Welcome. This site is an archived version of the previous UpTheSaddlers forum (December 2004 to May 2018). To visit the new UTS website, please click here.

Poll: global warming

Threads that have run on UpTheSaddlers that might or might not be worth keeping...

Climate Change:

Poll ended at Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:33 am

It's real, it's man-made and we've got to do something NOW (think of the children!)
7
23%
It's real, it's natural, why change a thing?
17
57%
Who cares - we're all gonna die!
3
10%
Stafflers
3
10%
 
Total votes : 30
ShyTallKnight
Glitterati
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Outlaw

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:35 am

Cully wrote:My vote for the most sustained, onerous pile of steaming procrastinating non evidence goes to...............................................







EXILE





....... for his magnificent ability to dedicate almost every waking moment in scouring the internet for morsels of extraneous research which have all the expertise of The Nolans latest research document on the denegration of sub nuclear particles contained within an aardvark flavoured cuppa soup.


I do accept that I could be wrong and the evidence could be out there, after all is said and done I don't know anything about Exiles area of expertise, however, I know that should paper clips and blue tack become in short supply, Exile will have my full support for the reasons. 8)


Absolute rubbish. The Nolans have never published the research referred to above. Typical spurious arguments used by the 'warmers' and stayaways :mrgreen:

User avatar
ciscokid
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:22 am
Location: Watch out for Germany--it's 3rd time lucky

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:37 am

SaigonSaddler wrote:
ciscokid wrote:I question the data supplied by NASA.
NASA is a government funded organisation, and many of NASA's top scientists rely on that funding for a living. If they express views that are "anti congress", your out of work buddy.
Are we expected to believe this data, just as we were expected to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction :?: :wink:


Considering most of the research has been done under a Bush government that was sceptical of warming until it changed it's mind due to the overwhelming amount of evidence, you may have to rethink your position on that one.

Also NASA only supplies a small percentage of the total data, so your accusations would have to encompass scientific communities and institutions around the world.

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. Royal Society.

The last one to go was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007.

However, I believe that the BNP represent the last British political movement sharing your opinion on this..... :wink:


I do not rely on political bodies for guidance, however, if the BNP share my view then that’s one element of the parties Manifesto that I would agree with. :wink:
Todays world governments are a collection of incompetent hypocrites who’s members are out for financial gain and power, rather than representing the electorate. The current labour government is a typical example of this.
I am very sceptical on the data being provided by government funded organisations.
Basis for prediction is supported by data fed into complex computer models to predict future events.
It was an award winning computer model that the banking industry used to predict the behaviour of the financial markets, and then they came up with Credit Swap derivatives, the basis for the 2009 global financial melt down.
Computer models have a real and expected problem accurately predicting outcomes when variables like human behaviours and the weather are involved. Archaeological data shows us that changes in climate both large and small have always shaped life on earth. A global warming trend over the last hundred years? Perhaps, but IMO not as a result of CO2 emissions.
You'd have to be completely uninformed to not acknowledge that we exist on a living planet and change is constant. We will all be affected by the natural process's earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and changing climate. That said, and as posted previously, I would have much more confidence in the computer model approach when meteorologists can predict short term weather more accurately than I can by looking at a cheap barometer.

User avatar
sj
Site Addict
 
Posts: 2847
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:59 pm
Location: The Pleck

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:07 pm

Cisco---- I think that is a very good post. We listen too readily to so-called experts. People who turn out to be in it for the money, the power or for their boss.


Power and politics has corrupted much of academia. Universities have had 30 years of being told what to do and now they do it. We need to get back to the days when you studied a subject for the love of it, not what your department will get or the corporation who is supplying the funding.

"Evidence Based", "What Works" rubbish has ruined our places of learning.

ZurichSaddler
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:41 am
Location: Zürich, Schweiz

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 12:53 pm

As an earth science academic I wanted to make a few points, but not based on my views of human induced climate change. I think one of the major problems for this type of research is the way in which it is conveyed to the general public. There are similar problems with volcanic and earthquake prediction, you issue a warning and nothing happens (within a human time scale, ie days, month or even years) the creditability of the scientist(s) is(are) damaged. I personally think the problem with climate change is that most people believe climate change and weather is one and the same, which it is not. Weather are small seasonally based variations, whether climate is long term based prevailing conditions. The recent cold weather in the UK has probably had an adverse effect on the perception of climate change - how can it be snowing if it's meant to be getting hotter? The fact of the matter is that the melting of the polar ice caps will reduce the salinity of the Atlantic and thus essentially cutting off the Gulf Stream so with warmer global temperatures the UK will have a climate that is similar to other countries on the same latitude.

