COP15 Copenhagen climate summit: Day 1
2037 CET: Time to dust off the sporting cliches.
More than half of the teams travelling to next year's World Cup in South Africa are going to offset the emissions created as they fly to the rainbow nation, says the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), which has a longstanding interest in the "greening" of sport.
This allowed UNEP chief Achim Steiner to hope that "the remaining nations participating in South Africa will want to come on-side for the climate in order to score their own green goals in 2010".
But according to Friends of the Earth (FoE), which regards offsetting in the same way that England supporters view the prospects of a penalty shoot-out against Germany, this is very much - yes, you guessed it - an "own goal".
"These proposals should be left sitting firmly on the bench," the groan (sorry, green) group continued. "Rich countries need to set an example and lead in cutting their emissions by 40% by 2020, without carbon offsetting."
My solution? A play-off between teams representing UNEP and FoE to decide the matter.
UNEP can offset their goalposts from the centre of their goal-line towards the corner of the pitch, while FoE reduces the size of theirs by 40%, and we'll see which is the more effective at cutting the scoring rate.
1846 CET: There's been a fair bit of debate on whether the issue of whether the e-mails hacked from the UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) will play into discussions here - how much influence the response to their publication will have on negotiations and outcomes.
Saudi Arabia's lead negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban brought it up in his opening speech, saying it had "shaken trust" in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its work.
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri was having none of it.
"The recent incident of stealing the e-mails of scientists at the University of East Anglia shows that some would go to the extent of carrying out illegal acts perhaps in an attempt to discredit the IPCC.
"The internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these e-mail exchanges, many of whom have dedicated their time and effort to develop those findings."
Later, US negotiator Jonathan Pershing was in more combative mood, referring to the "enormous multitude of different strands of evidence that support the urgency and the severity of the problem that have been managed in multiple places around the world":
"What I think is unfortunate, and in fact shameful, is the way that some scientists who have devoted their lives are being pilloried in the press without regard to the process. The science is incredibly robust."
1517 CET: Despite some seductive mood music this morning, sombre notes were also sounded in the opening bars of this two-week conference.
Host cities always try to give delegates a sense of their history and culture. Mercifully (I say this having sat through many), Denmark's choice was a short and tasteful musical contribution from a harpist and a youthful-looking choir, closed by a soulful and elegiac trumpet.
Denmark's Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen then ran through a speech with no surprises at all. In a nutshell: a deal can be done this fortnight; it won't be easy; there are lots of challenges; but if everyone pulls together, it can be done.
His minister for the climate summit Connie Hedegaard - who acts as president of the conference and who will shortly become the EU's new climate commissioner - continued in a similar vein: Copenhagen meant "C for constructiveness, C for co-operation and hopefully C for consensus - let's get it done."
Within minutes of C for Connie finishing her speech and asking delegates to approve the order of play, however, signs of cracks began to appear.
First, a few developing countries, with Papua New Guinea in the vanguard, disputed attempts to go through some elements of text without what they saw as proper consultation. Ms Hedegaard's body language spoke to a determination to avoid long drawn-out talks and discussions and - as she put it - "get it done", but not everyone is keen to go at such a pace when they feel their interests are at stake.
Later in the opening session came the first formal sign of a discord between various parties.
The head of the Grenadan delegation, Dessima Williams, said the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) would "consider their options" if a legally-binding deal did not materialise here.
Deconstructing this afterwards, it appears that this bloc of 43 countries may simply not sign a deal that they believe votes their nations out of existence.
As of now, it's not a full-scale threat to walk out. But it is a shot across the bows to the industrial powers, both developed and developing, saying: give us a process that puts the world on course to a warming of 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures, or we're not signing the deal you so desperately want.
Some people here raise the point that small countries can be easily "bought off" by aid money or trade - or bullied into conformity - by their larger brethren.
Surely history indicates that is true - but if you perceive that the end of your nation is in sight as sea levels rise, perhaps that changes the usual terms of business.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~47~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
So if: I believe that boom and bust has been eradicated, and if I believe there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that Dr David Kelly committed suicide.
And finally if I believe in climate change caused by humans.
Now if I believe in all these things, would you, the government, just leave me in peace, and not launch any more new initiatives or tax rises, whilst I endeavour to get the family through this recession?
Do you think you could manage that?
Or will there be something else I will be required to believe in?
Complain about this comment
but if you perceive that the end of your nation is in sight as sea levels rise, perhaps that changes the usual terms of business.
I would hazard a guess that they don't really believe sea levels will rise, but view it as a good lever to prise money out of other states. It's most likely posturing.
Complain about this comment
Day 1: Rockall Delegate's diary
Arrived by rubber dinghy in the early morning after nearly 1000 miles of rowing in open seas. Was greeted by someone called Alg Ore, he gave me a handshake and demanded $1200. Told him to fulmar off.
As I trudged my way up from the harbour into town I was nearly knocked over by a fleet of black limos with UN flags attached. Tried to cadge a lift, but was told in diplomatic terms what the chances of that happening.
Finally make it the conference. Told the man at the front desk I was the delegate for Rockall. He replied that I wasn't the only one.
Enter hall just as all the delegates rush out for lunch. Had to go with the flow. What a spread, couldn't believe mu eyes. The thing is there seems to be more gannets here than on Rockall.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps some of these poorer countries whingeing on about the "carbon debt of richer countries" could do something to help themselves - like cutting their birth-rates. Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
You know when you witness a collision? It's horrific, your sub concious knows the outcome will leave broken bodies, wrecked lives and untold misery, but that doesn't stop you watching it unfold in it's slow motion macabre glory.
In spite of (or perhaps because of) the leaked (NOT hacked) e mails that were released firstly to the BBC but then to a Russian server because the BBC didn't see fit to publish them (No surprises there then) implicating the CRU in possible fraud and obfuscation, the growing number of scientists coming forward saying the MMCC is not proven or false, this charade is continuing. The USA will disregard and indeed is dismissing as inconsequential the e mails, closely followed by our Gord. Wake up people!!! When will everyone realise it's all for one reason, to terrify and numb us into doing exactly what we're told. To pay over in money and compliance to those who will control us. They don't even have to try either, it's easy... just nip the sheep at the ankles and they'll willingly go tot he refuge of the penn. Pityful.
Complain about this comment
UPF advisory note 14
The following is an advisory note issued by the United Peoples Front
Climate Change & CO2 emissions tax.
The UPF has noted that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a body of people devoted the premise that climate change caused by humans exists. And to that end they have consistently falsified data to support their claim. And that President Van Rompuy wants the EU to have a common emissions taxation policy, that will help fund the harmonisation of Europe.
Now as our older members will likely verify, the climate has indeed been improving in this country for around 20,000 years and glacial ice that was once such a hazard to them, has now vanished.
However the summers of northerly EU members are often below par in comparison with those of the southerly EU members.
And given that equality is promoted by our new EU President, we advise members to promote climate change as and when they can, in the hope that it continues and northerly parts of the EU benefit from better summers.
After all why should countries located closer to the equator be at an advantage in attracting tourists to those that are not.
Now whilst there have been somewhat radical calls to shift the world on its axis every four years and thereby distribute the effects of the sun’s rays more evenly across the EU, we at the UPF do not advise our members to support such an action.
For by shifting the world on its axis every four years may prove confusing to older members who are used to it staying put.
Complain about this comment
The biggest pro global warming deal lobbying group at Copenhagen will be the International Emissions Trading Association which was created to promote carbon trading more than ten years ago.
Its members include :-
BP, Conoco Philips, Shell, E.ON AG (coal power stations owner, EDF (one of the largest participants in the global coal market), Gazprom (Russian oil and gas), Goldman Sachs, Barclays, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley..
http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249
Their aim
the objectives of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and ultimately climate protection;
the establishment of effective market-based trading systems for greenhouse gas emissions by businesses that are demonstrably fair, open, efficient, accountable and consistent across national boundaries; and maintaining societal equity and environmental integrity while establishing these systems.
http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1248
That's why every corporate newspaper and TV station has been telling us the science is settled since 1998. I'd like to see all of them in jail for multi trillion dollar fraud.
Complain about this comment
I don't believe a word about AGW it makes no sense at all ...during the Medievil warm period what were we humans doing that made the temperature sore so high?
Perhaps the wheelbarrow and cart emissons were to blame or the vast population of the planet or maybe it was the natural SUN cycle ...hmmmm interesting.
Little me will start recycling when China et al stops polluting, period.
Complain about this comment
I would like to remind the Rockall delegate of the very high carbon footprint of his rubber dinghy. He might like to think about offsetting it by strangling a few thousand Co2 breathing seagulls when he gets home.
Complain about this comment
wonder what the buffet was like?
Complain about this comment
The coal and oil industries have no fear for this round. Those thoughtless folks who think that billions of tons of chemicals going into the air and water each year are neutral apparently have their own political agenda and view the environment as an unending dump for human made waste. Ignorance. China and India fear social unrest if their economies falter, the undeveloped nations want compensation for unspecified actions and the West is looking for a revenue stream to replace the funds their bankers stold. As most of the current agenda does not really address the issue we will be given one of those, "we had really hoped to accomplish more " speeches and the claim to do better next time. This is about power and money and the enviornment is like a retirement account being abused by bankers. Just like with the financial collapse, coal and oil will not be held accountable for the harm they do and the citizens will end up picking up the costs. If the participating governments would simply agreed to agressive enforcement of existing environmental regulations things would improve. So close to the anniversary of the Bhopal diaster and nothing has changed.
Complain about this comment
12#
I think the problem that is being perpetuated as 'on message' is pollution and MMCC are exclusively intertwined..as in you can't have one without the other.
Pollution isn't sane, no sensible person is seriously advocating we make the planet filthy. It's a brilliant marketing tool, and has pretty much convinced the world to be so, doesn't make it true though.
Complain about this comment
I think I will quit reading the BBC news, because the only people who see fit to comment are hellbent on appearing like ignorant idiots.
I don't know why the majority of comments are not just taking a stand against the concept of man-made climate disruption, but are actively negative, mean-spirited, sarcastic, and generally offensive. I suspect perhaps it is because the authors know that they are wrong, but take their stand purely out of self-interest, and so are extra-vehement to compensate.
Leaks or no leaks, it doesn't take a great mind(*) to recognize that six billion people on Earth spewing megatons of pollutants in to the atmosphere every day is a bad idea. "Oh, but the Earth is infinite, and I like my car/video game/cheap travel/plastic crap from a big box store. The science is confusing and contradictory, therefore it must be all wrong, AGW is a myth; excuse me, I'm off to enjoy my cheap plastic toy electronics made possible by modern SCIENCE".
Well, to all those people: I'm going to organize a summer pool party for you next year. I'm going to serve enormous quantities of free beer, and I'm going to reroute the urinal plumbing to drain into the pool. Then you can spend the rest of your life living in the pool. Have we got a deal? After all, a few litres of piss in such a large pool (it must be infinite!) can't possibly cause any problems, can it?
If I've not made myself clear, I think it is the worst kind of blind selfish arrogance for non-scientists to "pick and choose" what they'd like from modern science and technology. Cheap energy, modern plastics, electronic gadgets: YES! The concept that we might have to take responsibility for the consequences of our entirely wasteful lifestyles: HELL NO! Does anyone truly believe that this will work?
There are straw men being thrown up constantly by the screaming deniers, but as is typical, none of them make any sense. It's a global conspiracy! It's a tax grab! Island states who may be wiped out by sea-level rising are just faking it, for leverage! Ay caramba!
When eminent thinkers point out that the "War on Terror" was a convenient way to keep the population scared, and amenable to fund wars on false pretenses, the screaming deniers insisted that the wars were necessary. Now, they take this argument, and insist that because climate change is scary, it must be a gov't conspiracy! The fact that the source of the conspiracy is not, as in the War on Terror, a small number of well-placed government officials with obvious self-interest, but instead a consensus of THINKING people around the globe opposed by the majority of profit-seeking businesses who are at the root of this problem should be enough to dis-spell any conspiracy theories, but they come up, again, and again, and again.
Must we suffer these trolling idiots indefinitely?
(*)Perhaps it does take a great mind. After all, six billion is about a billion times more than the number that the average person can truly comprehend. "How many stars are there in the night sky?" "One, two, three, four, five... many".
Complain about this comment
I share the concerns about creating a carbon tax system. I guess it is CO2 that is taxed and CO2 equivalents (other GHGs too) and all carbon-based 'pollutants' (GHGs - e.g. HFCs)?
(Apologies for re-posting this next bit)
I am fascinated by the whole focus on CO2 (GHG) and doubling to approx 750ppm.
"RF [relative forcing] of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio....Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio [ppm]". IPCC AR4 (2007).
"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1°C global warming" S. Rahmstorf (2008)
So relationship is not linear; more CO2 does not promote same temp. jump as previous increase since 1750.
Is Copenhagen then more about the possibilities of 'feedbacks' in the climate system? Are these feedbacks scientifically 'proven' and reliable concepts or not? Are they being (too) precautionary?
If not CO2 - why the massive 'public' focus? Surely HFCs are more problematic?
Then again, I guess Copenhagen is not about 'fully understanding the science' behind the legislation / treaty. They take it as a 'fact' that this agreement must be done now and for the right reasons. Perhaps CO2 is just the 'low hanging fruit'.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
Presumably it was the man made fires that caused the end of the last ice age seems we never learnt about global warming then
Complain about this comment
wow. @ #15.
i'd have one of those beers youreslf if i were you....
I'd also get your facts straight. oh well.
Complain about this comment
Did Richard say the bars are open for 2 weeks?
Seems the bloggers do not real appreciate the fact you are going to ram this nonsense down our throats everyday.
But after 2 weeks at the bar on licence fee expenses who would care.
Chances/odds of Obama coming 33:1
Complain about this comment
Copenhagen summit. Aim to cut global levels of CO2 and introduce carbon trading, a practice which will gain huge amounts of cash for the petrol companies, Governments, and of course the head of the Carbon trading Agency, Lord Stern.
University of Wisconsin announces result of study into CO2 and its effect on the growth rates of trees:
"The study, by scientists from UW-Madison and the University of Minnesota at Morris (UMM) and published today (Dec. 4) in the journal Global Change Biology, shows that elevated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide during the past 50 years have boosted aspen growth rates by an astonishing 50 percent."
http://www.news.wisc.edu/17436
Follow the money, always.
Complain about this comment
The thing is, if the sceptics are right but we make changes anyway then in 50 years time we will have viable green technologies and a energy system which relies on less fossil fuels than we use today. Is that such a bad idea even if it turns out CO2 doesn't cause global warming or isn't our fault? We will look back and laugh at how stupid we were.
But if the skeptics are wrong and we don't make the changes we could change our climate irreversably, we would be at a point in 50 years time where the fossil fuels are running out and CO2 emmissions are massive. There would be little option regarding green technology as they wouldn't have advanced significantly from today and the change would be much more difficult. The sea levels could rise and wipe some island nations off the map etc.etc.
Which stupid would you rather be?
Complain about this comment
@ 14. At 4:54pm on 07 Dec 2009, draker
You miss the point entirely.
People obviously want the environment cleaned up and the slughter of animals by industrial giants to stop. That is common sense.
Copenhagen is about cutting GREENHOUSE gas emissions, somethings that is looking less and less likely to be the cause of climate change.
Have a look at my post above. The university of Wisonsin has just proven what those of us who read and have brains already know, CO2 is not a bad thing and actually stimulates plant growth.
So ask yourself, why is everyone in Copenhagen trying to get CO2 levels cut?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Complain about this comment
draker #14. When you say:
"Leaks or no leaks, it doesn't take a great mind(*) to recognize that six billion people on Earth spewing megatons of pollutants in to the atmosphere every day is a bad idea."
I believe you will have everybody on your side. This is not in contention. What is in contention is that CO2 is a pollutant and a danger to us. The 'leaks' are all to do with linking CO2 to increasing temperatures which is clearly now in dispute and confirms what many leading scientist have said for many years. The fact that these findings are largely being ignored and CO2 AGW is still being promoted by our leaders and media gives rise to increasing suspicions.
What would you expect an intelligent public to do?
Complain about this comment
So the first day achieved zilch. How much does each day cost the taxpayers? $40million give or take a few zillion. A great feast was had by all. Roll on the beverages.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
And its not just the University of Wisconsin finding that CO2 level rising stimulate growth in trees, Duke University are at it to:
http://news.duke.edu/2009/08/carbonseed.html
So lets get this straight then, CO2 level rise, and then trees become more productive in order to take more of it back in.
Perhaps the natural biosphere is a bit cleverer at maintaining itself than we thought?
But don't let facts like this spoil the party down Copenhagen way.
Complain about this comment
26#
oh where's your sense of occasion? Our betters in the big house know what's good for us, make no mistake...
Complain about this comment
@2: of course it is. Those little tinpot states are kidding themselves if they think the Western Bloc politburo actually gives a fig about them. They'll be bullied into agreeing to whatever we want, simply because in the end they rely upon our aid and trade. They know full well that to withdraw will leave them without even the tiny voice that they currently have.
Complain about this comment
CO2 is buffered by the oceans (it would a lot higher if it wasn't) and when they warm, they release more of it, which is why you keep champagne in the fridge. You'd think all those scientists could separate cause and effect...
(They can, of course, but nowadays they have to follow the money, which is why Phil Jones got £13m in grants, science got corrupted, and the politicians are trying to restrict an innocent trace gas that keeps us all alive!)
Complain about this comment
Re:22
How does CO2 increasing plant growth mean climate change isn't happening?
Logically I'm not supprised that increased CO2 means increased plant growth since plants basically turn CO2 from the atmosphere into wood by using energy from sunlight, oxygen from the atmosphere and nutrients and water from the soil. I am at a loss to see how this prooves that CO2 isn't causing or effecting climate change.
The increased plant growth is a side-effect of their being more CO2 in the atmosphere. Would you claim a drug isn't doing anything because it causes a side-effect.
Complain about this comment
Try this logic (from Greg Craven): no-one, not even the most ardent sceptic, would dispute that there are effectively only two possibilities here:
1) It's true (climate change is real, largely man-made and potentially devastating etc).
2) It's not true (it's just put up by self-interested scaremongers).
And there are two options:
a) Act
b) Don't act
Now work through the four combinations:
It's not true + don't act = fine
It's not true + act = potential reduction in economic growth
It's true + act = some nasty effects, but may be manageable
It's true, don't act = the end of human civilisation as we know it.
I'm an amateur here, but given that all of the most respected scientific bodies worldwide (not only the IPCC) say it's true, and even if there's an outside chance that it isn't, surely the only sane option is to act.
Complain about this comment
Let's be clear about this. These people meeting in Copenhagen have NO money. We, the citizens, have the money. In order to supply vast amounts of money to the Third World, whose leaders are also at the conference, our leaders have to cripple us with vast extra taxes whilst we are already reeling from the worst recession for 80 years. These funds will then be passed to the Third World where their leaders will buy huge fleets of spanking new Mercedes and grandiose palaces for their colleagues and families whilst nothing changes for their downtrodden citizens. Nett result - we become as downtrodden as them, and can no longer afford to provide aid to the poor of the world. The end game is that the political class get richer whilst the rest of us get poorer. Forget climate change - this is all about the political class sharing out the spoils at OUR expense.
Complain about this comment
27#
Draker, such anger! Did the Romans grow wine producing grapes in Britain because they overdid it on the Co2 emmisions? Did Greenland grow crops for the same reason? Did The Thames in London freeze over because there were too many playstations? At the risk of sounding trite, Co2 is NOT the reason for climate change. That doesn't mean anyone here is supporting the rank pollution of the planet, which is caused primarly because of over population who go on to consumerise the Earth.. Interestingly Obamas science guru advocated forced abortions back in 1977...
