by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
Michael Steketee, writing in The Australian in January 2011, echoed the BBC (whose journalists’ pension fund is heavily weighted towards “green” “investments”) and other climate-extremist vested interests in claiming that 2010 was the warmest year on record worldwide. Mr. Steketee’s short article makes two dozen questionable assertions, which either require heavy qualification or are downright false. His assertions will be printed in bold face: the truth will appear in Roman face.
1. BASED ON PRELIMINARY DATA TO NOVEMBER 30, SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES AROUND AUSTRALIA WERE THE WARMEST ON RECORD LAST YEAR, AS WERE THOSE FOR THE PAST DECADE.
The record only began ten decades ago. As for sea temperatures, they are less significant for analyzing “global warming” than estimated total ocean heat content. A recent paper by Professors David Douglass and Robert Knox of Rochester University, New York, has established that – contrary to various climate-extremist assertions – there has been no net accumulation of “missing energy” in the form of heat in the oceans worldwide in the six years since ocean heat content was first reliably measured by the 3000 automated ARGO bathythermographs in 2003. This finding implies that the amount of warming we can expect from even quite a large increase in CO2 concentration is far less than the IPCC and other climate-extremist groups maintain.
2. THE WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ORGANISATION SAYS THE YEAR TO THE END OF OCTOBER WAS THE WARMEST SINCE INSTRUMENTAL CLIMATE RECORDS STARTED IN 1850 – 0.55 C° ABOVE THE 1961-90 AVERAGE OF 14 C°.
It is easy to cherry-pick periods of less than a calendar year and say they establish a new record. The cherry-picking of the first nine months of 2010 is particularly unacceptable, since that period was dominated by a substantial El Niño Southern Oscillation, a sudden alteration in the pattern of ocean currents worldwide that leads to warmer weather for several months all round the world. The last few months of the year, carefully excluded from Mr. Steketee’s statement, showed the beginnings of a La Niña event, which tends largely to reverse the effect of its preceding El Niño and make the world cooler. Indeed, the calendar year from January to December 2010, according to the reliable RSS and UAH satellite records, was not the warmest on record. Besides, what is important is how fast the world is warming. In fact, the rate of warming from 1975-2001, at 0.16 C° per decade, was the fastest rate to be sustained for more than a decade in the 160-year record, but exactly the same rate occurred from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, when we could not possibly have had anything to do with it. Since late 2001 there has been virtually no “global warming” at all.
3. THE LAST DECADE ALSO WAS THE WARMEST ON RECORD.
After 300 years of global warming, during nearly all of which we could not on any view have influenced the climate to a measurable degree, it is scarcely surprising that recent decades will be warmer than earlier decades. That is what one would expect. If one has been climbing up a steep hill for a long time, one should not be surprised to find oneself higher up at the end of the climb than at the beginning.
4. THE WORLD IS NOT COOLER COMPARED TO 1998.
Actually, it is cooler. There was a remarkable spike in global temperatures in 1998, caused not by manmade “global warming” but by a Great El Niño event – an alteration in the pattern of ocean currents that begins in the equatorial eastern Pacific and spreads around the globe, lasting a few months. In the first nine months of 2010 there was another substantial El Niño, but even at its peak it did not match the Great El Niño of 1998.
5. THE TRENDS HAPPEN TO FOLLOW CLOSELY THE PREDICTIONS OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS OF TEMPERATURE RISES RESULTING FROM INCREASED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
In the 40 years since 1970, global temperatures have risen at a linear rate equivalent to around 1.3 C°/century. CO2 concentration is rising in a straight line at just 2 ppmv/year at present and, even if it were to accelerate to an exponential rate of increase, the corresponding temperature increase would be expected to rise merely in a straight line. On any view, 1.3 C° of further “global warming” this century would be harmless. The IPCC is predicting 3.4 C°, but since the turn of the millennium on 1 January 2001 global temperature has risen (taking the average of the two satellite datasets) at a rate equivalent to just 0.6 C°/century, rather less than the warming rate of the entire 20th century. In these numbers, there is nothing whatever to worry about – except the tendency of some journalists to conceal them.
6. MOST SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT DOUBLING THE CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO WARMING OF 2-3 C°.
It is doubtful whether Mr. Steketee had consulted “most scientists”. Most scientists, not being climate scientists, rightly take no view on the climate debate. Most climate scientists have not studied the question of how much warming a given increase in CO2 concentration will cause: therefore, whatever opinion they may have is not much more valuable than that of a layman. Most of the few dozen scientists worldwide whom Prof. Richard Lindzen of MIT estimates have actually studied climate sensitivity to the point of publication in a learned journal have reached their results not by measurement and observation but by mere modeling. The models predict warming in the range mentioned by Mr. Steketee, but at numerous crucial points the models are known to reflect the climate inaccurately. In particular, the models predict that if and only if Man is the cause of warming, the tropical upper air, six miles above the ground, should warm up to thrice as fast as the surface, but this tropical upper-troposphere “hot-spot” has not been observed in 50 years of measurement by balloon-mounted radiosondes, sondes dropped from high-flying aircraft,
or satellites. Also, the models predict that every Celsius degree of warming should increase evaporation from the Earth’s surface by 1-3%, but the observed increase is more like 6%. From this it is simple to calculate that the IPCC has overestimated fourfold the amount of warming we can expect from adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Take away that prodigious exaggeration, demonstrated repeatedly in scientific papers but never reported by the likes of Mr. Steketee, and the climate “crisis” vanishes.
7. WARMING OF 2-3 C° RISKS SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC DAMAGE.
Actually, the IPCC’s current thinking is that up to 2° of warming compared with the present would be harmless and even beneficial. Since far greater temperatures than this have been the rule on Earth for most of the past 600 million years, there is no sound scientific basis for the assumption that “significant environmental and economic damage” would result from so small an additional warming. However, significant economic damage is already resulting from the costly but pointlessly Canute-like attempts governments to try to make “global warming” go away.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS ROSE BY 27.5% FROM 1990-2009.
Since anthropogenic effects on the climate are net-zero except for CO2, we need only consider CO2 concentration, which was 353 parts per million by volume in 1990 and is 390 ppmv now, an increase not of 27.5% but of just 10.5%.
9. ARCTIC SEA ICE SHRANK TO ITS THIRD-LOWEST AREA IN THE SATELLITE RECORDS, OFFSET ONLY SLIGHTLY BY GROWTH IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE.
In fact, the global sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, because the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice. Indeed, when the summer extent of Arctic sea ice reached its lowest point in the 30-year record in mid-September 2007, just three weeks later the Antarctic sea extent reached a 30-year record high. The record low was widely reported; the corresponding record high was almost entirely unreported.
