Climate change

Pete McCluskey.

Lifetime Supporter
One of the great sadnesses of the whole pro AGW 'consensus' has been the corruption of the scientific method, in almost all stages of the process, from observational data to peer review. When proponents of AGW state that there is a consensus and that the 'debate' is over you know that this is not science any longer but politics or religion.
Ditto +1
 
I do have a question: if someone is going to choose to not believe a scientist who supports global warming and/or our contribution to it, what makes that person believe a scientist who does not support it?

One can choose to listen to a worldwide consensus of atmospheric scientists in peer reviewed studies and publications, or one can pick and choose others that happen to support their own agendas. I get the feeling that many of those who are against the scientific community's findings on global warming were also in support of the Iraq war (at least in the beginning.) Why bring up a seemingly irrelevant political point? Because both center around a "study" put forth by a group of supposedly "knowledgable" people. Many make the argument that these scientists have their own agendas with their climate report. What in the hell would that agenda be? Potentially discredit their entire scientific livelihood? Now look at the Iraq war. :shocked: You don't think they had any agendas? I do see a pattern though. A large group of knowledgeable people around the world had and have an opinion about these two topics, but some chose and choose to ignore the them and stick with the groups that offer support for their own agendas.

Here are some global warming links:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their last report with a summary - http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

National Academy of Sciences: National Academy of Sciences Home

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf - this report sums up much of the IPCC data and others.

AMS Home Page and a summary - AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

United States Global Change Research Program and a summary - New Assessment of National, Regional Impacts of Climate Change

Now, I'm not saying "There you go - it's definitive." But this is a lot of knowledgeable information that can't be ignored. This is a VERY slow feedback loop of human activity -> climate change -> measurement -> response -> human activity... what some people are afraid of is the response -> human activity -> climate change part of the loop where the motion of change has already achieved a tremendous head start over any prolonged response (if any) resulting in a situation where mankind will have to then make unbelievably drastic measures and sacrifices instead of taking relatively smaller and more manageable ones now; as long as some people can be convinced to make that small sacrifice now. Hell, some people have paid the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq. But then again, there were many people in this climate change discussion who had no problem believeing the "data" for that one.
 
This is actually in the comments of that you tube video:

"Stuart in the black has been imbibing the capitalist kool-aid. I wonder how he'll feel when his children are living in a world with no coral reefs, un-breathable air and war as the most stable industry.

It's probably best if humans go extinct before we go to space and turn the rest of the universe into a toxic waste dump as we have done to this planet."

I don't think this person is kidding!
 
The best way to raise money is through fear. Whether it be with religion, or Al Gore's moronic drivel. "The polar ice cap will be completely melted in 5 years". Yeah right!
 
I find it funny that the same scientist who claim that they know what is going on (on either side of the issue)can't predict the weather with any degree of certainty, the exact path of hurricanes (they are getting better) or predict drought conditions in the future. The science fails them on this issue as well. That is because scientists look at events that have happened and find some scientific explanation with regards to either physics,climate or weather. Could it be that their limited view of the future is direct result of their being human, thus the prone to error.While we are getting better at general concepts, the minute details escape us. The earth has been around awhile and has gone through numerous changes since its formation, especially the climate. One has to wonder if our species really matters as to the changes going on around us and if we can affect a change of what may be "normal progression".
Garry
 
Dave, I believe in climate change, in 1974 headlines in the Los Angeles Times were warning of a new Ice Age. I don't believe that man or animal farts are making a profound difference in our weather. Although, from the size of Al Gore, he may be making a flatuence difference! I think that just like the church that preaches "Thou shalt not kill" and has been exterminating people like the Aztec and Incas for pillage, that the governments agenda is only to tax business and pass it along to us. The dollar is the deciding factor, not a love of the earth. I doubt that Polosi could give a rats ass about polution as she flys across the US on a taxpayer plane.
 
Anybody notice the amount spent on lobbying for "climate change"? When $$$ with a B is involved, who cares about 'truth' or facts?
Gore is a genius! Like some money grubbing evangelist, you start with some 'noble' cause, propagandize it to a crisis situation, snow the gullible crusaders, then sit back and watch the $$$ roll in. The only difference here is that with charitable "donations", you have a choice. Is this a great country or what?
Scariest part is this is supposedly the best system in the world. How bad is it elsewhere?
 
Gore is selling a hyped up bill of goods for his own enrichment, he doesn't give a damn where this country is going due to his BS. He's a whore!
 
Why is it so difficult to answer three simple climate questions?


Senator Steve Fielding recently undertook a well-publicised fact-seeking trip to a climate change conference in Washington.

Listening to the papers presented, the Senator became puzzled that the scientific analyses that they provided directly contradicted the reasons that the Australian government has been giving as the justification for their emissions trading legislation.
At the Washington meeting, Fielding heard leading atmospheric physicist, Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT, describe evidence that the warming effect of carbon dioxide is much overestimated by current computer climate models, and then remark tellingly: “What we see, then, is that the very foundation of the issue of global warming is wrong. In a normal field, these results would pretty much wrap things up, but global warming/climate change has developed so much momentum that it has a life of its own - quite removed from science”. Indeed.
And another scientist, astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon from Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, commented that “A ‘magical’ CO2 knob for controlling weather and climate simply does not exist”. Think about that for a moment with respect to our government’s current climate policy.




Quite reasonably, therefore, on his return to Canberra Senator Fielding asked Climate Minister Penny Wong to answer three simple questions about the relationship between human carbon dioxide emissions and alleged dangerous global warming.

Fielding was seeking evidence, as opposed to unvalidated computer model projections, that human carbon dioxide emissions actually are driving dangerous global warming, to help him and the public at large better assess whether cutting emissions will actually be a cost-effective environmental measure.

After all, the passed-down cost to Australian taxpayers of the planned emissions trading bill is of the order of $4,000 per family per year for a carbon dioxide tax level of $30 per tonne. And the estimated “benefit” of such a large tax increase is that it may perhaps prevent an unmeasurable one-ten-thousandth of a degree of global warming from occurring. Next year? No, by 2100.

It was our privilege to have attended the meeting between Senators Wong and Fielding at which these three questions were discussed between ourselves and the Minister’s scientific advisors, Chief Scientist Penny Wong and Director of ANU climate research centre Will Steffen.

The three simple questions that were posed were:

Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?

Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth's history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?

Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?


As independent scientists, we found that the Minister’s advisors were unable, indeed in some part unwilling, to answer these questions.

We were told with respect to the first question that it needed rephrasing, because it did not take account of the global thermal balance and the fact that much of the heat that drives the climate system is lodged in the ocean. Que? What is it about “carbon dioxide has increased and temperature has decreased” that the Minister’s science advisors don’t understand?

The second question “was the late 20th century phase of warming unusual in rate or magnitude” was effectively dismissed with the comment that climatic events that occurred in the distant geological past are not relevant to policy that is concerned with contemporary climate change. Try telling that to Professor Plimer.

And regarding the third question, and the matter of the accuracy of the IPCC’s computer models, we were assured that the models are improving all the time, and that better models still are in the pipeline. So the Minister’s advisors appeared to concede that the climate models that have guided preparation of the current ETS legislation are inadequate, but don’t you worry about that because the new, better models will get it right next time.

Scientific legerdemain, and an apparent inability to discuss the important climate change issue in simple terms that the public can understand, are not adequate responses to the crisp questions that Senator Fielding posed to the Minister and has yet to receive clear answers to.

It was reported in the Business Age last July that the Ministry of Climate Change’s Green Paper on climate change, which was issued as a prelude to carbon dioxide taxation legislation, contained seven scientific errors and oversimplifications in the first sentence of its opening section.

Almost 12 months on, our experience confirms that the balance of the scientific advice Minister Wong is receiving is quite simply inadequate to justify the exorbitantly costly upheaval of our society’s energy usage that is intended to be driven by the government’s emissions trading legislation.

All Australians owe Senator Fielding a vote of thanks for having had the political courage to ask in parliament where the climate Empress’s clothes have gone. Together with the Family First Senator, and the public, we await with interest any further answers to his questions that Minister Wong’s advisors may yet provide.
 
OK, this cannot go unanswered. When we start quoting Senetor Steve Fielding, then I know that we are clutching at straws. The fact is that the questions that the Senetor had asked, had been answered, so I don't know where you got the impression that there were no answers.

I won't bore everyone again by trying to point out every error in this post but I will select one point as an example.

QUESTION:
"Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase"

ANSWER:
Senetor Fielding was very selective in his figures when he made the comment about cooling temperatures. The fact is that he picked the year 1998 as his starting point because there was a peak in the fluctuating average temperatures that year. If you do that, then it can appear that nothing substantial has happened since. Conversely, if I was to pick a trough as my starting point then it will look like there was a huge rise. He deliberately ignored the big picture so that he would not see the steady rise.
Furthermore, if you also look at the figures closely since 1998 you will notice that the next five highest average temperatures ever recorded have ocured since that peak. I will repeat that. The next FIVE HIGHEST average temperatures EVER RECORDED have happened since then. So to put it plainly, for the whole time that we have been recording temperatures the six highest on record have ocured since 1998!

Senetor Fielding has been discredited in nearly everything he has claimed. If you want to hold someone up as a hero for the anti-global-warming argument, then I think you could do better than Fielding.
 
OK, this cannot go unanswered. When we start quoting Senetor Steve Fielding, then I know that we are clutching at straws. The fact is that the questions that the Senetor had asked, had been answered, so I don't know where you got the impression that there were no answers.

I won't bore everyone again by trying to point out every error in this post but I will select one point as an example.

QUESTION:
"Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase"

ANSWER:
Senetor Fielding was very selective in his figures when he made the comment about cooling temperatures. The fact is that he picked the year 1998 as his starting point because there was a peak in the fluctuating average temperatures that year. If you do that, then it can appear that nothing substantial has happened since. Conversely, if I was to pick a trough as my starting point then it will look like there was a huge rise. He deliberately ignored the big picture so that he would not see the steady rise.
Furthermore, if you also look at the figures closely since 1998 you will notice that the next five highest average temperatures ever recorded have ocured since that peak. I will repeat that. The next FIVE HIGHEST average temperatures EVER RECORDED have happened since then. So to put it plainly, for the whole time that we have been recording temperatures the six highest on record have ocured since 1998!

Senetor Fielding has been discredited in nearly everything he has claimed. If you want to hold someone up as a hero for the anti-global-warming argument, then I think you could do better than Fielding.
I was quoting the leading atmospheric physicist, Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT, Fielding was a byproduct.
 
OK, so we might disagree over the methods used by some of the climate change evangelists, and, the state of affairs with regard to the associated economics and self interest of various parties involved.

The fact remains however that we're polluting the heck out of this planet (air, water, terra) and have been doing so for quite some time. Already the effect of this pollution is very apparent and causing problems for human health and the longevity of all living things. Take a look at a dead river that once had a vibrant salmon run or look at the acid rain corrosion on Europe's oldest architecture, or just walk around Beijing or any Chinese industrial city and you'll be impressed with the need to make a change.
 
Hi Cliff

I don't think anyone is denying the need to make cleaner fuels, less pollution etc. When I was up and about protesting Al Gore her ein Melbourne I was asked by one of the radio stations that very question. Absolutely we should be doing something to clean up our act. Just don't tell us it is about man heating up the globe with Co2 - it just seems like a a bunch of crap. I doubt anyone here is arguing against cleaner energy.

Jack
 
Top