Complain about this comment
@ 25. At 5:21pm on 07 Dec 2009, Titus wrote
"The 'leaks' are all to do with linking CO2 to increasing temperatures which is clearly now in dispute"
No, it is not in dispute by anyone other than fringe scientists and non-scientist with hidden agendas (like the Saudis, major corporations, and conspiracy theorists).
The vast majority of climate scientists agree that man-made atmospheric emissions are having an effect on climate. This has been a consensus for a decade now. I don't know what planet you live on, but on mine, this scientific consensus has NOT been promoted by our leaders and media. Our leaders and media are promoting "everything's fine, keep consuming, maybe recycle a little here and there", with a side note of blithering idiocy (FOX News/Rush Limbaugh types). The vast majority of pressure and agitation for reduced emissions and a change in our approach towards the reckless consumption of the Earth's resources has come from grassroots activist groups.
The trouble with fixing our polluting ways is that our society is so firmly entrenched in an economy of one-way consumption that any sort of change is heavily opposed by the corporations, and the corporations control government. I actually agree that climate change is over-hyped, in the sense that our environmentally problems run far deeper than "just" CO2 emissions and climate change. Unfortunately, government's hands are tied by the corporations, so they only way they can get anything done is if there is a public groundswell of support. And the masses are too stupid and selfish to do this unless it is 'trendy', so a friendly cause must be found and promoted. This decade, it is climate change. I have nothing against this, but I am sickened by those who think it's fun to sabotage this small and faint glimmer of positive change that we might actually be making.
Complain about this comment
Re:28
Plants don't 'breath' using CO2 instead of Oxygen. They also breath in a similar way to animals using oxeygen and emitting CO2. They use CO2 in the day to allow them to make use of the suns energy through photosynthesis. Then at night they breath in oxygen and emit CO2 to then make use of that absorbed energy. The net balance is that they absorb more CO2 than they emit. The methane production from decaying plant and animal matter in forests makes for a smaller net removal of greenhouse gasses (potentially even a net increase of greenhouse gases in some areas).
Complain about this comment
Lets all stop breathing - that will stop CO2 production for sure - maybe we should try and live on a nice cold place like Pluto or why is it that a population of around 2 billion in 1930 to around 7 billion now has a lot more to do with reality and all our problems
Complain about this comment
@ 35. At 5:53pm on 07 Dec 2009, Define_real
"random statements, unsupported assertion, non-sequitor, irrelevant hot-button topic"
What are you trying to say exactly? That because there have been normal variations in global climate, all while the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remained steady, that now that we're experiencing another variation, the fact that CO2 concentration is high is unrelated?
Imagine your buddy saying: I had a car accident just now, but the fact that I was drunk had nothing to do with it. I had a car accident back in the '90s when I was sober, don't you know? Proof positive!
Go back to sleeping under your bridge, troll.
I think I've made my points. Any further irrelevant arguments will be ignored.
Complain about this comment
33# I'm an amateur here, but given that all of the most respected scientific bodies worldwide (not only the IPCC) say it's true, and even if there's an outside chance that it isn't, surely the only sane option is to act.
when you say act, what is it you suggest? For many years almost since the invention of the internal combustion engine, various inventors have developed ways of making engines run far more efficiently than they do..GM was instrumental in buying up and simultaneously mothballing such inventions. We have the scientific ability to have cheap energy yet it isn't widespread, why would that be? Instead a few years ago, it was decided to make engines less efficient and burn more fuel by fitting catalytic converters all on the myth that it would stop kids being stupid... Who gained? Us? Fuel companies and treasuries?
Sure, lets tackle pollution, I'm all for it... but lets investigate why we have so much more than we had to have.
Complain about this comment
~ Mango puts on a Geordie accent and announces:
Day One in The Climate Change House
15:17 pm
Denmark has thrown a hissy fit, cos people laughed at her C is for Carp speech
AOSIS has thrown her toys out of her pram and has threatened to leave unless the rest of the house give her lots of money
Tune in tomorrow, when I’ll be saying
“Day 2 in the Climate Change House
14:29 pm
BASIC has thrown her toys out of the pram and has threatened to leave unless the rest of the house give her lots of money
Complain about this comment
Re:35
The climate has changed since the roman times etc but not by as much as you sem to think. Vines are grown in Britian with carfull farming, it's just not very economically viable so not done in great volume. The reason the Roman used to grow vines here is because it was much easier than importing Wine for further afield.
the Thames used to freeze over more frequently in the past because of the amount of filth in the river meant it flowed much slower. A faster flowing river needs a lower temperature to freeze, hence it doesn't freeze over anymore.
And to those that claim it's part of a natural cycle, the cycle has been effected by human activities. it's a pointles argumet, we are now releasing massive amounts of greenhouse gases that have been locked away under ground for millions of years. It's like looking at a seesaw that isn't moving and stating that because it is stationary someone standing on one end will not make it move.
Complain about this comment
Just for the record: Connie Hedegaarad is NOT the environment minister of Denmark. She is Minister of COP15, former minister of the climate. The current minister of the climamte is called Lykke Friis and the environment minister is called Troels Lund Poulsen. I am telling you this because it shows that the Danish government does in fact not take climate change very serious. Indeed, the mandate of the climate minister is very limited in terms of national regulation. Rather, the minister of the climate is a sort of international diplomat. Further, it shall be mentioned that several MP's of the Danish government party 'Venstre' (the liberals, a right wing party) has denounced climate change no later than yesterday. Best regards from a Dane in London.
Complain about this comment
As it has been quiet today I have spent my time looking at the Copenhagen site and watching all of the mini videos promoting the event. Truck loads of money must be going to the promotional industries, hotels, beauty salons, caterers, car hire firms, snack bar firms et al.
After watching the promotional activities of Copenhagen I decided to watch the u tube videos of interviews by George Mombiot with people like Shaun Spiers, Hazel Blears etc. By the time I had finished watching these interviews I was ready to spit feathers because the responses of the interviewees made me feel very angry. The most upsetting of the videos was with Fatih Birol a major player in the oil industry whose company appears as if they have inaccurately predicted the timing of the plateau when conventional oil reaches its peak and then goes into rapid decline. It appears that the rate of decline is actually double previously predicted(3%t o 6%) and the world has not yet prepared for it. (correct me if my understanding is wrong)
George Mombiot is a seriously good detective in the search for the truth about our future lives. How could his interviewees look so unruffled by such direct and damming questions? Does a comfortable lifestyle, power and a hefty income act as a moral anaesthetic? I was at least expecting them to either blush, stammer or swivel their eyes away in personal shame. Perhaps these people genuinely think there is nothing wrong with their situation or their viewpoint, or perhaps it is me misinterpreting what I have seen and heard?
I did not realise that the extraction of oil from oil sands was so destructive and polluting. I did realise that there are too many cars on the road and that public transport has to be rapidly developed in preparation for a much shorter petrol-based future. I can see why Copenhagen has to happen. I can see that part of the agenda has to be what to do about the lack of plentiful oil. It looks like oil is running out at a much faster rate than was expected and new technologies must be developed in time for the end of the Oil Age.
Complain about this comment
39# What are you trying to say exactly? That because there have been normal variations in global climate, all while the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remained steady, that now that we're experiencing another variation, the fact that CO2 concentration is high is unrelated?
Yes. Has it not occured that because Co2 isn't causing climate chnage, it might in fact be (in your own words) normal variation in global climate? If the science was so solid and irrefutable, why would the science community not all agree on the cause? They mostly agree it's changing, but not that it's man made! I guess that still makes me troll? Calm down dear.
Complain about this comment
I love this debate in the wonderful BBC and gather that the consensus so far is that everyone present is here to discuss the www. (world wide weather).
If we agree (see 'consensus') could we now have a consensus to stick to the subject? Save energy, time, that sort of thing.
Thanks.
Complain about this comment
I guess we are the real victims here, again. None of us really have any idea whether climate change is in fact man made or to what extent it threats us and other people around the world. Politics has made sure of that. They can't just give us an honest answer to anything.
Politicians take the backward belief that they have to lie/exaggerate to make us believe in their agenda. That leads to things like the email gate, which then essentially scrapes all credibility from what should have been an intelligent discussion based on fact.
We are forever in a quagmire until we get smart to the fact that this political system does not provide democracy as it claims. Only lies and manipulation.
Complain about this comment
#2 i would hazard a guess they can see their nations disappearing and this would, as richard says, change the usual terms of business
Complain about this comment
#20 so what? will it boost growth by 500%? will we be covering the planet in aspen when we'll need a lot more arable land to feed ourselves. why not just reduce co2 emissions (and prevent oceanic acidification as well)?
Complain about this comment
Thanks Louise #43. Have gone back to amend post. Appreciated.
Complain about this comment
Unless i am mistaken we only have these wonderful fossil fuels in our country becouse we had a sub tropical climate before maybe we are headed into a warming phase to replace those weve used - how good this planet is to us
Complain about this comment
#8 don't know what a corporate paper is.....but the science was settled before 1998. if you don;t like seeing the facts just close your eyes....or maybe you have
Complain about this comment
#44 sensibleoldgrannie
you're spot on wrt to peak oil, the numbers are pretty obvious. as to whether these guys feel guilty, i think they are part of the 'if it's legal it's ok' generation, which is of course why they were so keen on deregulation and voluntary oversight.
Complain about this comment
mr black:
i haven't wept for more than 5 years for any reason other than physical injury: not even the warmhearted and witty jokes about these brainwashed religious zealots scheming to control the climate (lol, arrogance bordering on hubris) in the first few comments can dry my eyes. ww2 was fought against tyranical governments who felt that lying to and brainwashing their populace was acceptible behaviour for a government. besides all the other reasons for taking down the nazi's this is the most noble. you and your ilk are the betrayal of that legacy. google 'post normal science' and if you aren't horrified you: 1) know nothing of science or 2) have no conscience. you and you're ilk are killing science, killing democracy, killing education, killing hope. may god have mercy on your soul.
Complain about this comment
Just a bit of technical information: We are not trees.
Complain about this comment
Re:-
30. At 5:43pm on 07 Dec 2009, Kevin-Bennett wrote:
@2: "of course it is. Those little tinpot states are kidding themselves if they think the Western Bloc politburo actually gives a fig about them. They'll be bullied into agreeing to whatever we want, simply because in the end they rely upon our aid and trade. They know full well that to withdraw will leave them without even the tiny voice that they currently have."
This one really got me "grumpy"!
Has it ever occurred to this arrogant dimwit that these "little tinpot states" never asked to be annexed by the Great Western Politburo in the first instance?
Have you ever considered that they were perfectly happy with their "lifestyle" such as it was long before Western Colonizers arrived?
Did the North American Indians "ask" to be "civilized" or the Australian Aborigine or the New Zealand Maori? Maybe..just maybe...they were perfectly happy with their (sustainable) lifestyle and resented our enforced interference. I don't find it at all surprising that their long held resentments are starting to resurface now.
Please tell me .......just what is it about your "lifestyle" , one that you are so keen to defend no matter what side effects may be the outcome.....that is so much better than that of a friend of mine, whose family have lived for generations on a small atoll in the Pacific (Palmerston Island) that is already experiencing serious intrusion from the sea. Is it your television, ipod, dishwasher, six cylinder off-roader used for shopping? Your holidays in sunny Spain, your visits to the Casino? Just what is it that makes you so much better than "them"?
Gee...I feel so much better now having got that out.
Complain about this comment
Re:-44. At 6:25pm on 07 Dec 2009, sensiblegrannie wrote:
Good one SG (pardon the shortening!)
Re your final paragraph........maybe that's why the Texans are hell bent on developing wind farms. They KNOW their oil, for so long the source of their incomes, is running out. They KNOW that dependence on overseas oil is not guaranteed. Could be their motivation is not altruistic but if the outcome is less CO2 should we complain?
Complain about this comment
Colonicus42 #21 wrote:
"Which stupid would you rather be?"
That's a very good question, and the sensible answer involves a careful balance -- of the credibility of the opposed theories, and of the desirability of the various goals we are trying to achieve. (I gather that actuaries call the product of the two the "expected value" of a course of action.)
I don't want poor people in the developing world to die because of rising sea levels -- nor do I want them to die because their economic development has been put into reverse. I'm not sure which is the more pressing threat -- perhaps we should ask them -- but both are threats.
I don't want the world's food supply to diminish because farmable land is turned into desert -- nor do I want it to diminish because energy is too expensive. On the face of it, more CO2, more heat and more water means more biomass, which would be good. Who knows whether climate change would be a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows whether our efforts to prevent it would be worse than what we try to prevent?
Speaking for myself, as a sceptic, I don't want to be so stupid as to prevent the development of new technologies, and I'm even prepared to put up with a few windmills. But speaking as someone who has had a lifelong interest in science, I think the MMCC stuff stinks. So not too many windmills, please. But it's all a matter of balance, and we all differ on where the balance should be drawn, but that's life!
Complain about this comment
So Richard still comes and visits us occasionally. When the junket is all over will you come back and tell how much it has cost for you to be there? Units of £s will be fine or number of licence-fee payers would also be another valid currency.
Complain about this comment
#40 (in response to my #33) "when you say act, what is it you suggest? ...inventors have developed ways of making engines run far more efficiently than they do..We have the scientific ability to have cheap energy yet it isn't widespread, why would that be? Instead..it was decided to make engines less efficient and burn more fuel by fitting catalytic converters all on the myth that it would stop kids being stupid... Who gained? Us? Fuel companies and treasuries?"
What I mean by "act" is what leaders of over 100 nations are going to talk about in Copenhagen.
I was trying to keep the discussion to a high level, but looking at your reply, you seem to be making these more detailed points:
1. Acting on climate change is all about making engines more fuel efficient. (No it isn't. While CO2 from traffic is serious, it's a lot smaller than that from domestic uses: heating, air conditioning etc.)
2. We have the technology to make cars a lot more fuel efficient, but there's a conspiracy among fuel companies, treasuries and auto companies to go the other way. (It's simply untrue to imply that cars are not more fuel efficient than they were. Class-for-class, they're a lot better, (though some people choose to drive gas-guzzling SUVs). That's been achieved not only by engine design but also because they are lighter and exploit a range of other technologies. Today auto companies are competing to sell cars on the basis of their fuel efficiency in many countries because the "treasuries" have set up taxes to make fuel saving make sense. Try counting the number of Prius cars in London).
3. Catalytic converters were supposed to stop brain damage to children but actually they were introduced so that more fuel would be used. (Can't think you really believe that! They stop poisonous emissions, notably carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides. The damage to children's brain development was due to the tetra ethyl lead that used to be added to fuel as an anti-knock. There really was a cover-up by the company that made it to stop the research showing it's harmful effects from becoming known. But it came out; and the lead poisons the catalysts, so it was banned. The fuel companies redesigned the fuels and the auto companies adjusted the engines, so now it's all unleaded.
And the next generation will be electric, which is a lot more efficient, even taking into account the fuel used to generate the electricity in the first place.)
If you really want to act on cars: invest in public transport; have more people working from home; tax fuel (or at least inefficient vehicles) heavily. It's got be be done, but it's not nearly enough on it's own to address the scale of the problem.
Complain about this comment
Buzzword translation for the unbrainwashed:
Sustainable=pre-industrial
stakeholder=comrade
anthropgenic=YOUR FAULT
denialist= 'normal' scientist as in not 'post-normal scientist'.
troll= unanswerably rational individual if 'denialist'/'pseudoskeptic'/latest credibility sapping insult that hasn't been complained about yet(negative connotation)
OR troll= ++good rabid truebeliever (positive connotation)
change= BAD a negative connotation relating to natural fluctuations in lorg term weather patterns
OR change= ++good when relating to people adopting new behaviour, thought and speech pattrerns that reflect a belief in AGW.
shame on all you proAGW zealots
Resistance to oppression begins by questioning the use of buzzwords. victor klemperer
Complain about this comment
Re :- 45. At 6:26pm on 07 Dec 2009, Define_real wrote:
"Has it not occured that because Co2 isn't causing climate chnage....."
Great.....now I have a real "Climate Science Expert" to listen to. Why aren't you at Copenhagen? They need you there! Look at all the good you could do! Save all that (taxpayer funded) gravy train.....the parties ........the lavish dinners etc etc etc .
"why would the science community not all agree on the cause? "
When did all the "scientists" ever agree on anything? When was the last time you sat on a jury at a murder trial and listened to the "experts" on both sides contradict each other? It's always been that way. Probably always will.
"They mostly agree it's changing, but not that it's man made!"
Wrong! "They" mostly agree it's changing...."THEY" mostly agree it IS man-made. Certainly there are quite a few dissenters all to whom are entitled to their opinions.
Grow up..........dear.
Complain about this comment
Now the good lady is waking up and she gets "grumpy" if I don't get her a cup of coffee.
Sorry.....times run out.......can't respond to all the other comments both ridiculous and sane.
Richard......looking forward to tomorrows report. Enjoy
Complain about this comment
One thing the BBC seem not to be wasting licence-fee-payers' money on is a halfway decent hosting service with fast servers for their blogs. Am, I alone in wading through molasses?
Guns before butter -- and caviar for "our chaps on the frontline" before servers for the riffraff!
Complain about this comment
sensiblegrannie wrote:
"George Mombiot is a seriously good detective in the search for the truth about our future lives."
You're getting less and less sensible, grannie -- have you tried speaking to the village folks he's made sure can't get a Tesco anywhere near them?
Meanwhile, he drives his massive 4x4s around Wales, swilling champagne, hopping on helicopters to stuff cariar down his cakehole with the "big boys" at the BBC like Richard Black...
Complain about this comment
Re:- 58. At 7:17pm on 07 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:
Couldn't let this one pass.
Thank you for a good balanced comment from a sceptic (self acknowledged). One minor (I stress "minor") query/comment. As I mentioned to Sensiblegranny........Texas seems to make wind energy generation affordable and as oil gets more expensive and new technologies cheaper due to increased demand/usage...surely the balance changes!
Complain about this comment
Hello Richard,
I was wondering if you could explain how you enforce a 'Legally Binding Document"?, what sanctions can be imposed on a government that does not adhere to the doucment?. Also, how would you ensure that any sanctions do not impact the innocent citzens of the offending country?.
Complain about this comment
62#When did all the "scientists" ever agree on anything? When was the last time you sat on a jury at a murder trial and listened to the "experts" on both sides contradict each other? It's always been that way. Probably always will.
So you're accepting that scientists don't agree? Yet Gordon Brown this week said anyone who disputed his version of things also believed in the earth being flat.. So that would include those scientists who saw fit to leak the e mails that throw the MMCC into question? The jury one is a good analogy..Long ago I sat in jury service on a murder case. Oddly all the evidence presented was presented with equal gravitas, the judge didn't ask us to disregard one half nor did either barrister threaten the other with professional suicide if they didn't toe the line!
WE are being asked/told to accept potentially flawed and manufactured data that we finance. We will be made to pay for the results of any legislation. Still, the politicians wouldn't lie to us would they?
Complain about this comment
And so the AGW gravy rain rolls on - with the money involved with this, the MP's expenses looke like stealing change from a phone box.
Governments and industries now reliant on this scam must be rubbing their hands together - ignorance is bliss.
"Save the World?" - you should be ashamed.
Complain about this comment
14. At 4:54pm on 07 Dec 2009, draker wrote:
I think I will quit reading the BBC news, because the only people who see fit to comment are hellbent on appearing like ignorant idiots.