10. GLOBAL SNOW COVER IS FALLING, INFERENTIALLY BECAUSE OF MAN’S INFLUENCE.
In fact, a new record high for snow cover was set in the winter of 2008/2009, and there is some chance that a further record high will be set this year.
11. GLOBAL SEA LEVELS ARE RISING, INFERENTIALLY BECAUSE OF MAN’S INFLUENCE.
In fact, the rate of increase in sea level has not changed since satellites first began measuring it reliably in 1993. It is a dizzying 1 ft/century – not vastly greater than the 8 inches/century that had previously been inferred from tide-gauges. A recent paper has confirmed what marine biologists had long suspected: coral atolls simply grow to meet the light as the sea rises, and some of them have even gained land mass recently according to a
just-published scientific paper. Professor Niklas Mörner, who has been studying sea level for a third of a century, says it is physically impossible for sea level to rise at much above its present rate, and he expects 4-8 inches of sea level rise this century, if anything rather below the rate of increase in the last century. In the 11,400 years since the end of the last Ice Age, sea level has risen at an average of 4 feet/century, though it is now rising much more slowly because very nearly all of the land-based ice that is at low enough latitudes and altitudes to melt has long since gone.
12. MUNICH RE SAYS 2010 SAW THE SECOND-HIGHEST NUMBER OF NATURAL CATASTROPHES SINCE 1980, 90% OF THEM WEATHER-RELATED.
There are really only three categories of insurable natural catastrophe – meteorological, epidemiological, and seismic (volcanism, earthquakes, tsunamis, etc.). Except during years when major seismic disasters occur (such as the tsunami caused by an earthquake in 2000), or when major pandemics kill large numbers at an unexpected rate (and that did not happen in 2010), weather-related natural disasters always account for getting on for 90% of all such disasters. Because the climate is a mathematically-chaotic object, the incidence of weather-related disasters is highly variable from year to year, and there is no good reason to attribute the major events of 2010 to manmade “global warming”.
13. THE TEMPERATURE OF 46.4 C° IN MELBOURNE ONE SATURDAY IN 2010 WAS MORE THAN 3 C° ABOVE THE PREVIOUS HIGHEST FOR FEBRUARY.
February is the height of summer in Melbourne. Since the planet has been warming for 300 years, it is not surprising to find high-temperature records being broken from time to time. However, some very spectacular cold-weather records were also broken both in early 2010, when all 49 contiguous United States were covered in snow for the first time since satellite monitoring began 30 years ago, and in December, which was the coldest final month of the year in central England since records began 352 years ago. However, neither the hot-weather nor the cold-weather extremes of 2010 have much to do with manmade “global warming”; like the heatwave of 2003 in Europe that is said to have killed 35,000 people, they are known to have been caused by an unusual pattern of what meteorologists call “blocking highs” – comparatively rare areas of stable high pressure that dislodge the jet-streams from their usual path and lock weather systems in place for days or sometimes even months at a time. No link has been established between the frequency, intensity, or duration of blocking highs and manmade “global warming”.
14. IN MOSCOW, JULY 2010 WAS MORE THAN 2 C° ABOVE THE PREVIOUS TEMPERATURE RECORD, AND TEMPERATURE ON 29 JULY WAS 38.2 C°.
And the lowest-ever temperatures have been measured in several British and US locations in the past 12 months. Cherry-picking individual extreme-weather events that point in one direction only, when there are thousands of such events that also point in another direction, is neither sound science nor sound journalism.
15. THE HEATWAVE AND FOREST FIRES IN CENTRAL RUSSIA KILLED AT LEAST 56,000, MAKING IT THE WORST NATURAL DISASTER IN RUSSIA’S HISTORY.
More cherry-picking, and the notion that the forest fires were the worst natural disaster in Russia’s history is questionable. Intense cold – such as when General January and General February defeated Corporal Hitler at the gates of Stalingrad in 1941 – has many times killed hundreds of thousands in Russia.
16. IN PAKISTAN, 1769 WERE KILLED IN THE COUNTRY’S WORST-EVER FLOODS.
In fact, the floods were not the worst ever: merely the worst since 1980. The region has long been prone to flooding, and has flooded catastrophically at infrequent intervals when a blocking high combined with unusually strong runoff of snow from the Himalayas swells the numerous rivers of the region (Punjab, or panj-aub, means “five rivers”). The flooding was not caused by manmade “global warming” but by a blocking high.
17. THE HURRICANE SEASON IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC WAS ONE OF THE MOST SEVERE IN THE LAST CENTURY.
In fact, Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University, who maintains the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index, a 24-month running sum of the frequency, intensity and duration of all tropical cyclones, typhoons and hurricanes round the world, says that the index is at its least value in the past 30 years, and close to its least value in 50 years. For 150 years the number of landfalling Atlantic hurricanes has shown no trend at all: this is a long and reliable record, because one does not require complex instrumentation to know that one has been struck by a hurricane.
18. EVEN CAUTIOUS SCIENTISTS TEND TO SAY WE CAN BLAME MANMADE CLIMATE CHANGE.
Cautious scientists say no such thing. Even the excitable and exaggeration-prone IPCC has repeatedly stated that individual extreme-weather events cannot be attributed to manmade “global warming”, and it would be particularly incautious of any scientist to blame the blocking highs that caused nearly all of the weather-related damage in 2010 on us when these are long-established, naturally-occurring phenomena.
19. CLIMATE CHANGE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE 20% DECLINE IN RAINFALL IN PARTS OF SOUTHERN AUSTRALIA OVER THE PAST 40 YEARS.
Climate change began 4,567 million years ago, on that Thursday when the Earth first formed (as Prof. Plimer puts it). The question is whether manmade climate change has contributed to the drought. Interestingly, there has been very heavy rainfall in previously drought-ridden parts of southern Australia in each of the last two years. Australia has a desert climate: it is no surprise, therefore, that periods of drought – sometimes prolonged – will occur. One of the longest records of drought and flood we have is the Nilometer, dating back 5000 years. Periods of drought far more savage than anything seen in modern times were frequent occurrences, and entire regions of Egypt became uninhabitable as a result. A 20% decline in rainfall in a single region, therefore, cannot be safely attributed to anything other than the natural variability of the climate.
20. THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT “GLOBAL WARMING” MADE THE BUSH-FIRES AROUND MELBOURNE WORSE.
There is no such evidence. As the IPCC has repeatedly said, ascribing individual, local extreme-weather events to “global warming” is impermissible.