The two main comments I wanted to make were based on the comments of Cisco and sj:

computer models are great in reproducing the data in which the model was fit with, but extreme caution should be made when the model is then extrapolated outside the bounds of the fitting data. This is more to do with the mathematics used than the science.

I agree in part with what sj says but I wanted o give my views, the power and politics which affects academia has nothing to do with the scientist and everything to do with funding. In the UK there is no breath of earth science research, because you can't get funding, so all research is in the area which is currently in vogue which at the moment is climate based. This is the main reason why I left and came to Switzerland. The department doesn't fund you, research bodies do (in UK it's mainly NERC) or companies (which are generally resource companies - shell, Rio Tinto etc) which as sj suggests define the area of research. This is because academia in the Uk has in the most part been heavily under funded and why people are leaving for abroad where they can research, within reason what they want. This has the result in that the undergraduates are not taught by world renowned experts in the whole breath of their subject, which can only be a bad thing.

But anyway I'm going off at a tangent...

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:30 pm

ciscokid wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:
ciscokid wrote:I question the data supplied by NASA.
NASA is a government funded organisation, and many of NASA's top scientists rely on that funding for a living. If they express views that are "anti congress", your out of work buddy.
Are we expected to believe this data, just as we were expected to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction :?: :wink:


Considering most of the research has been done under a Bush government that was sceptical of warming until it changed it's mind due to the overwhelming amount of evidence, you may have to rethink your position on that one.

Also NASA only supplies a small percentage of the total data, so your accusations would have to encompass scientific communities and institutions around the world.

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. Royal Society.

The last one to go was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007.

However, I believe that the BNP represent the last British political movement sharing your opinion on this..... :wink:


I do not rely on political bodies for guidance, however, if the BNP share my view then that’s one element of the parties Manifesto that I would agree with. :wink:
Todays world governments are a collection of incompetent hypocrites who’s members are out for financial gain and power, rather than representing the electorate. The current labour government is a typical example of this.
I am very sceptical on the data being provided by government funded organisations.
Basis for prediction is supported by data fed into complex computer models to predict future events.
It was an award winning computer model that the banking industry used to predict the behaviour of the financial markets, and then they came up with Credit Swap derivatives, the basis for the 2009 global financial melt down.
Computer models have a real and expected problem accurately predicting outcomes when variables like human behaviours and the weather are involved. Archaeological data shows us that changes in climate both large and small have always shaped life on earth. A global warming trend over the last hundred years? Perhaps, but IMO not as a result of CO2 emissions.
You'd have to be completely uninformed to not acknowledge that we exist on a living planet and change is constant. We will all be affected by the natural process's earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and changing climate. That said, and as posted previously, I would have much more confidence in the computer model approach when meteorologists can predict short term weather more accurately than I can by looking at a cheap barometer.


You say you don’t follow political bodies for guidance, but then make the simplistic jump that all science is directed only by political motive, not only in Britain but all over the world. Fair enough I suppose if you want to be cynical about absolutely everything, but far better to judge each case on it’s own merits.

The vast majority of evidence for warming has little to do with politics or computer models, but hard data collected in the field. Models predict future warming and there is nothing stop others from creating their own models. They haven’t, because they can’t get their models to fit back to the historic warming without including CO2. Either way, the data collected from every continent shows warming entirely consistent with their models.

The weakness in the political argument is the absence of any serious political group opposed to this supposedly glaring cover-up. Can you imagine the political capital to be gained by supporting the sceptical view, if this had any credence? None exists, except for the American ultra right wing drum beaters, senators speaking for the oil companies, bitter and isolated bloggers, desperate attention seekers and the BNP. Fine if you think these have a better grasp of the science, but history suggests that right wing interference with science ends unhappily.

And why is the USA host to the majority of the sceptics - the political animals, the contrary websites? Because the Bush government didn’t ‘believe’ it until the weight of evidence forced it to acknowledge the consensus of the rest of the scientific community towards the end of it’s office.

