IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Topic Summary: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Created On: 21 November 2012 10:41 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Read the related E&T article
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 06 December 2012 02:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



robmercel

Posts: 34
Joined: 13 October 2007

It is extremely disappointing to see a professional engineer who claims to have spent 12 years investigating a subject consider SkepticalScience to be a source of impartial information.

Is CO2 a threat? I have no idea although it is looking increasingly unlikely.

Is the peer reviewed 'consensus' climate science literature riddled with errors that anyone with a decent knowledge of maths can recognize? Yes, that is one thing that is beyond doubt and something that any impartial engineer who has investigated the subject should be aware of.

Unfortunately, time after time, climate science 'experts' fail to notice these errors (at least in public) until a sceptical blogger points them out. Even then they will claim that obvious errors don't count because they have not been pointed out in the 'peer reviewed' literature.

For an error to be acknowledged it must be so huge that propaganda sites such as SkepticalScience can't spin their way out of it.

The only example that I can think of is the recent paper by Gergis et al: "Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium"

By detrending the proxy data used they claimed a far more robust reconstruction of past temperatures and unusual recent warming. The paper passed peer review and was accepted by all the 'experts' including SkepticalScience since some here consider that site to be a source of expertise.

Not a single climate scientist found any fault with the paper until a blogger, Jean S, looked at it. He found that they had actually failed to detrend the data and that if the data was detrended as claimed in the paper there was nothing exceptional about recent warming.

Even then the authors failed to acknowledge Jean and claimed they had independently discovered the error.

Not one single 'expert' had noticed this huge fault until a blogger pointed it out!
 06 December 2012 07:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

E&T: A short fiction describing a London landscape altered by climate change
The year is 2050, the city is London. The landscape of the capital has changed radically after the decision-making process over the effects of climate change was taken out of the hands of engineers and put into the hands of bureaucrats. The story is fiction, taking some worst-case scenarios and building a tale of one potential future - but is such a thing so very unlikely? Decide for yourself...
One year after The Floods - when long-term rising sea levels combined with extremely heavy rain, high tides and storm surges to cause widespread floods across the south and east of England...
When considering that word "conclusive" we should consider whether we've come up with any credible arguments why it's not. If anyone had such an argument then surely we'd have heard about it, and it would stand up to scrutiny...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 06 December 2012 08:05 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: dholland
Geoff Benn,

OK. Here is a paper:

http://tinyurl.com/2amq6y

DavId Holland
Thankyou! In case the link above doesn't work for you:
The Stern Review: A Dual Critique
Possible subtitle: "Oh, but we're not quite sure..."

Lots of data cherry picking going on...

Hockey stick again...

Same old, same old... we've heard it all before. No wonder we're still claiming main-stream peer-reviewed science has reached a concensus. Virtual conclusion?

I can understand your reluctance to see yourself in this list:
Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland
& Richard S. Lindzen
- try Sourcewatch.org

Just so we know what others have said:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Robert_Carter - retired
"Carter goes to some length to claim that the surface temperature record (according to institutions like NASA GISS) is unreliable. In fact he implies that it's downright useless. Yet he also states that the satellite record is reliable...[But] if the satellite record is so reliable but the surface record is so useless, why do they agree so closely?"
Robert Carter "Since then (1998) it's been very gently cooling. No evidence at all that any of these canges have anything to do with human activity or influence. These are natural climatic changes."
.
http://desmogblog.com/bob-carter
According to leaked documents Carter receives $1,667 a month from the Heartland Institute, an organization with an intense focus on climate change skepticism.


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Chris_de_Freitas
Under de Freitas's editorship of Climate Research (journal), several poor quality contrarian papers were published, that he had shepherded through the peer review process; half the journal's editors ended up resigning in protest at the lax editorial policies that had permitted these papers to slip through and the publisher's unwillingness to enforce suitably stringent ones.

http://desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas
"'I do not dispute that the carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere is largely from the use of fossil fuels,' he tells the Herald.