21. THERE HAS BEEN A SUCCESSION OF EXTRAORDINARY HEATWAVES, WITH BIG JUMPS IN RECORD TEMPERATURES, STARTING IN EUROPE IN 2003 AND CONTINUING ALL AROUND THE WORLD, CULMINATING IN RUSSIA LAST YEAR. MORE THAN 17 COUNTRIES BROKE THEIR MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE RECORDS IN 2010, AND “YOU REALLY HAVE TO STRAIN CREDIBILITY TO SAY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE.”
The heatwave in Europe in 2003 is known to have been caused by a blocking high similar to those which gave Russia its record high temperatures in 2010 and kept the monsoon fixed over Pakistan for long enough to cause catastrophic flooding. You really have to stretch credibility to say it has anything to do with manmade “global warming”. Though that heatwave may have killed 35,000 right across Europe, a three-day cold snap in Britain the previous year had killed 21,000 just in one country. The net effect of warmer worldwide weather, therefore, is to reduce deaths, not to increase them. That is why periods such as the Holocene Climate Optimum, when temperatures were 3 C° warmer than the present for most of the time between 6000 and 8000 years ago, are called “optima”: warmer weather is better for most Earth species – including Man – than colder weather.
22. FOR 20 YEARS MORE HOT-WEATHER THAN COLD-WEATHER TEMPERATURE RECORDS HAVE BEEN SET.
This is merely another way of saying that temperatures today are generally higher than they were 20 years ago. Since there has been some warming, more hot-weather than cold-weather records have been set. Not exactly surprising, and not exactly alarming either: for the mere fact of warming tells us nothing about the cause of the warming, particularly when the rate of warming in recent decades has been no greater than what has been seen in two previous quarter-century periods over the past 160 years.
23. EVEN IF GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS WERE TO STABILIZE AT LITTLE MORE THAN TODAY’S LEVELS, 2 C° OF FURTHER WARMING WILL OCCUR – FOUR TIMES THE INCREASE OVER THE PAST 30 YEARS.
This value of 2 C° – like too many others in this regrettably fictitious article – appears to have been plucked out of thin air. Let us do the math. We can ignore all Man’s influences on the climate except CO2 because, up to now, they have been self-canceling, as the table of “radiative forcings” in the IPCC’s most recent quinquennial Assessment Report shows. In 1750, before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 was 278 ppmv. Now it is 390 ppmv. Taking the multi-model mean central estimate from Box 10.2 on p.798 of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, plus or minus one standard deviation, we can derive the following simple equation for the total amount of warming to be expected in 1000 years’
time, when the climate has fully settled to equilibrium after the perturbation that our carbon emissions to date are thought to have caused:
ΔTequ = (4.7 ± 1) ln(390/278) F°
Let us generously go one standard deviation above the central estimate: thus, a high-end estimate of the total equilibrium warming the IPCC would expect as a result of our CO2 emissions since 1750 is 5.7 times the natural logarithm of the proportionate increase in CO2 concentration in the 260-year period: i.e. 1.9 C°. Even this total since 1750 to the present is below the 2 C° Mr. Setekee says is lurking in the pipeline.
Now, to pretend that manmade “global warming” is a problem as big as the IPCC says it is, and that there will be more warming in the pipeline even if we freeze our emissions at today’s levels, we have to pretend that all of the observed warming since 1750 – i.e. about 1.2 C° – was our fault. So we deduct that 1.2 C° from the 1.9 C° equilibrium warming. Just 0.7 C° of warmer weather is still to come, at equilibrium.
However, various climate extremists have published papers saying that equilibrium warming will not occur for 1000 years (or even, in a particularly fatuous recent paper, 3000 years). The IPCC itself only expects about 57% of equilibrium warming to occur by 2100: the rest will take so long to arrive that even our children’s children will not be around to notice, and the residual warming will happen so gradually that everyone and everything will have plenty of time to adjust.
Bottom line, then: by 2100 we can expect not 2 C° of further “global warming” as a result of our emissions so far, but 0.4 C° at most. The truth, as ever in the climate debate, is a great deal less thrilling than the lie.
24. ADAPTATION TO THE CONSEQUENCES OF “GLOBAL WARMING” WILL GET MORE DIFFICULT THE LONGER WE DELAY.
This assertion, too, has no scientific basis whatsoever. The costs of adaptation are chiefly an economic rather than a climatological question. Every serious economic analysis (I exclude the discredited propaganda exercise of Stern, with its absurd near-zero discount rate and its rate of “global warming” well in excess of the IPCC’s most extreme projections) has demonstrated that the costs of waiting and adapting to any adverse consequences that may arise from “global warming”, even if per impossibile that warming were to occur at the rapid rate imagined by the IPCC but not yet seen in the instrumental temperature record, would be orders of magnitude cheaper and more cost-effective than any Canute-like attempt to prevent any further “global warming” by taxing and regulating CO2 emissions. It follows that adaptation to the consequences of “global warming” will get easier and cheaper the longer we wait: for then we will only have to adapt to the probably few and minor consequences that will eventually occur, and not until they occur, and only where and to the extent that they occur.
==================================================
A PDF version of this document is available here
Werner you keep changing the goal posts “But even so, 2010 was a strong El Nino year. ” Earlier on you said if it was beaten, you would reconsider. Also keep in mind that 2010 finished with a La Nina and it still matched the El Nino year of 1998.
Myrrh remember when I said this…
“You rely on history to much, all data before several 100 years is guesswork and even then nobody says that co2 is the only driver of the planet. Their are many other greenhouse gases, volcanos, planetary wanderings, temp changes of the sun over its lifetime, heat from our centre plus much more. Most episodes in the past we have good workable theories for but their are no proofs there. Similar conditions to our distant past will be unlikely to occur again as the sun and the planet has past that point in its development. ”
but you say “If CO2 had nothing to do with the vast and dramatic changes we went through in glacials and interglacials then it is irrelevant now, ”
Just because co2 is not the only driver of Climate Change, and I freely admit it doesn’t come even close, that does not follow that it isn’t now. At no time in Earths history have we been able to influence the atmosphere to this degree over such a short space of time and in that regard history has only limited relevance, especially when a lot of the temperature of history and its causes are guesswork, but even then their are workable theories for most of it.
I also believe in the basic goodness of most people and believe that the majority of scientists and governments have the well being of the planet at heart. In their zeal they might overreact to some things and some do have their own agendas, just like their will be some skeptics with their own agendas who are only famous because they are controversial. I also understand and agree with the science and do a lot of reading on the topic from the science sites as well as regularly troll skeptic ones.