You infer that all of the science is corrupted and the institutions that I’ve been linking to throughout this discussion have made up the data, the analysis and the dissemination to the public due to some kind of massive and long running global political conspiracy. Pretty good going for the governments you rate as incompetent. Yet no credible scientific alternative to CO2 warming exists. The natural ’processes’ you hint at provide no shelter from the inalienable truth, and neither do the ideas of solar warming or any of the other dead ends. Sceptics are reduced to trying to engineer flaws in the CO2 argument by cherry picking the data and inventing unsupportable explanations.

Finally, MET office weather predictions over the short term are very accurate, so I think what you meant was the medium term, seasonal weather predictions which are want to throw up all sorts of random variables. Both are completely separate from climate predictions, so I’ll be sticking to the world meteorological organisation, the MET office, NASA and the rest of the scientific community, rather than your barometer.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:45 pm

ZurichSaddler wrote:As an earth science academic I wanted to make a few points, but not based on my views of human induced climate change. I think one of the major problems for this type of research is the way in which it is conveyed to the general public. There are similar problems with volcanic and earthquake prediction, you issue a warning and nothing happens (within a human time scale, ie days, month or even years) the creditability of the scientist(s) is(are) damaged. I personally think the problem with climate change is that most people believe climate change and weather is one and the same, which it is not. Weather are small seasonally based variations, whether climate is long term based prevailing conditions. The recent cold weather in the UK has probably had an adverse effect on the perception of climate change - how can it be snowing if it's meant to be getting hotter? The fact of the matter is that the melting of the polar ice caps will reduce the salinity of the Atlantic and thus essentially cutting off the Gulf Stream so with warmer global temperatures the UK will have a climate that is similar to other countries on the same latitude.


Exactly right, which is why the recent cold snap has absolutely no bearing on global climate change, which is measured over 30 year spells. At the same time as our snowfall, parts of Oz were experiencing the hottest night time temps ever recorded there.

computer models are great in reproducing the data in which the model was fit with, but extreme caution should be made when the model is then extrapolated outside the bounds of the fitting data. This is more to do with the mathematics used than the science.


Good point, which is why mutliple models exist. Also nothing to prevent the oil companies from producing their own models, but they have extreme difficulty in getting the historic records to fit without including CO2.

I agree in part with what sj says but I wanted o give my views, the power and politics which affects academia has nothing to do with the scientist and everything to do with funding. In the UK there is no breath of earth science research, because you can't get funding, so all research is in the area which is currently in vogue which at the moment is climate based. This is the main reason why I left and came to Switzerland. The department doesn't fund you, research bodies do (in UK it's mainly NERC) or companies (which are generally resource companies - shell, Rio Tinto etc) which as sj suggests define the area of research. This is because academia in the Uk has in the most part been heavily under funded and why people are leaving for abroad where they can research, within reason what they want. This has the result in that the undergraduates are not taught by world renowned experts in the whole breath of their subject, which can only be a bad thing.


True, and it's easy to think of Britain as the only country in the world sometimes. Fortunately, the evidence from all around the world can now be collected and analysed to produce global data. Something that also decreases the reliance on just a few research bodies.

ZurichSaddler
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:41 am
Location: Zürich, Schweiz

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:07 pm

I fully understand that Britain is not the only place in which climate research is been undertaken, just an insight into my views on the points which were raised. I fully believe that climate change is being forced by human release of atmospherically harmful gases (not just CO2). Just thinking about it simply, we know that the release of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide has caused climate change in the past ie during the Cretaceous, which is thought to have been caused by a high rate of volcanic eruptions which the extensive outgassed carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide amongst other things (evidence: the quantity of carbon dioxide would have made the oceans relatively short of oxygen which is displayed in the geological record. The abundance of black shale and petroleum-rich formations, suggest they formed in an oxygen poor environment). Volcanic degassing currently is currently much lower than that in the Cretaceous, however the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has increased dramatically (see the hockey stick shaped graph of CO2 in the atmosphere vs time). So surely its a no-brainer, we know CO2 can cause climate change, so even if the current global warming (av. 0.4 C per year) is not totally human induced by releasing more CO2 aren't we adding to it?

