re really just sinosaurs, and when.if there’s any change, we’re just going to wail, * Doom! Doom, I say! WE are doomed!”

And with that, we’ll just roll over and die.

Thye older I get the more baffled I get at just how stupid and deluded people can be.

Even I thought that the mediaeval Flagellants movement had died out, but it seems like I was wrong after all.

Only differece is that instead of our modern Flagellants walking the streets whipping THEMSELVES and crying doom and disaster, it’s us heretic deniers who have to be whipped.

WE live in what a new generation of historians will justifiably call the New Age of Unreason.

Sorry about the mangled English!

This Mexican Marching Powder’s a mite stronger than Bolivian Brown!

Why is it that all AGW enthusiasts also seem to be misanthropes? And Phil Kean at 10.09am seems to me to have summed up reasons to be sceptical pretty well.

Dear oh dear jchrissmith0007 on Nov 24th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Will they ever stop.

Only a few dispute that there has been a steady small warming since end of the 17th Century Little Ice Age (Astronomers call it the Maunder Minimum because it corresponded with a very low level of sunspots). During the Little Ice Age it was possible to hold ice fairs on the frozen Thames and other waters. Since the 19th century we have been pulling out of that cold spell – until now, at least.

So, as jchrissmith0007 says, a warming trend has occurred. Glaciers have been melting. Silly photographs of polar bears have been taken. Things are the warmest on average than they have been for some time. Almost no-one disputes it. However, it’s not getting any warmer right at the moment, and the ice is getting thicker.

All this has corresponded rather closely with the rise in US postal charges – there is a high correlation. There is also a lesser correlation with the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Correlation is not causation. The temperature information would be the same regardless of the cause, so it doesn’t prove anything one way or the other.

What we need from jchrissmith0007 is real evidence that there is more than an insignificant warming due to AGW, and that there is an increase in the greenhouse effect. Then we can be impressed.

If he can do that he can expect a Nobel prize. So far no-one has stepped forward to claim the prize. Are you going to be the first, jchrissmith0007?

Some excellent comments in this thread, Thanks all. Particularly ‘Scott on Nov 24th, 2009 at 1:35 pm’.

This is a must see You Tube interview re the hacked CRU-UEA data.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac

Janet why is it hard for even a philosopher to comprehend that climate is fairly complex. Multiple cycles overlaying each other so what if there is a minor cooling over a few years due to the resultant of many variables slightly over riding the AGW. What happens when the resultant of those variables becomes a warming trend? Not only will we start from a warmer low point. The mechanisms may be complicated but the basic theory is pretty simple.

“I am not a scientist. I have no meteorological expertise whatever. But I spent twenty years teaching philosophy and I know a logical contradiction when I see one”.
Correction, you are a scientist if you see a logical contradiction. That is what science is all about.

I can think of one explanation that might fit the facts:

Increasing temperatures cause increasing CO2 levels rather than the other way around. If the effect takes time to manifest itself, this would explain the fact that CO2 concentrations are still rising while temperatures are stationary (or may indeed have fallen slightly).

It’s a theory that has been punted before by people way more learned than myself but since it contradicts the “consensus” and fails to ascribe temperature increases to man-made causes it has largely been ignored if not derided.

I find it quite pathetic that people can say “you are not a climate scientist so you don’t know what you are talking about”.
This is what the priests used to say to keep people quiet, ignorant and obedient. “You are not priests, only we can tell you what the holy books mean.” Well when people started to read themselves and question using Critical Thinking guess what happened?
By your logic I cannot possibly understand whats happening to me if I am told I have, say, angina because I am not a doctor. I cannot understand at all the movements of the planets because I am not a qualified astronomer. Tosh.
I am quite capable of looking at facts and drawing logical conclusions. Its a little more difficult when those facts are indeed lies, but these can been seen through because lies always come undone eventually and as has been said I can see a logical contradiction.
Therefore by using critical thinking, looking at the evidence when it is explained in terms I can understand, I can without doubt say that I have seen through the priests of AGW and one of the biggest scams in modern history.

Rosenblum says:

The the average person in Galileo’s time, the sun certainly seemed to revolve about the sun.

No matter how deluded and superstitious we think the average renaissance peasant might have been I doubt they ever thought that. Indeed it’s the sort of trick only eggheaded scientists with their own Hadron Colliders dream about.