I also acknowledge the data presented in the form of temperature rises, co2, ocean warming and acidification, coral bleaching, loss of arctic ice, increasing extreme weather events (especially flooding as the moisture from evaporation increases, see pakistan, queensland, victoria, brazil) etc and accept with a high degree of probability that the effects of increasing co2 in the atmosphere is the cause. (note co2 is not bad or good, just the effects of it increasing and the changing balance of the atmosphere).
I also have a different understanding of theory in science and the meaning of proof, as most accepted facts in science are theories and most of what we know and accept cannot be proved in the simplistic understanding of the word. Relativity works and is accepted, the weight and size of an electron, the composition of the atom, the distance to stars and galaxies, gravity itself etc, cannot be measured or ‘proved’ in that understanding of the word.
see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Theories_as_models
see: http://www.kitp.ucsb.edu/kitp-explained/role-of-theory-in-science
I know this won’t make any difference to you as your mind is made up, and anything I offer is dismissed as tainted, made up and unacceptable, so in that respect I can’t argue the science with you. But that is where I am coming from.
Far be it from me to pretend that I am a climate specialist – I am just an engineer, and instead of listening to Al Gore and his mob – I prefer to do some numbers.
It is not hard to calculate the total energy delivered to Earth by our Sun – from Sun’s temperature, black body radiation, the size of Sun, Earth, and distances involved.
The power of solar radiation calculated this way is slightly over 1.3KW per square meter.
This gives total energy delivered to Earth as about 5.4×10^24 Joules/year, about half of which reaches Earth’s surface – say 2.7×10^24.
Total energy production by mankind is currently about 5×10^20 Joules/year.
Our contribution to energy balance is then less than 0.02%. We can’t even measure the total energy with error as small as this.
Nature is many things – but is not stupid. In other words – it is a stable system.
What the “climate change fanatics” propose is that we tax everyone until they bleed in order to slightly influence the 0.02% of the energy balance – and this somehow is going to change the balance of the whole system.
Somehow I do not think that this would work, or that the “climate change fanatics” are stupid – but for sure, a small, selected group of people would become very, very rich – if the proposed carbon tax etc. becomes reality.
Life on Earth survived for hundreds of millions of years – all without Al Gore, IPCC, climate “experts” and carbon tax.
It is a nice con, though.
“Michael says:
January 15, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Werner you keep changing the goal posts “But even so, 2010 was a strong El Nino year. ” Earlier on you said if it was beaten, you would reconsider.”
My original goal post was the Hadcrut3 data at
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Your Hadcrut3 data is very different. It is a real puzzle to me how two strong El Nino years can have opposite effects. Namely the above site had 0.548 for 1998 and 0.493 for 2010, but this still only goes to November. Yet both end up at 0.52 somehow. Can you please provide a link to a data set that lets me verify for myself that the 2010 actually ends up at 0.52? Not even the following has it to December:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
“Far be it from me to pretend that I am a climate specialist – I am just an engineer, and instead of listening to Al Gore and his mob – I prefer to do some numbers.”
Les you are not measuring a plank of wood, in a building, being out by a minuscule % may not mean much, but when it comes to chemicals it is all about reaction and balance. The make up of your body also includes sulphur, phosphorous, chlorine, copper, lead, iron, uranium, thorium, mercury and arsenic, among many others. Arsenic for instance can be beneficial medically in tiny amounts, but add just a tiny bit more…I think you know where I am going with this.
The typical skeptic says “hey it is a tiny portion of the atmosphere or it is a tiny warming effect or it has happened millions of times without us etc”. None of these are relevant or really have any meaning when discussing whether the changing balance of the atmosphere can cause changes harmful to us or whether we are the ones causing it now. Negative arguments are not proof, they are beliefs. Beliefs that are not borne out in many areas of nature where small amounts can precipitate big reactions. Just look at the change of certain chemicals in your body that effect moods, heart rate etc. Like most things in nature it is about balance, and we are changing that balance and it is illogical to believe that changing balance will not have an effect.
[snip. Let’s have a discussion, instead of constantly linking to a blog that lacks the courtesy to put WUWT on their blog-roll, as WUWT does for them. ~dbs, mod.]
Michael says:
“Like most things in nature it is about balance, and we are changing that balance and it is illogical to believe that changing balance will not have an effect.”
I am in total agreement. The effect of increased CO2 is apparent, and entirely beneficial:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
“I am in total agreement. The effect of increased CO2 is apparent, and entirely beneficial:”
Smokey, I am not a plant! what about the effects of the warming on coral, algae and phytoplankton? I hope you don’t like eating fish. What about the climate change effects on weather. Pretty hard to grow something when your farm keeps getting flooded out, I certainly don’t see my fruit and vegetables getting cheaper anytime soon.
Michael – thank you for a condescending explanation regarding the difference between a plank of wood and the processes governed by nonlinear partial differential equations with variable coefficients.
You actually provide arguments against your own reasoning.
Yes – the system is complex. Yes – small changes can lead to relatively large responses. Yes – we didn’t even start understanding all the feedbacks, not to mention actual description of the system. As such – all computer models are an exercise in futility – as by definition they can’t describe a complex system where chaotic changes take place.
What is known, however, is that:
-the system is stable in general terms – the best proof is you being alive today
-the climate was much hotter and much colder too -before the humanity even came into existence
-levels of CO2 have been both higher and lower than today – before the first barrel of oil was pumped.
-the computer models are not consistent – and require fudge factors – conveniently selected to provide the politically correct answers.
Trying to convince everybody that we actually can control and influence processes of this scale and complexity by means of taxation – requires a lot of arrogance, or a lot of stupidity, or both.
In reality, though, maybe it just requires a cynical and unscrupulous attitude – knowing that if taxation doesn’t help – at least some people can get rich on the scheme.
Maybe the time will come when climate science will have a right to be called Science – but this time is somewhat distant yet. People like Gore (with eager participation from people like you) would like to announce that this time has already arrived – because this would open the door for them to start trading in earnest – selling nothing – for a very real cash.
You may not call it a scam. I do.
Michael you said:
Myrrh remember when I said this… “You rely on history to much, all data before several 100 years is guesswork and even then nobody says that CO2 is the only driver of the planet. Their are mnay other greenhouse gases, volcanos, planetary wanderings, temp changes of the sun over its lifetime, heat from our centre plus much more. Most episodes in the past we have good workable theories for but their are no proofs there. Similar conditions to our distant past will be unlikely to occur again as the sun the planet has past that point in its development.”
but you say “If CO2 had nothing to do with the vast and dramatic changes we went through in glacials and interglacials then it is irrelevant now,”
Just because CO2 is not the only driver of Climate Change, and I freely admit it doesn’t come even close, that does not follow that it isn’t now. At no time in Earths history have we been able to influence the atmospher to this degree over such a short space of time and that regard history has only limited relevance, especially when a lot of the temperature of history and its causes are guessswork, but even then their are workable theories for most of it.