'No doubt rising carbon dioxide could "change the climate". The basic physics is there to support this view. But where is the evidence that the putative change would be large or damaging?'
- so for him it's a question of degree. Is that 2 degrees, 4 degrees, or 6 degrees?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Indur_Goklany
Goklany is a regular guest poster on Watts Up With That .[3] It should also be noted that Goklany is active in rewriting the history of DDT and the measures to control malaria [4] . This may well be part of an effort to make a revision of environmental legislation of the past , to discredit environmental measures of today, as suggested by Dr Naomi Oreskes in her book Merchants of Doubt.
- just a few scientists give the rest a bad name, but still, we have SourceWatch.org

http://desmogblog.com/indur-m-goklany
Although Goklany does not appear to dispute the existence of climate change, he routinely argues that adaptation is the only solution
Indur Goklany "global warming is unlikely to be the most important environmental problem facing the world, at least for most of the remainder of this century"
- so he only cares about the short term and to hell with what comes next?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lindzen
Lindzen is perhaps best known for his "Iris hypothesis", which proposed that, like the iris of an eye, the earth's cloud systems will act to lessen global warming. Other climate researchers believe that further research has not supported this hypothesis

http://desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen
Richard Lindzen's scientific stance on climate change and anthropogenic global warming is that the earth goes through natural periods of global warming and cooling.
- so he seems to completely discount that we are affecting the climate.

David Holland doesn't seem to get a mention, but his associates certainly do

Do retired scientists care quite so much about their reputation?

So, David Holland, is this your best...?

The Escalator - fun graphics An animated picture paints 10,000 words?

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Edited: 06 December 2012 at 01:47 PM by geoffbenn
 06 December 2012 08:12 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



thescouoselander

Posts: 1
Joined: 03 July 2009

I've been sceptical of Global Warming claims for quite some time. There are a fair few things that seem to put the case for AGW on very shaky ground

1) The Models

As was much hyped many years ago we should be seeing a "hot spot" developing in the upper atmosphere which was to be regarded as the fingerprint of global warming. As far as I can make out this "Fingerprint" has not been observed.

The models predicted a continued rise in temperature however, as has been mentioned already, warming has at the very least taken a pause over the last decade or so. This was not predicted.

The models also predicted much more heat should be gathering in the oceans. This is quite serious as most of the heat supposedly absorbed by the earth should be ending up in the oceans. It appears from observations that at least 50% of the heat has gone "missing" - that raises very serious questions regarding the energy budgets in the models.

2 Observations

There are some serious problems with some of the temperature reconstructions.

Air temperature readings seem to have suffered all sorts of problems which I'm not going to reproduce here but are very well described at this link: http://www.surfacestations.org/

Historical reconstructions from tree ring data have also run into difficulty. This didn't get much media publicity but the problems with the Yamal tree ring study lead to quite a scandal on the internet and details can be easily found using google.

3. The community

The number of scientists actually working at the core of this problem is actually very small. This is a very tight knit community who all seem to be marking each others homework. Its not inconceivable that a bit of group think is creeping into the analysis.

Given the costs of taking action of AGW the evidence does not justify action in my opinion. There may be something going on but its clear the models are unreliable and AGW scientists are working with a very difficult observed data set. In truth I dont think anyone can say if CO2 is to blame, how high temperatures will go or weather changing our lifestyles will have any effect.

To me AGW has all the marks of a religion. The whole idea is based on an apparently plausible explanation but it doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. We are told if we dont change our ways bad things will happen and when they do happen (stormes etc) this is held up as proof but nobody can ever be sure of the link. It seems we are being asked to sacrifice our lifestyles on the alter of environmentalism to appease the climate gods.
 06 December 2012 10:19 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for GarethKane.
GarethKane

Posts: 2
Joined: 14 May 2002

As an engineer, I give much greater weight to proper peer reviewed science over stuff found on the internet.

If I am ill, I listen to doctors, not Daily Mail headlines. If I want the low down on climate, I listen to scientists, not Daily Mail headlines etc.

Last week I took a train from Newcastle to Taunton and back for a client meeting and half the country appeared under water. These floods have been attributed to the knock on effect of rising temperatures in the Arctic.

Climate change is happening and we have the choice as engineers to roll up our sleeves and tackle the problem, or listen to those unqualified people who tell us "Don't worry, it'll never happen."
 06 December 2012 10:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



3dgym

Posts: 1
Joined: 06 December 2012

I've never believed in man made climate change even though man kind is a parasite and most parasites eventually destroy their host. Global warming/climate change can only be attributed to a natural process of renewal.

Much like farmer's rotate what they grow in a field so nature will rotate what happens on earth.

