As a scientist myself I find it a bit of an insult to the profession to suggest that there are so many of us (nearly all, apparently) who are willing to ignore the truth when it challenges the status quo. Scientists are not terribly interested in money, or they would be in business making a lot more of it. They are not interested in "staying on message" if they do not believe the message is true.

Politicians are another matter.

But whilst the vast majority of climate scientists argue in favour of man made global warming I will believe them. Not some guy on BPL. Sorry ;-)

ps. I really must stop reading and responding to this thread... it's in Chaff for a reason!

Edited by ashleyb on 05/08/2009 01:57:46 MDT.

"Obama is relying on carbon tax revenue to rescue the US economy."

There is no carbon tax as of yet. If the economy does not recover, it is universally regarded as a COMPLETE non-starter.

Bottom line is this:

There is a scientific consensus that carbon emissions are causing global warming, as well as causing countless other known and unknown environmental problems.

If you are right, then carbon emissions are causing countless other known and other unknown environmental problems, just not warming.

Everyone agrees that emissions are bad for the environment (warming aside) and unhealthy for the population. We cannot sustain our current level of burning fossil fuels both because a) we will run out and b) they are harming our natural resources (warming, again, aside).

So this whole argument is just really an exercise in inanity, and your focus on sea levels and warming is a red herring that distracts from the much more looming problem--our dependence of fossil fuels is untenable.

Edited by Rezniem on 05/08/2009 02:34:39 MDT.

I think you need to learn about the difference between carbon dioxide, a trace gas vital to the survival of all life on earth, which is near a 500 million year low due to it's sequestration by corals, and the various other gases released when fossil fuels are burned, some of which are a real pollution problem, but nothing to do with global warming or 'climate change'.

We're back to where you joined this debate about the truth or falsity of global warming theory when you said it didn't matter as long as we stopped burning fossil fuels. This is a 'means justifies the ends' argument, which is more dangerous than perhaps you realise.

Everyone would like to see a reduction of pollution, but as I said then and say again now, lets have that debate on it's own merits without dragging in fairy stories about carbon dioxide heating the planet up by several degrees over the next decades.

> But whilst the vast majority of climate scientists argue in favour of man made global warming I will believe them. Not some guy on BPL. Sorry ;-)

Hi Ashley, it was Cary who started the insinuations about scientific integrity. I'm just pointing out that the same goes on both sides of the debate.

The vast majority you speak of is a chimaera. The IPCC AR4 report boils down to the editorship of just 56 scientists and probably as many policy makers. It is not a peer reviewed document and the final editing ( in which contrary views were thrown out) was not done by scientists.

Anyway, you don't have to take the word of some guy on BPL, look at the data yourself, and read what eminent scientists like Roger Pielke, Roy Spencer, Freeman Dyson and many others have to say before you make a balanced judgement.

> The vast majority you speak of is a chimaera. The IPCC AR4 report boils down to the editorship of just 56 scientists and probably as many policy makers

Hi Rog,

The IPCC document may have its flaws but that doesn't really say anything about how many skeptics vs pro-warming scientists there are. Do you really believe there are roughly equal numbers on both sides? I would find that surprising, even if I was against the whole global warming thing.

I think it is telling that here in Australia the same guy is wheeled out every time someone wants to interview a credible scientific skeptic (ie. someone active in research... though I think he is a geologist rather than a climate scientist). There don't seem to be many of them around over here. Perhaps there are more where you live. Something to do with the rotten (wet) weather you get in England... ;-)

Hi Ashley,
no, not equal numbers by any means, I'm always well ahead of the pack. ;-)

We are into our 3rd miserably cold year here, so I guess the ongoing drought in Australia's Eastern side where the movers and shakers live has skewed your view compared to ours.

For me, it's not about the weather though. I see fundamental flaws and omissions and exaggerations in the science and the data. I was trained to spot these when I studied the History and Philosophy of science in my joint honours degree at Leeds University.

I also learned how institutional science is practised, and understand the pressures on scientists to work and think within the dominant paradigm of the day. That's not to say there aren't many who are capable of independent thought, there are. And they are mostly man made global warming sceptics on the quiet, but see the need to keep the family fed first and foremost.

Global warming is as much a social phenomenon as a scientific one.

I just wish it was a planetary one at the moment, as I love sunny warm weather. Maybe I should emigrate to Australia. Got any jobs for contrarian thinkers/mad inventors?