Yes, I remember you saying that. It sounded exactly the argument made by AGWScientists, that the facts don’t matter and shouldn’t be listened to. As you’ve brought it up again I guess I’ll just have to deal with it, I was put off by the length of reply I’d have to give. I’ll try and shorten it.
Our knowledge of history and the changes in climate is far from being guesswork, we are now in an extraordinarily wonderful position of global communication and amazing scientific advancement. We have access to the histories of peoples all over the world through our lives now, our stories, our own accounts in traditions and literature and through archeology – there is much that has been lost of course, but as it stands we have never before, to our present knowledge, known so much about ourselves and our world. Our advancements in knowing how the world works has come on in leaps and bounds over the last few centuries in all kinds of fields; genetics, geography, astronomy, medicine, language, biology and so on.
One of the things we know very clearly from our past is our history of ice ages, we might not yet know all the detail of the how and why, but we know them really well now.
We have established, for example, how what is now the islands in ‘Britain’ came to be an entity over timescales of millions of years during which the different parts travelled in the movement of tectonic plates, we know from the rocks which parts where attached to North America, we know how much was covered in the several ice age glacials, we know that huge temperature changes to hot happened by the bones of the rhinos and fossil plants we’ve found before the beginning of the last glacial 100,000 years ago, we know how much land we lost at the beginning of our present interglacial, our Holocene, when the glacial ended and the Irish and North Sea were created from the gazillion tons on melting ice raising sea levels over 300 feet; it’s a fascinating history.
We know this through the co-operation and communication from all kinds of specialist fields putting the pieces of the jigsaw together for our mutual enlightenment; this is what science is, the exploration of our natural world for the love of it. Hence it is called Natural Science, and the Natural Philosopher for example, a physicist. This is our history and we are very far from being ignorant about it.
If CO2 was irrelevant in all these changes as a driver of temperature, it can’t suddenly become relevant now. That’s simply illogical. In saying “That CO2 is not the only driver of temperature”, you are being illogical.
If it had nothing to do with any previous driving of temperature then it can’t be included in ‘those things that drive temperature now’.
Just because you’re saying it, doesn’t make it true. You’ve pulled that out of thin air, like a rabbit from a hat.
That’s why you don’t like history, or all the knowledge we have gained in it, because the history of Carbon Dioxide shows it has never been a driver of global warming. Instead, what you have replaced the lack of cause and effect with, is superstition.
You are no different here to the primitive who establishing himself in a position of power tells his people that the sun will stop rising if his priesthood of hand picked cronies don’t have a human sacrifice every week from which they must tear the still living heart from the body even though there is no relationship of cause and effect between doing this and the sun rising every day.
There’s no correlation of cause and effect in your claim because it is established that CO2 had nothing to do with previous driving of temperatures. You admit this in your AGWScience. You say CO2 levels have not changed for all these hundreds of thousands of years of dramatic Climate Change..
Do you notice something there? You don’t actually ever say that. AGWScience never finishes the sentence. It stops at ‘the CO2 levels haven’t changed for hundreds of thousands of years’. And then it skips to superstition. ‘CO2 levels have changed because of man’s imput since the Industrial Age, so CO2 is driving the warm we are experiencing now after the immense cold of the LIA..’ Except you don’t say that do you? You skip the actual reason we are experiencing warming now, because we’re still coming out of the very low temperatures of the LIA which we sank into from the previous high of the MWP.., because superstition isn’t about cause and effect, and as real cause and effect contradicts, it so it does in AGW, so you flatten out LIA and MWP and produce Hockey Sticks, which programme manipulates any set of random numbers given to produce them.
Some might well have remembered that the sun rose regularly before these priests began demanding living hearts to keep it rising every morning, but they were probably bullied to agree, and the next generation taught it was true and so the tradition established as true scientific fact taught by consensus priesthood in authority over them who must be believed and obeyed.
AGWScience is exactly that, superstition. At every claim look for the elision, the conflation, the disjunct in logical connection. Magicians tricks to distract, together with the constant bombardment by the establishment in the ‘authority of the priesthood’ for use against the oiks browbeaten to believe it’s true and ostracised if they don’t. Because they only our best interests at heart.. Some of us still remember real science. And can see the sleight of hand in presenting superstition masquerading as fact by those more interested in establishing egotistical power over others and their destinies, than actually giving a damn for their real welfare or real science.
Measurement of something is of course ‘relative’ to the what is decided to be the rule against which it is measured. But through that we can know the weight of molecules relative to each other, and from this we know that a Carbon Dioxide molecule is much heavier than air which obviously makes nonsense of AGWScience claims that it can ‘stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years accumulating in a blanket’.
The other examples you give are of this same sleight of hand ilk, “ocean warming and acidification, coral bleaching, loss of arctic ice, extreme weather events (especially flooding as the moisture from evaporation increases etc” . What proof do you have that this has anything to do with the CO2 molecule? Just because you say it has is not a proof.
When I began exploring this argument I read both sides of it and questioned both sides. I am convinced that there is no real science behind AGW claims. All I have found is this recurring pattern of logical disjunct in the explanations and claims, and an extraordinary amount of effort to present this as ‘true’ when it is obviously not -which is a technique mastered by magicians and dictators. I have made my judgement of it, what I am giving you is some of what I found.
Look for the disjunct in the facts presented, don’t get distracted by analysing what is a theory.
The “ocean acidification scam” is the latest out of the AGWScience Propaganda Ministry. http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/ocean-acidification-scam/
All I can say is, if you really care about the environment, care that AGWScience is perverting the truth by replacing natural science education of the the next generation with emotive fear fuelled superstition, and full of deceit to maintain that superstition. Some of those involved know exactly that it’s this they’re doing, even if the majority are ignorant of being manipulated because they take things on trust.
CO2 is Good For You
And – Michael – any theory of a small change causing huge effects must rely on a positive feedback loop.
There are very few natural processes that rely on a positive feedback – one of them being a nuclear reaction. Even so – the Sun appears to be stable enough…
But then – you will probably tell me that a controlled fission reaction is not too far away…
One can’t argue with a religious (or cult if you prefer) belief…and let’s not forget, that every cult promises hell and damnation for non-believers, while quickly and efficiently extracting good old cash from brainwashed believers.
“If CO2 was irrelevant in all these changes as a driver of temperature, it can’t suddenly become relevant now. That’s simply illogical. In saying “That CO2 is not the only driver of temperature”, you are being illogical. ”
Saying that “CO2 is not the ONLY driver of temperature” is not the same as saying “If CO2 was irrelevant in all these changes as a driver of temperature, it can’t suddenly become relevant now.” You put a lot of words in my mouth and assign meaning that do not reflect what I said.