-------
Ignoring the emails from UEA, and the problem of releasing raw data, and the threats to destroy it rather than release it via Freedom of Information. Have you ever read the Skeptical Environmentalist?
Complain about this comment
One thing is for sure from Richards account so far this conference is about politics and money not about science.Like the whole history the excitement in Copenhagen must be wonderful but yet again you can sense the emotional rollercoaster driving the negotiations.
The simple questions one needs to answer before spending so much more money and intimidating the small developing nations of the world are not even on the agenda. So without prejudice I ask,
How much atmospheric CO2 is really anthropogenic?
Is it truly possible to alter the rising CO2?
Will this really have the desired effect and is that cost effective?
Can anyone honestly answer this? because if not they should admit more research is required before any deals are made that will change lives.
So without questioning the rest, and in truth there are many questions
why does this make sense?
Complain about this comment
rossglory (no 52) wrote:
.....but the science was settled before 1998.
Indeed it was. See this 1974 article from Time magazine, in which the climatologists are trying to persuade us that the world is entering a new ice age:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Of course, it's different this time because we have a "consensus" of approximately 45 climatology professors (see the Wegman report) who peer-review each other's papers, and dismiss the objections of professional statisticians and computer engineers that they are using invalid methods to arrive at their conclusions.
And they've got Al Gore, of course, who invented the internet, so they can't be wrong, can they?
Complain about this comment
Later, US negotiator Jonathan Pershing was in more combative mood, referring to the "enormous multitude of different strands of evidence that support the urgency and the severity of the problem that have been managed in multiple places around the world":
"What I think is unfortunate, and in fact shameful, is the way that some scientists who have devoted their lives are being pilloried in the press without regard to the process. The science is incredibly robust."
Complain about this comment
bowmanthebard,
Perhaps I am not sensible. I do not know anything personal about George Mombiot. I can only go by what I have seen in Monbiot's interviews. it was interesting to see key players being interviewed and to watch their reactions to challenging questions (even now I know the interviewer appears to have less than desirable attributes of his own).
I am sorry you couldn't get a Tesco but think of the small local businesses saved to keep village communities going.
Complain about this comment
As far as I can tell, carbon trading is just a way to push the problem onto someone else and for a few big businesses to get rich in the process.
I don't know whether climate change is real and if it is whether it is man made or not (I'm no scientist) but I'm all for limiting any kind of pollution effects from whatever source and marshalling finite resources.
I do know that because of our energy requirements our economy is hostage to (sometimes hostile) foreign influence which is definitely a bad thing.
I think that road fuel duty should be increased by at least 25p per lt at todays prices to encourage manufacturers to make cars more fuel efficient. Road tax should be scrapped and added to the price of fuel as well.
Fuel consumption figures in the UK should be in miles per litre as we measure distance in miles and buy fuel in litres. (45mpg = 10mpl)
It would also have the side benefit of raising about £15bn per annum for the treasury.
When total annual road fuel consumption starts to drop then other uses of oil should be taxed more heavily to push efficiency gains in their sectors
On another issue, why was the raw data not in the public domain anyway ?
Proprietry data cannot be independently verified and is always open to question.
Complain about this comment
"How does CO2 increasing plant growth mean climate change isn't happening?"
.."I am at a loss to see how this prooves that CO2 isn't causing or effecting climate change."
Well, you see, that wasn't the point. His/her point was one that I would make too -- that our unknowing is much, much vaster than you or the BBC or the rest of the establishment seem to have even considered.
First, we don't know whether or not climate change is happening.
Second, even if we did know that it is happening, we wouldn't know if we are the cause of it.
Third, even if we did know that it is happening, and that we are the cause of it, we wouldn't know if it was a good or a bad thing.
Fourth, even if we did know that it is happening, and that we are the cause of it, and that it is a bad thing, we wouldn't know if our efforts to stop it would be worse that the thing itself.
There are a lot of unknowns there, and the first of them is perhaps the least of our troubles -- the fact that its so-called "science" is considered laughable by most mainstream scientists. Not that "consensus" matters to me, but if it matters to you, might I suggest you ask someone on this blog with a scientific education to defend its ridiculous fake data in scientific terms instead of authoritarian, establishemnt-worshipping, conformist terms?
Complain about this comment
Anyone who uses the phrase "incredibly robust" must be thinking about something other than science.
Penile dementia?
Complain about this comment
These conferences are happening despite pseudoskeptics PR efforts. surfacestations.org, climateaudit, climategate, etc, it all amounts to nothing. Scientists have the politicians ears on this issue, not blogging activists.
The primary failure of psuedoskeptics strategy over the past 10 years is a failure to realize that they have to convince the scientific community in order to convince politicians. There will never be the situation that politicians will dismiss what the scientific community are saying. No amount of SwiftHacks and pieces in the NationalPost will make any difference.
Complain about this comment
sensiblegrannie wrote:
"I am sorry you couldn't get a Tesco but think of the small local businesses saved to keep village communities going."
The local business kept going is the only outlet for posh "Farrow and Ball" paint -- the only one in mid-Wales, I'm told.
Most people in small "communities" want cheap food and affordable wine. Big-shot rich socialites like Monbiot pretend to live in villages, as they jet off to Copenhagen...
Eventually, they'll meet some real villagers with flaming torches and pitchforks who demand a local Tesco, who do not respect his Marie Antionette fantasies about being a rural shepherdess!
Complain about this comment
#78 infinity
I think that Professor David Nutt and the ACMD would disagree with you on
'There will never be the situation that politicians will dismiss what the scientific community are saying'
Politicians will promote whatever they think is politically expedient at the time.
(and drop it like a hot potato if the wind changes)
Complain about this comment
"a failure to realize that they have to convince the scientific community"
I suggest many of us belong to "the scientific community"!
Seriously, are there any real scientists who defend this fake garbage? Anyone? Beuller? Beuller?
Complain about this comment
Rustigjongens #67 - sorry, I can't. See a previous post for further confusion.
Complain about this comment
Post 78#, I was wondering if you could enlighten me what exactly is a "Pseudoskeptic"?.
I was also wondering why this entity has to convince the scientific community of their strategy (whatever that is supposed to be)?, I would have thought it was the worlds population who need to be convinced that climate change is man-made not the scientific community?.
For me we should all make efforts to be more environmentally friendly, yet after reading many of your posts you seem to engage in endless 'strawman arguments' to deflect any contrary postion to your own, or by drowning out people with multiple posts, this has the unfortunate effect that some of your more thought provoking comments are being lost in all the 'noise'.
Basically a classic case of "Less is more".
Feel free to critique my post !.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the response Richard, let's hope that the court of public opinion will force governments to 'do the right thing'.
Complain about this comment
@Grannie
Monbiot was a founder member of the whacko "Respect Party".
This tells you everything you need to know about Monbiot. He also bought a car last year so he could drive to the anti-car demos.
Complain about this comment
Mean temperature anomalies for UK for 2009 so far (from Met Office)
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/anomalygraphs/index.html#
Give it a few seconds to load.
Also if you then click on the 1961 to 1990 anomaly button and the ‘make your selection’ arrow at the top, you can see the difference is even more pronounced.
Also, spend some time looking at the other years from 2001 to 2009. Even 2008 (the ‘cool’ year) was mainly above average.
Does anyone have any explanation for this?
Look at the CO2 graph http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/esrl/co2/co2.html and scroll down to ‘Atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory’ 1960 to 2010.
Also read this phrase:-
‘The scientists conclude that the North American temperatures are likely to resume increasing again, and do not see the recent coolness as an emerging downward trend. ‘
And this:-
“This illustrates how regional patterns can vary independent of the overall global average. In 2008, global land temperatures were the sixth warmest on record, whereas it was the coldest year in North America since 1996.”
Both the above phrases do not come from what ‘sceptics’ describe (childishly) as ‘eco-fascists’. In fact it comes from the United States Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). See here:-
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091204_cooling.html
It is also being reported that 2009 will probably be the third warmest year globally since the instrument record began 150 years ago.
So you see guys, AGW is not some communist ‘McCarthyist’ conspiracy. It is a fact.
Complain about this comment
@Dempster #1
Climate Change and WMD. So what are you saying? That you're in the same camp with Bush and Cheney? They were in denial about scientific reports from the UN weapons inspectors. They were also in denial about the scientific reports on Climate Change.
Complain about this comment
"I would have thought it was the worlds population who need to be convinced that climate change is man-made not the scientific community"
That's precisely the mistake the pseudoskeptics have made. It doesn't matter how much they plaster mispresentations of the science all over the internet to trick the public. It doesn't matter how many of the public they mislead with silly arguments.
It didn't matter decades ago that the vast majority of the American public thought evolution was a lie. Evolution got taught in schools anyway because inevitably politicians and educators have to accept that expert opinion holds more weight than public opinion. That's why the views of scientists are taught in schools, not some democratically voted form of knowledge which would probably just involve xFactor and what some celebrity did last week.
While psuedoskeptics might convince joe public with claims like "we don't know the cause of the co2 rise to know it is human caused", it aint going to convince scientists who know better. Nor has it. If anything you are more likely to make them twig a deception is going down. It's an own goal.
The reason the scientific literature is awash in manmade global warming is because this is what scientists believe. Things like Copenhagen won't go away while the scientific community find manmade global warming compelling. Deep down you must all realize this.
Complain about this comment
These kind of gatherings generate a mass-hysteria for a common cause.
Like George Orwell’s Animal Farm book, where mass hysteria meant one pig
overtrumping another in self-sacrificial willingness
- except here it’s always someone else (not the politicians) who has
to make the sacrifice…
“We must all cut down to save the planet”
There is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with CO2 emission limits set as deemed necessary)
and consumers – not politicians – PAY for energy and how they wish to use it.
Notice: If there WAS an energy shortage, its price rise would
– limit people using it anyway, and make renewable energy more attractive
– make energy efficient products more attractive to buy.
No need to legislate for it.
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x
And since when do light bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
Not like cars.
And cars are taxed.
They could of course tax the bulbs etc, and lower the tax on energy efficient alternatives.
Governments make money on the reduced sales, they can pay for emission processing and renewable energy, and consumers keep choice.
Taxes are unjustified, but better for all than bans.
Few people seem aware of the industrial politics behind
the supposed environmental consumer regulation...
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
Complain about this comment
@soveryodd
I did respond to your request on the last blog - you will find my response near the end - hope you read it..,
Kealey
Complain about this comment
87. At 9:35pm on 07 Dec 2009, GeeDeeSea wrote:
@Dempster #1 Climate Change and WMD. So what are you saying?
You want know what I'm saying:
I John Dempster, a self employed average working Joe, husband and father of three, say as follows:
I have been fed more spin, more lies, than I care to recall. I’m tired of it, because it all leads to one goal, endeavouring to reduce my family’s income by way of taxation, or making work harder by way of more red tape.
May be there is global warming, although there is also a manipulation of data which puts a big question mark over it. May be there isn’t. One thing I do believe is all that will come of this Copenhagen fest, is more taxation, more bureaucracy, more rules, and more red tape.
And I’ll tell you something else while I’m here. I’m sick of it.
Complain about this comment
My view remains: Climate change is a real problem - but Carbon Dioxide is NOT the Cause. Concentrating of limiting carbon dioxide is a huge historic error (refer to my previous postings on causality).
For example: Carbon dioxide limiting and its cousin Carbon credits contributed directly to the dash for bio-fuels which in turn led to the destruction of rain forest to grow oil producing plants - insane!
Carbon credits is a gambling system needed only by financial institutions to siphon money from the poor.
We need to work on preserving our planet not destroying it further for an unproven (and scientifically well contradicted) gamble on limiting carbon dioxide.
I like the idea of likening CO2 and WMD - neither are what the UN makes them out to be! They are both a false pretext to hide a predetermined ulterior motive. (What in the case of CO2 I don't know as it is hidden!)
Complain about this comment
#86
What you have presented there is the following:
CO2 levels have risen in the last 50 years.
Temperatures have (overall) risen in the last 50 years.
(As far as I'm aware hardly anyone disputes this)
What you have not shown is any kind of link or casuality between these two items, causality is vastly important and is not the same as correlation. For instance a study might find that incidences of sunburn increase as the sale of sun lotion increases. Clearly to conclude that sun lotion causes sunburn would be ridiculous!
Incidentally on the point of the increase of 60ppm of CO2, going on a quick bit of alevel chemistry: the earths atmosphere is 50*10^18 kg, and average molar weight is 29kg, thus the atmosphere has 1.73*10^18 moles of gas in it. 60ppm of that is 1.04*10^14 mol, which with Co2s molar weight of 44kg, is 4.56*10^15kg. In 2006, apparently the global CO2 emissions were 2.84*10^13kg. Thus to produce that 60ppm at 2006 rates would take 160 years. Anyone feel free to explain where I've missed a few billion tons of CO2.
Complain about this comment
92. At 10:35pm on 07 Dec 2009, John_from_Hendon wrote:
(What in the case of CO2 I don't know as it is hidden!)
Well we humans produce loads of it ........ our cars produce it, industry produces it, ships and planes produce it, and we breathe it out.
Now thats what I call a tax base. Tax the production of CO2 and you nail just about everyone doing absolutely anything, anywhere, ever.
Complain about this comment
48. At 10:37pm on 07 Dec 2009, economoaniac wrote:
'Anyone feel free to explain where I've missed a few billion tons of CO2'.
Yes; it's been sold as carbon off-sets.
Complain about this comment
Right, there we have it. "The science is incredibly robust." The science is settled, and there's absolutely no doubt that man is causing catastrophic warming.
Good.
Now we can close down the climate research facilities, and get rid of those scientists (who are becoming a bit of a liability anyway) and their hideously expensive supercomputers.
Their work is done. No need to keep them. And we can save the taxpayer a fortune.
Complain about this comment
peter (no 89) wrote:
>>>And since when do light bulbs, TV sets etc give out any CO2 gas?
(sigh) I wonder whether I'm wasting my time explaining the sceptic cause.
Peter - electricity is not a SOURCE of power. It's a very convenient means of transmitting power from the generating stations to the consumer. In fact, despite its convenience, electricity has a theoretical maximum 50% efficiency of transmission because every watt of power that you dissipate in your home is matched by 1 watt of power dissipated at the power station. This is why gas is still cheaper than electricity generated from gas (technology to capture the heat dissipated at the generating stations can reduce the 50% figure, but not by much).
The only economically viable sources of large-scale power today are coal, oil and natural gas. Nuclear power is arguably viable, depending on how you account for the long-term costs of treating/storing the resulting waste. All are used to generate heat, which drives steam turbines generating electricity.
Wind power is not economically viable today, and is proliferating only because western governments are paying for it (or more accurately, forcing consumers to pay for it with legislation requiring power companies to derive a certain percentage of their energy from "renewable" sources).
Hydro-electricity, although presented disingenuously by some hydro-electric stations as a source of power, is in fact a technology used by power networks to balance their load/supply - at peak times, the stations produce large amounts of electricity by releasing damned-up water through turbine-generators. At off-peak times, they draw electricity from the grid to pump the water back uphill. There's nothing wrong with this - Hydro-Electric stations are, effectively, highly efficient batteries.
None of the above is in the slightest bit controversial - any electrical engineer will confirm it. It doesn't depend upon 'proxy data' or 'Global Climate Models'. It's engineering, not science - and engineers (like me) are not inclined to believe in theoretical models which have no testable results (unless you wait 100 years), use data "of dubious provenance" (according to harry_read_me.txt), and depend on computer models written by programmers with no respect for accepted engineering standards (i.e. explain what your code is trying to do, and justify how it does it).
In case I've lost you, Peter, your lightbulbs DO generate CO2 - they just generate it at the power stations. OK?
Complain about this comment
Psudoeskeptic= a novel way of saying 'denialist' without saying 'denialist' that hasn't been pickedup in less biased media.
the words 'peer review' and 'consensus' suddenly require the word trustworthy in front of them. i wonder how long before we see this meme?
Complain about this comment
@ 76. At 8:56pm on 07 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:
"First, we don't know whether or not climate change is happening."
Yes we do; it's happening.
"Second, [...] we wouldn't know if we are the cause of it."
Yes we do. We're the cause of it. Or at least, this is the consensus of the majority of world-wide climate scientists over the last decade. Why do we have to keep repeating this?
"Third, [...] we wouldn't know if it was a good or a bad thing."
You must be joking. Have you ever owned an aquarium? Start unbalancing the ecological balance, say, by adding a teaspoon of vinegar once a day. Tell me how long before all the fish die.
"Fourth, [...] we wouldn't know if our efforts to stop it would be worse that the thing itself."
I agree... if our efforts to stop it are misguided band-aid attempts to "fix" the problem, for instance, dumping tons of tiny reflective particles in the upper atmosphere to reflect more sunlight, or dumping tons of fertilizer in the oceans to encourage algae growth, thus consuming more CO2. However, if our efforts are relegated to REDUCING our emissions of CO2, I don't see a problem.
It's like this: say you have pain due to pouring acid on your hand. You could cover your hand with a glove, but is that safe? Maybe you have a latex allergy! Or you could... stop pouring acid on your hand. What are the side effects of NOT repeating the damaging activity?
"defend its ridiculous fake data in scientific terms"
You assert that the data is fake. You are incorrect.
In #58 you say:
"On the face of it, more CO2, more heat and more water means more biomass, which would be good."
Why is it that people like you have hard time accepting a statement such as "there is man-made climate change" when this statement is made by a global consensus of climate scientists over timespans of years, yet you are perfectly willing to make blanket assertions with no evidence, no data, no models, and no professional opinion to back it up, such as "more CO2 mean more biomass which is good"?
Well, at least you said "on the face of it", but I would suggest that the very fact you are considering it shows a fundamental lack of understanding.
"Who knows whether climate change would be a good thing or a bad thing? Who knows whether our efforts to prevent it would be worse than what we try to prevent?"
I've already addressed this, but I'll make one more point: the truth is, we don't know how our climate systems work. And when you don't know how something works, the only safe thing to do is NOT MESS WITH IT. Our efforts to prevent climate change are largely based on NOT emitting more carbon dioxide. Skeptics who suggest we should do nothing are, in fact, suggesting that we continue to play russian roulette with the future of our environment.
This is a very important point: climate skeptics who suggest we do nothing are in fact suggesting that we continue polluting. Climate activists who suggest we act are in fact suggesting that we STOP polluting. Action and inaction are reversed.
Complain about this comment
RE:- 97. At 01:11am on 08 Dec 2009, nyelvmark wrote:
I've never heard so much BS in all my life! Have you been living in a cave? Do you know ANYTHING that happens in other countries.
Let's look at this:-
"Wind power is not economically viable today, and is proliferating only because western governments are paying for it (or more accurately, forcing consumers to pay for it with legislation requiring power companies to derive a certain percentage of their energy from "renewable" sources)."
Have you tried telling Texans that?(you know...Texas where oil was first discovered). Do a bit of homework and look it up for yourself.
Now this:-
"Hydro-electricity, although presented disingenuously by some hydro-electric stations as a source of power, is in fact a technology used by power networks to balance their load/supply - at peak times, the stations produce large amounts of electricity by releasing damned-up water through turbine-generators. At off-peak times, they draw electricity from the grid to pump the water back uphill. There's nothing wrong with this - Hydro-Electric stations are, effectively, highly efficient batteries."
This is plain gobbledegook.
Here in New Zealand approximately 75% of our energy is hydro and..guess what?...........not one litre of water is pumped BACK UP HILL. Just down the road from me is one of the first. A relatively small one originally established for powering the local cement works. It's on a river......no dam, no reservoir, just a plain simple river. Ever tried pumping water "back up a river"?
