News1 min ago
Is Climate Change A Sham To Get More Money From The Taxpayer?
http://
It has just been announced the forecasting is all wrong and is now set at a lower figure. In fact global temperatures haven't risen at all for the past two decades and is all due to normal cyclic variation. They say we should consider climate change over centuries rather than decades.
Who should we believe? We will all be in our boxes before the new century is upon us.
It has just been announced the forecasting is all wrong and is now set at a lower figure. In fact global temperatures haven't risen at all for the past two decades and is all due to normal cyclic variation. They say we should consider climate change over centuries rather than decades.
Who should we believe? We will all be in our boxes before the new century is upon us.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pdq1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I stand by the things I have said in other posts.
What NewJudge fails to mention is the lies perpetrated by birdie and others.
For example birdie's unsubstantiated claims that the sea level has not risen one millimetre and that global temperature has not risen.
Then the belief that we shouldn't care what happens because any problems will take a long time to manifest and future generations will just have to deal with what they are handed.
Claims that life as we know it is impossible without fossil fuels.
I just get tired of the lies and rubbish.
One thing I always find with the naysyers though. I have asked a number of times and none has ever answered.
What is the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that won't cause climate change?
What NewJudge fails to mention is the lies perpetrated by birdie and others.
For example birdie's unsubstantiated claims that the sea level has not risen one millimetre and that global temperature has not risen.
Then the belief that we shouldn't care what happens because any problems will take a long time to manifest and future generations will just have to deal with what they are handed.
Claims that life as we know it is impossible without fossil fuels.
I just get tired of the lies and rubbish.
One thing I always find with the naysyers though. I have asked a number of times and none has ever answered.
What is the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that won't cause climate change?
pdq1 // Assuming that countries like China, India and the emerging economies will put themselves first and continue to produce extra carbon why are we trying to turn the clock back and so out of step? //
Hard to miss the irony in "put themselves first".
Firstly the per capita production of CO2 in China and India is still far, far lower than any developed country.
The vast majority of the extra carbon in the atmosphere was put there by developed nations over the past few decades. It is the developed world that does and always has put itself first.
Moreover the majority of the pollution in developing nations is from production of goods destined for the developed world.
Meanwhile many in the wealthy nations object to the relatively small amounts of money being spent on cleaning up our own pollution.
China has one of the biggest renewable energy programs in the world. Their huge investment in production facilities is the main driver of the incredible fall in the cost of solar energy across the planet over the past few years.
Solar power is now competing successfully against the retail price of mains electricity in many places.
Hard to miss the irony in "put themselves first".
Firstly the per capita production of CO2 in China and India is still far, far lower than any developed country.
The vast majority of the extra carbon in the atmosphere was put there by developed nations over the past few decades. It is the developed world that does and always has put itself first.
Moreover the majority of the pollution in developing nations is from production of goods destined for the developed world.
Meanwhile many in the wealthy nations object to the relatively small amounts of money being spent on cleaning up our own pollution.
China has one of the biggest renewable energy programs in the world. Their huge investment in production facilities is the main driver of the incredible fall in the cost of solar energy across the planet over the past few years.
Solar power is now competing successfully against the retail price of mains electricity in many places.
-- answer removed --
Maybe Fracking has come to the rescue. If we can convince China to stop producing coal and switch to fracting the planet will be saved.
I can't agree Beso with your comment that because we purchase the goods from China we are the culprits for their excessive emisions. We also produce exports but we cant blame the recipients for the problem.
http://
I can't agree Beso with your comment that because we purchase the goods from China we are the culprits for their excessive emisions. We also produce exports but we cant blame the recipients for the problem.
http://
-- answer removed --
Welcome to the mad house....Still at it?? Kind of guessed it was inevitable!
@pdq1 If you are going to continue to read the vitriol and jibberish that the Daily Mail spouts then I'm afraid your posts on this topic are worthless. There are a number of publications whose modus operandii is to use the UK Met Office as an easy story without backing up their tales with the REAL science. MOS continues this with the auithor more interested in some pointless trophy he won than an effective and accurate analysis of this latest dataset.
Nothing more or less than expected from Birdie and Beso....come on guys you give the impression of intellect, please use it constructively, see what the reality of this information is instead of melding it into your fantasy land of AGW and global warming.
Cimate Change is a real process that's been going on since the early earth established itself, it's part of what made the planet what it is therefore it will continue to do that.
A few questions though;
1. Why do governments SPONSOR the IPCC...it's not because it's a nice thing to do.
2. Why do the MEDIA hype every single minor bit of information that comes out of any agency involved ....lazy journalism!!
3. Why do the Media refuse to give the "Deniers" (no pantyhose jokes) side any column inches??
4. Why was there such a fuss over the University of East Anglia emails a couple of years back??
My first paragraph of a post early in the thread said "No that's not strictly correct, what HADgem3 has identified is a slowing of the increases more in line with cyclic variation however The Met Office maintains its original hypothesis of forecast levels of warming."; This is what HADgem3 has shown as a result of improvements in the models both in terms of understanding of the processes involved and mathematically.
Thats a natural progression, as science evolves then the mathematical ability to model the atmosphere improves. Now to me modelling should improve by iteration over the years and that has happened but it should not differ hugely that from what's gone on before so why has this Dataset caused so much hype/chat among the world's climate buffs?
Simply its the first real variation from the percieved norm because actual observed information can no longer be discounted. THE FIRST CLIMATE CHANGE/AGW MODELS CREATED IGNORED MORE THAN 50% OF THE AVIALBLE OBSERVED DATA BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FIT THE PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE MODELS WANTED TO ACHIEVE. Now that we are looking at data that's come from parameterised, observed data it's impossible to stick to the grand plan, the reality of the atmosphere is showing itself now as it always has, the biggest human influence is over the mishandling and hyping of certain datasets to achieve a political end.
Is our weather getting worse? Who knows, has this kind of perceived worsening happened before?? The reality is, we don't know, there are only a couple of hundred years of accurate weather measure to tell.
I'm sceptical of any global process that can be "understood" in a short 50 year span when we are still uncovering the wonders of this 4 billion year old planet, Mother earth still has a lot to teach us, for all science has achieved maybe this has been forgotten. Until it physically happens, Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming are hypothesis, nothing more! Weather and Climate Change are very much a work in progress and forecasting them even more difficult!
@pdq1 If you are going to continue to read the vitriol and jibberish that the Daily Mail spouts then I'm afraid your posts on this topic are worthless. There are a number of publications whose modus operandii is to use the UK Met Office as an easy story without backing up their tales with the REAL science. MOS continues this with the auithor more interested in some pointless trophy he won than an effective and accurate analysis of this latest dataset.
Nothing more or less than expected from Birdie and Beso....come on guys you give the impression of intellect, please use it constructively, see what the reality of this information is instead of melding it into your fantasy land of AGW and global warming.
Cimate Change is a real process that's been going on since the early earth established itself, it's part of what made the planet what it is therefore it will continue to do that.
A few questions though;
1. Why do governments SPONSOR the IPCC...it's not because it's a nice thing to do.
2. Why do the MEDIA hype every single minor bit of information that comes out of any agency involved ....lazy journalism!!
3. Why do the Media refuse to give the "Deniers" (no pantyhose jokes) side any column inches??
4. Why was there such a fuss over the University of East Anglia emails a couple of years back??
My first paragraph of a post early in the thread said "No that's not strictly correct, what HADgem3 has identified is a slowing of the increases more in line with cyclic variation however The Met Office maintains its original hypothesis of forecast levels of warming."; This is what HADgem3 has shown as a result of improvements in the models both in terms of understanding of the processes involved and mathematically.
Thats a natural progression, as science evolves then the mathematical ability to model the atmosphere improves. Now to me modelling should improve by iteration over the years and that has happened but it should not differ hugely that from what's gone on before so why has this Dataset caused so much hype/chat among the world's climate buffs?
Simply its the first real variation from the percieved norm because actual observed information can no longer be discounted. THE FIRST CLIMATE CHANGE/AGW MODELS CREATED IGNORED MORE THAN 50% OF THE AVIALBLE OBSERVED DATA BECAUSE IT DIDN'T FIT THE PERCEPTION OF WHAT THE MODELS WANTED TO ACHIEVE. Now that we are looking at data that's come from parameterised, observed data it's impossible to stick to the grand plan, the reality of the atmosphere is showing itself now as it always has, the biggest human influence is over the mishandling and hyping of certain datasets to achieve a political end.
Is our weather getting worse? Who knows, has this kind of perceived worsening happened before?? The reality is, we don't know, there are only a couple of hundred years of accurate weather measure to tell.
I'm sceptical of any global process that can be "understood" in a short 50 year span when we are still uncovering the wonders of this 4 billion year old planet, Mother earth still has a lot to teach us, for all science has achieved maybe this has been forgotten. Until it physically happens, Global Warming and Anthropogenic Global Warming are hypothesis, nothing more! Weather and Climate Change are very much a work in progress and forecasting them even more difficult!
Ignore previous small post...didn't come out right!!
Should read:
@Fredpuli43 IPCC is run by politicians and at that height of "Science" most scientists become political other wise no job!! We had a period where the IPCC board had ONE climate scientist on it, the rest were business people and political appointees. It's entirely feasible that it's reports are politically biased
Should read:
@Fredpuli43 IPCC is run by politicians and at that height of "Science" most scientists become political other wise no job!! We had a period where the IPCC board had ONE climate scientist on it, the rest were business people and political appointees. It's entirely feasible that it's reports are politically biased
-- answer removed --
birdie1971 // You also mention that I have made the claim that global sea levels haven't risen and you say that this is not true. You're wrong. Show me the paper that demonstrates that globally, sea levels have risen to any significant degree. //
How many time do I need to link this?
http://
As I have said before you simply ignore what conflicts with your religious view.
// I get so sick and tired of people like yourself shamelessly ignoring the evidence that AGW is not a problem. //
The evidence is clear that AWG is a problem. You are pretending that the evidence supports your ignorant dogma. Like the religious you think that repeating the lie often enough will make it true.
// This from a man who has previously argued vociferously that the computer models that indicate that global temperature is rocketing skywards due to man-made CO2 are entirely accurate? //
The measured increase is exceeding the projections of the models. I never said they were skyrocketing. That is just another denialist strategy to give the impression that the science claims doom is imminent and point to it not happening.
I will repeat again, the rise is slow.
//You drearily continue, “... The vast majority of the extra carbon in the atmosphere was put there by developed nations over the past few decades. It is the developed world that does and always has put itself first...”
You really show your true colours here. You hate the industrialised nations don't you? You despise them with a passion and pour all that hatred and disapproval into your 'green' agenda. //
What I said is a fact aimed at a poster who accused India and China of "putting themselves first" as though they are the ones who should be taking the initiative despite the fact that the developed nations put most of the excess carbon into the atmosphere while building their industrial empires.
You simply try to paint anyone who wants to see responsible action as an extremist.
// You further say, “... Solar power is now competing successfully against the retail price of mains electricity in many places...”
Oh dear. You really don't understand economics either do you? Solar power is being heavily subsidised by Governments and without that funding it simply would not be viable. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good bit of spin eh? //
Bullsh1t. You are talking about the situation several years ago. I used to work in the industry and still am in contact. The price of solar has plummeted and it is competing with mains supplied power in sunny locations particularly for consumes with daytime electrical loads.
// Finally I would like to address your question, “What is the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that won't cause climate change?”
This is simply pathetic. I know you mean it to be a 'killer' question but even you should be able to see the inherent absurdity. //
And again you simply avoid the question. We have already increased atmospheric carbon by 40 percent. Can we double it? Triple it? Simple question birdie but you can't answer it because you are are an ignorant fossil fuel worshipper.
// The climate has always changed and the level of CO2 has varied wildly in the dim and distant past. There have been many ancient epochs that have seen high levels of atmospheric CO2 and yet have been colder than today.//
Yes. Like any star in its main sequence the Sun continues to increase its output slowly over millions of years. The climate models are calibrated against this scenario.
How many time do I need to link this?
http://
As I have said before you simply ignore what conflicts with your religious view.
// I get so sick and tired of people like yourself shamelessly ignoring the evidence that AGW is not a problem. //
The evidence is clear that AWG is a problem. You are pretending that the evidence supports your ignorant dogma. Like the religious you think that repeating the lie often enough will make it true.
// This from a man who has previously argued vociferously that the computer models that indicate that global temperature is rocketing skywards due to man-made CO2 are entirely accurate? //
The measured increase is exceeding the projections of the models. I never said they were skyrocketing. That is just another denialist strategy to give the impression that the science claims doom is imminent and point to it not happening.
I will repeat again, the rise is slow.
//You drearily continue, “... The vast majority of the extra carbon in the atmosphere was put there by developed nations over the past few decades. It is the developed world that does and always has put itself first...”
You really show your true colours here. You hate the industrialised nations don't you? You despise them with a passion and pour all that hatred and disapproval into your 'green' agenda. //
What I said is a fact aimed at a poster who accused India and China of "putting themselves first" as though they are the ones who should be taking the initiative despite the fact that the developed nations put most of the excess carbon into the atmosphere while building their industrial empires.
You simply try to paint anyone who wants to see responsible action as an extremist.
// You further say, “... Solar power is now competing successfully against the retail price of mains electricity in many places...”
Oh dear. You really don't understand economics either do you? Solar power is being heavily subsidised by Governments and without that funding it simply would not be viable. But let's not let facts get in the way of a good bit of spin eh? //
Bullsh1t. You are talking about the situation several years ago. I used to work in the industry and still am in contact. The price of solar has plummeted and it is competing with mains supplied power in sunny locations particularly for consumes with daytime electrical loads.
// Finally I would like to address your question, “What is the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that won't cause climate change?”
This is simply pathetic. I know you mean it to be a 'killer' question but even you should be able to see the inherent absurdity. //
And again you simply avoid the question. We have already increased atmospheric carbon by 40 percent. Can we double it? Triple it? Simple question birdie but you can't answer it because you are are an ignorant fossil fuel worshipper.
// The climate has always changed and the level of CO2 has varied wildly in the dim and distant past. There have been many ancient epochs that have seen high levels of atmospheric CO2 and yet have been colder than today.//
Yes. Like any star in its main sequence the Sun continues to increase its output slowly over millions of years. The climate models are calibrated against this scenario.
There is a lot of sound and fury in this debate, which can tend to obscure the science and the fundamental issues surrounding this whole debate.
Those who refute AGW still cannot give me a convincing reason as to why every single Scientific Institution or National Academy of Science that has the credentials and expertise to comment with any authority on this issue all offer up the same message - that AGW is very real, and represents a significant challenge to humanity.
It is no use just dismissing all of these bodies, all of the thousands of scientists whom these bodies represent, as being intellectually dishonest, cynically agreeing with the message in order to feather their own nests with fat research grants - going down that road leads to the madness of the conspiracy theorist and utterly devalues any statement you make on the subject.
And, for the majority of those who debate this issue in forums like these, they simply lack the expertise in the science to offer genuine insight. I am not a climate scientist, and I doubt many who contribute here are. We have to rely on those that are - that is at the heart of rational decision making,using the evidence base.
There have been and remain problems with the data - its collection, some of the assumptions, that's true. There is also the uncertainty of computer modelling, although increasing understanding of the interrelationships of the drivers of the global climate continue to improve these, and the models become more accurate. Those models all contnue to say the same thing - global climate is on a warming trend, with AGW the most significant driver of that change.
Similarly, attempting to traduce the IPCC in the same vein has the same effect. Slapshot for instance portrays the IPCC as essentially a political body,and we all know that politicians lie and manipulate stats dont we? but that completely ignores the individuals who put the reports together, the hundreds of authors, editors, peer reviewers, on the various technical panels, and the thousands of scientists who contribute studies which are summarised and included in the various technical reports.
Have some scientists who are proponents of AGW overstated the case? Maybe, although I think the media have had more of a role in this, sensationalising pronouncements with tiresome repetitiveness. They set up straw men then proceed to set fire to them, ignoring what the science actually says.
Science allows us to look back at the relationship between temperature and climate over millenia of our history,we cannot ignore that.
Given how far-reaching the impact of global warming will be on human infrastructure around the globe, we need to arrive at some sort of consensus over what to do now. As a separate but related issue, fossil fuels are a diminishing resource that becomes ever more expensive, and it is perfectly logical and necessary to look at other means of generating the essential and fundamental need for power - a need that grows exponentially.
So, based upon my understanding of the science,such as it is, and based upon the conclusions of those scientific bodies who do understand it far better than any of us here, I will continue to accept the consensus that AGW represents a significant problem, one that needs addressing with some urgency, and that transiitioning us to an energy supply system that does not rely upon finite fossil fuel.
Those who refute AGW still cannot give me a convincing reason as to why every single Scientific Institution or National Academy of Science that has the credentials and expertise to comment with any authority on this issue all offer up the same message - that AGW is very real, and represents a significant challenge to humanity.
It is no use just dismissing all of these bodies, all of the thousands of scientists whom these bodies represent, as being intellectually dishonest, cynically agreeing with the message in order to feather their own nests with fat research grants - going down that road leads to the madness of the conspiracy theorist and utterly devalues any statement you make on the subject.
And, for the majority of those who debate this issue in forums like these, they simply lack the expertise in the science to offer genuine insight. I am not a climate scientist, and I doubt many who contribute here are. We have to rely on those that are - that is at the heart of rational decision making,using the evidence base.
There have been and remain problems with the data - its collection, some of the assumptions, that's true. There is also the uncertainty of computer modelling, although increasing understanding of the interrelationships of the drivers of the global climate continue to improve these, and the models become more accurate. Those models all contnue to say the same thing - global climate is on a warming trend, with AGW the most significant driver of that change.
Similarly, attempting to traduce the IPCC in the same vein has the same effect. Slapshot for instance portrays the IPCC as essentially a political body,and we all know that politicians lie and manipulate stats dont we? but that completely ignores the individuals who put the reports together, the hundreds of authors, editors, peer reviewers, on the various technical panels, and the thousands of scientists who contribute studies which are summarised and included in the various technical reports.
Have some scientists who are proponents of AGW overstated the case? Maybe, although I think the media have had more of a role in this, sensationalising pronouncements with tiresome repetitiveness. They set up straw men then proceed to set fire to them, ignoring what the science actually says.
Science allows us to look back at the relationship between temperature and climate over millenia of our history,we cannot ignore that.
Given how far-reaching the impact of global warming will be on human infrastructure around the globe, we need to arrive at some sort of consensus over what to do now. As a separate but related issue, fossil fuels are a diminishing resource that becomes ever more expensive, and it is perfectly logical and necessary to look at other means of generating the essential and fundamental need for power - a need that grows exponentially.
So, based upon my understanding of the science,such as it is, and based upon the conclusions of those scientific bodies who do understand it far better than any of us here, I will continue to accept the consensus that AGW represents a significant problem, one that needs addressing with some urgency, and that transiitioning us to an energy supply system that does not rely upon finite fossil fuel.
@ Lazygun..... Meteorologist (yes I know that's different from Climatologist) ....Msc in atmospheric dynamics...do I understand, Yup!!
IPCC was formed by politicians to a political end. I know some brilliant people who can't get into climate research because of their stance. There are hundreds of scientists who can't be heard because politics keeps them out of the best jobs, it's really that simple. If anyone believes that IPCC is there purely for the science they are dreaming a little.
Lazygun, you've addressed this logically so use that logic again; how can the science of AGW build itself on the basis of a false set of highly selective actual data which the first global warming model resultant datasets came from. If you ignore a huge percentage of the parameterised data at the start, every single iteration of the datasets after that is wrong, you start wrong you keep getting more wrong, that's simple logic.
As I said already this dataset result from HADGem3 has caused ripples because it didn't ignore actual recorded data and that data undermines the AGW-biased forecasts of what we should be seeing. The models are not complete, in many cases they lack Solar input, Water Vapour effects etc etc etc.
Hypothesis is a theory that is proven by experimentation/observation, now you can't experiment with the global climate and modelling only works is it's done right. If you use the necessary observation and continually feed that into accurate models you get proof of what's happening, this last dataset has done that very well.
Is AGW a problem?? I'm yet to be convinced (and I've left a job because of my stance) however as a scientist, if I can be shown something that is conclusive of ALL issues then I might change my mind, until then I'll keep asking question, I'll keep asking why...
IPCC was formed by politicians to a political end. I know some brilliant people who can't get into climate research because of their stance. There are hundreds of scientists who can't be heard because politics keeps them out of the best jobs, it's really that simple. If anyone believes that IPCC is there purely for the science they are dreaming a little.
Lazygun, you've addressed this logically so use that logic again; how can the science of AGW build itself on the basis of a false set of highly selective actual data which the first global warming model resultant datasets came from. If you ignore a huge percentage of the parameterised data at the start, every single iteration of the datasets after that is wrong, you start wrong you keep getting more wrong, that's simple logic.
As I said already this dataset result from HADGem3 has caused ripples because it didn't ignore actual recorded data and that data undermines the AGW-biased forecasts of what we should be seeing. The models are not complete, in many cases they lack Solar input, Water Vapour effects etc etc etc.
Hypothesis is a theory that is proven by experimentation/observation, now you can't experiment with the global climate and modelling only works is it's done right. If you use the necessary observation and continually feed that into accurate models you get proof of what's happening, this last dataset has done that very well.
Is AGW a problem?? I'm yet to be convinced (and I've left a job because of my stance) however as a scientist, if I can be shown something that is conclusive of ALL issues then I might change my mind, until then I'll keep asking question, I'll keep asking why...
Latest Posts
Property Owned As Tenants In Common
Law16 mins ago
Are The West In The Grip Of The Woke...
News18 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.