Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat 10]

A position he still argues if you google him. Yes pretty unambiguous and considering the evidence like the alarming loss of ice in the arctic he is likely to be correct.

 

I think the issue this this: 10 years ago, the mild winters and hot summers of the 90's were being presented as "evidence" of GW/CC.

 

Now we have recently had some colder than average winters and washout summers. But this is dismissed as "weather".

 

If we have recently had hot summers and mild winters would this have so easily been dismissed as "weather"

 

To which the answer is simply, yes. Evidence for global warming only looks at UK weather in the context of the global climate

Edited December 3, 2010 by esme
quote tags

[retep 68]

So if theres been all this global warming, would we expect it to have affected the temperatures here in Sheffield, or are we imune.

[Phanerothyme 12]

So if theres been all this global warming, would we expect it to have affected the temperatures here in Sheffield, or are we imune.

 

It tends to bring the average IQ down.

[retep 68]

It tends to bring the average IQ down.

 

So we are imune then.

[spinac 10]

No I believe others have jumped on the research grant / departmental funding / junkscience tax gravy train. I also think that some really do believe their (adjusted) findings. I also believe that governments (and the EU) are always looking for new and inventive ways to tax the populace.

 

Are there any real scientists in your world? Is taxation never put to good purpose? I'm not saying all scientists are honourable and that taxation couldn't be spent more efficiently, but hey, we wouldn't have civilisation and society without tax and we wouldn't have today's technology and medicine without some science being good. You're cynical rantings sound like it's some time since you were in company with reason.

 

If they really did respect the scientific process they would have made the (unadjusted) data available for others to disprove their theories

 

Who are "they" exactly. That one single unified body of scientists who all speak with one voice? It doesn't exist mate. Any consensus that does exist is because people have examined the data and independently come to the same conclusions.

 

Nice attempt at a side step there. Please answer the question:

 

Is the CO2 emitted by developing nations any less damaging (if it is damaging at all, after all it is just plant food gas) than the CO2 we emit? If not, then why should developing nations be allowed to 'pollute', 'poison', 'damage' the atmosphere? After all it's just one big climate isn't it?

 

I thought I had already answered this. I'll repeat my one word answer to avoid confusion.

 

No.

 

The CO2 from developing nations is just as damaging as ours. We should be very worried that developing nations want to behave as we have done.

 

IF you are confident that there's no such thing as man made climate change then we have nothing to fear when all the Chinese, Brazilians and Indians have cars, fridges, air conditioning and take foreign holidays.

 

Are you that confident that the planet will not suffer?

 

To argue that man made climate change doesn't exist, but if it does, it's all johnny foreigner's fault, is a ludicrous position to take.

Edited December 3, 2010 by spinac

[convert 10]

Are there any real scientists in your world? Is taxation never put to good purpose? I'm not saying all scientists are honourable and that taxation couldn't be spent more efficiently, but hey, we wouldn't have civilisation and society without tax and we wouldn't have today's technology and medicine without some science being good. You're cynical rantings sound like it's some time since you were in company with reason.

It takes a lot to offend me, but you sir have managed it. Plenty of real scientists in my world, not all of them support the junkscience that MMGW is based upon.

 

Who are "they" exactly. That one single unified body of scientists who all speak with one voice? It doesn't exist mate. Any consensus that does exist is because people have examined the data and independently come to the same conclusions.

Not I said their theories, this can be plural as to the theories and theorists. I never said that it was one big body of scientists.

 

 

I thought I had already answered this. I'll repeat my one word answer to avoid confusion.

 

No.

 

The CO2 from developing nations is just as damaging as ours. We should be very worried that developing nations want to behave as we have done.

 

Thanks, so do you agree that they should fall under the same curbs as the IPCC / UN / EU / Individual governments / CRU / NASA / NOAA want to place western nations under?

 

Please note I listed many organisations so you don't get confused into thinking I'm talking about a 'one world government'

 

 

IF you are confident that there's no such thing as man made climate change then we have nothing to fear when all the Chinese, Brazilians and Indians have cars, fridges, air conditioning and take foreign holidays.

 

Are you that confident that the planet will not suffer?

 

It depends upon how confident you are in the 'fact' that CO2 is indeed a driver of climate change, and not an indicator of it. I'm not convinced that the miniscule percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is in fact damaging, let alone the very small fraction of a percentage of it that is man made.

 

 

To argue that man made climate change doesn't exist, but if it does, it's all johnny foreigner's fault, is a ludicrous position to take.

STRAW man alert. Where have I said it's all 'johnny foreigners' fault.

 

Once again you try the tactic of obfuscation to try and divert from my real question.

 

 

PS Good to see the Japanese (johhny foreigners?) have come to their senses and refused to extend the Kyoto agreement @ Cancun beyond 2012.

 

What is it they've said:

 

Tokyo would "sternly oppose debate for extending the Kyoto Protocol into a second phase which is unfair and ineffective."

[convert 10]

According to the Washington Times, the AGW party is over:-

 

Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse. You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.

 

The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion. The United Nations is hanging the usual lamb chop in the window this week in Mexico for the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the Washington guests are staying home. Nobody wants to get the smell of the corpse on their clothes...

 

...Some 45,000 delegates, "activists," business representatives and the usual retinue of journalists registered for the party in Copenhagen. This year, only 1,234 journalists registered for the Cancun beach party. The only story there is that there's no story there. The U.N. organizers glumly concede that Cancun won't amount to anything, even by U.N. standards....

 

 

Source http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/2/pruden-turn-out-the-lights-the-party-s-over/

[spinac 10]

It takes a lot to offend me, but you sir have managed it. Plenty of real scientists in my world, not all of them support the junkscience that MMGW is based upon.

 

Not I said their theories, this can be plural as to the theories and theorists. I never said that it was one big body of scientists.

 

Where are the articles in the quality press? On TV? In science magazines? And who are the respected academics that dismiss man's effect on the climate?

 

Oh, there are plenty of internet sites, blogs and junk rags that are willfully ignorant and take cheap pot shots at the scientists (who are not hardened politicians and then they choose to take a low profile), but that's not evidence. It's not science.

 

Thanks, so do you agree that they should fall under the same curbs as the IPCC / UN / EU / Individual governments / CRU / NASA / NOAA want to place western nations under?

 

Please note I listed many organisations so you don't get confused into thinking I'm talking about a 'one world government'

 

There is absolutely no point in one country cutting its emissions to zero if its neighbours are increasing their emissions. We have to face facts. The rich western industrialised countries have been the producers of CO2, but there are plenty of countries that are about add to the total.

 

It's not all China's fault. It's not all America's fault. It's not all our fault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

It depends upon how confident you are in the 'fact' that CO2 is indeed a driver of climate change, and not an indicator of it. I'm not convinced that the miniscule percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is in fact damaging, let alone the very small fraction of a percentage of it that is man made.

 

Are you disputing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that if there is more CO2 AVERAGE GLOBAL temperatures will rise?

 

STRAW man alert. Where have I said it's all 'johnny foreigners' fault.

 

Once again you try the tactic of obfuscation to try and divert from my real question.

 

OK we're agreed, we all pollute. However - not in the same degree. China may now be top of the league table as a nation, but only because of the size of the population, not because of each individual's carbon footprint.

 

"unless humanity as a whole can find solutions to that problem, then all of that petty bickering amongst nations about who's more or less responsible isn't really going to be very helpful."

 

http://www.physorg.com/news171889925.html

 

PS Good to see the Japanese (johhny foreigners?) have come to their senses and refused to extend the Kyoto agreement @ Cancun beyond 2012.

 

Japan wants fair and effective curbs on carbon emissions?

 

So do I.

 

And so do you ... (?)

 

I'm still left with the impression though that you're denying (our) responsibility for man made climate change,

 

but, if it is happening,

 

let's blame others first ...

[JIbbo 10]

Where are the articles in the quality press? On TV? In science magazines? And who are the respected academics that dismiss man's effect on the climate?

 

Oh, there are plenty of internet sites, blogs and junk rags that are willfully ignorant and take cheap pot shots at the scientists (who are not hardened politicians and then they choose to take a low profile), but that's not evidence. It's not science.

 

 

 

There is absolutely no point in one country cutting its emissions to zero if its neighbours are increasing their emissions. We have to face facts. The rich western industrialised countries have been the producers of CO2, but there are plenty of countries that are about add to the total.

 

It's not all China's fault. It's not all America's fault. It's not all our fault. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

 

 

Are you disputing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that if there is more CO2 AVERAGE GLOBAL temperatures will rise?

 

 

 

OK we're agreed, we all pollute. However - not in the same degree. China may now be top of the league table as a nation, but only because of the size of the population, not because of each individual's carbon footprint.

 

"unless humanity as a whole can find solutions to that problem, then all of that petty bickering amongst nations about who's more or less responsible isn't really going to be very helpful."

 

http://www.physorg.com/news171889925.html

 

 

 

Japan wants fair and effective curbs on carbon emissions?

 

So do I.

 

And so do you ... (?)

 

I'm still left with the impression though that you're denying (our) responsibility for man made climate change,

 

but, if it is happening,

 

let's blame others first ...

 

I'm denying there is any ACTUAL global warming occurring currently.

 

You know that there has been no statistical significantly global warming of ANY sort since 1995 correct ?

 

Some VERY interesting stats from our friends at CRU.

 

Some really odd interpretations going on in this interview......

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

 

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

 

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

 

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

 

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

 

So from 2002-2009 even the CRU admits temperatures have fallen, but its not 'statistically significant.

 

Statistics are what you make them .

 

1995-2009 as a total doesn't shown ANY warming that isn't outside the margin of error.

 

2002-2009 shows cooling, but this also isn't outside the margin of error.

 

Also this is a shocking admission from a so called 'climate scientist'

 

D - Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

 

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise.

 

A so called AGW expert doesn't know how to factor in any natural forces into his models....

 

When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period.

 

 

Then the bloke states.... after stats that his statistics aren't within normal statistical confidence levels........

 

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

 

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed.

 

Even though his own stats in the previous questions show that it has cooled slightly recently.....

 

As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity

 

But since its now cooling is that also due to human activity ?

 

There not very good these chaps are they ?

[Phanerothyme 12]

So we are imune then.

 

Yep. There is no below zero reading for intelligence quotient.

[retep 68]

Yep. There is no below zero reading for intelligence quotient.

 

You seem to have managed it, care to give us a clue how.

[spinac 10]

I'm denying there is any ACTUAL global warming occurring currently.

 

You know that there has been no statistical significantly global warming of ANY sort since 1995 correct ?

 

Some VERY interesting stats from our friends at CRU.

 

Some really odd interpretations going on in this interview......

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm

 

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

 

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

 

OK. In this interview, Professor Jones is asked questions about very specific short time periods. It's not surprising that in specific short periods there are ups and even downs. The important question is "What is the long term trend?"

 

You quote professor Jones "Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change.

 

Note the qualification. Over the specific period he was asked about.

 

Then the bloke states.... after stats that his statistics aren't within normal statistical confidence levels........

 

E - How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

 

I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed.

 

Even though his own stats in the previous questions show that it has cooled slightly recently.....

 

What time period are we talking about now? Oh, it's the long term trend. The heart of the matter. Not nit-picking, not cherry picking, but talking about the substantive issue. A scientist. 100% confident that "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity"

 

When asked in this interview Can you tell us about your working life over the past decades in climate science? Professor Jones says, "I am most well known for being involved in the publication of a series of papers (from 1982 to 2006) that have developed a gridded dataset of land-based temperature records. These are only a part of the work I do, as I have been involved in about 270 peer-reviewed publications on many different aspects of climate research."

 

You're not persuaded. You're not a scientist. Who should I believe? Hmmm tough call.

 

 

But since its now cooling is that also due to human activity ?

 

There not very good these chaps are they ?

 

You deny "that there is any ACTUAL global warming occurring currently."

 

Oh currently, ah! If you mean this week, this month even, then I agree with you! But, what's the trend over the last 50 years Jibbo?

 

The man who questions opinion is wise;

the man who quarrels with facts is a fool.

 

It sounds to me like you're quarrelling with facts Jibbo, and not doing a very good job old chap.

Edited December 5, 2010 by spinac