What you are attempting to describe is frequently termed "pumped-storage" and is far less frequently observed. However, where it is used, the power required is NOT drawn from the "grid" is is acquired internally from reverse turbines.
Next time you want to pontificate about something you obviously know little about, try engaging "brain" first or do a little bit of homework.
Complain about this comment
100. At 03:24am on 08 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:
>>RE:- 97. At 01:11am on 08 Dec 2009, nyelvmark wrote:
> I've never heard so much BS in all my life! Have you been living in a cave? Do you know ANYTHING that happens in other countries.
No, I didn't write that - you did. Why do you attribute your own remarks to me?
> Let's look at this:-
>> "Wind power is not economically viable today, and is proliferating only because western governments are paying for it (or more accurately, forcing consumers to pay for it with legislation requiring power companies to derive a certain percentage of their energy from "renewable" sources)."
Yes, I wrote that. It's common knowledge, and hardly needs references. As I said, nothing in my post is controversial.
> Have you tried telling Texans that?(you know...Texas where oil was first discovered).
Lol, everything was invented in Texas, eh?
> Do a bit of homework and look it up for yourself.
OK, I looked it up. The Chinese had petroleum wells in the 4th century. Of course, Texas is older than that. Oh, and wind power is going to be economically viable any day now, and the EU governments won't need to subsidise it any longer.
> Now this:-
>> "Hydro-electricity, although presented disingenuously by some hydro-electric stations as a source of power, is in fact a technology used by power networks to balance their load/supply - at peak times, the stations produce large amounts of electricity by releasing damned-up water through turbine-generators. At off-peak times, they draw electricity from the grid to pump the water back uphill. There's nothing wrong with this - Hydro-Electric stations are, effectively, highly efficient batteries."
> This is plain gobbledegook.
It's called English. Which language do you speak?
> Here in New Zealand approximately 75% of our energy is hydro and..guess what?...........not one litre of water is pumped BACK UP HILL. Just down the road from me is one of the first. A relatively small one originally established for powering the local cement works. It's on a river......no dam, no reservoir, just a plain simple river. Ever tried pumping water "back up a river"?
> What you are attempting to describe is frequently termed "pumped-storage" and is far less frequently observed.
OK, I admit that here I was writing from a British perspective. It appears that some countries - notably Canada, Norway, Brazil and Venezuala - are able to generate the majority of their electricity from "run-of-the-river" hydroelectricity, which is news to me, but on consideration of the geography/demographics of those countries, it isn't too surprising. I found nothing in a quick search about NZ, but since it has similar geography/demographics, I'll accept your claim. And of course, pumped-storage systems of the type I described will be "less frequently observed" in those countries, although I think pumped-storage is the most common use of Hydro-Electricity worldwide.
> However, where it is used, the power required is NOT drawn from the "grid" is is acquired internally from reverse turbines.
Come again? These "reverse turbines" generate power from the water flowing downhill whilst simultaneously pumping it back up? Are you sure that's New Zealand you live in, and not the Land of Oz?
> Next time you want to pontificate about something you obviously know little about, try engaging "brain" first or do a little bit of homework.
Thank you for your intelligent contribution.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
'climate skeptics who suggest we do nothing are in fact suggesting that we continue polluting. '
where does any AGW skeptic blog or article state this? belief =/= fact. CO2 =/= pollution. CO2+sunlight=plant food. :)
infinity: ad nauseam.
soveryodd: ad nauseam.
99. At 03:17am on 08 Dec 2009, draker wrote: [redacted longwinded cognitive dissonance]
100. At 03:24am on 08 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote: [redacted longwinded cognitive dissonance]
your time has passed. there was talk of sock puppets in a previous blog i believe? but on being challenged regarding his accusation mr infinity never mentioned it again and certain other posters developed erratic spelling errors (sez i). first time i heard the term astroturfing was from someone i was pretty convinced at the time was an astroturfer. its the instinct to revisit the crimescene or to gloat i think. mr infinity is also a big fan of calling people denialist without the world denial by using pseudoskeptic, slightly different yet still derogatory however you try to interpret its use. a nasty habit of sly ad hominems is common to people who argue the case for AGW.
no more buzzwords or longwinded browbeating! with the level of scrutiny currently focused on the scientifically 'post normal' 'climate (change) sciences' anything other than straightforward honesty bereft of agenda and bias will result in a fail of epic proportions. no referencing sourcewatch or AGW by numbers for non-scientists (numbers based on what is now legitimately refered to as suspect science) websites. they were so confident in the data these sites quote endlessly that the datas authors deleted it rather than let anyone not in the 'club' seriously examine it.
as for Muir Russell; which 'green jobs' (government/taxpayer subsidised jobs) committee is he on? is it scottish powers? oh it is. isn't this also the same chap who was responsible for the beaurocracy behind the budget/construction of the scottish parliament building resulting in it being 3-4 years late and 10x overbudget? did he get into trouble for that beyond some very sharply worded references? you do understand the word scrutiny, right? any intention to mention either mr russells conflict of interest or reputation for incompetence in upcoming articles regarding his investigation?
Complain about this comment
With a massive hat tip to Adrian Cronauer and Robin Williams
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD MORNING COPENHAGEN
Here is teh news brought to you from the bunker beneath the "Little Myrmaid"
FLASH NEWS FLASH NEWS
Talks continue with Papua New Guinea deligation. EU agrees to allow national interest to become Olympic sport. EU see's Head Hunting as answer to sceptic problem. PNG however concerned about CO2 level would prefer vegitarian green NGO member.
Small island states bullied into accepting that their main exports Sugar (C12 H22 O11)will be carbon free. Eu will provide the plastic bottles for transporting.
Danish sex workers having offered it for free during conference have been given an EU stimulas package! But told not to blow it all.
Al Gore is found, private jet was diverted to Estonia due to lack of aircraft parking in the region. Gore is now on his b
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
@draker #14/39
Dude, you're hilarious! Seriously, the poster child of a bad argument. You say...
"Well, to all those people: I'm going to organize a summer pool party for you next year. I'm going to serve enormous quantities of free beer, and I'm going to reroute the urinal plumbing to drain into the pool. Then you can spend the rest of your life living in the pool. Have we got a deal? After all, a few litres of piss in such a large pool (it must be infinite!) can't possibly cause any problems, can it?"
Then you complain
"There are straw men being thrown up constantly by the screaming deniers"
LOL, you gave a starwman argument! CO2 is not pollution in the traditional sense (and not at any levels we'll ever achieve). There can be pollution from burning fossil fuels but these are entirely different substances. Most people do not remember when the developed nations went thru stages very similar to those china and india are going through right now. There were instances of rivers catching fire or raw effluent being so pungent that the stench of it moved Parliament to action. Conditions in the industrial nations now...while not perfect...are a vast improvement over those times.
Later you make another logical fallacy that's...well its hard to nail down. The underlying goal APPEARS to have been to construct a strawman argument but it turned out to be a non-sequitur...and then you tossed in a non-sequitur again as if it wasn't already messed up enough. Epic fail?
"Imagine your buddy saying: I had a car accident just now, but the fact that I was drunk had nothing to do with it. I had a car accident back in the '90s when I was sober, don't you know? Proof positive!"
@Everyone
Draker's failure to construct a valid argument is just one of many. Davblo for instance can't seem to grasp that one can be skeptical (having doubts about accepted beliefs) while still thinking another thing is more likely.
Most of you AGW types seem to be using another sort of flawed "logic"...that if warming is caused by CO2 then ALL of the warming must have been caused by CO2. A similar argument would be "If all humans are mammals then all mammals must be human"...obviously this is WAAAAY off base.
Skeptics rightfully point out that since the earth was warming LONG before there were significant CO2 increases that much of the warming is likely natural. Indeed, there was nearly 5 times as much CO2 put int he air after world war 2 as there was before world war 2 yet the warming rate of the 80s and 90s is IDENITCAL to that of the rate leading into WWII. This doesn't prove CO2 can't cause warming but it CERTAINLY is an illustration that the warming is in no way proportional to CO2 levels...and it sure as heck indicates warming rates that are well below IPCC projections.
Complain about this comment
@infinity (in general)
Mister Pseudoskeptic himself. Hey, just in case I missed it in the 200 posts while I was away...at any time did you have a point or was it all just you wagging your tongue seeing how fast you could say "pseudoskeptics". You sound more like a marketing guy "Other types of skepticism CLAIM to be impartial but they only scratch the surface. Only our religiously pro-AGW skepticism gets the job done right! We'll use this chalk to demonstrate how deep pro-AGW skepticism penetrates *paints on blue liquid and breaks chalk a few seconds later* See! Order now!"
Do you have anything MEANINGFUL to back that up? Do you have even the most vague notion of what the real-world CO2 forcing will be (as opposed to the theoretical maximum)? Do you know what the ACTUAL forcings will be from the feedbacks? Can you explain why water vapor (supposedly a feedback) emits the same over the sahara as it does over the ocean? Can you explain why the tropopause (which AGW types claim is based on CO2 levels) varies in altitude instead based on temperature? (and ironically the tropopause is hotter when its over colder ground...very odd)
Complain about this comment
@sensiblegrannie #44 RE: peak oil and oil sands
Peak oil isn't QUITE that cut and dry. In fact one of the main things keeping prices up is this anti-carbon nonsense. Were it not for that the US would likely have started using that process developed in South Africa to make "oil" from coal. We have half a trillion barrels worth in VERIFIED coal reserves.
The other problem is that the "peak oil" hypothesis uses oil output...but it's much more complex than that. Many oil fields are entirely untapped due to infeasibility. At the time they were discovered it was simply too costly to remove them. As the price of oil goes up, so too does the viability of these fields...and so too does the viability of alternatives. While this rise in price has an economic impact...its a far lower impact than driving the price of all available carbon based fuels up artificially.
Oil sands are another matter...and illustrate the difference between the skeptic approach and the alarmist approach. Skeptics maintain that pollution from such mining activities should be kept to a minimum...which limits the deciding factors on production to practicality. If the price of extraction plus safeguarding the environment reaches the value of the oil extracted...it becomes viable.
Alarmists take a no carbon EVER approach...assuming that 150% of all warming in the 20th century was caused by man's CO2 emissions and that somehow there will be an ongoing exponential increase from the logarithmic absorption increases of CO2. In the mean time we've warmed about .4C-.5C since the mid 1940s *yawn*
Complain about this comment
infinity #88 wrote:
"It doesn't matter how much they plaster mispresentations of the science all over the internet to trick the public. It doesn't matter how many of the public they mislead with silly arguments."
Have you noticed the way non-sceptics keep telling us what scientists say, without telling us themselves, and the way sceptics more often make their points in their own words?
That suggests to me that on this blog, at least, the people with scientific backgrounds are sceptical. The whiff of conformism -- and the endless appeals to "what the authorities say" -- give me a distinct impression that the non-sceptics are basically uncomfortable with science and are much happier appealling to authority or "consensus".
I think it's highly unlikely that "the vast majority of scientists are agreed" on this issue at all. Which seems to be the main support of the non-sceptic platform.
Complain about this comment
Yesterday bowmanthebard and HARRY README put me straight about George Mombiot, suggesting that he is not a jolly nice chap.
The complaint seemed to be Mombiot blocking the siting of a Tesco (or its alternative) with the suggetion that he has double standards because he drives a big car etc etc.
Just for you two, in the cause of a sustainable economy and environment and the belief that we will all soon have to think and act differently.
google search communities Blockley village shop
The one problem I have noticed about villages and isolated communities is the fact that to go anywhere, you need a car. When the price of petrol goes up, you won't be able to afford the luxury of going to the next town to buy your groceries so what are you going to do?
Methinks you should start planning now. I believe(I could be wrong) the changes might not occur for quite some time but a backup plan would be good for all villages. Most villages have reasonable access to the Internet and all of the information is out there from people who have already had to change the way they think and behave.
Complain about this comment
draker #99 wrote:
"Why is it that people like you have hard time accepting a statement such as 'there is man-made climate change' when this statement is made by a global consensus of climate scientists over timespans of years"
Mostly its because I think for myself rather than taking the word of the authorities. But since the word of the authorities matters so much to you, for what its worth I don't think there is a "consensus" among physicists, biologists, geologists and other mainstream scientists. The "consensus" is strictly limited to climate change scientists, and that is to be expected, because that has become a huge, self-sustaining industry that makes its own funding decisions -- and it has even been known to ostracize dissenters by attempting to block publication by dissenting voices.
I have had a lifelong interest in science and philosophy of science, and I have repeatedly made the crucial point that science doesn't work by starting off with "data" and then extrapolating. It starts off with hypotheses and then it tests them. If tries it in reverse by starting off with "data" and then constructing a model to fit the "data", the model will be ad hoc, and hence have no real predictive power. The further idea that it could reliably start off with some interpolated or "proxy" data (i.e. cooked-up, fake data) and then extrapolate is doubly ridiculous. People who don't have a scientific background don't seem to see why yet, but I am doing my best to explain it to them. In my opinion, future generations will blush at the lunacy of this pseudoscience, and the gullible religionists who base public policy on the supposed authority of its practitioners.
"yet you are perfectly willing to make blanket assertions with no evidence, no data, no models, and no professional opinion to back it up, such as 'more CO2 mean more biomass which is good'?"
As a matter of fact it is a "professional" opinion, but this is a blog, where qualifications are supposed to count for nothing. It is what we say that matters, not who says it, and that's why we observe anonymity as a rule.
"Well, at least you said 'on the face of it', but I would suggest that the very fact you are considering it shows a fundamental lack of understanding."
A lack of understanding of what? Which bit of "more CO2 means more biomass" involves a lack of understanding? If we bracket other factors, it's simply true. Plants absorb CO2 in photosynthesis, and grow more vigorously when there is more CO2 in the air around them, a fact sometimes exploited by greenhouse-users. Almost all life depends on plants for food, because carnivores eat herbivores, which eat plants.
"'Who knows whether our efforts to prevent it would be worse than what we try to prevent?'
I've already addressed this, but I'll make one more point: the truth is, we don't know how our climate systems work. And when you don't know how something works, the only safe thing to do is NOT MESS WITH IT."
This applies to the economies of the developing world as much as to the climate. I think we have stronger reasons to think that putting economic development into reverse will cause death than we have to think that carrying on with business as usual will cause death. It sounds crazy to me to try to manipulate the climate, because we understand it even less than we understand economics!
I agree that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", or at least "if we can't clearly see that it's about to break, don't fix it". At the moment we certainly cannot see clearly that it is about to break, not on the basis of the current pseudoscience or the "authorities" that support it so unquestioningly.
Everyone agrees that the Earth does not have an unlimited supply of hydrocarbons, so oil will get more and more expensive anyway, no matter what we do, and new technologies will eventually replace the burning of fossil fuels as they become prohibitively expensive. The question is whether we should artificially put things into reverse on the basis of the so-called "science" (which looks to me like hopeless, quasi-religious pseudoscience).
"This is a very important point: climate skeptics who suggest we do nothing are in fact suggesting that we continue polluting."
Please note that I'm against pollution, and note that as a rule, the more developed an economy becomes, the more it limits its own pollution. I'm all for limiting pollution in all sorts of ways. Just not the way that is very likely to kill a million people in the developing world.
Complain about this comment
The smoking Gun at Darwin Zero
The raw Data manipulation is incredible.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
Complain about this comment
poitsplace @ 108 has commented:
'Peak oil is not QUITE that cut and dry.'
I was not suggesting that it was 'cut and dry' and I was only making a comment as an immediate reaction to what I had seen on the U tube interview from a leading voice on the availability of oil and the U tube video about oil sand extraction.
It looks as if the less-easy extractions are going to be more expensive because logic tells me so. Is my logic faulty?
You need energy to extract oil from oil shale and oil sand, that is what I have been led to believe. Where is the energy coming from, in what form, and what is the percentage of the oil extraction energy to the net amount of energy recovered for sale? If there are untapped oil fields, not exploited due to high costs, how does this alter the economic situation? Yes carbon tax is a bit like the Emperors new cloths and some genius has got away with taxing the air we breath out. (because Co2 is a nasty poison,{ tell that to the plants{) Logic also tells me that if oil shale extraction were made economically viable then some damaging cost cutting behaviour will also occur. The cost cutting will not be with the directors, it will be with labour costs, health and safety costs or protecting the environment costs.
Complain about this comment
Re: post #14
Bravo! Well said.
If most of the commenters on the BBC's forums took the trouble to read all the evidence (including the minimal and sketchy evidence against AGW/MMCC as well as the HUGE body of evidence supporting it) they would be really scared - not of the Governments they think are in a huge conspiracy to control their populations, but of the impending crisis that the worst case scenario of Climate Change could bring about within only a few generations.
And for those who think a few metres of sea level rise aren't much of a problem, let me paint a mental picture for a moment - think of the chaos caused in Cumbria just recently by the flooded Derwent river, or maybe think back to Tewkesbury in 2007(*). Now imagine that happening not to a few thousand people, or tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions even, but BILLIONS. And not for a few weeks but permanently, and with totally inadequate food and water supplies. No healthcare at all besides what their friends can do for them. There will be pestilence, famine, war and death on a massive scale across the globe.
Now imagine these hypothetical people are your children. Don't you think a little effort now may go a long way?
For further information see the BBC's article on scientists responses to the sceptic's claims:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8376286.stm
And for a more encouraging picture see the New Scientist's article which concludes that a low carbon future need not cost us very much at all:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427373.400-lowcarbon-future-we-can-afford-to-go-green.html
(*)Note that I don't attribute these events directly to Global Warming, which cannot be blamed for a few recent freak weather events. Global Warming's effects are long term.
Complain about this comment
Please you lot don’t fall for it.
Just think, are there increased CO2 emissions due to the industrialisation of the world. Common sense says yes, if you dig up coal, and pump out oil, then burn it, you have to agree its going to produce more CO2. And unless you’re going to go back to mud huts and the horse pulling the plough, that’s hard lines, it’s just how it is.
Now given that the Government wants to see more growth in the economy, which is more production and consumption, is this likely to increase CO2 emissions? Well the answer is yes.
So do they want us to produce and consume less which will reduce CO2 or do they want us to increase production and consumption and therefore CO2 emissions?
Well how about the car scrappage scheme, put in place to increase demand and production of vehicles, thereby producing more CO2.
Common on you lot, Copenhagen is about increasing the tax base to fund Government under the pretence of Climate Change. They don’t give a stuff about Climate Change really, but they do have a very great interest in what’s in your wallet.
Complain about this comment
Just a few points.
Anyone who says the science is settled doesn't understand science.
Anyone who uses a supposed scientific consensus to back their position doesn't understand science.
Now for these, and read carefully...
Rising temperatures does not prove Man mad climate change (MMCC)
Rising sea levels does not prove MMCC
Rising CO2 levels does not prove MMCC
Melting ice does not prove MMCC
Species' extinction does not prove MMCC
All the politicians saying it is so doesn't prove MMCC
These are all RESULTS of a changing climate, NONE are proof of a cause.
THIS is the difference, YES co2 levels are rising, YES temperatures (were) rising, NO that does not prove a link, it is coincidental NOT causal.
There is NO proof that CO2 IS THE CAUSE. There is a clear distinction, science is all about clear distinctions. Climate science is the muddiest field i've ever had the displeasure to dip my toes in.
Complain about this comment
There is an excellent article about the denial phenomenon written by George Monbiot published in today's Guardian. If nothing else it might cause some of you deniers to think about the words and phrases you use when attacking climate scientists.