Climate change is a massive money making machine. The boffins know that without it they wouldn't have jobs. Much like there'll all ways be unemployment so Jobcentre staff have jobs.

Climate change is an illusion just like the diet industry. This only started because milk producing companies realised that if they told everyone they were fat then they could sell the milk that was left over after they took the cream off. People are still a fat as they ever were yet semi skimmed milk out sells whole milk. I'm skinny and drink gold top!

Burning fossil fuels has been great for the planet...just think what might happen if all that flammable stuff was still in the crust! It's the chopping down of tree's that the real problem...back to parasitic humans.

Global warming could be natures way of providing more water for us.

Ice caps are shifting changing the balance of the earth, which wobbles anyway. They melt in one area and build in another. The renewal of the earth will happen when the wobble makes the earth's crust displace. Personally I'd like to think the UK will move nearer the equator haha which ofcourse means China will move north into Arctic regions. Antarctica's land mass will move nearer the equator and we'll discover what is actually there.

If you mock me then you'll also be mocking Einstien. No...I don't believe the Hollywood 2012 film version, there's no way there's enough water on the planet to supply 100's of tsunami's thousands of metres high all at the same time. The film tried to portray that life started in Africa, that was it's main purpose.

Anyway, as with everything in life change is inevitable including the climate. We have to find a way of coping with it not trying to stop it.

Cheers
 06 December 2012 05:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: GarethKane
Last week I took a train from Newcastle to Taunton and back for a client meeting and half the country appeared under water. These floods have been attributed to the knock on effect of rising temperatures in the Arctic.

I think it was actually less than 1% of the country.
Climate change is happening and we have the choice as engineers to roll up our sleeves and tackle the problem, or listen to those unqualified people who tell us "Don't worry, it'll never happen."

It could happen, unless of course someone has a crystal ball and can see into the future to know it will never happen. With regards to unqualified people let's take Geoff who posts a lot here. He is I believe unqualified, with regards to the typical qualifications an 'expert' would be reasonably expected to have in the area of climatology, and he is saying it is happening! Does it mean he is wrong because he is not qualified? I conclude that Geoff could be correct, I do accept that possibility. I also do not believe we humans should just continue growing in some uncontrolled way and keep using up the Earth's resources with no regards to our planet.....we have to live in a sustainable way and take care of our home.

However let's take a look at ol Dr Evans here who is a totally unqualified mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/...es-of-evidence/


"Global warming has become a scam."

Mmmm, strong statement.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/...ut-only-by-400/


"The models are wrong (but only by 400%)"

Let's take a look at another unqualified person, Professor Salby.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/...els-not-humans/


"Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It's not just that man-made emissions don't control the climate, they don't even control global CO2 levels."

"Salby was once an IPCC reviewer, and comments, damningly, that if these results had been available in 2007, "the IPCC could not have drawn the conclusion that it did." I guess he's also giving them an out."

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/...cycle-of-alarm/


"Two professors of sociology think they can explain why "Climate Deniers" are winning."

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/...unding-exposed/


"Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What's amazing is what they haven't found: empirical evidence.)"

However, fossil fuels are not going to last forever and engineers should work to find alternative and sustainable energy sources. I am of the opinion that Geoff et al have the possibility of being correct and we cannot afford to simply ignore that point of view but I am also of the opinion that we should move forward in a reasonable way and not pander to the propoganda of the alarmists. Improving energy efficiencies, recycling, avoiding cutting down all the trees, etc., all add value.

Regards.
 06 December 2012 07:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



dholland

Posts: 9
Joined: 16 December 2002

Geoff Benn

OK Geoff, show me a paper you have published.

And what about those three point I made?
Just explain why one of them is wrong - in your own words.

David Holland
 06 December 2012 08:32 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Hi Gareth Kane,

The Arctic to jet stream connection: 'Arctic Report Card' Shows Region Spiraling Into Volatile State Due To Climate Change
Given the extreme weather that has affected the Northern Hemisphere during the past several years, particularly in Europe and the U.S., there is increased attention on how Arctic climate change may be influencing weather in the mid-latitudes. Recent studies have shown that a warmer Arctic may lead to bigger dips in the jet stream, which can cause weather systems to stall for longer periods, creating long-lasting cold snaps or heat waves, and potentially intensifying storm systems.
A massive dip in the jet stream, accompanied by an unusually strong "blocking" high pressure center over Greenland, helped steer Hurricane Sandy into New Jersey, which was consistent with broad patterns shown in such studies.