Illogical and arrogant is thinking that you can pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as you like without consequence. No we cannot control the climate but we can and should monitor and control what we put into our atmosphere that are determinants of climate. History is full of examples of harmless and safe coming back to bite us in the bum.
[But, do you actually have any evidence linking Anthropogenic CO2 to temperature change? Robt]
Michael
I have just had the mind-numbing experience of reading the entire thread and my hat is off to you. You have remained polite in the face of arrant stupidity and kept on fighting the good fight. Keep up the good work.
If “fighting the good fight” means constantly trumpeting disaster scenarios based not on evidence, but on Al Gore-style scare tactics, then there is nothing “good” about it.
I’ve shown conclusively in my links @ur momisugly 5:42 pm above that more CO2 is beneficial. Yet there is not one bit of proof that the increase in this harmless, beneficial trace gas has caused any problems. None.
Thus, Michael must be counted among the dwindling ranks of True Believers. Facts will not have any effect on him. His mind is closed to the benefits of more food growing in a warmer climate, and all he is capable of seeing is looming disaster.
“I’ve shown conclusively in my links @ur momisugly 5:42 pm above that more CO2 is beneficial. Yet there is not one bit of proof that the increase in this harmless, beneficial trace gas has caused any problems. None.”
I base all my decisions on facts. The well known fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The fact that temperatures are rising at the same time as CO2 is rising. The facts of warming oceans, increased coral bleaching events, rising oceans, lower atmosphere warming while upper atmosphere cooling, increasing extreme weather events consistent with models and much more. The moisture in the atmosphere has increased by 4% and as I have pointed out I am not a plant, and that happy plants will not be much good if they are flooded out regularly. These are all based on data by climate scientists, and just because you dispute the data does not follow that I am not making rational and logical decisions.
A believer is somebody who believes that he can change the composition of a crucial gas in our atmosphere by an undetermined amount without consequence. You cannot prove that such spewing of billions of tonnes of CO2 per year into our climate system cannot and will not change the climate and our weather patterns. Mere observations should cause most reasonable people to pause. Their is no belief necessary to me the evidence is increasing daily.
“Mulga Bill says:
January 17, 2011 at 6:33 am
Michael
I have just had the mind-numbing experience of reading the entire thread and my hat is off to you. You have remained polite in the face of arrant stupidity and kept on fighting the good fight. Keep up the good work.”
Thanks 🙂
Michael says:
“The well known fact that CO2 is a minor anthropogenic greenhouse gas.” Fixed it for you. De nada.
“The facts of warming oceans” Wrong. ARGO data shows cooling oceans.
“increased coral bleaching events” Wrong. Turns out this is an annual phenomenon unrelated to AGW. No connection whatever with CO2. The actual correlation shows increased calcification with increased CO2.
“rising oceans” Wrong. The change – due to the emergence from the LIA – is decelerating. And ocean heat content is falling.
“upper atmosphere cooling” This is a red herring. The “fingerprint” of AGW was trumpeted as the prediction of the tropospheric “hot spot.” When that failed to happen, the goal posts were then moved to stratospheric cooling. Typical of the shenanigans and mendacity coming from the globaloney crowd.
” The moisture in the atmosphere has increased by 4%” Wrong. Where do you get your misinformation? ‘Skeptical’ Science? climate progress? realclimate?
“increasing extreme weather events” Wrong. Catastrophic weather events have been steadily decreasing: click1, click2, click3.
“…and much more.” Since your “facts” have been debunked, no doubt your “much more” would be equally easy to deconstruct. For example, as beneficial CO2 rises, the rate of change of temperature increase is declining, thus breaking the assumed link between CO2 and temperature.
In addition to Lord Monckton’s 24 points refuting Steketee, the spurious correlations between CO2 and the warming due to the planet’s emergence from the LIA are no more valid than this.
Here’s my model prediction: Michael and the couple of other True Believers here will reject all facts which refute their belief system, and they will pay no attention to the dozens of commentators who are all trying to reason with them by using verifiable facts. Against all the evidence, the True Believers will continue to believe that a harmless and beneficial trace gas is the principal driver of the climate, and is the cause of all their problems.
That’s my model prediction. And as we shall see, it is more accurate than any climate model.
What is a dead give-away in this whole scam is the lack of any consistent proposal.
No one says this (for instance): “In the next 10 years a legislation will be introduced to limit fuel consumption of an average passenger car to less than 5l/100km. All coal and oil fuelled power plants will be phased out during the next 20 years. Research on alternative energy sources will start next year in the following facilities: etc. etc. The objective is to reduce/increase/change this and that – and it will be measured and assessed in the following manner etc. etc.”
No – they can’t say that – because this would require actual budget, the progress could be monitored, and (God forbid) – some people could actually be held accountable.
In short – an average whorehouse has a better business plan and management.
Instead – they propose introduction of carbon credits – which is exactly a no-product, which requires no investment, is almost impossible to control, and creates vast opportunities for the high priests of the scam – to get rich. And – when it does not change the climate – it will, of course, be the fault of the public…
Make no mistake – this is the largest economic scam in the history of humankind. The principle – a new tax on everything you do – including breathing (well – it produces the “poisonous” gas – CO2 – doesn’t it ?). This tax will affect everything – from cooking your meal to taking a bus to work.
In other words – diverting a significant portion of everyone’s income – into private pockets and into the coffers of world governments. Trillions of dollars are at stake – no wonder that no punches are being pulled, and that the original data has a habit of disappearing, being lost, or being selectively used and manipulated. After all – how many people in a hospital will ask for credentials when they see a guy in a white coat saying “Good morning, I am your doctor” ? Or – how many will question the existence of fire – when seeing a guy in a fire-proof suit and helmet who says “Fire Brigade – get out, there is a fire” ?
There is a good reason for subjects such as history or physics being taught at a very superficial level in schools today. No one needs educated citizens – at least not in their majority. Which in turn will allow any kind of social engineering – and, of course, vast, uncontrolled profits – for the selected ones.
I have sufficient education and preparation to at least understand the scale and complexity of the problem. Also – to critically assess the quality of at least some of the arguments presented by the high priests of the climate change cult. And – it does not convince me.
We live in times where information overload is common, and where all kind of bogus, biased or irrelevant information is delivered to the public with the preceding qualifier: “Experts say that ….” – and it replaces thinking and common sense in most cases. We are being conditioned to be compliant, to be politically correct, to not ask embarrassing questions, to not rock the boat, to give away the responsibilities and rights – and it starts in pre-schools.