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:22 pm

ZurichSaddler wrote:I fully understand that Britain is not the only place in which climate research is been undertaken, just an insight into my views on the points which were raised. I fully believe that climate change is being forced by human release of atmospherically harmful gases (not just CO2). Just thinking about it simply, we know that the release of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide has caused climate change in the past ie during the Cretaceous, which is thought to have been caused by a high rate of volcanic eruptions which the extensive outgassed carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide amongst other things (evidence: the quantity of carbon dioxide would have made the oceans relatively short of oxygen which is displayed in the geological record. The abundance of black shale and petroleum-rich formations, suggest they formed in an oxygen poor environment). Volcanic degassing currently is currently much lower than that in the Cretaceous, however the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has increased dramatically (see the hockey stick shaped graph of CO2 in the atmosphere vs time). So surely its a no-brainer, we know CO2 can cause climate change, so even if the current global warming (av. 0.4 C per year) is not totally human induced by releasing more CO2 aren't we adding to it?


Spot on mate. :wink:

The scientific evidence is compelling, but you'll still find a few who just cannot accept it.

User avatar
Morty
Glitterati
 
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Consett, Co. Durham

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:41 pm

Going on from Zurich's comments there was an article on the BBC site by a man from the Met Office about how scientists need to "take more responsibility about how their work is presented to the public ...... to prevent climate science being misunderstood or misused."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8451756.stm

Then goes on to discuss differences between weather and climate - and that one bad winter in the UK is doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.

I particularly like this bit:-

"It's easy to blame the media and I don't intend to make generalisations here, but I have quite literally had journalists phone me up during an unusually warm spell of weather and ask "is this a result of global warming?"

When I say "no, not really, it is just weather", they've thanked me very much and then phoned somebody else, and kept trying until they got someone to say yes it was. "

ShyTallKnight
Glitterati
 
Posts: 835
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 4:35 pm
Location: Outlaw

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 6:59 pm

SaigonSaddler wrote:
ZurichSaddler wrote:I fully understand that Britain is not the only place in which climate research is been undertaken, just an insight into my views on the points which were raised. I fully believe that climate change is being forced by human release of atmospherically harmful gases (not just CO2). Just thinking about it simply, we know that the release of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide has caused climate change in the past ie during the Cretaceous, which is thought to have been caused by a high rate of volcanic eruptions which the extensive outgassed carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide amongst other things (evidence: the quantity of carbon dioxide would have made the oceans relatively short of oxygen which is displayed in the geological record. The abundance of black shale and petroleum-rich formations, suggest they formed in an oxygen poor environment). Volcanic degassing currently is currently much lower than that in the Cretaceous, however the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has increased dramatically (see the hockey stick shaped graph of CO2 in the atmosphere vs time). So surely its a no-brainer, we know CO2 can cause climate change, so even if the current global warming (av. 0.4 C per year) is not totally human induced by releasing more CO2 aren't we adding to it?


Spot on mate. :wink:

The scientific evidence is compelling, but you'll still find a few who just cannot accept it.


Ayup, I smell a love-in developing here :mrgreen:

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:29 pm

This could be interesting.

The innocent have nothing to fear

ZurichSaddler
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:41 am
Location: Zürich, Schweiz

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:33 pm

ShyTallKnight wrote: Ayup, I smell a love-in developing here :mrgreen:


Only if he brings his avatar girl with him :D

User avatar
Magic Man Fan
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10977
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:30 pm
Location: Warning. Some posts may cause offence...to the over sensitive or slow.

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:54 pm

Cut CO2 emissions. Buy energy saving lightbulbs. :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea: :idea:

Cully
Site Addict
 
Posts: 4310
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 7:55 pm
Location: Rugeley.........pronounced RUDGELEE apparently

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:19 pm

Why haven't we had a graph for 24 hrs?

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 9:51 pm

Cully wrote:Why haven't we had a graph for 24 hrs?

Cut and paste metfanwy's graph. Saigon thinks it's more accurate than anything I've ever produced. :wink:

User avatar
ciscokid
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:22 am
Location: Watch out for Germany--it's 3rd time lucky

Re: Poll: global warming

Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:20 pm

SaigonSaddler wrote:
ciscokid wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:
ciscokid wrote:I question the data supplied by NASA.
NASA is a government funded organisation, and many of NASA's top scientists rely on that funding for a living. If they express views that are "anti congress", your out of work buddy.
Are we expected to believe this data, just as we were expected to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction :?: :wink:


Considering most of the research has been done under a Bush government that was sceptical of warming until it changed it's mind due to the overwhelming amount of evidence, you may have to rethink your position on that one.

Also NASA only supplies a small percentage of the total data, so your accusations would have to encompass scientific communities and institutions around the world.

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change. Royal Society.

The last one to go was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007.