The shape of British summers to come? from Aug 2012 also mentions the climate scientists latest thoughts on the jet stream
Earlier this year, two US scientists published a paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, suggesting that the meandering of the jet stream could be linked to the reduction in sea ice. Edward Hanna, reader in climate science at the University of Sheffield, who is taking part in similar research, explains: "The last six summers since 2007, while often rather cool and wet over the UK, have brought Greenland unusually high air pressure, mild southerly winds, record-breaking temperatures and melting of the land ice." The link, he believes, is that Arctic sea-ice losses and the release of heat over the Arctic Ocean have tended to weaken the jet stream and make it more meandering. This has brought more low pressures over Britain, less stable conditions, more cloud cover and rain-bearing weather systems from the Atlantic.

This year, the jet stream moved much more than usual, passing south of the UK. It also persisted in this position for an unusually long time. If this pushing of the jet stream southward is indeed linked to less sea ice over the Arctic circle, as Hanna suspects, then the signs are that we will see many more of these wet summers in future.


regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Edited: 07 December 2012 at 06:31 AM by geoffbenn
 06 December 2012 09:42 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



cookers

Posts: 205
Joined: 10 February 2012

Gareth is right the weather in UK has been diabolical and summer rainfall which caused the flooding has been extreme this year.

The peer reviewed science predicted a record breaking summer drought.
 07 December 2012 01:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: geoffbenn

Paul,



I'm busy at the moment between home and Hawaii ;-)

Originally posted by: westonpa

"Many see [global warming] as a harbinger of what is to come. If we don't curb our greenhouse gas emissions, then low-lying nations could be awash in seawater, rain and drought patterns across the world could change, hurricanes could become more frequent. . . . On the other hand, there are those, some of whom are scientists, who believe that global warming will result in little more than warmer winters and increased plant growth. They point to the flaws in scientists' measurements, the complexity of the climate, and the uncertainty in the climate models used to predict climate change. They claim that attempting to lower greenhouse emissions may do more damage to the world economy and human society than any amount of global warming. In truth, the future probably fits somewhere between these two scenarios."



Where do you think the inbetween is?



"Unfortunately, there is a tendency to hold in awe anything that emerges from a sufficiently large computer. There is also a reluctance on the part of many modellers to admit to the experimental nature of their models lest public support for their efforts diminish." Richard S. Lindzen (scientist)



"Drs. Craig D. Idso and Keith E. Idso, from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, say that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have nothing but positive results."


It's a pity you didn't read your newly found site before posting most of the Watts Up site , only to have me bust each presented myth (here - 26 November 2012 07:58 AM ). http://www.scienceclarified.co...bal-Warming/index.html

The people behind those stories and the unfortunate 'balance' on your new site:

Idso family run Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is one of Mother Jones magazine's 2009 global warming skeptic "Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial"[1]. Founded in 1998 by members of the Idso family, its income has increased in recent years.
The Center reported income of $25,449 for 2003 [6]; this could be[7] inconsistent with Exxon's reported 2003 donation of $40,000 plus Sarah Scaife Foundation's 2003 donation of $50,000.




S. Fred Singer
It should be noted that, according to the Environmental Defense Fund, October 26, 2006[7]



* The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

* The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

* The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

* The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003
Richard S. Lindzen
Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC.


Where do you think the inbetween is? We I'm stuck fast to my keyboard at home, and nowhere near Hawaii or ever likely to be. Similarly the climate is tracking the worst case IPCC predictions, and nowhere near anything remotely good.



here
Originally posted by: geoffbenn

the World Bank summary of existing research now suggests that rather than restricting temperature rises to 2 degrees C (ie. "dangerous climate change"), we are on track for 4 degrees C (who knows what that'll be called..., but not quite Dante's Inferno).



Four-Degrees Briefing for the World Bank: The Risks of a Future Without Climate Policy



Humankind's emissions of greenhouse gases are breaking new records every year. Hence we're on a path towards 4-degree global warming probably as soon as by the end of this century. This would mean a world of risks beyond the experience of our civilization -- including heat waves, especially in the tropics, a sea-level rise affecting hundreds of millions of people, and regional yield failures impacting global food security. ... "If we venture far beyond the 2-degree guardrail, towards 4 degrees, we risk crossing tipping points in the Earth system." ... an irreversible process that could start soon




Don't forget that the excess CO2 will still acidify the oceans, and (unilateral) geo-engineering could increase droughts with resultant effects on food security, and conflict...