I’d love to see it if they ever manage to get it right though.

Having actually worked on the computer modelling of complex systems, and having also been involved in precise temperature measurements in a laboratory context, I’ve always been sceptical about the reliability of the observations and even more sceptical about the reliability of the predictions.

It’s one thing to set up a sophisticated mathematical model which can be elaborated and adjusted to give a reasonable fit to known data, in this case past measurements or calculations of some kind of average global temperature, but it’s another thing to use the model to predict unknown data, in this case future values of that average global temperature.

In other circumstances those involved might regretfully accept that their model had made incorrect predictions, and either abandon it or try to identify where it was going wrong and improve it; but in this case there are now massive economic and political vested interests, and I’m not at all surprised that some of the protagonists have resorted to massaging data and/or outright fraud to get the required answer.

Apparently people are no longer taught about Lysenko, which is a pity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

“In 1940 he became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences, and Lysenko’s anti-Mendelian doctrines were further secured in Soviet science and education by the exercise of political influence and power. Scientific dissent from Lysenko’s theories of environmentally acquired inheritance was formally outlawed in 1948, and for the next several years opponents were purged from held positions, and many imprisoned. Lysenko’s work was officially discredited in the Soviet Union in 1964, leading to a renewed emphasis there to re-institute Mendelian genetics and orthodox science.”

Apparently CO2 levels are ‘rising faster now than in previous years’ according to a UN Climate Agency. The world is just about coming out of a deep recession which must have meant less industrial production and less transportation. I would have thought this would show up as a slowing of the rise of CO2 not an acceleration. Either the CO2 figures are wrong or the increase is due to natural effects and thus there is nothing that Man can do about it.

I can only concur with Mr Cooper. I too work in the field of generating mathematical models of natural phenomena, in my case models of orebodies.

We too make our models using measured point data and extrapolating that to fill in the gaps. Thanks to some clever computer programs and cleverer people we are quite good at predicting what is going on between data points but once we start to make predictions outside the bounds of the available data, that accuracy falls off at an alarming rate.

This, I should point out, is for phenomena whose few variables are literally cast in stone. I cannot even begin to contemplate the complexities of modelling a system with so many variables and influences that is in perpetual motion. All I can say is that I’d bet the chances of the models being accurate outside the boundaries of the known data are very slim indeed.

Dear oh dear Scott:)

<>

I really like going after the truth….not one side or the other. One always arrives at better answers when we pursue the truth. So again…let’s look at what I said….and I’ll add one or two new pieces of new information.

1) 8 of the 10 warmest years on record have been recorded SINCE 2001. The warmest on record (by most accounts) was 1998 (and NOT part of the “8 out of 10″). If you want to pick out ONE YEAR (say 2008)…and think that global warming is not taking place because each additional year is not a new record high…you can certainly say that. But that is like saying that “the stock market is down 1 day so we must be in a long term down trend.” Again…you need to look at the longer term trend (multiple decades or hundreds of years……NOT a single year). It is very clear that the last decade has been the warmest on record. It is also clear that the last 30 years is warmer than the prior 30 years. It is also clear that the last 200 years is warmer than the prior 200 years.

2) Ice IS MELTING. Look at the measurements in the European Alps…..look at the measurements in the “Southern Alps” of New Zealand…..look at Mt. Kiliminjaro in Africa……look at the sea ice off the west coast of Alaska…..look at the tundra melt in Russia…..islands are disappearing in the Pacific.

The last decade has been the warmest on record. The oceans have warmed over the past 30 years. If we look for the truth….we will find it. That is why I choose NOT to listen to the “ultra left” (those trying to save the polar bears)…..nor do I listen to those on the ultra right (let’s put Barbara Bachmann in a garage with her car running and see how she likes a lot of “CO2″).

You can look at pictures of Alaska glaciers in the 1930’s/40’s and compare them to pictures now. The loss of ice is staggering.

It is also important to look at MANY PLACES around the globe….which is why I pointed out Russia, Alsaka, New Zealand, and Africa (I didn’t even mention Greenland and the Antarctic which are ALSO melting).

I continue to be amazed how some people are so slow to change (any change). We (humans) are a funny species that way. We get so “dug in” once we take “A POSITION” (either pro or con) on an issue…..we often have trouble changing even in the face of the obvious that is right in front of our face. It truly is amazing.