However, I believe that the BNP represent the last British political movement sharing your opinion on this..... :wink:


I do not rely on political bodies for guidance, however, if the BNP share my view then that’s one element of the parties Manifesto that I would agree with. :wink:
Todays world governments are a collection of incompetent hypocrites who’s members are out for financial gain and power, rather than representing the electorate. The current labour government is a typical example of this.
I am very sceptical on the data being provided by government funded organisations.
Basis for prediction is supported by data fed into complex computer models to predict future events.
It was an award winning computer model that the banking industry used to predict the behaviour of the financial markets, and then they came up with Credit Swap derivatives, the basis for the 2009 global financial melt down.
Computer models have a real and expected problem accurately predicting outcomes when variables like human behaviours and the weather are involved. Archaeological data shows us that changes in climate both large and small have always shaped life on earth. A global warming trend over the last hundred years? Perhaps, but IMO not as a result of CO2 emissions.
You'd have to be completely uninformed to not acknowledge that we exist on a living planet and change is constant. We will all be affected by the natural process's earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and changing climate. That said, and as posted previously, I would have much more confidence in the computer model approach when meteorologists can predict short term weather more accurately than I can by looking at a cheap barometer.


You say you don’t follow political bodies for guidance, but then make the simplistic jump that all science is directed only by political motive, not only in Britain but all over the world. Fair enough I suppose if you want to be cynical about absolutely everything, but far better to judge each case on it’s own merits.

The vast majority of evidence for warming has little to do with politics or computer models, but hard data collected in the field. Models predict future warming and there is nothing stop others from creating their own models. They haven’t, because they can’t get their models to fit back to the historic warming without including CO2. Either way, the data collected from every continent shows warming entirely consistent with their models.

The weakness in the political argument is the absence of any serious political group opposed to this supposedly glaring cover-up. Can you imagine the political capital to be gained by supporting the sceptical view, if this had any credence? None exists, except for the American ultra right wing drum beaters, senators speaking for the oil companies, bitter and isolated bloggers, desperate attention seekers and the BNP. Fine if you think these have a better grasp of the science, but history suggests that right wing interference with science ends unhappily.

And why is the USA host to the majority of the sceptics - the political animals, the contrary websites? Because the Bush government didn’t ‘believe’ it until the weight of evidence forced it to acknowledge the consensus of the rest of the scientific community towards the end of it’s office.

You infer that all of the science is corrupted and the institutions that I’ve been linking to throughout this discussion have made up the data, the analysis and the dissemination to the public due to some kind of massive and long running global political conspiracy. Pretty good going for the governments you rate as incompetent. Yet no credible scientific alternative to CO2 warming exists. The natural ’processes’ you hint at provide no shelter from the inalienable truth, and neither do the ideas of solar warming or any of the other dead ends. Sceptics are reduced to trying to engineer flaws in the CO2 argument by cherry picking the data and inventing unsupportable explanations.

Finally, MET office weather predictions over the short term are very accurate, so I think what you meant was the medium term, seasonal weather predictions which are want to throw up all sorts of random variables. Both are completely separate from climate predictions, so I’ll be sticking to the world meteorological organisation, the MET office, NASA and the rest of the scientific community, rather than your barometer.



Several of your assumptions are exaggerated and consequently incorrect
Where do I say “all of science”, and how am I cynical about everything. Perhaps I should say your opinions are founded on manipulated and corrupted evidence, when in truth several points you make may hold substance.
Politics is in bed with Global Warming and consequently stakes a main agenda item at G8 meetings. I am currently far less concerned with Global temperatures than the financial state of our land. Unfortunately the close financial meltdown was not predicted by many top investors or governments. Far more lives will be impacted when countries can no longer sustain an economy than short term Global temperature variations. Sorry I do not share your confidence in our world governments, or should I say “one world government”.
I am not disputing Global Warming, in the short term. I do dispute man made Global Warming which from the evidence and counter evidence provided is certainly far from overwhelming.
Governments are scaremongering people into not using cars and using a bike to travel 50 odd miles to work, yet they are happy for the energy companies to make huge profits from many products and services they offer.
I agree it does make sense to re-cylce, save energy and live in a cleaner atmosphere; however, perhaps the political stance on Global Warming is far more persuasive than admitting the nearing exhaustion of natural resources and energy supplies for future generations.

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 25, 2010 4:52 am

Here's some background on the IPCC, and the AR4 report that won a Nobel Peace Prize (along with Al Gore).