The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is what? Can we do some sensible physics with regard to ocean atmosphere heat and chemical exchange? Oceans will remain alkaline despite what you might say.

While you are at it can you account the budgets for government funded 'research' into 'climate change' and 'deterministic' tax excuses?

I quite like to get paid too, I would never develop or sell a product that I thought was deficient. **** happens , just get it right next time.

Regards

Dave

Edited: 07 December 2012 at 02:19 AM by HazelGroveWolf
 07 December 2012 02:28 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: GarethKane

As an engineer, I give much greater weight to proper peer reviewed science over stuff found on the internet.



If I am ill, I listen to doctors, not Daily Mail headlines. If I want the low down on climate, I listen to scientists, not Daily Mail headlines etc.



Last week I took a train from Newcastle to Taunton and back for a client meeting and half the country appeared under water. These floods have been attributed to the knock on effect of rising temperatures in the Arctic.



Climate change is happening and we have the choice as engineers to roll up our sleeves and tackle the problem, or listen to those unqualified people who tell us "Don't worry, it'll never happen."


That has to be the laziest argument I've ever seen from someone who claims to be an engineer. Have you ever heard of veriification/validation?
Weather happens, try my regular, almost daily, trips across the Peak District.
Did you do any heat exchange physics at school?

Probably the most naive thing to say in an engineering community:

"As an engineer, I give much greater weight to proper peer reviewed science over stuff found on the internet"

I take it that you haven't taken many products to market.

Regards

Dave

Edited: 07 December 2012 at 03:16 AM by HazelGroveWolf
 07 December 2012 07:27 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: westonpa
"Over the last two years he has been looking at C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world, and has come to the conclusion that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. It's not just that man-made emissions don't control the climate, they don't even control global CO2 levels."

"Salby was once an IPCC reviewer, and comments, damningly, that if these results had been available in 2007, "the IPCC could not have drawn the conclusion that it did." I guess he's also giving them an out."

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
What the science says...
Multiple lines of evidence make it very clear that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is due to human emissions.

Murry Salby, a professor at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, has an upcoming paper that attempts to pin the current rise in carbon dioxide on rising temperatures. Having listened to a podcast of a talk Salby gave at the Sydney Institute earlier this week, he demonstrates a remarkably poor understanding of the carbon cycle, and his hypothesis seems to stem from this fundamental misunderstanding.

Salby's carbon cycle confusion...
no wonder he's no longer An IPCC reviewer

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 07 December 2012 10:52 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



amillar

Posts: 1918
Joined: 28 May 2002

Originally posted by: HazelGroveWolf
Probably the most naive thing to say in an engineering community:
"As an engineer, I give much greater weight to proper peer reviewed science over stuff found on the internet"
I take it that you haven't taken many products to market.

What an odd statement? Personally I have taken many products to market, and highly successful they have been too. Yet I also give much greater weight to proper peer reviewed science over stuff found on the internet.

If you want to design and market a good product you don't base the final design on hearsay and "my mate down the pub says this will / won't work"; you research it, test it and validate it and - if you've got any sense - get other experts in that field to do the same.

-------------------------
Andy Millar CEng MIET CMgr MCMI

http://www.linkedin.com/in/millarandy

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." Joseph Joubert
 07 December 2012 02:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

I ask myself if the powers that be have seen all this alarmist propoganda and it is so overwelmingly convincing then why:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20639215

"But this conference - the 18th Conference of the Parties, or COP18 - will not prevent any CO2 being released into the atmosphere - that will be left to future meetings. Indeed if it does not tighten the rules on "hot air" this conference could result in an increase in emissions."

"The other stand-out is hot-air. Under the Kyoto Protocol, Poland and Russia were handed free carbon permits to allow their heavy industries to continue to operate. But when Eastern European industry collapsed, the permits - which have a financial value - were not needed. At this point they became "hot air", with the potential to be sold to other nations."

""We are a million miles from where we need to be to even have a small chance of preventing runaway climate change," she said."