All I’m looking for is the ACTUAL TRUTH. Not some “perceived truth”……or “wished for outcome.”

If we all keep our eyes (and minds) open….then we will find the truth. If we close them off to a truth that we “don’t want”….then we will never find the truth.

Good luck….

jchrissmith0007 on Nov 25th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

You are repeating yourself and pushing against an open door. Just listing symptoms of warming says nothing about the cause.

There is nothing significant that we can do about it through carbon-based measures, unless you know better.

You forgot to address the request in the last part of my posting. I am looking forward to hearing if you have real evidence of more than insignificant AGW, and of an increase in the greenhouse effect.

No-one has come up with any so far, which therefore means that mankind is spending trillions on carbon capping and destroying western civilisation in order to have no perceptible impact on the climate. Clever, don’t you think?

It will be nice when climatology has developed to the point where it can provide forecasts of climate change far enough ahead for us to take appropriate steps to manage the impact. However, that will not happen for some time.

There is an intersting video clip on glacier melting. It shows some pictures of various glaciers over time…going back to 1921 vs more recent pictures.

The clip can be found at:

http://www.asiasociety.org/onthinnerice

Actual “then and now” pictures are proof to me that we have a serious issue on our hands in the world.

What I feel to be the most important issue….nobody wants to touch. Remember….we live on a planet that is NOT producing any more minerals (outside of minor volcanic eruptions that will from time-to-time…bring more minerals UP from the core of the earth).

If we have a limited supply of minerals…and a limited supply of water….then we need to do a MUCH better job of controling the worlds population. We don’t have a shortage of people on this planet. In the coming years and decades…..fresh water and food are going to be tougher to come by.

The real “canary in the coal mine” is our population growth which we have not yet come to grips with. We have to realize that at SOME POINT….we will have too many people on the planet. Either we can try to slow our growth (so that eventually we arrive at zero population growth)….or nature will do it for us (and that will be VERY UGLY).

Global warming…..and its effects….will be a very big part of the coming decades when water and agriculture will continue to be of growing importance.

I find it difficult to believe that co2 at 370 ppm in the atmosphere, of which we are responsible for a very small part has the capability to affect the climate so dramatically. But if it does I would point people in the direction of lord monckton, former science adviser to mrs. Thatcher who stated on american tv recently that we emit 30b tons of co2 annually which increases the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere by 2ppm so 1ppm = 15b tons. the ippc predicts that concentrations of co2 in y2100 will be 836ppm so in the next 90 years we will increase co2 concentrations by 460ppm. 1ppm = 15btons so 460*15 = approx 7 trillion tons of co2. The ippc predicts that global temp will increase by 7f. So to reduce tems by 1 degree f we need to lose 1 trillion tons of co2. Given that we use 30b tons per year it would take around 33 years to save that 1f increase….. Providing we do not add to it in the meantime. So all of us should should turn off the c.h. Walk to work, eat cold food, turn off all appliances , slaughter all livestock and more…. All without breathing! Have fun

We are living in dangerous times.
We are living in dangerous times when the ‘wisdom’ of the masses become public policy.
Now ‘truth’ will be decided by who is the most entertaining.
“I am no scientist but…” is the only defense one needs, and this one is roundly accepted, indeed applauded. Who needs those fuzzy eggheads? So boring. Not amusing at all. Not clever. So many statistics my head goes round and round. All I need do is look out my window. It is clear.
The eye is far too complex for evolution. Only a Creator could have made one. Evolution is nonsense, and in fact, dangerous. That’s self-evident to me. What more do I need,
Climate change his now in the same debate and on the same level.
Wisdom of the masses.. and of the journalists. I am no scientist, but I did teach a philosophy course once or twice. That’s more than enough qualification to pronounce a verdict on a very complex issue of chemistry, isn’t it?
Well, isn’t it?
Apparently it is.
Poor us.

jchrissmith0007 on Nov 25th, 2009 at 2:48 pm has raised an important point about the relationship between energy consumption and population. Ever since we turned to burning fossil fuels for its greater energy (steam power was the great enabler) we have been increasing the energy input to our civilisation. Applying ingenuity to the application of the energy has led to many inventions from clever looms to modern computers.