By the way, this interview with the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research is well worth a read. Very relevant to what we are discussing here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/06/mike_hulme_interview/

Moreover, says Hulme, no one is even quite sure what sort of knowledge it is that the IPCC, as a “boundary organisation” – part science, part politics - actually produces. Nor how the world at large interprets that hybrid knowledge. Even more fundamentally, he says, it is far from clear that the IPCC has actually allowed us to do “better science”:“Or has it actually narrowed the way we frame and ask questions in climate change research?"

Edited by tallbloke on 05/08/2009 04:21:50 MDT.

Well I think the remaining debate (such that there is) will be resolved in the next 10 years or so. I have great faith in the scientific establishment coming to the right conclusion. You see, the great thing about science is that some evidence is almost irrefutable, and the guy (gal) who devises the experiment/data collection technique that comes up with the "proof" will become quite famous in the scientific community. Now that *is* something that scientists care about. Many great scientific discoveries, as I'm sure you know, have come about when people have been trying to demonstrate something else entirely. So you needn't worry that the world will go down the toilet because too much scientific funding is "pro-warming". If man made warming does not exist, or is harmless, scientists will get to the bottom of it.

On the question of warming, I hope you are right, but strongly suspect you are wrong. ;-)

Edited by ashleyb on 05/08/2009 04:17:59 MDT.

> Well I think the remaining debate (such that there is) will be resolved in the next 10 years or so.

It will be on this board. I have a $1000 dollar bet running with Dean Fellabaum, the original poster on this thread, that the temperature trend between 2005 and 2020 will be down not up. ;-)

> You see, the great thing about science is that some evidence is almost irrefutable, and the guy (gal) who devises the experiment/data collection technique that comes up with the "proof" will become quite famous in the scientific community. Now that *is* something that scientists care about.

I think you have this the wrong way round. Albert Einstein put it this way:

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

To quote another poster:

"Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.

A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. "

So when the hardline warmies tell me that, "Ah yes, the cooling was expected and predicted by our theory of global warming" I smell a rat. If warming is caused by co2, and cooling is also caused by co2, where's the falsifiable content to the man made global warming theory?

The key points which refute man made global warming theory are:

1) Ocean heat content has been dropping since 2003 while co2 levels continue to rise. Co2 traps heat and the sun is very constant. Where can the extra heat be hiding? It's not in the atmosphere or we'd have measured it. It's not up Al Gore's chuff either, though he does expound a lot of hot air I'll admit.

2) Even the hardest of hardline co2 warmie scientists admit that co2 can't raise the Earth's temperature much on it's own. For that, it needs the help of water vapour, a far more prevalent and much stronger greenhouse gas. Specifically, the models predict a hot spot in the tropical troposphere, raising absolute humidity. Problem is, it doesn't seem to be there. Is it dodging the meteo balloons? Can't the satellites spot it? Perhaps it's just not there.

3) In the face of the newer data the warmie scientists tell us:
"Ah well, natural variation can make it cooler for several decades at a time, but then the evil warming will return with a vengeance and nasty big teeth."

If this is the case, how do they know the warming of the last few decades wasn't natural variation also, in which co2 played a tag along role of increasing it's level in response the the naturally caused temperature rise? And where did the heat generated by the radiative forcing of co2 hide in the meantime? Stuart took the huff and vanished in a puff of insouciance when I asked him this, so I'm still awaiting a reply.

Meanwhile, the Earth quietly cools.

> On the question of warming, I hope you are right, but strongly suspect you are wrong. ;-)

Fair enough, but you're talking as an individual there not as a scientist. Science doesn't deal in hopes and suspicions, it deals in data and it's analysis.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/08/2009 05:14:23 MDT.

I'm not arguing that the ends justify the means just that there are 10 good reasons for limiting the burning of fossil fuels, one of which you claim is not sound. So what? There are still 9 reasons to limit the burning of fossil fuels.

That is distinctly different from an ends justifies the means argument.

You guys do know that the majority of what we inhale and exhale is humble nitrogen, right?
cheers

NOAA: April Temperatures Slightly Cooler Than Average for U.S.

May 8, 2009

The April 2009 temperature for the contiguous United States was below the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC.

The average April temperature of 51.2 degrees F was 0.8 degree F below the 20th Century average. Precipitation across the contiguous United States in April averaged 2.62 inches, which is 0.19 inch above the 1901-2000 average.

> there are 10 good reasons for limiting the burning of fossil fuels, one of which you claim is not sound. So what?

So what are they concentrating on co2 for? Why not go for the 9 which they have better evidence for?

> That is distinctly different from an ends justifies the means argument.

No it's not. The U.N. has put it very bluntly:

"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

They have created a scare and panic over co2 to kill off the coal and oil economy. This is a means justifies the ends argument.
"Even if we're wrong, we're doing the right thing"

Meanwhile the world economy and food supply teeters on the brink of disaster.

Lunacy? Or a plan to decimate world population by the cheapest means?

Conspiracy theory?

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

> You guys do know that the majority of what we inhale and exhale is humble nitrogen, right?
cheers

Good point Evan. Most of the rest is oxygen. Co2 makes up only 0.039% of the atmosphere.

Dear Rog

I checked and the UN Foundation is not the same thing as the UN ... it's actually funded by Ted Turner ... and Tim Wirth who runs it is apparently "a former congressman and senator from Colorado, and former U.S. Undersecretary of Global Affairs" ... so no black helicopters over Essex as yet.

Club of Rome ... that brings back memories. I wasn't aware that they were still around. A quick sqizz at their wikipedia entry throws a slightly different light on the quote you excerpted

"It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose....The common enemy of humanity is man....Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead" and "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine etc., would fit the bill."

On the basis of the quote above they didn't state that climate change was an outside enemy that wasn't real, just that it was an example of a cause that could unite divided nations.

I wasn't aware that the world's food supply was in danger ... how is that possible when the world's climate is in such good shape?

> Democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Where's my gun?

Democracy is the worst form of government - apart from all the other ones which have been tried.

Tim Wirth is, I believe, the guy who opened all the windows and fubarred the aircon system on the hottest day of the year in the room where the 1988 senate committee hearing was held at which Jim Hansen started the co2 panic...

The worlds climate is in good shape, our agricultural planning for colder weather is not. At all. Because of these idiots and their hangers on.

"Ed Schafer, the US Agriculture Secretary, claimed that biofuels are responsible for only 2-3 percent of the predicted 43 per cent rise in food prices this year. America has invested heavily in biofuel technology. Other summit participants however said that biofuel accounted for 15-30 per cent of food price increases."

Edited by tallbloke on 05/13/2009 10:47:52 MDT.

This is fun. I decided to cut way back on smoking last August and cut from 20 to 10 per day. Now I'm between 5 and ten an soon will cut to under 5. One of the interesting things is to my my knowlegde I havnt had any nick fits or gained weight or anything like that but I do get this strange sensation like i'm being strangled. I can breath fine but it seems like the blood in my neck and head is being constricted. It doesnt last long but is definately interesting. This Is the year I will quit but I have decided to taper slowly as to cut the habbit of smoking or reaching for something. I understand smoking is dumb and can be rude but I simply dont smoke around non smokers ever. I wonder how many people here bitching about the affects of second hand smoke realize how rude they are driving thier cars and polluting my pure air. I dont smoke around you please dont drive around me.
Also I think I recently read that sugar kills more people and creates more health problems than smoking. I can't confirm this but it was interesting to read. Ali :)

Over a number of posts, Stuart wrote the following to Rog:

"Sorry Roger, but you are just plain wrong about this. This is a complete nonsense. It's a nonsensical view of the data. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Which part of "too short to identify a trend" don't you understand? If you were a scientist, what you are doing would be considered scientific fraud. You keep repeating the same *provably wrong* statements. Okay, so you don't know how to identify trends in time series, you don't want to learn, and you keep repeating the same provably wrong statements. You are more to be pitied than scorned."


Hey, Stuart, please… don’t go feeding this guy’s ego! :)

Is this a hit and run post skots? Or are you going to stick around to discuss ice like you said we should? Perhaps you'd prefer a job as Stuart's cheerleader to responding to real data.

Daily temps north of 80 degrees latitude
A comparison of 1958 and 2009 and the 41 year average:
The bottom scale is days of the year, the side scale is degrees Kelvin.


Even the NSIDC admits the Arctic was warmer in the 1940's than it is now.

Meanwhile Antarctica has seen increasing sea ice extent over the entire 30 year satellite record.

Perhaps in the face of this obvious and clear evidence that warming is not all the alarmists say it is you'll just melt away like Stuart did when asked an awkward and inconvenient question.

Edited by tallbloke on 05/14/2009 07:16:57 MDT.

... i don't think the ego requires any additional feeding. i'm pretty sure it's plump n' happy just the way it is. sated, engorged, rotund.

There's plenty of insult and general yibbling coming from the warmies, but precious little science or comment of any substance. Probably because they don't have a scientific leg to stand on, and it's becoming painfully obvious to the rest of us, and maybe even them.