"Asad Rehman, for Friends of the Earth International, also dismissed the European Union's offers as: "An empty shell, an insult to our futures. There is literally no point in countries signing up to this sham of a deal, which will lock the planet in to many more years of inaction."

Strange really considering some here think there is a clear consensus on climate change and the data is so wonderfully clear. It is not the climate which needs to be sorted out but rather we need to sort out ourselves.....someone had better get a computer model ready for that.

Regards.
 07 December 2012 02:28 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 245
Joined: 08 July 2004

Just spotted a bit of a marked swing in the voting:
There is a conclusive body of evidence to support the existence of man-made climate change (Total Votes: 143)
  • Agree 65 votes 45.45 (%)
  • Disagree 78 votes 54.55 (%)

    That word "conclusive" ... but we need to take real action very soon: 'Arctic Report Card' Shows Region Spiraling Into Volatile State Due To Climate Change here

    Why indeed are we failing to come to terms with the problem?

    The Climate Change Denial machine has not helped.

    THE KOCH BROTHERS: FUNDING $61,485,781 TO GROUPS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE SINCE 1997.

    sourcewatch.org: Koch Industries

    desmogblog.com: Heartland Denial-a-Palooza Sponsors Have Received $67 Million From ExxonMobil, Koch and Scaife Foundations


    Monckton ejected from #COP18 #Doha UN #climate talks
    - Science on why he's wrong and http://t.co/n7Dh6EEv">reputation [/L]

    Confused Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural, or not here 174 #climate myths busted on that site

    Why China Is So Wary Of Ambitious International Climate Targets here

    -------------------------
    Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
    George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
    skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
    sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
  •  07 December 2012 02:44 PM
    User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



    pmiller2006

    Posts: 471
    Joined: 09 January 2007

    I think Geoff's hot air is the main reason for the warming!

    Edited: 07 December 2012 at 06:45 PM by pmiller2006
     08 December 2012 12:32 PM
    User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


    Avatar for geoffbenn.
    geoffbenn

    Posts: 245
    Joined: 08 July 2004

    Dear Reader,

    Here is a very long story covering some of our favourite characters who try to delay us drawing any conclusions... I guess that's why I'm seeing the term Climate Change Denier/Delayer...

    Once again, I make no apology for extensive use of SkepticalScience.com. It is a very well organised resource, helping the reader with introductory comments at up to 3 levels, then a full discussion (often with graphs) littered with references to other sources including main-stream scientific papers, then a further reading section, and even a discussion.

    Originally posted by: rogerbryant
    http://afr.com/p/lifestyle/rev...zXEsU6RbQJ5MWIJ

    Best regards

    Roger


    From Bryan Leyland's" interesting article"
    There is little doubt that some players in the climate game - not a lot, but enough to have severely damaged the reputation of climate scientists in general - have stepped across the boundary into postmodern science. The Climategate scandal of 2009, wherein thousands of emails were leaked from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, showed that certain senior members of the research community were, and presumably still are, quite capable of deliberately selecting data in order to overstate the evidence for dangerous climate change. The emails showed as well that these senior members were quite happy to discuss ways and means of controlling the research journals so as to deny publication of any material that goes against the orthodox dogma. The ways and means included the sacking of recalcitrant editors.
    - check out the Chris de Freitas item below in which the "sacking" was actually a mass resignation.

    But back to ClimateGate:
    Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
    - is that our very own David Holland (dholland)? THE David Holland of the failed Climategate challenge?
    As a scientist he should have known better.

    What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?
    Though some of the CRU emails can sound damning when quoted out of context, several inquiries have cleared the scientists. The Independent Climate Change Email Review put the emails into context by investigating the main allegations. It found the scientists' rigour and honesty are not in doubt, and their behaviour did not prejudice the IPCC's conclusions, though they did fail to display the proper degree of openness. The CRU emails do not negate the mountain of evidence for AGW.
    - and they "agreed to publish their figures in full"

    to be continued...