As a scientific document you'd think they rely on scientific evidence, perhaps even peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

Here's dozens of examples of why that wasn't so:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com ... nning.html

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:12 am

Ned_Kelly wrote:
PJD wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:
PJD wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

"Glaciologist Robert Bindschadler of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center intends to show just that. He's leading an expedition scheduled to start in 2011 to drill through the Pine Island Glacier and place an automated buoy into the water below it. According to Bindschadler, Pine Island Glacier "is the place to go because that is where the changes are the largest. If we want to understand how the ocean is impacting the ice sheet, go to where it's hitting the ice sheet with a sledgehammer, not with a little tack hammer."

What a bloody awesome job!! Must make sitting in his office for the other six months analysing data seem very very dull. Where do I sign up!


That's what research scientitists do. You have to go out in the field and actually get some information, otherwise you end up sitting on a computer hypothesising with nothing but hot air and a whole lot of hope. Unless you think Lister, Boyle, Newton, Franklin, Jenner, Babbage, Wallace, Rutherford, Hodgkin and Shackleton all sat at home dreaming up their ideas without actually doing anything practical.

I should think you would welcome this as it's sure to show a massive build up of ice......won't it? :wink:

Boyle got to sit in a lab in Oxford dreaming up MV=PT, I go past the plaque on the wall every time I walk up High Street. He didn't get to take bloody great drilling rigs to the antarctic!! Who gets to drop the buoy into the hole? Let's hope they don't fall in after it.

For the record, I haven't got a scooby about what is happening to the ice in the antarctic, but I bet there's lots of it.

If it melts we can all go and live there!


According to the IPCC it'll all be gone by 2035 !!!! Oh no, hang on a min, they meant 2350, it was just a typo :? :lol:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake


Much more than a typo, full blown disinformation.

Here's a good read about Himalayan glaciers:
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-inf ... 20_him.pdf

In a nutshell: Melting? Nothing to see here - move along.

ZurichSaddler
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:41 am
Location: Zürich, Schweiz

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:32 am

Exile wrote:Here's a good read about Himalayan glaciers:
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-inf ... 20_him.pdf

In a nutshell: Melting? Nothing to see here - move along.


Just read an interesting paper (peer-viewed) about melting in the Antarctic, I'll paraphrase it later.

Anyway back to making up some of my own research... :roll: :D

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 25, 2010 9:51 am

Cully wrote:Why haven't we had a graph for 24 hrs?

Sorry Cully - here you go - Central England Temperature record (bringing you warming since at least 1660).

Image

Apparently though, measuring temperatures with thermometers doesn't count. It's much more accurate to use tree rings, despite tree ring growth being affected by not just temperature, but other factors such as rainfall, sunshine, soil quality etc etc.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:08 pm

Cully wrote:Why haven't we had a graph for 24 hrs?


I've come to the conclusion that deniers should just be left digesting in their own bilious scientific incoherence. All I'm reading here are the same outlandish accusations, hollow opinionating and feeble straw grasping.

If anything changes anytime soon I'm sure they'll be on hand to let us know..... :mrgreen:

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 25, 2010 7:25 pm

SaigonSaddler wrote:If anything changes anytime soon I'm sure they'll be on hand to let us know..... :mrgreen:


Absolutely. :D

Religion
1. Not evidence based but consensus based. There are thousands/millions of people with the same opinion. Comfort in numbers.
2. Does not change in the face of new or revised evidence.
3. Believers always dismiss anything contrary with the view that it is overwhelmed by all of the other reasons to say it is true even if there are no such reasons. They generally don’t bother to look.
4. Has holy scripture which cannot be questioned. Dismisses and ignores other writings which have not made it into the approved canon.
5. Older writings have precedence over newer.

Science
1. Evidence based. Consensus does not equal truth because again and again a consensus has been overturned in the face of new knowledge and understanding.
2. New or revised information demands a reassessment of previous assumptions and conclusions.
3. Has to account for all of the evidence. Does not dismiss contrary views but aims to explain all apparent anomalies and special cases within the overall theory.
4. Nothing is automatically immune to being reviewed and revised.
5. Newer writings are often preferred to older conclusions because generally they depend on better and more up to date evidence.