It is a good thing that I will not be walking this world for very long now. But while I live – certain things are going to happen only over my dead body – and I am not joking.
Leo Tolstoy:
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
Les says:
January 17, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Excellent post!
Most of your links were cherry picked regional issues, hardly meaningful, but typical. I can also paste a bunch of links.
See my first post on this thread on Monckton.
I also believe that you will reject all facts which refute your belief system, and you will pay no attention to the dozens of commentators who are all trying to reason with you by using verifiable facts.
“What is a dead give-away in this whole scam is the lack of any consistent proposal.”
This is nearly impossible on a global system and with 3 or 4 year cycle political systems. Far from Climate change being a rort for governments, it is very difficult for them to get anything done. Unless you have a price on carbon (and I prefer a tax, more straightforward and less rortable by business), business’s will not put the necessary R&D and effort into changing to more sustainable and renewable sources of energy. The cost to the planet needs to factored into the price of fossil fuels to send the signal that other sources are more desirable and now more cost effective.
Michael re Saying that “CO2 is not the ONLY driver of temperature” is not the same as saying “If CO2 was irrelevant in all these changes as a driver of temprature, it can’t suddenly become relevant now.” You put a lot of words in my mouth and assign meaning that do not reflect what I said.
Not what I was doing. What I’m referring to is this as an example of the logical disjunct inherent in AGWScience claims. That two statements are made with critical information elided, giving the impression of logical continuity where none exists.
The AGW claim is that CO2 level has not changed in any significant degree for the last 600,000 years or so. What is missing here is that during this period very real and dramatic global warming happened as we came out of ice age conditions and into interglacials in recurring cycles of around 100,000 years. Since the AGW claim is that CO2 hasn’t changed in all that time what it is actually saying, is that CO2 has been irrelevant to the massive global warmings in this vast amount of time.
EXCEPT, it doesn’t actually say it. One has to read between the lines and know something about the regularity of our ice ages to make that connection for oneself. That’s the logical conclusion from the AGW statement that CO2 levels haven’t changed.
So, what I am saying is, you cannot then say that CO2 is one of the drivers now, because looked at logically, the AGW claim is actually saying that CO2 was never a driver.
Why has CO2 suddenly become a driver when it showed no propensity to be that for over 600,000 years?
The gist of my post was that AGW does this kind of thing all the time, it takes out bits from one statement to the next by jumping directly to another claim about CO2 which, in this case, is proved false by its first statement. In other words, ‘that CO2 is a driver now’ is already falsified by the AGW claim that ‘CO2 levels didn’t change in our past history’. Since it had nothing to do with it then, I am saying, you cannot say it has something to do with driving temperature now.
And Robt’s question.
Anyway, there are two aspects in this argument about AGW which bother me particularly, that science has been usurped to promote particular agendas and the nature of some of these agendas.
Rather a mixed bag of interests have jumped onto the AGW bandwagon since the early environmentalism of the thirties against coal (which brought in Keeling in the fifties to cherry pick a low CO2 ‘background’ level, from which less than two years later he confidently announced there was a definite trend upwards from man’s industrial output which he found while measuring CO2 from the world’s highest active volcano in an area of extreme volcanic activity where he was guaranteed a copious supply of the stuff to use in further adjustments), through to the banking and big business interests of today which had got their act more of less together by the seventies and have been driving governments and global warming ever since.
Trenberth’s upcoming speech, link below, touches on two aspects I’d like to bring to your attention.
The first is the science with the aide-memoire “Hide the decline” – an example of how science fact is manipulated purely to fuel anthropogenic global warming claims:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html
Please spend time going through it, it’s a very good introduction to the background and methods rampant in the corruption of temperature data, necessary for AGWScience claims, because if temperatures now are not outside any natural variation we’ve had in our past climate changes, then there is no basis for the AGW scare blaming man’s production of CO2.
It is imperative then for those promoting AGW, as Trenberth is doing in the speech he’s to deliver at the AMS, to continue to produce data backing up this AGWScience created scenario. He does so by continuing to claim that he and AGWScientists represent science fact which cannot be argued about, and that those arguing against this are charlatans and shouldn’t be listened to. Who are the real charlatans here? Those who have to manipulate temperature records or those arguing against the corruption of data?
Trenberth says those involved in Climategate were exonerated of any wrong doing and therefore what he is saying is approved real science and can’t be argued about. That these hearings were fixed by the powers that be, the government et al, in order for this crucial evidence of corruption to be downplayed you can research for yourselves, but remember, that CRU’s active involvement in fixing temperature records extends beyond Britain. New Zealand in the early seventies an example, is part and parcel of CRU’s agenda from the very beginning of serious political and business interests in promoting AGW. Still funded by oil interests and the EPA.
Read what Trenberth is hiding here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/13/trenberths-upcoming-ams-meeting-talk-climategate-thoughts/
The second aspect I want to cover from this speech relates to one particular agenda backing AGW. There are so many on the bandwagon now, but this goes back to the roots and as a concept is being disseminated widely now, overpopulation as a problem.
Trenberth begins his speech by saying the talk is in honour of his “friend and colleague Stephen Schneider, who was pre-eminent in communicating climate change to the public”. Schneider of course famously said that scientific integrity could be replaced by dishonesty in promoting one’s cause and Trenberth’s dishonesty clear in just the above example, but what else is Trenberth advocating for?
Beginning in part 6, Trenberth says re what can be done to reduce emissions and change climate, “However, by itself, I view this as short-sighted, as the steps required are so revolutionary as to be highly unlikely to be achieved. Instead, we must recognize that while there is considerable merit in slowing the pace of climate change, and we should work to reduce emissions, it is also essential that much stronger steps be taken to plan for and adapt to the change that is surely coming. How we cope with challenges ahead and build more resiliency in our system, are major questions that should be higher on the agenda.”
Then a paragraph of filling, then:
“The growing population and demands for higher standards of living mean that the planet is already over-poulated, and far too many things are simply not sustainable in anything like their current form. The atmosphere is a global common, shared by all. As we continue to exploit it and use it as a dumping ground, the outcome is the “tragedy of the commons” and we all lose. Unfortunately, society is not ready to face up to these challenges and the needed changes in the way we create order and govern ourselves. Population issues are largely missing from the discussion, such as it is. Nonetheless, a number of pragmatic steps are possible, but they require planning for decades ahead, not simply the time until the next election.”
And then he goes into more blurb without elaborating on this theme, or viral meme, the acceptability of eugenics by government control.
Where does it come from? Did he get it from his honoured friend and colleague Schneider, or from somewhere else?
UNESCO (United Nations Educational Social and Cultural Organisation) It’s Purpose and its Philosophy – Julian Huxley 1946 – ‘Thus even though it is quite true that radical eugenics policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible it will be important for UNESCO to see that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable”.
A short intro for the Huxley connection: http://fgservices1947.wordpress.com/2010/09/global-warming-eugenics-and-the-fabians
And further to the beginnings from Mead to the Schneider connection: http://dradge.com/2010/07/where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/
So, nothing in the confirmed AGWScience corruption or in the philosophy of its leading lights, steeped in and proud of using dishonesty to spread their belief in their own superiority to manage others, leads me anywhere but to wonder if they share a common sociopathic gene, now that would be ironic. And what can be done about it if they do, perhaps a tweak here and there..?
..of course, it would be purely on a voluntary basis..
Whether it’s from ego to rule, from some form of sickness, a desire for accumulating wealth regardless of consequences to those enslaved in bad work practices or from asset stripping of countries, even to creating wars for control, what a lot of the agendas have in common is not really giving a damn about others. That’s just sad. Perhaps there will be a different paradigm shift from the one the Huxley crowd are hoping for, that these agendas will be seen for what they really are and perhaps instead what will come to the fore is that quality which is at the heart of all our intelligent creativity, co-operation to mutual benefit.
[Extra info on hide the decline history – http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part1_PreHistoricalRecord.htm
and state of play with Mann –
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/enviro-extremists/8119-the-global-warming-court-battle
and Salinger/CRU cooking NZ data
http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157
If after having read through all these links, Michael, not just mine, you still think I should change my mind and become a believer in AGW, I’d be interested in hearing your reasons. Until then, there’s nothing more I have to add.]
Be well.
Its not working, so I will remove some bits?
Most of your links were cherry picked regional issues, hardly meaningful, but typical. I can also paste a bunch of links.
See my first post on this thread on Monckton, where I answer all his half truths and irrelevant statements.
I also believe that you will reject all facts which refute your belief system, and you will pay no attention to the dozens of commentators who are all trying to reason with you by using verifiable facts.
“What is a dead give-away in this whole scam is the lack of any consistent proposal.”
This is nearly impossible on a global system and with 3 or 4 year cycle political systems. Far from Climate change being a rort for governments, it is very difficult for them to get anything done. Unless you have a price on carbon (and I prefer a tax, more straightforward and less rortable by business), business’s will not put the necessary R&D and effort into changing to a more sustainable and renewable sources of energy. The cost to the planet needs to factored into the price of fossil fuels to send the signal that other sources are more desirable and now more cost effective.
Myrrh and all. I would respond to your ridiculous claims in regards to the past proving it can’t happen now, but I fear I am being censored. None of my posts are coming up.
Typical
[Nope, not censored. Several of your posts did repeat the same things, and repeated phrases in repeated posts on different threads with repeated similar links automatically (and properly) go to “spam.” But none were censored. Robt]
Ok, I am doing something wrong with my html.
In the quotes after the href I am putting the website, and in the quotes after title I am putting what I want displayed. Is that not the right way to do it?
[Reply: Don’t use quotes, just do the href thing. Close the tag with /a in brackets. ~dbs, mod.]
okay I will give up on trying to use HTML tags for now.
These were the links I was trying to put up.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/what-is-it/why
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/global-weather-disasters-a-sign-the-heat-is-on/story-e6frg6zo-1225983256858
http://www.skepticalscience.com/evidence-for-global-warming-basic.htm
http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/29/ben-santer-attribution-extreme-weather-events-to-climate-change/
http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/12/noaa-2010-tied-with-2005-for-hottest-year-on-record/
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news_stories/regionalbleaching.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/abs/nature07080.html
So Myrrh, you start by saying that you were not trying to put words in my mouth and then you do this…
“EXCEPT, it doesn’t actually say it. One has to read between the lines and know something about the regularity of our ice ages to make that connection for oneself. That’s the logical conclusion from the AGW statement that CO2 levels haven’t changed. ”
This has got to be the most ridiculous argument I’ve heard so far, you said it, not them, nobody else is saying it. The Vostok ice core records show CO2 jumping as often as temperature. You’re again putting words in people’s mouth and completely making up your own argument.
“So, what I am saying is, you cannot then say that CO2 is one of the drivers now, because looked at logically, the AGW claim is actually saying that CO2 was never a driver. ”
No they are not. This is where the sceptic argument is more a belief than science, you are so convinced that you are right you see things that aren’t there. As I understand it, and I could be wrong, is that 600,000 years ago as we came out of a major global ice age, it was the CO2 and methane emitted by volcano that got it out of the ice age in the first place, and if that is true we have CO2 to thank or we might still be a snowball.
“Since it had nothing to do with it then, I am saying, you cannot say it has something to do with driving temperature now. ”
This is the same as saying that if forest fires occurred naturally in the past they cannot be lit by man now. I guess we better stop looking for those arsonists. This is clearly a ridiculous argument, for one thing this is the first time in Earth’s history that man has been spewing billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere in such a short timeframe. If this has happened in the past and nothing bad happened then you might have an argument, (note I said might, we would still need to look at solar activity, planetary activity and other drivers), but this has never happened before. You make the same sort of claim over and over again,
“because if temperatures now are not outside any natural variation we’ve had in our past climate changes, then there is no basis for the AGW scare blaming man’s production of CO2. ”
1+2 does not equal 10. There has been something like 6 different investigations on the so-called climate gate and they have all been cleared. It was nothing but a beat up of cherry picked data taken out of context in people’s personal e-mails, how about you publish all your e-mails, personal and business, for the last decade and I’ll see if I can make it out to be nasty by picking stuff out. I have looked into climate gate and it was a mountain in a molehill and even then with only about one small area and doesn’t change the avalanche of climate science on climate change.
Your conspiracy theories don’t hold any weight with me, to say that most governments in the world and the vast majority of scientists and scientific organisations are part of some huge conspiracy for some nefarious ends stretches credibility beyond breaking point. It is an attack on science itself and that is both wrong and dangerous. Like I have said before most governments and scientists primary goal is the betterment of humankind. Democratic governments don’t stay in government long enough to benefit from such a long-term strategy, and clearly since this has been going on for decades most governments have already changed power several times.
While we continue to put hard-working scientists, that have done nothing more than to try to save mankind from himself by selflessly promoting and explaining the science of climate change, through endless investigations and committees, the planet will suffer through severe droughts, increasingly severe floods, an increasingly hostile ocean for its inhabitants (our food) and a less inhabitable planet for us all. This is no less than this generations witchhunts or McCarthy era.