Jump to content

Am I still allowed to question climate change?

Recommended Posts

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' :rolleyes:

 

 

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. :D

 

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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' :rolleyes:

 

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. :D

 

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 ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. There is no below zero reading for intelligence quotient.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by spinac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

I'm arguing with your opinion, you state 50 years as a suitable time scale ? Why pick 50 years ? why are temperatures over the last 5-10 years not suitable ?

 

Whats a suitable timespan then ?

 

using Jones OWN statistics he agrees that the world has been cooling recently.

 

Thats a FACT. Not an opinion.

 

Before this recent COOLING there has been no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT warming also a FACT.

 

You state " It's not surprising that in specific short periods there are ups and even downs."

 

Which is NOT the theory that's behind AGW.

 

That theory states that as CO2 increases in PPM, the global temperatures increase proportionally as a DIRECT causal relationship and result.

 

Using basic scientific hypothesis.

 

Humans emitting Greenhouse Gases in the Form of CO2 are causing the earth's temperatures to rise, if CO2 is stopped being emitted then this rise will cease.

 

Thats the AGW hypothesis.

 

Jones him SELF has stated that there has been cooling over the past decade.

 

In any other field of study when the presented evidence doesn't match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong.

 

It doesn't matter about the short time scale there should be NO COOLING at all in the slightest under AGW.

 

AS CO2 concentrations in parts per million have continued to rise.......

 

I questioning your opinion, whilst dealing with the unconformable fact from your perspective that there is NO AGW Global warming.

 

which has been stated by the scientist himself !

 

Zero.

 

Nil

 

Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's left the ‘Isotope-gate’ open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm arguing with your opinion, you state 50 years as a suitable time scale ? Why pick 50 years ? why are temperatures over the last 5-10 years not suitable ?

 

Whats a suitable timespan then ?

 

using Jones OWN statistics he agrees that the world has been cooling recently.

 

Thats a FACT. Not an opinion.

 

A suitable timespan is one in which all the other factors affecting global temperatures can be eliminated. Just as temperatures vary with the seasons, temperatures vary on longer timescales as well, including variation with sunspot activity.

 

When you factor in all the short and long term factors, there remains man's influence on the climate from the emission of Carbon Dioxide - a greenhouse gas. Fact.

 

You state " It's not surprising that in specific short periods there are ups and even downs."

 

Which is NOT the theory that's behind AGW.

 

That theory states that as CO2 increases in PPM, the global temperatures increase proportionally as a DIRECT causal relationship and result.

 

Nobody is saying that our CO2 emissions are the only factor affecting temperatures. You simply cannot draw a straight line against atmospheric CO2 levels and average global temperature and no scientist has or will do this. What has been done is to carefully take into account all factors affecting global temperatures. It's afact that our CO2 emissions are a significant and growing factor.

 

As sea levels rise, you won't see a smooth even surface filling up like a bath tub. There will still be tides and waves.

 

Humans emitting Greenhouse Gases in the Form of CO2 are causing the earth's temperatures to rise, if CO2 is stopped being emitted then this rise will cease.

 

Thats the AGW hypothesis.

 

NO NO NO!!! If we stopped emitting ALL CO2 now, what we have already emitted won't disappear. The greenhouse effect will still be there. The balance has been shifted, but the earth's climate is a large complex system. We can't turn the temprature dial up and down like a room thermostat and expect the planet to respond like a small well controlled system.

 

By continuing to increase our emission of CO2 we are in danger of reaching a tipping point where we get a sudden dramatic shift in temperature. It's not a linear relationship.

 

In any other field of study when the presented evidence doesn't match the hypothesis, the hypothesis is wrong.

 

Exactly why the hypothesis hasn't been rejected. The evidence fits the model.

 

It doesn't matter about the short time scale there should be NO COOLING at all in the slightest under AGW.

 

Who said that?

 

I questioning your opinion, whilst dealing with the unconformable fact from your perspective that there is NO AGW Global warming.

 

Gibberish

 

which has been stated by the scientist himself !

 

No he didn't. read the questions put carefully. They had a very specific context. The answers you may like to quote out of context do not refer to the big question of man's effect on global warming over an extended period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to have managed it, care to give us a clue how.

 

You've got the thermometer upside down you silly sod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to see how accurate the Alarmists computer modelling of our climate is, needs to have a look at the following link.

 

 

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928

 

This shows just how poor the models are at hindcasting, when compared to oberved data.

 

It is claimed that GCMs provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at continental scales and above. Examining the local performance of the models at 55 points, we found that local projections do not correlate well with observed measurements. Furthermore, we found that the correlation at a large spatial scale, i.e. the contiguous USA, is worse than at the local scale.

 

However, we think that the most important question is not whether GCMs can produce credible estimates of future climate, but whether climate is at all predictable in deterministic terms. Several publications, a typical example being Rial et al. (2004), point out the difficulties that the climate system complexity introduces when we attempt to make predictions. “Complexity” in this context usually refers to the fact that there are many parts comprising the system and many interactions among these parts. This observation is correct, but we take it a step further. We think that it is not merely a matter of high dimensionality, and that it can be misleading to assume that the uncertainty can be reduced if we analyse its “sources” as nonlinearities, feedbacks, thresholds, etc., and attempt to establish causality relationships. Koutsoyiannis (2010) created a toy model with simple, fully-known, deterministic dynamics, and with only two degrees of freedom (i.e. internal state variables or dimensions); but it exhibits extremely uncertain behaviour at all scales, including trends, fluctuations, and other features similar to those displayed by the climate. It does so with a constant external forcing, which means that there is no causality relationship between its state and the forcing. The fact that climate has many orders of magnitude more degrees of freedom certainly perplexes the situation further, but in the end it may be irrelevant; for, in the end, we do not have a predictable system hidden behind many layers of uncertainty which could be removed to some extent, but, rather, we have a system that is uncertain at its heart.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.