    -------------------------
    Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
    George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
    skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
    sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
     08 December 2012 12:36 PM
    User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


    Avatar for geoffbenn.
    geoffbenn

    Posts: 245
    Joined: 08 July 2004

    The "interesting article" criticises the peer-review process, but:

    Climategate and the peer-review process
    The Independent Climate Change Email Review investigated the CRU scientists' actions relating to peer review. In one case, it judged their strong reaction to a controversial paper was not unusual. In another, it turned out the alleged victim had actually been spreading malicious rumours about CRU. In a third, the allegation of collusion fell apart when the full email exchange was examined. The Review concluded that CRU's actions were normal and did not threaten the integrity of peer review.


    Climate science peer review is pal review
    What the science says...
    The lone documented case of true 'pal review' was committed by climate contrarians in the journal Climate Research from 1997 to 2003, during which time editor Chris de Freitas accepted 14 papers from a select group of contrarians. The journal had not published any papers from that group of authors previously, and only published 2 more papers from the group of 'pals' after de Freitas left.
    Contrary to the standard conspiracy theory, the pal review did not involve mainstream climate scientists, but instead the climate contrarians themselves.
    - not forgetting that Chris de Freitas was the one who lost his staff.

    Of couse, also no apology for using sourcewatch.org, which is also very handy with lots of references...

    to be continued a bit more...

    -------------------------
    Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
    George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
    skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
    sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
     08 December 2012 12:38 PM
    User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


    Avatar for geoffbenn.
    geoffbenn

    Posts: 245
    Joined: 08 July 2004

    ...continuing with Garth Paltridge who is complaining about the peer review process, so how about a more detailed look at the science in this area:
    What does the full body of evidence tell us about humidity?
    What the science says...
    To claim that humidity is decreasing requires you ignore a multitude of independent reanalyses that all show increasing humidity. It requires you accept a flawed reanalysis that even its own authors express caution about. It fails to explain how we can have short-term positive feedback and long-term negative feedback. In short, to insist that humidity is decreasing is to neglect the full body of evidence.

    However, one study using weather balloon measurements found decreasing humidity (Paltridge et al 2009).
    - the page goes on to review the science...

    More on Garth Paltridge: Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
    CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor Ian Enting takes a look at the front groups and published texts of Australia's climate sceptics.
    As a counter proposal, I would argue that any self-styled "sceptic" who claims to have a genuine case should do what normal scientists do and dissociate themselves from those who practise fabrication and misrepresentation, those who in Garth's words might be called "rogues", if not "vagabonds".

    The reality is that the most prominent pseudo-sceptical scientists are doing the opposite: gathering together to provide apparent respectability to front organisations that are designed to spread confusion.

    This is the message from Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.


    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Garth_Paltridge (retired, so perhaps not quite so concerned about his reputation?)
    Paltridge believes that while athropogenic global warming is real, the warming will probably be too small to be a threat, and that "in 50 or a 100 years the forecasts of doom will have been tested and, with any luck, proved wrong."
    - he can't be watching the Arctic etc...

    Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    To give an overview of humidity trends, Dessler and David compare the results from Paltridge's 2009 paper to a number of other reanalyses of humidity.


    Monckton Misrepresents Scientists' Own Work (Part 1)
    In disputing this consensus, Monckton lists a few papers which he purports demonstrate that climate sensitivity is low. In some cases he has misrepresented the papers, as they make no assertions about climate sensitivity whatsoever. In other cases, [bb]he references papers by the same few "skeptics" which subsequent research has demonstrated are flawed.
    Paltridge et al. (2009): is a paper about specific humidity which draws no conclusions about climate sensitivity. Paltridge himself also noted that while their paper found decreasing specific humidity, it relied on problematic radiosonde (weather balloon) data. Subsequent research using satellite data has demonstrated that specific humidity is increasing as expected.


    A vivid demonstration of knee-jerk science rejection
    Almost immediately, examples of cherry picking began to appear. Amazingly, the same cherry picking example I highlighted in my article appeared frequently (familiarity backfire effect?):

    "The atmosphere seems not to have warmed for 15 years... The ocean temperature seems also to have stabilised "

    "Its is interesting given that planet has been cooling since 2001, yet a rise in CO2."

    "...global temps have not not risen significantly for some years now."

    Consequently we saw appeals to those handful of dissenting climate scientists and scientists with no actual published climate research:

    and author of books supporting the validity of dowsing, Garth Paltridge


    to be continued with more on Monkton...

    -------------------------
    Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
    George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
    skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
    sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

    Edited: 08 December 2012 at 12:49 PM by geoffbenn
    Statistics

    See Also:



    FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.