Have fun in the warm embrace of the Carbon Cult.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:12 pm

Exile wrote:
SaigonSaddler wrote:If anything changes anytime soon I'm sure they'll be on hand to let us know..... :mrgreen:


Absolutely. :D

Religion
1. Not evidence based but consensus based. There are thousands/millions of people with the same opinion. Comfort in numbers.
2. Does not change in the face of new or revised evidence.
3. Believers always dismiss anything contrary with the view that it is overwhelmed by all of the other reasons to say it is true even if there are no such reasons. They generally don’t bother to look.
4. Has holy scripture which cannot be questioned. Dismisses and ignores other writings which have not made it into the approved canon.
5. Older writings have precedence over newer.

Science
1. Evidence based. Consensus does not equal truth because again and again a consensus has been overturned in the face of new knowledge and understanding.
2. New or revised information demands a reassessment of previous assumptions and conclusions.
3. Has to account for all of the evidence. Does not dismiss contrary views but aims to explain all apparent anomalies and special cases within the overall theory.
4. Nothing is automatically immune to being reviewed and revised.
5. Newer writings are often preferred to older conclusions because generally they depend on better and more up to date evidence.

Have fun in the warm embrace of the Carbon Cult.


:D

If this scientific discussion is to be distilled into a religious analogy then you are the strangely dressed crazed oddball, alone in the wilderness apart from a dwindling band of eccentric and senile disciples. Your method is basically a variation on running up to innocent passers-by, banging an old tin lid and yelling at them while trying to peddle your tatty wares. It's not my fault that you have chosen to go down this intellectual dead-end. I'm not to blame for the majority of people running away from your monumental ignorance. Now you find yourself dreadfully alone and without any way of returning to the common ground without huge loss of face. Good luck with your project though!

Being alone in science is generally not a great advert for the argument. Has it occurred to you that consesus is reached in any area because that's the one that makes sense?

Please don't scare the children!

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:48 pm

A propos of nothing, here's a graph for Cully. It's much more interesting than the usual fayre on this thread. :D

Image

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:57 pm

Thought I'd leave this a week before getting back to it briefly.

Headlines I've missed:

Glacier melting due to global warming - the IPCC AR4 report references an article not peer-rviewed, but which itself references IPCC warming hypotheses. Talk about circular reasoning!
http://climatequotes.com/2010/01/31/the ... sertation/
note the writer of the economic/geographic dissertation referred to is himself sponsored by the UN.

Rainforests disappearing due to global warming - the IPCC AR4 report references a study by that famous peer-reviewed group, the WWF which actually studies the effects of logging and burning.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 009705.ece

Stern Report to UK government changed after publication, as it contained unsupported fancies, not hard facts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ished.html
Luckily for Stern these changes were swept under the carpet and not reported. Note he's an investment banker, not an economist or scientist, so no vested interest in greasing the government.

Pachauri lies about Himalayan Glaciers.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 009081.ece
Looks like the only voodoo "scientist" round here is the railway engineer himself. he also writes smut fiction:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... ntist.html

Oops! As well as the WWF, The IPCC AR4 report also contained loads of references to even more studies that weren't peer-reviewed, this time by Greenpeace:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com ... te_28.html

Hadley Centre scientist stands by his prediction:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com ... chics.html
10 years ago he said that snow would be an increasingly rare event. The stats say "wrong"!

NOAA finally cotton on to clouds and water vapour:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories201 ... vapor.html
Only 10 years too late.

Now Greenpeace again:
http://www.businessinsider.com/greenpea ... ing-2009-8
Lying his little heart out, but that's OK because they're a pressure group who can emotionalise issues.

Dear oh dear.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:20 pm

Nice little interlude there.

I assume that's taken you all the time since we left it, trawling through this and that site in support of your dead hypothesis.

Greenpeace?

More opinionated blogs?

Media snippets?

Back in the real world:

The world's largest emitters reaffirmed non-binding pledges to curb emissions on Sunday (31st Jan), in accordance with a deadline set by the UN's Copenhagen summit held in December.

Why have I quoted this? Just to show you how utterly hopeless and out-dated your position is. According to you, we're not even getting warmer! Tell that to the policy makers...

And something that sums up the position of the IPCC and the whole situation quite nicely:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527452.600-let-the-sunlight-in-on-climate-change.html

Anyway, now you've reopened this unmitigated intellectual disaster that sees you desperately scrabbling around trying to suggest this and infer that, using the most wafer thin illusions, I suppose I had better interact.

I am curious as to what parameters would have to transpire in order for you to accept defeat, assuming you think any exist.

:?:

User avatar
aaaae
Site Addict
 
Posts: 6780
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 8:38 am
Location: Beware, I bear more grudges than lonely High Court judges...