The article can be read on Monbiot's website at: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/
Manysummits: you might like to click on the link at the bottom of the right hand column of Monbiot's site entitled, 'discuss these articles'.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and to reference my previous post- #116.
Temperatures are falling
Sea levels are not rising more than they have for as long as records show
Antarctica is gaining ice, as for the majority of glaciers around the world- we don't know, we only measure >10% of them
Yet co2 levels continue to rise. So much for the link.
Reduce pollution yes, tax us on an unproven theory, no.
Complain about this comment
112. At 08:52am on 08 Dec 2009, Al Gore wrote:
'The smoking Gun at Darwin Zero, The raw Data manipulation is incredible'. Thank you Al Gore.
Don't you just love 'em. The tax I pay is now going to manipulate data on climate change. In God's sweet mother earth what next?
Complain about this comment
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/
re posting this link. Everyone need to look at this link.
Also, in the code it states they have data for stations that don't exist. The data stinks guys and girls.
Complain about this comment
Re #83 "I was wondering if you could enlighten me what exactly is a Pseudoskeptic"
A pseudo-skeptic is someone that pretends to be skeptical, yet they dismiss every piece of evidence that does not agree with their predetermined view of the world.
Re #94 "Tax the production of CO2 and you nail just about everyone doing absolutely anything, anywhere, ever."
Assuming our breath will never be taxed (how could that be enforced?), your "just about everyone" is a little off. There are only about 1 billion private motor vehicles on this planet, but there are almost 7 billion of us. Likewise, the number of people living in homes that are connected to carbon powered electrical grids, is likely to be quite a bit less than 6 billion.
Just because you have a carbon spewing lifestyle, does not mean that you have to abandon your entire way of life, to stop polluting. Nor does it mean that everyone else on the planet pollutes.
Re #106 "Indeed, there was nearly 5 times as much CO2 put int he air after world war 2 as there was before world war 2"
Warming is not proportional to the amount of Co2 that gets put into the air every year. It is proportional to the total accumulated co2 in the atmosphere.
Re #108 Get your facts right. The earth has warmed .5 degrees since 1980, not 1940.
The price of oil is kept artificially low, because the true costs of pollution are born the taxpayers, and the environment. (oil spills, lung ailments ect)
Complain about this comment
I'm amazed that people still spew the 'science is settled' and 'sceptics are all gas guzzling polluters' lines.
Honestly, not all AGW believers are religious zealots and not all sceptics are massive pollution willing maniacs. Bit of common sense please- there is no such thing as either/or in this debate.
Complain about this comment
121. At 09:29am on 08 Dec 2009, Donald Rennie
OK D.R. if you don't use a car, a cooker, electricity or a product that is man made by industry, or use the roads or public infrastructure, then you should be OK, and you won't get your hat nailed on with CO2 tax.
But for those who do use the above, hard lines they're going stiff you, love 'em or hate 'em or possibly both, they will be lightening your wallet in the future.
Complain about this comment
http://www.prisonplanet.com/big-oil-behind-copenhagen-climate-scam.html
seems the agw camp were in the pay of big oil too...
Complain about this comment
Re: The smoking gun at Darwin zero (#112, #120)
If you follow up the links in this article back to the original paper describing the method of adjustment (Karl and Williams, J. Clim. Appl. Meteor, 26 (1987) pp 1744) you will find that the adjustment method is actually valid rather than the comments of the author of the Smoking Gun blog who exclaims, with a great deal of scientific authority I expect, "Double Yikes! Look at that"
Complain about this comment
Re:-101. At 05:15am on 08 Dec 2009, nyelvmark wrote:
100. At 03:24am on 08 Dec 2009, xtragrumpymike2 wrote:
Yes.I did make a balls-up of that last one.Trying to keep it simple should have read it again.
Obviously while running the reverse turbines power IS drawn from the grid.That power however is power credited to the generation company while running during "peak" periods.During this period, demand is not constant (it fluctuates either side of a mean) but turbine speeds are constant (bit like the alternator in your car..........immediately after start-up the alternator is under heavy demand to bring the battery back to norm after which it is only required to supply whatever electrical system is running but still runs at engine speed)Hence the power utility is in essence providing more power than demand and using "extra" water for that process.The water used is collected in a second reservoir and the "excess" energy is credited back to power the reverse turbines. Basically it's an "accounting" process.
But there are some plants that actually use "river" generators. Generators set in the river that are not connected to the grid but used to power the reverse turbines in pumping mode.
However, back to YOUR comments. Here's one
"although I think pumped-storage is the most common use of Hydro-Electricity worldwide."
RUBBISH
Chum, you suffer from "skip" reading syndrome.You read what you want to read and "skip" the rest.
If you had bothered to read further you would have discovered that utilities that use "pumped-Storage" are actually net USERS of energy. Meaning they actually use more energy to pump the water "back-up-hill" than the energy it subsequently provides! (remember.....no such thing as a free lunch or perpetual motion)
If that is the case, I fail to see why anyone would make so many power hungry hydro stations!
Also..if you had bothered to look further you would have found these sorts of statistics.
In Europe about 40 Gw of pumped storage out of 140 Gw total hydro.
America, about 3% of total baseload generation (includes all forms of generation obviously)
etc etc etc.
PHS (or pumped-storage) is a specific type of hydro used for a specific purpose and is far from the norm because it uses more energy than it produces.
However, there are many who contend that pumped storage systems will play a significant role when coupled to alternative systems like wind and solar for obvious reasons.
Back to your comments. Here's another:-
"Lol, everything was invented in Texas, eh?"
Where did you deduce that from my comments? I'm certainly no advertisement for Texas or America as a whole. Don't forget, little old NZ is the only country in the world to tell good old Uncle Sam where to stick his Nuclear weaponed warships! Not to mention his illegal war in Iraq. How did good old UK stand on those?
and this:-
"OK, I looked it up. The Chinese had petroleum wells in the 4th century. Of course, Texas is older than that. Oh, and wind power is going to be economically viable any day now, and the EU governments won't need to subsidise it any longer."
Obviously you did not "look it up" No mention of China.....nor the 4th century.......nor the EU or the age of Texas in any of the literature I was suggesting.(No, I'm not going to spoon feed you with a suitable link)
For your information Texas (of all states) now leads all other American states for the output of alternative energy from Wind Farms. Quite a substantial amount actually.Got any ideas why? it's because they actually make a profit without any subsidies! And they plan on increasing their output from Wind Farms! Makes a bit of a mockery of your earlier statement on viability.
So I repeat........engage brain. Do your homework THOROUGHLY........and DON"T just rush into print to satisfy your ego and attempt to put others down.
Complain about this comment
Dave_oxon #125 wrote:
"the adjustment method is actually valid"
If you understand why "the adjustment method is valid", please explain why using your own words.
On the other hand, if you are taking this on someone else's authority, please tell us whose authority, and explain why you take their opinion as authoritative.
Complain about this comment
125. At 10:00am on 08 Dec 2009, Dave_oxon
Data is either used or its not used, what you cannot do is alter it, and say you've used it.
It's either been used or it hasn't.
From what you say, I conclude the data has not been used, because it's been adjusted.
For example I may wish to provide the raw cost of building a hospital. I can use this data to show that hospitals are £1500 sqm or £2000 sqm. Or I can simply use the data without favour which will give you an average cost.
What I should not do, is manipulate the data to misrepresent the build cost of a hospital and thereby deceive you to your disadvantage.
Complain about this comment
@Poitsplace, #107
I'm sorry to have disagree with you, Poitsplace, in my first post here, but I'm not convinced by your explanation of what infinity means by a "pseudo sceptic".
Surely what infinity means is that the AGW branch of climatology is a pseudo science - it certainly looks like science, Jim, but not as we know it. It follows then that those who practice it are pseudo scientists.
And those that are not convinced by the statements made by said pseudo scientists about said pseudo science could be referred to as - tarah! - "pseudo sceptics".
That is what you meant, infinity, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey #116 and #118: "Just a few points..."
Ok LanMunkey; you get four new claims for that effort.
I thought it best to fit all your "you can't prove it's MMGW" variants into one (83) since they convey the same message.
Temperature falling we already had at "_1"; I guess you forgot.
You may like to check your claim about the glaciers. Now appearing as 86. You wrote ">10%" but that could well be a typo.
Let me know if you'd like to see the whole list again... :-)
/davblo
83. You can't prove the changes are anthropogenic; they are all coincidence
84. Sea levels are not rising more than they have for as long as records show
85. Antarctica is gaining ice
86. As for glaciers - we don't know, we only measure >10% of them
Complain about this comment
PaulBoyce #129: "That is what you meant, infinity, isn't it?"
For that gem, you get place 87; and as a bonus you deserve to see the full list...I'm sure the others will thank you :-)
/davblo
Anti-AGW claims of pseudo-sceptics
----------------------------------
_0. This list is a load of rubbish!
_1. There is no warming
_2. There is warming but it's not anthropogenic
_3. There is anthropogenic warming but it's not caused by CO2
_4. There is anthropogenic warming by CO2 but not enough to worry about
_5. CO2 has risen but it's not capable of causing warming
_6. CO2 hasn't risen
_7. Arctic ice isn't disappearing
_8. Arctic ice is disappearing but the Antarctic is more important
_9. It gets cold at night so it can't be warming
10. It has been warming but now it's cooling
11. We don't trust the temperature measurements anyway
12. CO2 has always lagged warming in the past so it can't cause it
13. AGW may be real; but it could be a good thing
14. It's all a big con!
15. It's the journalists fault for not exposing the charlatan scientists
16. The Hotspot hasn't been detected so there can't be any AGW
17. All the temperature data has been lost/destroyed
18. Trees do not make good thermometers
19. You can make a hockey stick out of random data
20. The upturn in the hockey stick was cherry-picked data
21. Cycles in the solar wind are the primary driver of climate change
22. The science is not even in, let alone settled
23. Sea level rise has been constant for 100 years, but will never bother us
24. IPCC uses deliberately woolly language to hide it's inaccuracies
25. The politicised IPCC uses cherry picked data & highly suspect models
26. Peer reviewing is a closed shop and worthless
27. Popular opinion still rules and says something quite different
28. Insult alarmists' intelligence, that'll prove we are right
29. Alarmists refuse to answer our questions so they must be wrong
30. The onus of proof is on those supplying the theory, not those trying to debunk it
31. At the IPCC the summary is agreed before the report is finished
32. Consensus counts for less than nothing in science
33. Why should so many scientists support AGW? Follow The Money!
34. Climate scientists change sides when they retire
35. The extra CO2 is good for the plants, isn't it
36. Al Gore is rich so it must be all a lie
37. 1000s of scientists have signed up against AWG; we trust them
38. There's an AGW blog where some questions haven't been answered for 3 years!
39. It's just a plot to tax us more and more
40. Progress and Free Market are more important than AGW theories
41. Al Gore's film is an obvious attempt at brainwashing
42. Alarmists will have us living back in the stone age!
43. CO2 is neither a poison nor pollutant.
44. All we really need to do is make petrol and diesel engines more efficient
45. The UK CO2 contribution is a layer thinner than a human hair in one kilometre
46. We need 5 years to test the climate models and we know now that they are wrong
47. It's ok; with all that rising water, we could at least re-water the Sahara
48. It's not like additional CO2 can cause anything to move into a colder region
49. There are 20 year old predictions that have proved to be wrong!
50. Observation shows CO2 and global temp moving in opposite direction since 1998
51. Observation shows CO2 and global temp moving in opposite direction 1944 to 1976
52. What caused the 33 year long global warming from 1911 to 1944?
53. It's no longer a debate; that alone is evidence that it's not based on science
54. There's data showing temp and CO2 rising together, but that's not proof of a link
55. If there is data that links C02 to temp I can't find it
56. Tree ring growth correlates better with variations in cosmic rays than temperature
57. Global Warming was re-branded Climate Change when predictions failed
58. CO2 was rebranded as responsible for Climate Change, not Global Warming
59. The 'Global Warming Swindle' documentary discredited Al Gore
60. Al Gore's film has been ridiculed and derised
61. Complaints comm'n uphold 4 complaints against Al Gore's film; none on the science
62. Political agenda on AGW really takes hold as new industry emerges
63. The NIPCC review thoroughly discredited the first IPCC report
64. Massive inaccuracies found in IPCC data, satellite & ground data adjusted to fit
65. Antarctica refuses to melt as predicted, gaining MASSIVE amounts of ice
66. Satelite measurements of sea ice/Antarctic loss shown to have errors
67. Sea levels refuse to rise as predicted
68. IPCC have revise their stance to focus on water/food availability
69. Data shows link between sunspot activity and recent temperature drop trend
70. Antarctica data shows steady cooling for over a decade
71. Vienna case study shows HIE has massively skewed the ground temperature data
72. Mean global temperature is cyclic
73. In 5 years time, we will talk about Climate Change as a result of global cooling
74. It's ok; a number of reefs around the world are being brought back from the dead
75. There is observational evidence that climate sensitivity is low not high
76. The government of the Maldives recently pulled a publicity stunt
77. Migrating birds or trees growing further north is not evidence of AGW
78. I'm not some moronic "denier" (thanks to poitsplace)
79. Climate has never shown the sensitivity suggested for the 2C+ scenarios
80. We're better off with the heat we're getting than with sporadic electricity
81. The rabid minds of the AGW Terrorists are totally incapable of accepting anything which argues their absolute bigotry and overwhelming belief that they are right! (yertizz really wrote that)
82. We stole emails and code from CRU and by cherry-picking quotes prove AGW is fake
83. You can't prove the changes are anthropogenic; they are all coincidence
84. Sea levels are not rising more than they have for as long as records show
85. Antarctica is gaining ice
86. As for glaciers - we don't know, we only measure >10% of them
87. The AGW branch of climatology is a pseudo science
Complain about this comment
#127 wrote:If you understand why "the adjustment method is valid", please explain why using your own words.
Without going into a vast discourse on the subject, this paper essentially recognises that data from one measurement source can be subject to systematic errors. By comparing the data of connected measurement sources (in this case, nearby weather stations) the systematic errors of each can be removed such that the errors of the whole dataset (i.e. from all the weather stations) "constitute a series of random numbers that satisfies the law of errors" (Conrad and Pollock, 1950), i.e. that as much bias has been removed from the data as possible and the fluctuations left are genuine measurement error. My reason for accepting this treatment is that it demonstrates a logical application of a robust statistical technique.
to #125: Your statement that data is either used or not is incorrect. Data, from ANY measurement source, is subject to error. When data is treated scientifically is essentially to determine the probability that a measurement is correct (one way to increase this probability, for example, is to repeat the measurment many times, the differences in the measurments indicating the magnitude of the error). Using statistics and associated techniques increses the probability that one has the correct measurment from which we can draw conclusions... this is what the adjustment method attempts to do for climate data.
Now, in the case mentioned in this blog, a particularly difficult case has been highlighted in Australia due to the scarcity of measurment stations. Still, the method has been applied, as far as I can tell, as set out in the literature, in an attempt to actually show what is going on in that continent. The final line of the blog in question then goes on to assert the principle “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) which, I'm afraid, is as scientifically invalid as Occam's razor (the simplest explanation must be true) which also frequently turns up on discussion boards of this type. The relatively large errors that must be associated with this dataset DO NOT APPLY to any other dataset from which the conclusion of global warming has been drawn.
In summary, highlighting the problems involved with attempting corrections on one dataset says NOTHING about the vast quantity of other datasets available which, interestingly, all end up with similar conclusions.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
132 thanks professor,
Could clarify for me then how simple would it be to add bias to the data when trying to remove the very bias that results in a genunine measurement. Namely, lets fudge it a bit to show it the way we believe it to be.
Complain about this comment
Re:Those that think the world is cooling.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm
Just because 1998 was a high point doesn't alter the trend. What we call in science the line of best fit, when plotting the trend you draw the line roughly through the centre of the points thus removing freak high or low points and illustrating the underlying trend.
Complain about this comment
#122 LabMunkey
"Honestly, not all AGW believers are religious zealots and not all sceptics are massive pollution willing maniacs. Bit of common sense please- there is no such thing as either/or in this debate."
Here, here!!
#124 LabMunkey
"seems the agw camp were in the pay of big oil too..."
eh?? where'd the common sense go?? seemed to last all of two posts. i'm well and truely in the agw camp and never received a penny from big oil.
Complain about this comment
#116 LabMunkey
so you don;t like 'dirty' science eh? i'm really sorry this isn;t nice and easy for you, maybe you should leave the muddy field, go and have a shower and leave the rest of us to sort things out. nobody's forcing you to post here....i'm assuming.
Complain about this comment
#135 Kamboshigh wrote:
how simple would it be to add bias to the data when trying to remove the very bias that results in a genunine measurement?
It would be very simple indeed but the bias would show up as a non-random distribution in the confidence intervals inherent in the dataset. In which case it would not stand-up to the peer-review it is subsequently subjected to.
Such a scandal was shown up in the case of JH Schon some years ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Hendrik_Schon). The process is open to abuse but science is self-correcting via this process. Given the number of scientists working in this field it is very likely (an I appeal once again to statistics for this argument) that anyone FABRICATING data would long ago have been discredited.
Incidentally, the form of address is only Dr., not Professor.
Complain about this comment
#112 al gore
"The raw Data manipulation is incredible."
i think the gullibility of contrarians posting links to whatsupwiththat is incredilble. you guys are about as sceptical as your avergage wildebeest
Complain about this comment
131. At 11:07am on 08 Dec 2009, davblo wrote: a list
Well that’s a very long list, the longest I’ve seen posted.
Having finally got to the bottom of it, perhaps you can add:
88. We want to go for growth in the economy and produce more CO2, because we need the revenue.
89. Then we want to tax the stuffing out of you for doing so.
90. Hope you don’t mind.
Complain about this comment
Re: 135
The easier it is to do something to a set of data the easier it is to tell something has been done.
Complain about this comment
@Dempster #91
10/10 for an honest answer. But your problem is with government, not climate change. Your frustration/anger needs re-directing.
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon wrote
Re: post #14 "Bravo! Well said."
No, he gave an argument that would have had a logic teacher either crying or rolling on the floor laughing...specifically he gave a textbook example of a strawman argument and then complained that skeptics gave strawman arguments.
Now imagine that happening not to a few thousand people, or tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions even, but BILLIONS. And not for a few weeks but permanently, and with totally inadequate food and water supplies. No healthcare at all besides what their friends can do for them. There will be pestilence, famine, war and death on a massive scale across the globe.
In the above statement you show absolutely no concept of time. You act as if the year 2100 will see an instantaneous surge of 2 meters and there being a giant wall that will stop people from ever moving. Even if sea levels were rising at 2 meters per century (they're not) it would be a piddly 1 centimeter per year. It would take years before any normal person could even notice. It would take a generation before anyone was displaced...and not without it becoming obvious that they should start thinking about it years earlier. Since most costal cities are on a gentle slope and buildings are destroyed/replaced naturally, most of them would just slowly creep inland as a normal part of the city's life-cycle.
But if you'll check the actual figures (instead of listening to that moron Al Gore and other alarmists) you'll find that *gasp* sea levels only been rising about 2-3mm per year. That's millimeters, as in 2/1000 to 3/1000 of a meter per year. At current rates it will take 600-1000 years for sea levels to rise 2 meters.
@Donald Rennie #121
Warming is not proportional to the amount of Co2 that gets put into the air every year. It is proportional to the total accumulated co2 in the atmosphere.
