Geoff Benn,

OK. Here is a paper:
http://tinyurl.com/2amq6y

David Holland

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!

E&T: A short fiction describing a London landscape altered by climate changeWhen 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, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

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:
- try Sourcewatch.org

Just so we know what others have said:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Robert_Carter - retired.
http://desmogblog.com/bob-carter

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Chris_de_Freitas
http://desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas- 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- just a few scientists give the rest a bad name, but still, we have SourceWatch.org

http://desmogblog.com/indur-m-goklany- so he only cares about the short term and to hell with what comes next?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lindzen
http://desmogblog.com/richard-lindzen- 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, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Edited: 06 December 2012 at 01:47 PM by geoffbenn

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.

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."

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

I think it was actually less than 1% of the country.

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.

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

Hi Gareth Kane,

The Arctic to jet stream connection: 'Arctic Report Card' Shows Region Spiraling Into Volatile State Due To Climate Change


The shape of British summers to come? from Aug 2012 also mentions the climate scientists latest thoughts on the jet stream

regards

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

Edited: 07 December 2012 at 06:31 AM by geoffbenn

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.

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

Murry Salby finds CO2 rise is natural
no wonder he's no longer An IPCC reviewer

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

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 MCMI

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

In the US 6 million children are prescribed Ritalin every year. The US medical profession obviously thinks this is a good idea. I don't and probably you don't?

Sometimes professionals can become locked into a mindset which makes their analysis and decision making flawed.

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.

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, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"

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

Edited: 07 December 2012 at 06:45 PM by pmiller2006

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.



From Bryan Leyland's" interesting article"
- 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?
- and they "agreed to publish their figures in full"

to be continued...

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc (Hons) CEng MIET, Twitter: @GeoffBenn
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. George Washington.
skepticalscience.com: "getting skeptical about global warming skepticism"