Re: Poll: global warming

Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:36 pm

Coldest winter in Scotland since records began.....in 1914. Any more warming and we'll freeze to death.

Bet it was colder in the 17th century though. You know, when the historical record tells us that the seas froze. The Swedes even managed to march an army across the sea to conquer Denmark. The tree ring data doesn't agree though. Odd that. I don't suppose Michael Mann knows a lot about history (or biology, or the French he took and you have to wonder about his science book).

User avatar
Exile
Jobsworth
 
Posts: 23623
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:06 pm
Location: ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ

Re: Poll: global warming

Tue Feb 02, 2010 2:04 am

SaigonSaddler wrote:Nice little interlude there.

I assume that's taken you all the time since we left it, trawling through this and that site in support of your dead hypothesis.

Greenpeace?

More opinionated blogs?

Media snippets?

Back in the real world:

The world's largest emitters reaffirmed non-binding pledges to curb emissions on Sunday (31st Jan), in accordance with a deadline set by the UN's Copenhagen summit held in December.

Why have I quoted this? Just to show you how utterly hopeless and out-dated your position is. According to you, we're not even getting warmer! Tell that to the policy makers...

And something that sums up the position of the IPCC and the whole situation quite nicely:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527452.600-let-the-sunlight-in-on-climate-change.html

Anyway, now you've reopened this unmitigated intellectual disaster that sees you desperately scrabbling around trying to suggest this and infer that, using the most wafer thin illusions, I suppose I had better interact.

I am curious as to what parameters would have to transpire in order for you to accept defeat, assuming you think any exist.

:?:


Loved your New Scientist link. Nothing scientific in it (no change for that publication), just an editorial message saying "nothing to see here, move along"...

Back in the real world, some countries have signed up to a non-binding option in order to hedge their future bets. That's what politicians do.

Mate, the wheels are falling off. The CRUtape letters are a drop in the ocean compared to the American problem. The CRU have been caught lying and hiding, GISS have been caught lying and hiding, the head of the IPCC has been caught lying, the IPCC have been caught lying, the "dossiers" (AR4 and previous) have been "sexed up" and still, STILL, the climate refuses to perform according to the models.

The only evidence for Man(n) Made Global Warming exists in computer models. Still, now, there is absolutely no empirical evidence for it. More and more people are waking up to this fact and realising that perhaps there's more to this than has been told thus far.

Every aspect of weather and climate observed on the face of this planet can be explained in terms of natural cycles. Everything. No scientific paper written thus far proves otherwise.

The El Nino oscillation is teetering, the sun still hasn't woken up, the oceans are cooling not warming, the upper atmosphere still (still!) shows no reaction to CO2 as predicted by all AGW models in existence, CO2 is still climbing and there's been no recognisable warming in over a decade. What, pray tell, should make anyone believe in a few scientists trying to protect their funding. They've been caught out. The science is scuttled.

User avatar
SaigonSaddler
Site Addict
 
Posts: 10825
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: In Bonser's Grotto

Re: Poll: global warming

Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:22 pm

Basically, 'whatever'

:lol:

I can only assume you felt hard done by at the conclusion of this thread to dredge it back up again now. Unfinished business perhaps, or embarrassment that the only course of action was to run away when confronted by accurate submissions from Morty and Zurich.

Apart from re-hashing your only points in different ways, namely:

Look at this irrelevance at the very fringe of the science, this is the 'crux'
Observe how this self-serving blog contradicts the entire scientific evidence
Similarly, 'Exile musings and suppositions.com' render everything else obsolete
And the fantastic 'a minority view is a virtue' farce.
You can always fall back on the monsterous conspiracy when things get too much or too hard to understand!

I'm sure your not still debating this to convince me, I understand the science, and your chance of convincing others that happen to wander across this site is restricted to say the least. This must be especially frustrating as people like David Attenborough command so much more airtime. I must conclude that you are only posting to try and convince yourself. Best wishes in trying to unpick the mangled wreck you have got yourself tangled up in.

You never did say when you would accept defeat - or even if this was an option. How about a timeframe? No? :?

User avatar
kevin
UTS Legend
 
Posts: 2119
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:46 pm
Location: Location,Location.

Re: Poll: global warming

Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:10 pm

Cully wrote:Why haven't we had a graph for 24 hrs?


This OK ?

Image

PreviousNext
Return to UTS Classics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests