Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[redruby 279]

Ten years ago, people were publishing nonsense about snow being a thing of the past in the UK, due to MMGW/Climate Change. Ten years ago, a lack of snow was symptomatic of MMGW but now we have had three harsh winters in a row, lack of snow is no longer mentioned as a symptom of MMGW. Funnily enough. Nobody says "Well, we got that wrong so maybe we got other things wrong." It is just discarded as an irrelevance, indeed some have been saying that the snow is now a symptom OF Climate Change!

Meanwhile, we have been artificially inflating our fuel bills in order to pay for rubbish technology in order to reduce carbon emissions, and we find ourselves in a situation whereby old people can no longer afford to heat their homes in our harsh winters.

Totally agree:thumbsup:

[spinac 10]

It's true you can't believe everything you read, especially in newspapers, and if you only read a little it may appear that there are massive inconsistencies. When journalists say "scientists" say or "sources" say, there's little you can do to check.

 

However, published peer reviewed papers from named individuals working independently in resepected institutions from around the world consistently back up the view that global warming is happening, it's man made and that it's entirely consistent that there may be local cooling.

[JIbbo 10]

Except for the fact that the demand for absolute proof is not a scientific demand. Science doesn't deal in absolute proofs, demanding it of science is like going to a greengrocer's and asking for a hair cut.

 

As for witch hunts... the only ones I have noticed is the one this thread is about, the attempt to destroy the lives of diligent respectable scientists based on passages from stolen emails taken out of their context.

 

It is not a witch hunt to criticise someone like Monckton for being a "snake oil salesman" when he comes out with stuff shown to be intentionally misleading time and time again.

 

You know that there is actually ZERO scientific empirical evidence for the theory of Man Made climate change based on C02 emissions.

 

it was disproved though experiment in the 19th century

 

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood’s experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

 

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

 

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth’s surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.

[JIbbo 10]

It's true you can't believe everything you read, especially in newspapers, and if you only read a little it may appear that there are massive inconsistencies. When journalists say "scientists" say or "sources" say, there's little you can do to check.

 

However, published peer reviewed papers from named individuals working independently in resepected institutions from around the world consistently back up the view that global warming is happening, it's man made and that it's entirely consistent that there may be local cooling.

 

 

You know the theory that CO2 warms the earths atmosphere by the absorption of IR waves from the sun trapping heat, this warming the globe.

 

If the concentration of CO2 increases, by default there should be a statistically significant linkage with global temperatures, as the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more IR is absorbed and the warmer the globe gets.

 

Localized cooling or cooling of ANY form does not fit into this theory.

[Wildcat 10]

Ten years ago, people were publishing nonsense about snow being a thing of the past in the UK, due to MMGW/Climate Change. Ten years ago, a lack of snow was symptomatic of MMGW but now we have had three harsh winters in a row, lack of snow is no longer mentioned as a symptom of MMGW. Funnily enough. Nobody says "Well, we got that wrong so maybe we got other things wrong." It is just discarded as an irrelevance, indeed some have been saying that the snow is now a symptom OF Climate Change!

 

But is he wrong? You have just said "three harsh winters" ago. Last year it was quite bad, but the year before according to this account was a "Another mild, largely snowless winter".

 

Temperatures locally go up and down because of natural cyclic variation anyway. And whilst it is cold now, it is nearly December, it is not like it is unusual to be cold at this time of year!

 

To know if the Scientist the Independent quotes is correct you need to look at what Uk temperatures have been doing over the last 10 years. If you look at the CET UK temperature record, you see we are still part of an upward trend. The evidence is he may be right.

 

If he has it wrong it makes no difference to any arguments against global warming, anyway. The evidence is different, but you would look at datasets of temperature readings for example: Global temperature record. Where you can see the temperature trend is increasing.

 

Meanwhile, we have been artificially inflating our fuel bills in order to pay for rubbish technology in order to reduce carbon emissions, and we find ourselves in a situation whereby old people can no longer afford to heat their homes in our harsh winters.

 

Old people not heating their homes is a result of the banking crisis and Tory policies, not a result of the relatively small amount spent on environmental policies.

[Berberis 10]

 

You know the theory that CO2 warms the earths atmosphere by the absorption of IR waves from the sun trapping heat, this warming the globe.

 

If the concentration of CO2 increases, by default there should be a statistically significant linkage with global temperatures, as the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more IR is absorbed and the warmer the globe gets.

 

Localized cooling or cooling of ANY form does not fit into this theory.

 

Not to mention that the globe has had far higher CO2 levels at times when the majority of the planet was covered in ice.

[spinac 10]

 

You know the theory that CO2 warms the earths atmosphere by the absorption of IR waves from the sun trapping heat, this warming the globe.

 

If the concentration of CO2 increases, by default there should be a statistically significant linkage with global temperatures, as the more CO2 is in the atmosphere, the more IR is absorbed and the warmer the globe gets.

 

Localized cooling or cooling of ANY form does not fit into this theory.

 

Rubbish.

 

You are presuming that warming over the planet will be even and that changes in convection currents in both the atmosphere and the oceans will have no local impacts.

 

There will be lots of variation in temperature both over time and location, but the GLOBAL TREND is clear despite the weather this week in the UK.

[spinac 10]

Not to mention that the globe has had far higher CO2 levels at times when the majority of the planet was covered in ice.

 

"Global-average CO2 concentrations have been observed to increase from levels of around 280 parts per million (ppm) in the mid-19th century to around 388 ppm by the end of 2009.

 

CO2 concentrations can be measured in “ancient air” trapped in bubbles in ice, deep below the surface in Antarctica and Greenland; these show that present-day concentrations are higher than any that have been observed in the past 800,000 years, when CO2 varied between about 180 and 300 ppm.

 

Various lines of evidence point strongly to human activity being the main reason for the recent increase, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) with smaller contributions from land-use changes and cement manufacture. "

 

The Royal Society

[Wildcat 10]

You know that there is actually ZERO scientific empirical evidence for the theory of Man Made climate change based on C02 emissions.

 

it was disproved though experiment in the 19th century

 

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood’s experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

 

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

 

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth’s surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.

 

The article you have cited doesn't support your conclusions.

 

Your reference is to an experiment that wiki cites as being one that distinguishes the "greenhouse effect" in climate from that under glass in the garden.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#The_distinction_between_the_greenhouse_effect_and_real_greenhouses

 

He is not a sceptic himself at all.

 

For your interest, there was a paper published recently that claimed to refute the "greenhouse effect". You can read about it here:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/die-fachbegutachtung-below-is-elis.html

 

It perhaps gives some context to what people think of theories like this.

 

You only have to compare the earth to the moon, to see the "greenhouse effect".

 

There is some more here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm

 

No scientist of any credibility disbelieves the effect exists.

 

How do you come to a different conclusion based on out of context quotation from a 1909 Professor's notebook? How did you manage to find such an arcane reference? When I google greenhouse gas effect I find loads of respectable organisations explaining to me how it works.

 

Have you really been trying to find the truth out and found a a blog comment about the meaning of a 1909 Professor's notes and taken it to be evidence of a disproof compared with everything else you would have found? That really is incredibly gullible.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert 10]

Get ready folks. They want to start rationing us:-

 

 

Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world

 

...In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

 

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

 

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

 

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

 

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

 

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said...

 

 

...But Dr Myles Allen, of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, said this might not be enough. He said that if emissions do not come down quick enough even a slight change in temperature will be too rapid for ecosystems to keep up. Also by measuring emissions relative to a particular baseline, rather than putting a limit on the total amount that can ever be pumped into the atmosphere, there is a danger that the limit is exceeded.

 

 

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

 

Just remind me how much the carbon footprint of the cancon summit is?

[Stormy 10]

But is he wrong? You have just said "three harsh winters" ago. Last year it was quite bad, but the year before according to this account was a "Another mild, largely snowless winter".

 

Temperatures locally go up and down because of natural cyclic variation anyway. And whilst it is cold now, it is nearly December, it is not like it is unusual to be cold at this time of year!

 

To know if the Scientist the Independent quotes is correct you need to look at what Uk temperatures have been doing over the last 10 years. If you look at the CET UK temperature record, you see we are still part of an upward trend. The evidence is he may be right.

 

For goodness sake. He said "Snow will be a thing of the past." Have a look outside, we had the same last year and a little bit less (but still snow) the year before. How can you possibly question whether he was wrong or not!?

 

If he has it wrong it makes no difference to any arguments against global warming, anyway. The evidence is different, but you would look at datasets of temperature readings for example: Global temperature record. Where you can see the temperature trend is increasing.

 

I sort of agree with you here. Snow here does not prove or disprove MMGW/CC one way or another. But it shows how ludicrous some of the arguments have been in favour of the MMGW argument. If they got this wrong, and so many other things wrong too, then what else have they got wrong?

 

Old people not heating their homes is a result of the banking crisis and Tory policies, not a result of the relatively small amount spent on environmental policies.

 

Bills have gone up significantly recently, and a lot of it is due to the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/ets.pdf

 

"We estimate that the ETS cost to British Consumers is £3Billion per year, equivalent to around £117 per family"

 

Im not sure how on earth you manage to blame the Tories since they weren't in power last year or the year before when this article was written AND they have kept the winter fuel allowance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/3531276/Thousands-of-elderly-people-die-of-cold-each-winter-in-a-national-scandal.html

 

"Last winter 25,300 more people died in the winter months than in the summer, an increase of seven per cent on the previous year, data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.

 

Most of these are due to circulatory and respiratory diseases and the majority occur among the elderly in a situation which has been condemned by campaigners.

 

There are fears the death toll will be higher this year as forecasters predict lower temperatures than last year, utility bills have risen and the credit crunch means many households are struggling to make ends meet."

 

 

BUT - since snow will be a thing of the past, high domestic energy bills are a price worth paying

Edited November 30, 2010 by Stormy

[Stormy 10]

Get ready folks. They want to start rationing us:-

 

 

 

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

 

Just remind me how much the carbon footprint of the cancon summit is?

 

Obscene isn't it, in the age of the video conference they fly around the world to waffle on and eat caviar.

 

Until they start talking seriously about OVERPOPULATION, which is the key threat to humanity's future, then I shall pay no heed to Cancun and other pointless self congratulationary, back slapping conferences.