This extra energy input and its adept application now supports a much increased world population that is directly dependent upon the energy and technology for its existence. It therefore follows that reducing the energy consumption would be analogous to forcing people to use wooden ploughs instead of metal ones, which would produce less food, leading to starvation.

There is not enough energy that we can extract from the renewable sources like wind power to matter. There are only two choices to support our western lifestyle – burn fossil fuel or nuclear fission.

While advanced countries could turn to nuclear fission, elsewhere the essential upshot of reducing energy consumption by enforcing less fossil fuel burning is the deaths of millions if not billions of people and their children.

I find the idea hard to take. Moreover, without real evidence that AGW is more than insignificant, or of an increase the the greenhouse warming effect, it would appear to amount to a crime against humanity.

@jchrissmith

Come to NZ. You’ll see that we have had the 2 best ski seasons ever. The Southern Alps aren’t losing their snow, unless by “losing” you mean “gaining”.
But what would I know, I only live here.

Plav1951

“The world is just about coming out of a deep recession which must have meant less industrial production and less transportation. I would have thought this would show up as a slowing of the rise of CO2 not an acceleration. Either the CO2 figures are wrong or the increase is due to natural effects and thus there is nothing that Man can do about it.”

How many coal burning power stations opened in that time? How many new automobiles on the road in China & India?

Climatology is not rocket science, its way more complicated than that.

alpal

“Come to NZ. You’ll see that we have had the 2 best ski seasons ever. The Southern Alps aren’t losing their snow, unless by “losing” you mean “gaining”.

More precipitation is one thing that is consistent with AGW climate change, snow is precipitation.

Climatology is not rocket science, its way more complicated than that.

Remitance man

“Increasing temperatures cause increasing CO2 levels rather than the other way around.”

NO, Increased CO2 causes increased temperature AND increased temperature causes increased CO2. That’s the danger, positive feedback increasing both until other forces mediate it. Where that new set point will be we don’t know so we would be bloody stupid to not mitigate against a runaway situation.

Climatology is not rocket science, its way more complicated than that.

alhamilton

“More precipitation is one thing that is consistent with AGW climate change, snow is precipitation.”

Yes, and MORE precipitation falling AS SNOW for a larger part of the year and over more of the earth, including in places that are “normally” too warm for ANY snow, is consistent with Global Warming?
And if it IS, are there any peer-reviewed Global Warming studies accurately predicting this global cooling and subsequent increase in snow-fall ?

alhamilton18,

We know that the warmists always claim all weather occurrences in support of their religion as part of the propaganda bombardment. It would be funny if it wasn’t so breathtakingly arrogant, since there is not a shred of real evidence to support their fantasies.

Since the weather is caused by the difference in temperature between the equator, and the consensus is that global warming reduces that differential because it affects the poles more than the equator, it therefore follows that as global warming increases, the severity of the weather will reduce, with, for example, fewer hurricanes, less violent winds, less rains, and fewer floods.

As already mentioned, CO2 is already absorbing almost all that there is to be had in the relevant bands. The effect is logarithmic so increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere only has a slight effect. The effect of mankind’s contribution is therefore insignificant. Moreover, CO2 and the other trace gases are pretty unimportant as greenhouse gases. Water vapour is the gas that counts.

Thus in the centuries to come, if warming continues then increased CO2 from the sea will have a negligible effect. In addition, the only place where this fabricated positive feedback process occurs (that somehow drags in water vapour) is in the discredited computer models, which exaggerate heating effects by an order of magnitude. As I said above, “computer models do not produce evidence – they only produce whatever their programmers want them to produce. The computer models have only proved that the computers are working, and that the models have been wrong every time, so far.”

If you want us to believe that this positive feedback hypothesis was not invented simply to keep the billions flowing into the global warming money trough when it was realised that CO2 only has a very small effect, you will have your work cut out.

As you say, “Climatology is not rocket science, its way more complicated than that.”

Now, you could impress us with your grasp way beyond rocket science if you could provide real evidence that AGW is more than insignificant, and of an increased greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. You would be the first.

Okay, but rather than simply declaring a precautionary principle alert why aren’t people trying to discover where the tipping point lies and what is the mechanism that kicks in to stop the chain reaction? There must be one and knowing that might mitigate the alarmist cries we keep being bombarded with.