Sorry, I can see where that would be confusing...I meant the portion we put in the air that stayed there. Actually I'm a bit off there. assuming that 100% of the CO2 increase from the assumed pre-industrial level of 280ppm are from man (although some are from ocean degassing from warming)...
Before the mid 40s we put 30ppm in the air. After the 1940s we put 80ppm (about 75%) in the air. There we go, you'll have less trouble with those figures.
Total warming since the mid 1940s...about .4C ...so the numbers most certainly do not add up to high sensitivity and you just need to deal with that fact.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1900/mean:12
@xtragrumpymike2
Actually about 7% of the total power production of the US is from hydroelectric (the is NOT pumped storage). We just have a lot of rivers. Although they probably use it a bit more sporadically...were it smoothed out it would be 32 gigawatts per hour...or about 75% of the UK's entire power output. Toss in the other renewables and we actually produce more power than the UK from renewables.
Complain about this comment
To sensiblegrannie #44:
Nice posts (#44 and those following). I particulary liked your 'gut response.' Something very real there.
--------
To JRWoodman #117:
Thanks for the link. I read George Monbiot regularly, but hadn't seen this one.
I am trying to be hopeful as Copenhagen evolves, but if I may take a page out of sensiblegrannie's book and post a gut reaction - "Don't hold your breath."
I've been blogging now for almost a year on this site, and have accumulated quite the library of scientific articles on many aspects of climate science and environmental degradation of our planet, and it follows, of ourselves.
We are a species, at least those in high civilizations, with what I think would be called a 'self-esteem' pathology.
We are dependent upon our consumer ways for identity, which, if you think about it, is very sad.
I will probably specialize now, on this blog, on the mountain world, which I unobjectively believe in. To re-establish contact with the natural world in a setting as demanding as the great mountain ranges of the world is to assume an identity which is closer to who we really are, in my opinion.
Got to go,
Manysummits
Complain about this comment
Instead of punishing the poor old consumer/car driver all the time why not make the airlines pay fuel duty and VAT on their aviation fuel?I cannot think of another industry that gets such largesse from government.Why is this distortion allowed to continue?Governments cannot keep increasing our taxes without imposing proper taxes on airlines.If some airlines go to the wall-so what?It would help limit the apparently limitless expansion of travel and the associated uproar every time a runway needs to be extended.
Complain about this comment
LabMunkey #133 & #134: "...[broke the House Rules]..."
I saw those comments and there was nothing "bad" in them; but I got the message re' the typo...
86. As for glaciers we don't know, we only measure less than 10% of them
/davblo
Complain about this comment
Jmb10945 says at #93
‘Incidentally on the point of the increase of 60ppm of CO2, going on a quick bit of a level chemistry: the earths atmosphere is 50*10^18 kg, and average molar weight is 29kg, thus the atmosphere has 1.73*10^18 moles of gas in it. 60ppm of that is 1.04*10^14 mol, which with Co2s molar weight of 44kg, is 4.56*10^15kg. In 2006, apparently the global CO2 emissions were 2.84*10^13kg. Thus to produce that 60ppm at 2006 rates would take 160 years. Anyone feel free to explain where I've missed a few billion tons of CO2.’
Thanks for that. Unfortunately you got the mass of the atmosphere too large by a factor of 10. It is in fact 5 x 10^18 kg. Also the increase in atmospheric CO2 is about 75 ppm. So now reworking your above calculations we get :-
The earths atmosphere is 5*10^18 kg, and average molar weight is 29kg, thus the atmosphere has 0.173*10^18 moles of gas in it. 75ppm of that is 1.3 *10^13 mol, which with CO2s molar weight of 44kg, is 5.72*10^14kg. In 2006, apparently the global CO2 emissions were 2.84*10^13kg. Thus to produce that 75ppm at 2006 rates would take 20 years.
Given that the oceans absorb 50% of the emitted CO2, It would thus take about 40 years for the atmospheric concentration to increase by 75ppm. Which is about right from 1960, given that the increase was somewhat lower in the early ‘60’s.
In addition, the actual annual emissions now are over 4.0*10^13 kg so the rate in the atmosphere is increasing even more rapidly than your figure.
Do you agree?
Complain about this comment
I can't wait for the year temperatures drop and the explanation for which is NOTHING to do with global warming.
The problem is, we'll probably still be told it's rising even when it's not.
Complain about this comment
Can somebody knowledgeable explain to me the economics/justification for Wind Turbines?They are hugely expensive,inefficient(they need electrical power apparently to work-is that sensible?),ugly and the owners/installers seem to be able to draw upon unlimited funds to keep imposing them on us.Will they ever be profitable?Why do politicians agonise so loudly about Atomic Energy-it is the only sensible,cost effective option left to us until somebody invents another method of keeping us warm.How are we doing with atomic fusion these days?
Complain about this comment
@ davblo
"LabMunkey #133 & #134: "...[broke the House Rules]..."
I saw those comments and there was nothing "bad" in them; but I got the message re' the typo..."
yeah- im puzzled to be honest on those ones.
Complain about this comment
Can I just ask some of the fundamental questions that are at the centre of this debate. Usually find when you think about them most 'reasonable' people agree on most of the answers.
Is the earth warming up?
Yes
Is CO2 rising?
Yes
Is it a good idea to reduce emmissions?
Yes
Is it a good idea to reduce polution?
Yes
Is using renewable energy a good idea?
Yes
Are carbon trading schemes a good idea?
Probably not
Are they going to achieve any reduction in CO2 emissions?
Probably not
Should we put more money/resources into energy efficiency technology?
Definatley
Should we put more research into alternative energy technology?
Definatly
Would it be a good idea to reduce the amount of energy we all use?
Yes, if nothing else it saves you money.
Do goverments need to come to an agreement?
Yes
Are some climate change advocates exagurating the facts?
Yes
Have some of the predictions been wrong?
Yes
Has the theory of AGW been proved wrong?
No
Have people lost confidence in politicians?
Yes
Do we need to improve science education?
Yes
Complain about this comment
The first scientist to say " Actually, I think everything is alright with the planet's thermostat" is the first scientist to have his funding cut.
In common with "War", the idea is not to win but to perpetuate its continued existance. War means trillions in profit. Climate fears mean
trillions in profit.
There is an added bonus to the profit motive...Fear. Fear is good for politicians because they can manipulate, tax and control a fearful population without question.
Politicians and big business are intertwined and democracy is manipulated to keep it so.
Dissent,even by rational discussion is demonised as heretical ranting or trivialised as comical.
Don't be sheep, wake up to what is really happening!
Complain about this comment
Given the tens of thousands of people jetting in to Copenhagen, comments from 'environmentalists' regarding use of airplanes for the world cup seems a bit hypocritical.
When are we going to see some proper coverage - ie the content - of the leaked ClimateGate emails?
I can't remember the BBC having any scruples about imediately publishing other 'private' emails, such as the one about 'good day to bury bad news' on 9-11. Tends to make people all the more suspicious when you keep things secret.
Complain about this comment
# 132 I'm afraid this is rubbish. It makes no sense to 'correct' poor data by 'adjusting' it using better data from other sites. Far better to just use the data from the good sites, and discard the data from the poor sites like cities.
Far from removing bias, this poorly explained, subjective adjustment process introduces bias - the bias of the scientists who are determined to find warming.
When you look into this you find that the 'adjustments' almost always increase the amount of warming, as in the recently publicized New Zealand example where 6 out of 7 'adjustments' increase the warming trend. For the US data, the net effect of all the adjustments is to create a warming of 0.5 degrees over the last 50 years! Can you explain why the adjustments almost always increase warming?
Complain about this comment
@Colin Walker Eloquently put.
Complain about this comment
No let up in the increase in atmospheric CO2. Latest figure for November (red dot) is now available.
Click on link below and scroll down to ‘Recent Monthly Mean CO2 at Mauna Loa, in Hawaii. New level is 388 ppm
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Complain about this comment
re 152: I agree with all your answers, except maybe "Do goverments need to come to an agreement?"
Complain about this comment
#139
Doctor (sorry) thank you for a totally honest open answer, normally I would draw the red mist and go in guns blazing all I can say is "respect".
Colin Walker at 142 this is the whole issue of what has been done to the raw data. To date the gate keepers some 42 scientists have refused to supply the calculations they use to show the supposed warming. Even under freedom of information they will not supply the data/code even though it is publicly owned. This is not just 1 or 2 trouble makers over a couple of years it is hundreds of requests over the past decade.
Richards nonsense hotest decade story is subject to FOI along with the law suit for failure to disclose. Jim Hansen a very worried man.
Complain about this comment
Re:146
Everyone needs to do their bit. Whether thats by increasing taxes on everything to fund research or changing behaviour through incentives is a question for the politicians, but we all need to do our bit. If that is just using less energy at home or walking/catching the bus instead of driving then thats fine.
The point with fuel taxing is that it will effect those who are worst off, driving older less efficient cars. So maybe it should be done through road tax instead, based on the cars value and the efficiency. Then if you have an old banger you won't get punished as much as someone driving a brand new SUV.
I currently drive a 3 yr old 1.2 fiat punto, cost me £5k and gets about 40-50mpg depending on the type of driving you do. If fuel tax increased I wouldn't pay much extra overall, only fill it up once every 2 to 3 weeks anyway. However, I'm looking to buy a Nissan 370z, thats a 3 litre sports car which gets about 10 to 20mpg depending on driving. I'd pay far more in the extra taxation etc and it might make me reconsider.
That should surely be the point of taxing fuel more, to put people off buying inefficient cars untill they are sure they can afford to run them. I could probably afford to run the 370z anyway, but it's made me think twice about it. I'm the type of person the taxes should target, not people driving old family cars who can't really afford to swap it for something more economical.
Complain about this comment
"The science is incredibly robust....."
Hmm, the leader of a small group of undeniably politicised climate scientists, who use three data sets, one of which is completely unreliable, would say that.
Today the Met office cays its the hottest decade on record. Yeah, scary stuff. When did reliable records start again?
Have a peek at this disection of the data and stations used to come up with Australia's "warming" trend. If even the most hardened of activists can't see there is a teensy-weensy bit of a question about the reliablilit of the data used, then we truly are in the middle of mass hysteria.
Complain about this comment
"Even if sea levels were rising at 2 meters per century (they're not) it would be a piddly 1 centimeter per year. It would take years before any normal person could even notice. It would take a generation before anyone was displaced...and not without it becoming obvious that they should start thinking about it years earlier. Since most costal cities are on a gentle slope and buildings are destroyed/replaced naturally, most of them would just slowly creep inland as a normal part of the city's life-cycle."
I suspect what will happen is gradual strain on flood defenses and some failures and floods. People aren't going to abandon, let alone pull down, buildings until they are lost.
Complain about this comment
What intrigues me is the way no one seems to have given any thought to the mechanics of overcorrection. For instance, what happens if we manage to cut so much CO2 that a rapid cooling sets in.
To me it's an indicator of how tenuous the entire argument is. If the Earth's ecosphere was that fragile we would have wiped ourselves out years ago. If it is as easy to manipulate the climate as pundits would have us believe, surely the US would have adapted it as a weapon by now.
I believe in pollution reduction on a global scale but "CO2 the bogeyman" is designed to frighten the kids into becoming unthinking proles.
"The kindly government will keep us safe, do you want fries with that" is the extent of education required for the majority, but that's another topic.
Complain about this comment
manysummits:
Alone Looking at the Mountain: by Li Po
All the birds have flown up and gone;
A lonely cloud floats leisurely by.
We never tire of looking at each other -
Only the mountain and I.
Good luck and good choice.
Complain about this comment
Now given that I personally have not collected the data upon which the climate change theory is based, I will not venture further as to who’s right and who’s wrong.
However I do say this:
To recover from this recession this country needs to return to growth and satisfy the debt mountain. Government calls it sustainable growth, but plain old growth is what they want, sustainable is just a word.
For the economy to grow we have to make more things, transport more things and generally be more economically active.
Now I don’t care which lot you hang out with, the believers or the non believers.
Because growth in the economy means more CO2, and that’s an absolute fact.
If you want to reduce the CO2 emissions the economy has to stagnate or stay in recession.
As a consequence public spending has to drop. Pensions, benefits and the like have to fall, public and private sector workers have to lose their jobs.
Which in turn for some, means keeping a roof over their family’s head, and food on the table, is likely going to be difficult.
So I say stuff climate change, stuff your climate change tax, decide on which route we’re supposed to taking first.
Government wants small business to invest and grow, how do you do this without buying new equipment, heating more buildings, transporting more things, in plain talk using more energy?
Never in the field of the protecting the planet has so much rubbish been told to so many people by so few.
Complain about this comment
SamuelPickwick wrote:
# 132 I'm afraid this is rubbish. It makes no sense to 'correct' poor data by 'adjusting' it using better data from other sites....
Firstly, the data is not 'poor' in the sense you are talking about, the inhomogeneities adjusted for are to do with discontinuities in the data caused by events in the histories of the weatehr stations. One cannot simply discard 'poor' data since "...very few [weather] stations have a long homogeneous record as indicated by the station histories." (Karl and Williams, section 3b.). Therefore, in order to be able to use ANY of the data, ALL of it needs to undergo the same correction procedure (in the case of the North American datasets, typically 20 nearby stations are used to adjust each individual station (section 3b1 step 1) which "...almost always resulted in significant positive correlations of anomalies" which can then be adjusted for reliably)
"....Far from removing bias, this poorly explained, subjective adjustment process introduces bias - the bias of the scientists who are determined to find warming..."
Secondly, the adjustment process is very well explained - I haven't gone into details as this is a comment on a message board, not published literature. If you wish to see the details of the procedure then I suggest you read the paper (referenced in one of my earlier posts). You will see that it is an OBJECTIVE statistical technique and used in order that the data available can actually be used rather than simply thrown away - from the observation that that are hardly any sets that are free from historical anomalies means that we would have NO data at all if we were to take that approach... the scientific equivalent of throwing one's hands in the air and saying "It's too difficult - let's do nothing".
Your argument about introducing bias is simply false, when properly applied the technique removes any bias the individual might have in favour of the pure statistics. In this case, a particularly poor dataset can introduce data-related bias but the paper contains caveats about dealing with such an event (section 4b).
Therefore, please refer to the actual methodology when writing criticisms rather than just writing down your own prejudice.
Complain about this comment
#155 SamuelPickwick wrote:
Can you explain why the adjustments almost always increase warming?
My obvious answer would be: because the world is warming.
Complain about this comment
So there is a Scientific concensus on MMCC is there? they are convinced are they?
One or two paragraphs from a CIA document entitled "A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems", from 1974 now available for download.
"Because of the global cooling trend, the lower edge of the circumpolar vortex has in recent years stayed farther south during the summer, in the position shown by the smaller band near the equator. It has kept the high pressure zones farther south too, blocking the monsoons out of regions where they are vital to the survival of hundreds of millions of people."
"The deeper wave over the US., for example, is believed responsible for recent cold winters in the west and mild ones in the the east, The west has been subjected to north winds: the East the return flow. Although some evidence exists that the cooling trend has affected wind patterns in the Southern Hemisphere as well, weather statistics are scanty."
"Scientists are confident that unless man is able to effectively modify the climate, the northern regions, such as Canada, the European part of the Soviet Union, and major areas in northern China, will again be covered with 100 to 200 feet of ice and snow. That this will occur within the next 2,500 years they are quite positive; that it might occur sooner is open to speculation."
"Dr. Imbries's group has been able to establish that these Ice Ages are cyclic in nature and consist of approximately a 90,000-year glacial period followed by a relatively brief warming peak for 10,000 to 12,500 years, called the interglacial periods."
Dr. Imbrie was one of the authors of 'Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages' the Science paper verified the theories of Milutin Milanković that oscillations in climate over the past few million years could be correlated with Earth's orbital variations of eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession around the Sun.
What happened to the Ice Age, "confidently" predicted by the "Scientists" of the East Anglia CRU 35 years ago? where is the 200 feet of snow? Is the "Science" today as "Robust" as it was back in the "Darkness of perpetual winter" in 1974.
If I may paraphrase comedian Dave Allen from the same period of time "Goodnight and may your Climate God go with you"
Complain about this comment
Dave_oxon #132 wrote:
"a robust statistical technique"
What you are describing is an inductivist technique -- in short, get "sample" data first, assume they are perfectly representative of the entire class, then extrapolate. I don't doubt this is considered "robust" by statisticians, but it doesn't cut it in real science, because it doesn't really involve testing -- it isn't a matter of predicting an observable event and seeing whether or not it turns out to be true. No hypothesis "sticks its neck out" and survives (or doesn't survive).
The sort of statistical technique you are describing has worked reasonably well in predicting such things as election outcomes given smaller sample polls, but in psephology there has been slow careful improvement in techniques used for choosing samples so that they are genuinely representative. Over the years, some predicted election results turned out badly, others turned out better, and so on, as the result of repeated trial-and-error. In effect, different ways of choosing samples were tested.
As far as I can tell, nothing of that sort has been used in climate science. Climate scientists seem to ussume that induction is "the" way science arrives at -- and justifies -- its hypotheses/models, which is simply wrong. With chaotic computer models modelling choatic climatic phenomena, it is wrong to the power of ten.
Much of the confusion here arises because statisticians use the word 'confidence' (as in "confidence interval") as if they were talking about justification, or "how much a claim ought to be believed". But in fact the statistician's word merely expresses a complicated sort of relative frequency.
Complain about this comment
@ 155.
i;m with you. You NEVER adjust raw data. EVER. Any modifications, regardless of their reason/merit MUST be fully documentated and shown alongside the original, unmolested, unadjusted, unnormalised raw data.
Complain about this comment
#157 "Click on link below and scroll down to ‘Recent Monthly Mean CO2 at Mauna Loa, in Hawaii. New level is 388 ppm"
so they are measuring CO2 levels at the summit of an active volcano? seems a little odd.
Are we supposed to take this seriously? why don't they do the temperature readings there too, I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
Complain about this comment
Keith Bickley #150 sks:
"Can somebody knowledgeable explain to me the economics/justification for Wind Turbines?"
Well, I'm hardly knowledgable on this topic, but, er, the wind makes them go round, which turns a dynamo/generator thing, which makes an electrical current. You don't have to put fuel of any sort into them, so they make electricity for free, apart from the cost of building and maintaining them.
So basically, they're a good idea, although they're not very cheap to run -- so far. The UK gets over 5% of its power from the wind, the Irish Republic over 10% -- two great successes given the relative newness of the technology.
I'm a sceptic, but I'm all in favour of such technologies. I would add that what made wind turbines an economic possibility -- and will probably eventually make nuclear fusion an economic possibility -- is economic growth. So let's be very, very careful about doing anything that threatens economic growth -- and that includes moral/religious fervour about climate change, the principal threat to growth!
Complain about this comment
163. At 1:33pm on 08 Dec 2009, jonfrance
The earth has a natural balance of CO2 absorption and production that has now been significantly altered by human activity. If we remove our influence from it then the natural balance will still be there. We would have to start significantly 'removing' CO2 from the atmosphere to cause a large decrease in the greenhouse effect, that is not what is being proposed, merely reducing the amount we put into the atmosphere so the balance doesn't get pushed too far from the natural levels.
Complain about this comment
Dempster #141: "...perhaps you can add: 88. We want to go for growth in the economy and produce more CO2, because we need the revenue. 89. Then we want to tax the stuffing out of you for doing so. 90. Hope you don’t mind."
Concerning: submission of potential additions to list
Decision: Denied
You seem to have missed the point. The statements on the list are those made by anti-AGW (pseudo-sceptic) advocates.
The statements you submitted appear to be written as if they were made by the pro-AGW community.
Feel free to try again.
We all look forward to seeing an even longer list soon (don't we?).
/davblo
Complain about this comment
jonfrance #163: "If it is as easy to manipulate the climate as pundits would have us believe, surely the US would have adapted it as a weapon by now."
Concerning: submission (as per #163) for addition to list
Result: Accepted, with minor re-phrasing...
#88 If it's that easy to manipulate the climate the US would've used it as a weapon by now
/davblo
Complain about this comment
136. At 11:36am on 08 Dec 2009, Colin Walker wrote:
"Re:Those that think the world is cooling."
Are you referring to the UEA CRU professors who were discussing this?
i.e. "we can't explain the cooling and it's a travesty that we can't"
or are you just talking to the "uneducated" masses?
are you talking to contemporary exponents of "global cooling" or those who were "confident" of it in 1974 ?. (UEA CRU got in on that one too, 200 feet of snow, don't make me laugh).
sorry I have no links, I like to form my own opinion.
Complain about this comment
Re:171
The atmospheric conditions on Hawaii are very stable, hence it being the location of one of the largest astonomical observatories in the world. Even if the 'active' volcano was effecting the data it would be doing so in a measureable and correctable way, the effects would fluctuate with its activity and would therefore not show the consistant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that the data shows.
Complain about this comment
Re:172
Necessity breeds inovation.
Whether that necessity is War, economic pressure (both negative and possitive) or anything else doesn't change it. Without something making it 'necessary' nothing changes.
Yes we need to make sure we don't damage the global economy with environmental measures, but some form of economic pressure is needed to push companies into the renewable/clean energy market, be that research or energy provision or both is up to them. The biggest companies in the world are involved in the biggest CO2 emitting areas, surely we need to get them on side to make the changes. Whether through punishment or incentive is something for the politicians, as with punishment or incentives for people to make changes in their day to day life. One may work better than another in some areas but a combination of the two is probably the best option.
Complain about this comment
@ Paul - yes it does appear odd recording CO2 on the top of a volcano.
Global network: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/
Although people do still question local influences - they all seem to record similar trends. CO2 rising.
Complain about this comment
@davblo, #131
My first post, and straight in on your list at 81!
I'm not sure I deserve this honour, but thank you anyway.
Your list intrigued me. Have you got another one, showing the claims of real sceptics? If you have, how does it differ from your "pseudo sceptic" list? Or wouldn't you make any distinction at all between AGW "sceptics" and "pseudo sceptics". And if you don't, surely calling sceptics "pseudo sceptics" makes about as much sense as talking about "pseudo AGW believers".
Complain about this comment
Dave_oxon #166 goes straight to the heart of the matter here:
"You will see that it is an OBJECTIVE statistical technique and used in order that the data available can actually be used rather than simply thrown away - from the observation that that are hardly any sets that are free from historical anomalies means that we would have NO data at all if we were to take that approach... the scientific equivalent of throwing one's hands in the air and saying 'It's too difficult - let's do nothing'."
sensiblegrannie made a very good point yesterday using a very apt analogy. A computer can add pixels to a low-resolution image by interpolation -- in the case of Photoshop, it's called "bicubic re-sampling". In one trivial sense this represents an "increase in resolution" because you end up with more pixels, but in a more important sense it is no increase in resolution at all, because "no new information is added" to the original image. It does NOT result in its becoming a more accurate representation of whatever it is a repesentation OF. And that's what really matters.
It is, of course, a completely "objective" way of adding "noise", but so what? -- It's still mere noise. If it is not recognized as mere noise it will be a dangerous source of potential error.
The claim that no data are free from historical anomalies sounds to me like the claim that all data are theory-laden, and I agree with that. But we have to live with it, and the way to live with it is to admit that we have to test our theories, keeping them independent of the data that test them, rather than constructing our theories ad hoc so that they cannot but fit pre-existing data.
Complain about this comment
174. At 2:18pm on 08 Dec 2009, davblo wrote:
Concerning: submission of potential additions to list
Decision: Denied
My goodness, I've been denied, well done that man for so denying me.
Alright then, how about this.
The purpose of climate change is to increase the tax base to fund Government and related interests. They don’t give a stuff about Climate Change really, but they do have a very great interest in what’s in your wallet.
You can just imagine it can’t you.
The Treasury, Friday afternoon, waiting for flexi time to kick in, one bright spark says ‘there nothing surer than death and taxes’ ……….
another equal smart Alex pipes up ‘let’s tax ‘em on breathing’.
A third thinks, mm, not as daft as it sounds, we could call it CO2 emissions, and hence the whole climate change thing was born.
Complain about this comment
Hate to be the bearer of badnews, but climategate has gone main stream in the USA
CNN is even interviewing Steve McIntyre
ABC are questioning what credablity Obama would loss if he attends COP15
MSNBC Newsweek does pull the punches on the emails
CBS is calling it potential fraud
Mean while
Complain about this comment
#169 bowmanthebard wrote:
"What you are describing is an inductivist technique -- in short, get "sample" data first, assume they are perfectly representative of the entire class, then extrapolate. I don't doubt this is considered "robust" by statisticians, but it doesn't cut it in real science, because it doesn't really involve testing -- it isn't a matter of predicting an observable event and seeing whether or not it turns out to be true."
First I would like to thank you for entering into a genuine debate with very well reasoned arguments.
the problems you describe with the science of climate change as I see it are twofold(be advised here that I'm not a climate change scientist, just a scientist who has read some of the associated literature), i.e. that the techniques involved are inductivist rather than deductionist and that the resulting models are not tested.
On point 1, in climate science this appears to be a necessary starting point. In laboratory science one removes effects of all phenomena except the one about which a theory has been proposed (e.g. conditions being created inside the detectors in the LHC). This is not possible for climate science since the only laoboratory available is the whole planet. Therore, to describe one aspect of the climate, in this case mean temperature, the whole system has to be described. Now the system is so complex that the only way to describe it is to to make mathematical approximations for the processes involved (the hypothesis) and then to calibrate the model, the only method for which is to use observed data. In that sense it can be viewed as inductivist since there isn't another way to describe the system. This doesn't make the methodology invalid though!
Your next point is that the results aren't tested, well to do that requires more data to test the model against, data that can only be collected by waiting for the next years measurements, and the one after that etc etc. Now, since the warming trend that has been observed is small and on a long timescale compared to year-on-year variations, the only way to test the empirically calibrated model is to wait for a statistically significant length of time (100 years or so would do) and then see how observations compare with the model. A better test would be to run the experiment many times with different starting conditions and see if the hypothesis (or in this case, the empirical model) holds up. Again, it is unfortunate that we only have the one planet with which to conduct the experiment and this avenue is not available.
In conclusion, the approach to this incredibly complex filed is the the most scientifically valid available.
Complain about this comment
177. At 2:30pm on 08 Dec 2009, Colin Walker wrote:
Re:171
"The atmospheric conditions on Hawaii are very stable, hence it being the location of one of the largest astonomical observatories in the world. Even if the 'active' volcano was effecting the data it would be doing so in a measureable and correctable way."
Oh, correctable... right.
Call me an old traditionalist but, would it make more sense to put the measuring device away from a major natural source of CO2 so that the data didn't need correcting? huh. If that volcano ever erupts we will be looking at evidence indicating sea level rises of 30 to 40 miles, once again, are we supposed to take this seriously, because it is just laughable.
Complain about this comment
@ 179. i don't think anyone is debating the fact that co2 is rising. it's it's effect on the climate that is the contentious issue.
Complain about this comment
New blogg everybody I think Richard might need a tin hat and flax jacket to survive this one.
Complain about this comment
179. At 2:48pm on 08 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:
"@ Paul - yes it does appear odd recording CO2 on the top of a volcano...
...Although people do still question local influences - they all seem to record similar trends. CO2 rising."
Why put it on top of a volcano? thats just stupid, don't even ask me to consider accepting data that has to be skewed in order to glean any valid information. that's the whole crux of the CRU scandal.
adjusted data isn't valid data, it is altered, changed, adulterated, plain wrong, smoke and mirrors.
unacceptable, must try harder.
Complain about this comment
#155 SamuelPickwick wrote:
"Can you explain why the adjustments almost always increase warming?"
#167 Dave_oxon replied:
"My obvious answer would be: because the world is warming."
Wait a minute. Suppose someone asked: "Can you explain why, when I increase the image size in Photoshop, it always darkens the image?"
It's OK to say: "Most of the original pixels are dark, and the extra pixels are dark too, because they are made to agree with the original pixels. Given that so many of the original pixels were dark, it's a fair guess that the photograph was taken during the night."
But it's an outrage to say: "The photograph was taken during the night, so any pixels added should serve to enhance that impression. Darker pixels are added to darken it up."
The original question asks, in effect, why the added data aren't simply consistent with the real data, but why they "crank up" the desired impression.
These are the sort of techniques that give statistics in general and "climate science" in particular a bad name!
Complain about this comment
177. At 2:30pm on 08 Dec 2009, Colin Walker wrote:
Re:171
"The atmospheric conditions on Hawaii are very stable, hence it being the location of one of the largest astonomical observatories in the world"
I don't have a problem with them observing astronomical phenomena on top of a volcano, but I have to question the measurement of CO2 levels in such a location, you seem to accept that there would be some difference in CO2 levels due to the volcano but seem happy that the data can be adjusted, changed, altered, adulterated, fiddled with, messed about with, made to fit. Well, if that's good enough for you, great, but it ain't foolin me.
Complain about this comment
The Anti-Climate change people seem to be flitting between unscientific counter arguments and conspiricy theories.
If they were true sceptics they would be focusing on the bits of the science that are poorly understood or the bits of data that don't fit the trend etc. as some people have been doing.
Im a skeptic, but what I'm skeptical about is the efforts being made by goverments and companies to change.
Are they really making changes or are they just making it look like they are making changes?
Are they actually going to put more into alternative energy sources or are they just going to use carbon trading schemes to protect their profits for the next decade or so?
I think that is a much more important debate to be having and will be more important over the next few decades.
Those sceptical about the links between CO2 and temperature rise, or the links between CO2 and human activity are wrong. Sorry but thats how it is.
Even if you are right, goverment advisers and the vast majority of respected scientists worldwide do believe that man made climate change is happening so your arguments are thankfully falling on deaf ears.
Complain about this comment
#181 bowmanthebard wrote:
"sensiblegrannie made a very good point yesterday using a very apt analogy. A computer can add pixels to a low-resolution image by interpolation -- in the case of Photoshop, it's called "bicubic re-sampling". In one trivial sense this represents an "increase in resolution" because you end up with more pixels, but in a more important sense it is no increase in resolution at all, because "no new information is added" to the original image."
A more appropriate analogy for the adjustments done to the weather station data would be, for example measuring the rate of growth of a tree by looking at the height of the tree each year. If, after 40 years say, someone comes along with a chainsaw a lops 10 feet off the top, one would conclude that trees can actually sometimes shrink year-on-year (at a huge rate!) but if this anomaly is corrected for, the rate of growth would be seen to be roughly constant with statistical variations.
Furthermore, by hypothesising that trees do not grow in this way then one can conclude from the data that an historical event has occurred that is not attributable to the phenomenon we are observing and can legitimately be corrected for.
Thus no data is created, noise is not added. One must of course estimate the new level of uncertainty in the data introduced by the correction but this will be far less (assuming the correction has been done properly) than the huge systematic error in the raw data.
Complain about this comment
jump ship chaps (and chapettes-) new blog open
Complain about this comment
188. At 3:27pm on 08 Dec 2009, Paul wrote:
179. At 2:48pm on 08 Dec 2009, ScudLewis wrote:
"@ Paul - yes it does appear odd recording CO2 on the top of a volcano...
I don't know why they didn't stick 'em on a Texaco filling station forecourt, think of all the energy wasted going up a volcano.
Complain about this comment
#188 Paul wrote:
"Don't even ask me to consider accepting data that has to be skewed in order to glean any valid information. that's the whole crux of the CRU scandal.
adjusted data isn't valid data, it is altered, changed, adulterated, plain wrong, smoke and mirrors.
unacceptable, must try harder."
ALL physical data contains errors that must be corrected for, even in day-to-day life. the speedometer on your car is accurtae to within 5% therefore the law states that you cannot be prosecuted for doing 31.5mph in a 30mph zone (unfortunately, you do not know if your speedo is measuring high or low, so best make sure it stays on 30!). If you wanted to know the actual speed your car travelled at and the measurement error on your speedo you would have to take time/distance averages. Then you would need to correct the reading from your speedometer to get the actual speed. This is just another example of a statistically based data-processing technique.
Or we could ignore that argument and start issuing tickets to people doing 29mph on the grounds their speedo could be reading 31.5.
Complain about this comment
Re #189 (referring to #167): My apologies... that was a flippant comment but I stand my previous comment (#166)
Complain about this comment
Re:185
This isn't intended as a put down, but you show a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.
Do you really think that scientists who spend their whole life working in the area have never made the logical conclusion you have just made. Do you really think they would have continued if they thought it would effect the results?
If you truely think that they your problem is a lack of trust in science not in the science behind climate change.
Incidentally the data does not have to be altered to take account of the 'active' volcano and the values recorded corroberate with those shown in other areas. If your looking for how CO2 levels in the atmosphere have changed then the location is irrelevant as long as you compare the data with data taken from the same point in the past, data has been recorded at Mauna Loa for decades and shows a clear and consistant increase.
On the point of data manipulation, take a look at fourier transformation techniques that allow images to be enhanced. There was a case where this process was used in court to provide evidence that a man had traveled across the severn bridge, the CCTV image of his car was improved allowing the car number plate to bee read. There is sometimes alot of extra information available through data 'manipulation', most of the time it is just about gaining a clearer picture by removing 'noise' from the data set. It is not unscientific nor involves schewing the data one way or another.
Complain about this comment
Paul at #168.
Why bring up something from 1974 that was never given any credence then anyway. CIA document indeed!
Here’s what wikipedia says (and notice what The Times said on 22 June 1976 - i.e. ‘World's temperature likely to rise’)
‘Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. General scientific opinion is that the Earth has not durably cooled, but undergone global warming throughout the 20th century.[1]’
Notice that second sentence:-
‘This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understanding of ice age cycles, and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.
The article goes on:-
‘In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend. (The actual increase in this period was 29%.)[3] Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.[6]
Complain about this comment
195. At 4:07pm on 08 Dec 2009, Dave_oxon wrote:
ALL physical data contains errors that must be corrected for.
How does one know that the data collected contains errors?
If the instruments used are accurate, then why should there be errors?
And more particularly if the instrument used gives an error reading, how does one know the scale of the error? or whether it be a + or -?
The more I listen to this, the more sceptical I become.
Complain about this comment
Paul says at #171:-
‘so they are measuring CO2 levels at the summit of an active volcano? seems a little odd.
Are we supposed to take this seriously? why don't they do the temperature readings there too, I mean, what could possibly go wrong?’
You’re new on here. Your tone is, I must admit, akin to Homer Simpson.
Since 1957 MLO has been continuously monitoring and collecting data relating to atmospheric change, and is known especially for their continuous monitoring of atmospheric CO2 levels. Mauna Loa was originally chosen as a CO2 monitoring site because being isolated in the middle of the Pacific, the air is exceptionally pure. Being high, it is above the inversion layer.
No scientists dispute the quality of the data. If you can find some please post a link.
In the mean time you should have scrolled way down further to get the ‘global’ values from worldwide monitoring. See:-
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Complain about this comment
Re:199
Then you are skeptical about the whole of science, therfore showing a complete lack of knowledge or inclination to gain knowledge of the subject.
Follow your argument to its logical conclusion.
AGW is incorrect as it is based on evidence/data taken with detectors/equipment which contains errors.
No scientific theory is correct as they are all based on data which contains errors and therefore are incorrect.
Therefore all cars, PCs, lights and all other technological advances of the modern age don't work and will disapear in a puff of logic.
Complain about this comment
A world population of 6.5 Billion rising to 9 Billion. Am I being dence? Isn't the underlying, real problem OVER POPULATION? Humanity has reached infestation proportions. I can't believe that this simple fact is not being debated. Condoms would have more effect than wind turbines!
Complain about this comment
Paul @188 wrote:
"adjusted data isn't valid data, it is altered, changed, adulterated, plain wrong, smoke and mirrors.
unacceptable, must try harder. "
Climate data have to checked and sometimes adjusted to be usable. An example from the real world. Wind is measured at 10 m height. A Scottish station had clear views all around when installed 40 years ago. After 20 years a group of pines had self-seeded to the southwest about 30 m away and were 5 m high. The trees are now 10 m high. Winds from the southwest have been decreasing in speed for about 25 years, but not at surrounding stations. Obviously, the trees are shielding the southwest wind. It is easy to estimate the correction to apply to make the windspeeds consistent with surrounding stations and with models of the area without the trees. You would not do this, making the data worthless. Even worse, you might think the data are usable as they are and conclude that southwest windspeeds have really been falling. Why not admit you know nothing about statistics or climatology, and even less about collecting reliable meteorological data? BTW "data" is plural, so "data are ..." not "data is ...".
Complain about this comment
#198. At 4:32pm on 08 Dec 2009, soveryodd
And also let us remember that history is written by the victor - I wonder what will be said and popular in 20 years hence.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#230 Tom Holt write:
Climate data have to checked and sometimes adjusted to be usable. An example from the real world. Wind is measured at 10 m height. A Scottish station had clear views all around when installed 40 years ago. After 20 years a group of pines had self-seeded to the southwest about 30 m away and were 5 m high. The trees are now 10 m high. Winds from the southwest have been decreasing in speed for about 25 years, but not at surrounding stations. Obviously, the trees are shielding the southwest wind. It is easy to estimate the correction to apply to make the windspeeds consistent with surrounding stations and with models of the area without the trees. You would not do this, making the data worthless. Even worse, you might think the data are usable as they are and conclude that southwest windspeeds have really been falling. Why not admit you know nothing about statistics or climatology, and even less about collecting reliable meteorological data? BTW "data" is plural, so "data are ..." not "data is ...".
-------------------end of Tom Holt wrote------------------------------
First, I think you should re-read your post before giving lectures on grammar. "data set" is implied when used in the plural form, so it is quite acceptable to say "the data is inconsistent between the two observed regions...", as is "the data sets from the two regions studied are inconsistent with previous conclusions".
But more to the point, data corrections are usually applied algorithmically - that is to say, outliers are identified programmatically. So, we don't have don't have a lot of researchers going out into the field and looking at the site and saying, gee there wasn't a stand of trees over there 20 years ago, I should apply a correction of X based upon hmmm? In my experience building weather related databases and cleaning them up - to correct missing values and outliers, I would use an algorithm which basically used an extrapolated, weighted value derived from surrounding stations. Comparison of my corrected database (be it temperature, precipitation, humidity, whatever) with the original raw data provides an indicator of 'how good' my corrected data is based upon the quality of my raw data - and how extensive the corrections were, which needed to be applied. In other words, it tells a great deal about the quality of the data I started with, along with the assumptions which I used to correct the data.
I would tend to view both of these factors as important in determining the validity of the results and conclusions obtained from analysis of the data.
Would you care to disagree?
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
@Dave_oxon
RE:interpolation does not add data
ARE YOU INSANE??? Interpolation DOES add data. There are now many times more pixels...most of which are not real. The ONLY reason to use interpolation is to make it LOOK NICER. A scientist that grooms his data to make it look better...is no scientist. Yes, there ARE sometimes valid reasons to manipulate the data (intermediate only, of course...the original data MUST be kept since it is the ONLY data that cannot be re-synthesized)...but every so often you need to stop and make sure your "corrections" are still valid, and possibly check to see if they were EVER valid.