Hell! For all we know it could have happened already and the rises we are seeing in CO2 levels could just be the lag effect caused by the “heating causes CO2″ bit of the equation.

“Someone please take this as an invitation to PROVE that there is climate change going on.”

Yes, I can prove it from my own personal experience:

When I was a child (I’m almost 40 now), I remember snow falling consistently for years near the end of October. Usually it snowed heavily, and the snow stayed on the ground until at least March or April.

Now, it doesn’t snow until January or February, and when it does, it stays on the ground a very short time before its gone.

This to me is proof that I have seen with my own eyes and experienced the fact that something not right is going on.

Climate change seems to definitely be a very real phenomenon.

Scott

Good to see that someone on the sceptic side is at least understanding it is a very complicated process. God preserve us from the fundamentalists on both sides.

The Remittance Man

You sound like the sort of person who, in the 10th floor room in a third world hotel, smells smoke and hears fire engines but says I will wait until a bellhop assures me that the building is on fire.

The worst scenario of out of control climate change is way worse than the worst case scenario of action against it, even if it is not happening.

alhamilton18 on Nov 26th, 2009 at 6:45 pm

“The worst scenario of out of control climate change is way worse than the worst case scenario of action against it, even if it is not happening.”

Piffle. Prove me wrong. Evidence please.

why r the government so interested in climate change this week. its to take the attention off of all the other crap that they got their dirty hands on. if they so worried about the global warming clap trap they might want to stop using their cars their planes. stop heating their rambling mansions i say mansions because they have got a few of them scattered around the world. what was the reason for the ice age was it concorde or was it dinasaur emissions. must be a lot of naive people out there to believe in this drivel. just another way to tax you up the backside. concentrate on getting us back to work for a decent wage. and if they want to save the planet lead by example and get on yer bikes.

Regarding: New Zealand article can be accessed at:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/global-warming/New-Zealand-glaciers-melting-away-Survey/articleshow/5260204.cms

New Zealand glaciers melting away: Survey
IANS 23 November 2009, 12:26pm ISTText Size:|Topics:New Zealand glaciers

WELLINGTON: New Zealand’s glaciers are melting away, according to an annual survey of the snowline on 50 glaciers in the South Island, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) announced on Monday.

They have lost half of their snow and ice over the last 30 years, scientist Jordy Hendrikx said, confirming that the glaciers again lost much more ice than they gained in the 12 months ending March at the end of the Southern Hemisphere summer.

He said this was mainly due to above-normal temperatures and average rainfall over the Southern Alps during the previous winter combined with above-normal sunshine and well below normal precipitation during late summer.

Hendrikx said that, on average, the snowline during the year was about 95 metres above where it would need to be to keep the ice mass constant.

This indicated that the loss of glacier mass observed in 2007-08 had continued, he said.

Last year’s survey showed that the glaciers had lost 2.2 billion tons of permanent ice in the previous 12 months and shrunk to their smallest size since records began in 1977.

Prime Minister John Key told his weekly news conference: “It certainly demonstrates that we need to take this issue of climate change very seriously.”

Key does not plan to go to the United Nations conference on climate change in Copenhagen next month, but he said it would be on the agenda of this week’s British Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago.

After releasing the report, Hendrikx told the TV3 channel: “It’s undeniable that we have altered the atmosphere.”
===================================================

Global warming is a hoax that will be seared in peoples’ minds right alongside Darwin, Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds, the Piltdown Man, the Loch Ness Monster, 9/11’s false flag tragedy-hoax, the Swine Flu hoax, the genetically modified (GM)-food-is-good-for-you Green Revolution hoax, and the “Wall-Street-meltdown-global-financial-shutdown hoax via the Bank of England and its international central banking—including the Bank of International Settlements, Basil, Switzerland—confederates.
All of these hoaxes were initiated and supported by the world’s “elites”—the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderbergers, the Club of Rome, etc —all populated by the same people; all designed to make them money while they depopulated the world to give them absolute control over the remaining people and resources—food, fibre, water, minerals, resources, money, jobs, hope—through their controlled and appointed world government.
A lab technician in one of the European labs decided to test the vaccine that Baxter International (one of the world’s major vaccine manufacturers controlled by the elite) had shipped to 16 labs in four European countries to be given out as vaccine shots to thousands of individuals as “protection” for the “swine flu pandemic” hoax generated by the elite. All of the lab animals tested with Baxter’s vaccine died and the lab man, who wasn’t required to test the vaccine, sent out the alarm. The contaminated vaccine would have started the pandemic in Europe.
Why did the lab employee decide to test the ferrets?
Now comes the Denmark “climate change” hoax meeting on December 7 to be used to establish a global tax and the framework for a world “government” to be controlled, run by, and profited from by the elite; the remaining humanity to be used as drones, workers, and servants.
What motivated the hacker to distribute the global warming scammers’ inner most thoughts and files on the Internet; laying bare their unquestionable, deliberate, perpetration of this lie on the planet?
What motivated Dr. David Ray Griffin, a semi-retired theologian and professor, to methodically expose the false flag 9/11 hoax/crime utilizing the scientific method in his nine books; documenting the facts for America’s legal and journalistic communities; neither of which will use them to indict or communicate?
The only clue I have for the reason for the times we’re witnessing is greed and avarice by a group of evil, mega-rich, elitist pests set about perpetrating heinous crimes and hoaxes on humanity to enrich themselves.
The world owes an unknown lab worker, a hacker, and a semi-retired theologian a great debt.
God has His ways.

You may not be a scientist, but you claim to have taught philosophy for 20 years. Aren’t philosophers (and the better class of journalist) supposed to be interested in the truth? When did you last talk to a climate scientist? The site http://www.realclimate.org is staffed by climate scientists who interpret rather complex papers for a lay audience and answer questions like yours in their spare time. They also have a very convenient FAQ column. Have you ever tried to understand their findings, or do you just rely on the rumour, distortions and falsehoods put about by the blogosphere?

Almost without exception, climate change deniers have no background in climate science and most have little or no scientific education. Yet they seem to believe that a fairly straightforward question is going to land a killer blow on the whole structure of AGW. There’s nothing wrong in asking questions – and being sceptical until you get answers; but regarding a question as a valid substitute for an argument is silly, especially when you can’t be bothered to find out the truth from the people who know the answers and you aren’t an expert yourself. All the “arguments” posed by deniers have been refuted by the scientists, yet they are rehearsed ad nauseam, as if repetition somehow engenders validity. I’m not surprised at the deniers who post here, but I am surprised at you, Janet. It’s not really the kind of dispassionate objectivity I expect from someone who (a) writes for a quality newspaper, (b) considers herself a philosopher and (c) appears on the BBC’s Moral Maze as an intellectual grappling with complex issues. Yet here you are in the deniers’ camp, solely on the basis that you’ve got a scientific question for which you cannot think of a ready answer! Sorry, but that’s just lazy.

Most serious philosophers have a passing acquaintance with mathematics and the answer to your question involves some statistical interpretation of the data. FWIW, here it is: 1998 was an anomalously hot year because of a very pronounced el nino. One of the cardinal sins in statistics is to cherry-pick your data. Nevertheless, deniers seize on 1998 and use it as a claim that the world has been cooling ever since. However, if you select any year except 1998, there is a clear warming trend. The steady rise in the level of atmospheric CO2 does not lead to a corresponding monotonous rise in the observed temperature: there are other factors which may temporarily mask the effect.

Think of it this way. If you throw a single standard die 10 times, your average result will be 3.5 ((6+5+4+3+2+1)/6). That average will consist of peaks (6) and troughs (1). For the next 10 throws, make the 2 spot into a 3. The average will now be 22/6 or 3.75. However, you will still have peaks of 6 and troughs of 1. Add another spot somewhere else and repeat: the average creeps inexorably upwards to 4. Now you that have 30 throws you might find a sequence of 10 which slightly runs counter to the overall trend. Spot-change deniers will fall on this with overwhelming exultation.

Don’t be so quick to dismiss 20 years-worth of science just because you don’t like the results.

Ahh! The old “I’m losing this debate, let’s resort to ad hominem attacks” strategy; so nice to see you’re upholding standards.

Speaking of standards, in the hotels I generally patronise (whether in the first, second or third world) in the event of a fire I would expect to be woken not by anything so crass as a fire alarm but by an impeccably dressed footman bearing a cup of tea. I’d also expect him to have laid out suitable clothing for me to wear during my escape.

Sadly, I suspect this is not the scenario you imagine, so downgrading my expectations for the benefit of your analogy; no I would not wait for the bell hop. That being said, before running stark bollock naked into the streets, adding to the panic, confusion and dismay, I would take a few moments to confirm it was actually the hotel that was on fire and not the fireworks factory next door.

bill on Nov 27th, 2009 at 8:13 am

“Almost without exception, climate change deniers have no background in climate science and most have little or no scientific education.”

A statement like that neither enhances your case, or diminishes the sceptic one. In fact, it is rather silly, so it detracts from yours. This was in the middle of your ad hominem rant. How would you back it up if challenged? For example, there are more than a significant number of thousands of scientists in your ‘almost without exception’ group, and more are joining them as time goes by. Besides which, just one would be enough if that person was correct.

‘All the “arguments” posed by deniers have been refuted by the scientists …..’

Have they? I missed it. I only need to find one to demolish that statement. Almost anything from Professor Lindzen would do. How about my four points above? In any event it is not up to sensible sceptics to pose arguments. It is up to the unsceptics to prove their case, since they are the ones who want sweeping adverse changes to our lifestyle. Just because they say so is not good enough.

‘….. yet they are rehearsed ad nauseam, as if repetition somehow engenders validity.’

Pots and kettles.

“There’s nothing wrong in asking questions – and being sceptical until you get answers; but regarding a question as a valid substitute for an argument is silly,”

Now who is being silly. All it takes to terminate a hypothesis is one question that it cannot answer. AGW fell by the wayside years ago. It is being kept alive by shady vested political interests and large amounts of money by running a ’sleight of computer’ con trick.

I liked your take on the 1998 el nino – one of the better unsceptic misdirection efforts. In reality the graphs show both the spike in 1998 and the levelling off fairly clearly. However, this particular argument and all the fiddling around with endpoints and bounds will be settled all in good time. It is still possible to interpret the figures in ways that keep the temperatures within the bounds of a steady increase. However, at the moment there is a shadow over the whole affair until the allegations being made as a result of the alleged email leak from the UEA are resolved. Time will tell.

Your fiddling about with dice argument was a well executed classic fallacy that hides a falsity in a series of true statements that I always liked to call the ‘today is Friday and tomorrow will be Saturday, therefore false is true’ deception.

Here is one question: can you show us real evidence that there is more than an insignificant of AGW, and of an increase in the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, please? No-one has done so, so far. It would be wonderful if you could, because you would receive a Nobel prize, and we could all stop arguing and go home.

Scott:
A favourite trick of deniers is to select quotes and attack them out of context, so you neatly conform to type. A person’s educational background is neither here nor there: what is significant however, is that those least qualified to comment (i.e. unscientific) seem to believe that a simple question that has been answered many times before remains a valid criticism of AGW. It doesn’t. What WOULD be valid is a comprehensive model of the type constructed by the IPCC which refutes AGW. Please show me one.

It is also more than clear that, like Janet Daley, you too can’t be bothered to check the climatologists’ rebuttals of deniers’ criticisms. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/extras/faq/ then tell me if you have any outstanding. AGW deniers are rather similar to creationists who deny the reality of evolution. They ignore facts, repeat falsehoods, use quotes taken out of context and, when shown the error of their ways, shut up for a few months then return as if nothing had happened. I can live with that, but climate change is too important to dismiss.

As for Lindzen, he at least agrees global warming is taking place and has published papers suggesting non-human mechanisms. Fair enough. The overwhelming majority of climatologists do not agree with his conclusions and so far, the IPCC model has proved correct. (That’s another document most deniers have never even looked at. You can find it here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ )

Thanks for your remarks about the 1998 el nino. Consider this: if the temperature is increasing, then before too much longer – say 10 years, the 1998 spike will be exceeded, probably by another spike. I expect future deniers will then claim that the warmest year was in 2017 and since then temperatures have been on the decline/levelled off. Please point out how my dice example (not argument) was fallacious.

As for the last para, I don’t understand what you’re saying, but the IPCC will probably help.

bill on Nov 27th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

You are right – there was a typo in my final paragraph – sorry. It should have read:

Here is one question: can you show us real evidence that there is more than an insignificant amount of AGW, and of an increase in the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere, please? No-one has done so, so far. It would be wonderful if you could, because you would receive a Nobel prize, and we could all stop arguing and go home.

And your answer…?