This is of course the reason the "climategate" incident is so very, ver suspicious. Obfuscation, destroying original data, failing to make data available but DEMANDING peer review and similar activities are the scientific equivalent of heresy.
Complain about this comment
#199, Dempster:
I can say with absolute certainty that all physical measurements contain uncertainty... it may be at a level of 1 part in a billion or less but it will always be there. There is a fundemental limit to this and is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Please research this and then you will have an appreciation of doing real world experimental science.
#206, poitsplace:
If you actually read my post you will find that I was not talking about interpolation (which of course adds data points, but not new information) but a baseline correction which is a more appropriate analogy for the data adjustment method we are discussing here... thus your point is invalid.
Additionally, data interpolation has legitimate uses, such as moving datasets onto common time or spatial bases for direct comparison in which case the interpolation method must be scrutinised very carefully and any additional errors introduced accounted for.
Complain about this comment
#201. At 5:30pm on 08 Dec 2009, Colin Walker wrote:
Re:199
Then you are skeptical about the whole of science, therfore showing a complete lack of knowledge or inclination to gain knowledge of the subject.
Follow your argument to its logical conclusion.
AGW is incorrect as it is based on evidence/data taken with detectors/equipment which contains errors.
No scientific theory is correct as they are all based on data which contains errors and therefore are incorrect.
Therefore all cars, PCs, lights and all other technological advances of the modern age don't work and will disapear in a puff of logic.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sir, your logic is quite flawed.
Firstly, The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle does apply - that is it is impossible to measure a thing - without affecting that thing. Secondly, all instrumentation produces errors in taking measurements. That is not to say that the data is so inaccurate as to be unusable; however, pretty much all hard science today is based upon approximations - rather than exact measurements. For goodness sake, just the conversion of an analog reading to a digital representation produces errors - very small, but still present.
Science also proves nothing - it only disproves. Those theories which are currently accepted are those which are considered to be sound, and which have yet to be disproven. Consider Newton's Laws - so completely and widely accepted theories on gravity and motion that the term "Laws" were ascribed to them - yet Newton's theories were proven wrong by Einstein, with Special Relativity. Newton's Laws are even taught today - as they are useful for many applications - but that does not mean they are correct - they have in fact been disproven. I have no doubts that at some point, Einstein's theories on relativity shall be proven wrong - when the next great theory comes along. Even today, scientists realize that relativity is at odds and cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics - hence the search for the 'holy grail' of physics - the Unified Theory.
With regards to Climate Science, I am certainly skeptical of the current theories - for a number of reasons. Foremost, the models and theories are far to simplistic. Secondly, our view of historical climate is very limited - that is, we really have very little 'good' data to look at. One thing we have learned in the last ten years is that tree rings make horrible temperature proxies. Tree rings only tell us whether the total weather conditions were favorable (or unfavorable) for growth of any given particular species of tree used as a proxy. That is to say that looking at tree rings only tells us that in a given year, the total weather conditions were favorable or unfavorable for growth - these factors include temperature, precipitation and a number of other factors.
Let us also consider the Vostok Ice cores - widely accepted to be the 'best' proxies currently available. Even these proxies (as with all proxies) should be taken with a 'grain of salt'. Natural processes, such as wind-blown snow, melting and re-freezing, sublimation and leakage of gases contained within the cores all introduce errors. We really have no way of knowing what errors are associated with any given section of the ice cores. I do believe that, right now, these proxies are the best available.
Interestingly enough, those proxies show that CO2 lags temperature by about 600-800 years...and each time CO2 reached a maximum, rather than run-away warming, we find the onset of each of the last ice ages. These to observations alone, give one pause to re-think current theories, particularly with regards to CO2 forcing and 'tipping points'.
Given the current state of the science and our limited understanding of the drivers, processes and mechanisms associated with Earth's Climate system, I am very disappointed by many of the 'definative' statements made regarding climate change. There is simply too much we don't know nor understand with regards to earth's climate system.
Al Gore (of all people - a politician - no less) stated definatively, with no doubts that global warming is all man made and 43% of that warming is due solely to man made emissions of CO2 - and 27% due to man made emissions of methane. Garbage. These types of statements are unrealistic given the current state of the 'science'.
I shall iterate once again - I know broken record - but what the 'science of climate changed' needs more than anything else at this point is complete transparency - as is required by all the other 'hard' scientific disciplines.
Cheers.
Kealey
Complain about this comment
#184 Dave_oxon wrote:
"In laboratory science one removes effects of all phenomena except the one about which a theory has been proposed (e.g. conditions being created inside the detectors in the LHC)."
That can't be done anywhere in the real world, even in laboratories, because no experimental situation can be guaranteed free of "other factors". (Which helps explain why the LHC broke down!) Whenever one observes anything, there is always the possibility that some unanticipated factor is messing things up.
"This is not possible for climate science since the only laoboratory available is the whole planet. Therore, to describe one aspect of the climate, in this case mean temperature, the whole system has to be described."
But again, that's the way it is with everything we observe or measure. For example, to measure the size of a planet, we have to make a reasonably good guess about its distance. To check our guess about its distance, we have to assume something like Newton's laws, and that our clocks are reasonably accurate, and so on.
"Now the system is so complex that the only way to describe it is to to make mathematical approximations for the processes involved (the hypothesis) and then to calibrate the model, the only method for which is to use observed data.
"In that sense it can be viewed as inductivist since there isn't another way to describe the system. This doesn't make the methodology invalid though!"
First, approximation is unavoidable in all sciences, with all subject matters. Second, in all sciences, the accepted way of finding out whether or not we are really "on to something" is not to attempt to "describe the whole system", but to make a prediction, and see if the prediction turns out to be true. If that cannot be done in climate science, then climate science must be much less good than other sciences at making predictions, which is the sceptic's main point. In other words, what you've just said seems to admit that scepticism is appropriate in respect of climate science.
"Your next point is that the results aren't tested, well to do that requires more data to test the model against, data that can only be collected by waiting for the next years measurements, and the one after that etc etc. Now, since the warming trend that has been observed is small and on a long timescale compared to year-on-year variations, the only way to test the empirically calibrated model is to wait for a statistically significant length of time (100 years or so would do) and then see how observations compare with the model."
In that case, it seems to me that any public policy decisions guided by climate science should be modest and cautious. The "believer" may tell us: "but not acting will be a disaster"! The sceptic can reply: "but we can be even more confident that acting will be a disaster too, because it will stifle the economic growth that is so important for well-being and indeed for life itself in developing countries."
Economic growth isn't just necessary for "well-being". It is largely responsible for the amazing -- nay miraculous, incredible -- advances in science and technology that humans have witnessed during the past two hundred years. Even such technologies as the environmentalist movement pins its hopes on "rescuing" us from climate catastrophe such as wind/wave/nuclear power were fuelled by economic growth. So we have no idea what the next hundred years will bring in technology, but we should bear it in mind that it would almost certainly boggle our (present-day) minds.
Whenever we act, we have to take account of the desirability of the anticipated consequences of action, and the likelihood of those anticipated consequences being realized. (Ideally, if it were possible to attach numerical measures to "desirability" and "likelihood", the "expected value" of each course of action would be the product of the two.) Given that we know so little, and that climate science's predictive powers are so weak, I suggest we act with great caution, if at all.
"A better test would be to run the experiment many times with different starting conditions and see if the hypothesis (or in this case, the empirical model) holds up. Again, it is unfortunate that we only have the one planet with which to conduct the experiment and this avenue is not available."
This is like saying that going to the Moon can only be tried once, by actually trying to get to the Moon. But of course the real Apollo project was tested many times, in more and less modest ways, and although there were some failures there were many successes. Predicting the climate may be slightly different from predicting the weather, but there is no reason why modest five-year and ten-year predictions cannot be made to test its more ambitious longer-term predictions. Inasmuch as predictions have been made, they have been a failure.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that these shorter-term predictions have been wrong, because the basic methodology of inductivism is fundamentally flawed. Science isn't extrapolation -- still less extrapolation based on interpolation.
"In conclusion, the approach to this incredibly complex filed is the the most scientifically valid available."
If it is so complicated, and it resists testing because it "doesn't do predictions", then the appropriate attitude is one of scepticism and caution -- especially towards its attempts at making predictions!
Complain about this comment
132. At 11:07am on 08 Dec 2009, Dave_oxon wrote:
#127 wrote:If you understand why "the adjustment method is valid", please explain why using your own words.
Without going into a vast discourse on the subject, this paper essentially recognises that data from one measurement source can be subject to systematic errors. By comparing the data of connected measurement sources (in this case, nearby weather stations) the systematic errors of each can be removed such that the errors of the whole dataset (i.e. from all the weather stations) "constitute a series of random numbers that satisfies the law of errors" (Conrad and Pollock, 1950), i.e. that as much bias has been removed from the data as possible and the fluctuations left are genuine measurement error. My reason for accepting this treatment is that it demonstrates a logical application of a robust statistical technique.
to #125: Your statement that data is either used or not is incorrect. Data, from ANY measurement source, is subject to error. When data is treated scientifically is essentially to determine the probability that a measurement is correct (one way to increase this probability, for example, is to repeat the measurment many times, the differences in the measurments indicating the magnitude of the error). Using statistics and associated techniques increses the probability that one has the correct measurment from which we can draw conclusions... this is what the adjustment method attempts to do for climate data.
Now, in the case mentioned in this blog, a particularly difficult case has been highlighted in Australia due to the scarcity of measurment stations. Still, the method has been applied, as far as I can tell, as set out in the literature, in an attempt to actually show what is going on in that continent. The final line of the blog in question then goes on to assert the principle “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) which, I'm afraid, is as scientifically invalid as Occam's razor (the simplest explanation must be true) which also frequently turns up on discussion boards of this type. The relatively large errors that must be associated with this dataset DO NOT APPLY to any other dataset from which the conclusion of global warming has been drawn.
In summary, highlighting the problems involved with attempting corrections on one dataset says NOTHING about the vast quantity of other datasets available which, interestingly, all end up with similar conclusions.
125. At 10:00am on 08 Dec 2009, Dave_oxon wrote:
Re: The smoking gun at Darwin zero (#112, #120)
If you follow up the links in this article back to the original paper describing the method of adjustment (Karl and Williams, J. Clim. Appl. Meteor, 26 (1987) pp 1744) you will find that the adjustment method is actually valid rather than the comments of the author of the Smoking Gun blog who exclaims, with a great deal of scientific authority I expect, "Double Yikes! Look at that"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to both #125 and #127
Dave,
Given the choice between statistics and reality I'd choose reality every time.
I'm not sure how you can say that the adjustment is valid in Darwin's case. I believe common sense should prevail. Where the raw data records overlapped their information was almost identical. There would seem to be no valid reason to adjust the records up as they did. (Do you really think it's sensible to compensate for missing station data by including data that may be from stations hundreds of kilometres away?)
I'd agree with the author " What on earth justifies that adjustment? How can they do that? We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on. They all agree almost exactly. Why adjust them at all? They’ve just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data! Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right … but a six degree per century trend?"
Nor were you fair to cherry-pick the phrase “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) and how can you claim "The relatively large errors that must be associated with this dataset DO NOT APPLY to any other dataset from which the conclusion of global warming has been drawn".
The phrase was taken out of context - what the author actually said (and I am inclined to agree with him) was "What this does show is that there is at least one temperature station where the trend has been artificially increased to give a false warming where the raw data shows cooling. In addition, the average raw data for Northern Australia is quite different from the adjusted, so there must be a number of … mmm … let me say “interesting” adjustments in Northern Australia other than just Darwin.
And with the Latin saying “Falsus in unum, falsus in omis” (false in one, false in all) as our guide, until all of the station “adjustments” are examined, adjustments of CRU, GHCN, and GISS alike, we can’t trust anyone using homogenized numbers."
And how can you claim with such certainty that the errors "DO NOT APPLY to any other dataset from which the conclusion of global warming has been drawn" ?
You may find the following articles interesting
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/ghcn-california-on-the-beach-who-needs-snow/
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/ghcn-mexico-a-megathermal-vacation-band/
Complain about this comment
@ 111. At 08:41am on 08 Dec 2009, bowmanthebard wrote:
I find it really frustrating, bowman, because you sound like you might actually be competent, but you continually get things mixed up. It really seems like "you think for yourself" because you don't understand what other people think, so discard it. This is a mistake.
"since the word of the authorities matters so much to you, for what its worth I don't think there is a "consensus" among physicists, biologists, geologists and other mainstream scientists."
And I didn't claim there was. But actually, I suspect there is, because these intelligent people are smart enough to know that they are not experts in climate, so they will tend to accept the experts peer-reviewed publications. At least as much as they will accept anything.
"If tries it in reverse by starting off with "data" and then constructing a model to fit the "data", the model will be ad hoc, and hence have no real predictive power."
Funny that, because I work in a life sciences research university, and that's exactly what they do. Look at the data. Propose a model that fits the data. Gather more data, and compare with what your model predicts. If it doesn't match, try a new model. When it fits, extend you model into the future. Quite simple really. Of course you have to keep checking your model against real-world data -- so to those skeptics who have suggested binning the whole climate research area now that "the science is settled"... no, that's not how it works.
In fact, I think the scientific method (have you heard of it?) works fundamentally the same way. 1. Ponder a question 2. Observe (collect data) 3. Hypothesize (create a predictive model) 4. Experiment (test your model) 5. Analyze the results 6. Conclude (was your model correct?) 7. Re-test (try again), and 8. publish.
I know I'm being long-winded, but it might be instructive for some people to lean a little about how science works. I left out the details about controls...
I'm not interested in discussion so-called "faked data". Some excellent posters (e.g. Dave_oxon) have been explaining how the science really works....
You quoted me: "such as 'more CO2 mean more biomass which is good'?"
"Which bit of "more CO2 means more biomass" involves a lack of understanding?"
Do you really not see that you are cherry-picking my words? Perhaps you are skimming too quickly! The problem lies with "which is good". I have no trouble (as I have previously stated) with "CO2 encourages plant growth/increase biomass". But the assertion that this is a GOOD thing is a giant leap towards a conclusion which you simply cannot support.
I had said: "And when you don't know how something works, the only safe thing to do is NOT MESS WITH IT."
"This applies to the economies of the developing world as much as to the climate."
Wow. My claim that we do not understand the Earth's ecosystem is being compared to our lack of understanding of the economy. Orders of magnitude different (you do understand what an order of magnitude is, right?)
"I think we have stronger reasons to think that putting economic development into reverse"
Reverse?! Massive overstatement.
"It sounds crazy to me to try to manipulate the climate, because we understand it even less than we understand economics!"
So you actually agree with me -- the economy is easier for us to understand and control than the Earth's climate. I'm glad you think it's crazy to try to manipulate the climate, as that suggests you agree that we shouldn't be doing it.
"The question is whether we should artificially put things into reverse on the basis of the so-called "science" (which looks to me like hopeless, quasi-religious pseudoscience)."
That might be your question, but don't put words in my mouth. That naughty "reverse" word again.
"Please note that I'm against pollution, and note that as a rule, the more developed an economy becomes, the more it limits its own pollution."
Crazy talk. Developed countries pollute far more per capita than developing countries; that's just a fact. Look it up.
"I'm all for limiting pollution in all sorts of ways. Just not the way that is very likely to kill a million people in the developing world."
A hyperbolic claim like "reducing CO2 emissions by investing in or subsidizing green technologies will send our economy into a tailspin and kill a million people" is OK, but a hyperbolic claim like "unchecked climate change will kill a million people" is crazy talk? Seriously, you need to get some perspective.
@ 202. At 7:46pm on 08 Dec 2009, Caumhin wrote:
"Isn't the underlying, real problem OVER POPULATION? [...] Condoms would have more effect than wind turbines!"
You're absolutely right. Tell it to the pope.
Complain about this comment
draker #211 wrote:
"Funny that, because I work in a life sciences research university, and that's exactly what they do. Look at the data. Propose a model that fits the data."
In that case you're probably doing something less important or genuinely "scientific" than you'd like to imagine, but why don't you illustrate it with an example so we can discuss it?
When people preface their remarks with a "I'm an X, and..." it's an appeal to authority, and that's fallacious in my book.
Complain about this comment
Re #211. At 05:41am on 10 Dec 2009, draker
The problem is, Draker, when they discovered their proxy records didn't agree with the temperature records they had already manipulated they didn't discard their model they TRUNCATED it and added on the temperature records ("hide the decline").
Complain about this comment
Further to 210 - More results in from Australia
MORE 'SMOKING GUNS' IN AUSTRALIA
Complain about this comment
A lot of time is wasted debating if climate change is caused by human activity. To my mind this is irrelevant. The fact that the climate is changing and that temperatures are rising is clear - what is not clear is what will happen in the future. No one knows if this is just a blip or not but so what? There is plenty of historical evidence of extreme climate change - if we cannot manage the environment then we are always at risk. The question or debate should be focused on how, as a race, we can manage the environment. If human activity has caused climate change then that can be seen as a good thing because it means we do have the power to influence it. If human activity has not caused climate change then we need to learn how we can influence it as soon as possible. Either way the question is it natural or is it man made must be secondary to the question of how we put in place whatever is necessary to manage the climate on a global scale.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
how strange that the current post by Richard is closed for comments and half the comments have been referred for whatever reason and yet this post from Dec 09 is still open and comments such as #216, which is clearly breaking the rules, remains
/Mango
Complain about this comment
ok, here's the conspiracy theory:
latest thread has many comments referred and then closes because somebody mentioned global cooling / ice age:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2010/09/something_new_and_not_altogeth.html#comments
Then the Bilderberg meeting slips up and mentions global cooling in it's agenda:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055500/global-cooling-and-the-new-world-order/
The 58th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Sitges, Spain 3 – 6 June 2010. The Conference will deal mainly with Financial Reform, Security, Cyber Technology, Energy, Pakistan, Afghanistan, World Food Problem, Global Cooling, Social Networking, Medical Science, EU-US relations.
The powers that be know they have to shut down all discussion of global cooling if they are to continue to get away with the CAGW myth
OK that's my Mel Gibson moment over - as you were, gentlemen
/Mango
Complain about this comment
Hi Mango
"current post by Richard is closed for comments"
Not just Richard Black's thread. Looks like a simple cost saving measure introduced this summer.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/stephanie_flanders/
Complain about this comment
Hi Mango
Please, not the b**** Bilderbergers again.
It's harder to tackle real issues with the lack of transparency and accountability at Bilderberg conferences with all the conspiracy c*** surrounding them. Or are you taking the michael out of our resident tin foil hatter, whose preferred conspiracy is HAARP in Alaska.
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/index.php
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
Delingpole missed two other possibilities.
An agenda drafted by an AGW sceptic.
An agenda drafted by someone wanting to talk about using geoengineering to cool the planet.
http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/meeting_2010.html
I remind you that most grass roots warmists and plenty of the well known warmists are deeply suspicious of geoengineering.
Complain about this comment
@Mango
Update on that Delingpole article.
Check out the comment at 3:45pm today (27 Sep) by Robert Llewellyn, and Delingpole's reply to it at 4:19pm and reaction to it at 4:21pm.
He's a wag, isn't he, that Delingpole. Telling that Kryten where to go.
Complain about this comment
it was meant tongue in cheek, Jane
i think it was a bad show of delingpole to respond to llewellyn and then remove his post - disagre fine, but remove the post isn't on. Who does Delingpole think he is, RC?
/Mango
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS