Man Made Global Warming - yet another opinion

economiser

Cardew wrote: »

I don't pretend to know who is correct in the 'man made global warning' debate.

However if I gave you the same graph with the instead of the blue line representing CO2 concentration, it represented, say, banana production, would you conclude that banana production was the cause of global warming?

This graph is misleading. the scales of temp and CO2 have been chosen to harmonise the curves. They are quite arbitrary and by choosing different scales you can make the effect a lot greater of a lot less.

cepheus

economiser wrote: »

This graph is misleading. the scales of temp and CO2 have been chosen to harmonise the curves. They are quite arbitrary and by choosing different scales you can make the effect a lot greater of a lot less.

The graph is not arbitrary at all, it is normal practice to chose a range for each variable so their relative effect is clear, in other words to ensure the range approximately covers the Y axis is either case.

What else would you suggest show a scale of with CO2 between 0 and 360 and temperature between 56.5 and 57.5 on the same scale so temperature is a flat line. Perhaps this would adequately display your bias?

Temperature differences of a few degrees it all it takes to create climate problems so that is surely justified anyway irrespective of this

ModernSlave

When anyone can give me a list of names comprising of 2,501 well-respected climatologists and other scientists in related fields then I'll believe that man-made climate change is all a big crazy conspiracy.

This list of people with Phd behind their names would then counter the 2,500 members of the IPCC, who I'm happy to admit have WAY MORE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE THAN ME.

If the IPCC says that climate change in the last 100 years is primarily man-made then I'm totally ok with that because I don't have an overwhelming desire to pretend I'm smarter than 2,500 scientists after watching one Channel 4 documentary and reading some stuff in the Telegraph.

Until such point as someone gathers 2,501 really smart ologists with doctorates and whatnot who will stand up and say 'it's all a ridiculous conspiracy we cooked up when we were at a creative workshop in the Bahamas' then I'll just have to run with the concept that yes, actually, 6 billion people can have an impact on the planet.

worldwheeler

[quote=cepheus;17462057]There is one thing in common to increases in Banana production and CO2 concentration, both have anthropogenic causes. Hence if something has happened in the last hundred that hasn't happened for thousands of years I would conclude that a human based cause is likely due to the rapid increase in human population and affluence. To be reasonably certain one would also additionally need some theoretical basis to distinguish between causation and association, and of course there is plenty of information to support this.[/quote]

So what has happened recently and when did this event occur in the distant past?

cepheus

worldwheeler wrote: »

So what has happened recently and when did this event occur in the distant past?

First, I mean on a global level, and not isolated events. I am referring to Temperature change. Sceptics are fond of reminding us that temperatures have been warmer 100 000 years ago or more. Although natural events can cause wide temperature changes, no scientist would claim otherwise, we know orbital changes over many tens of thousands of years can cause this. So what? To explain the rise in the last hundred we need to find something that changes on this sort of timescale that hasn't for many thousands of years, and there is only one reasonable candidate, something caused by the rise in human population and affluence.

Say we consider the Sun as an explanation (even without needing to do any physics or calculations) why would the Sun just happen to change over the last 100 years, when all indications temperatures have been steady since the last ice age? A remarkable coincidence. This is all about a sense of time periods, very basic statistics and common sense. There is hardly any need to invoke heavy science at all. Science is only necessary as a verification to raise our certainty of Anthropogenic warming from say 90% to 99% and we have done this as well.

This is the point where a sceptic would invoke the psedoscientific principle of moving the goalposts. That is if one fact doesn't fit change it, and feed on peoples ignorance to justify it. Suddenly the temperatures must be wrong, either now or historically, what about the Medieval warm period, Greenland, oh yes the scientists published the figures wrong for November so everything must be wrong, what about the heat Island effect etc. Yawn Yawn. All these issues have been addressed and dismissed a thousand times, but they know people have short term memories. The policy is keep up the debate and add sufficient doubt so they don't need to prove anything, leave that to the poor scientists!

Cold spell, must be the end of global warming, warm spell no proof of anything. Poor scientists have to provide definitive proof before they can say anything, so it isn't a fair fight, and one that should have been over years ago. There are no such restrictions for the imbeciles at the Telegraph. Read for example
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/01/09/skating-on-thin-ice/

worldwheeler

cepheus wrote: »

First, I mean on a global level, and not isolated events. I am referring to Temperature change. Sceptics are fond of reminding us that temperatures have been warmer 100 000 years ago or more. Although natural events can cause wide temperature changes, no scientist would claim otherwise, we know orbital changes over many tens of thousands of years can cause this. So what? To explain the rise in the last hundred we need to find something that changes on this sort of timescale that hasn't for many thousands of years, and there is only one reasonable candidate, something caused by the rise in human population and affluence.
So the increase you state has happened over the last century. Ice core samples have shown dramitic rises and falls have ocurred in the past over periods of only a decade or two.

Say we consider the Sun as an explanation (even without needing to do any physics or calculations) why would the Sun just happen to change over the last 100 years, when all indications temperatures have been steady since the last ice age? A remarkable coincidence. This is all about a sense of time periods, very basic statistics and common sense. There is hardly any need to invoke heavy science at all. Science is only necessary as a verification to raise our certainty of Anthropogenic warming from say 90% to 99% and we have done this as well.
Ah, you are ignoring the influence of the sun!!! That thermo-nuclear heat source that is many tens of thousands of times bigger than our planet. It is well recognised that the sun has many cycles which run at differing timescales. Combine them with varriations in earths orbit and angular orientation and the possible effects on earth are immense.

This is the point where a sceptic would invoke the psedoscientific principle of moving the goalposts. That is if one fact doesn't fit change it, and feed on peoples ignorance to justify it. Suddenly the temperatures must be wrong, either now or historically, what about the Medieval warm period, Greenland, oh yes the scientists published the figures wrong for November so everything must be wrong, what about the heat Island effect etc. Yawn Yawn. All these issues have been addressed and dismissed a thousand times, but they know people have short term memories. The policy is keep up the debate and add sufficient doubt so they don't need to prove anything, leave that to the poor scientists!
How was the medievel warm period address? Certainly not by Al Gore, who didn't even mention it because it would have bent his holy "hockey stick" graph.
Two scientific organisations, SEPP (led by Dr Singer)and the NRSP (led by Dr Ball) are out front in challenging MMCC theory and what their climatologists and atmospheric physicists have to say makes very good sense. They have formed a body called the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change challenging the IPCC and its political MMCC dogmas. Some members of NRSP are disenchanted IPCC expert reviewers. As already stated free thinking is real science, bandwagons are not!!!The people will wake up to this scam. I recommend Lord Nigel Lawson's excellent book 'An Appeal to Reason'..a cool look at global warming.
There are many free thinkers in the scientific community but sadly this anthropogenic myth must be adhered to obtain/comtinue govt grant money in scientific research.
The IPCC spends most of its time editing, embelishing and rejecting scientific reports to make them adhere to its predetermined mindset to keep the gravy train going. In years to come this MMCC thing will be seen as a huge scam. The IPCC's reason for existence is not to investigate climate change and its possible causes..it is to use pathological science to prove humankind causes climate change.
Local councils are heavily brainwashed with the very weak theory of climate change by a central government devoted to tax hikes. The Green scam is such an opportunity for tax and price hikes, bin wardens, car parking charges, fuel taxes, congestion charges, road tolls etc etc. How could this government resist it?
As there has been no increase in global temperatures this decade and there are now signs of cooling, no prizes for guessing the next weak theory...yes back to the weak Man-made Global Cooling theories of the late sixties (the buzzwords will be Global Dimming).

Cold spell, must be the end of global warming, warm spell no proof of anything. Poor scientists have to provide definitive proof before they can say anything, so it isn't a fair fight, and one that should have been over years ago. There are no such restrictions for the imbeciles at the Telegraph.
Well as far as I have interpreted the press- there was the imminent new ice age reported in the late 60's to early 70's; then Global Warming through the late 90's and early this decade; now it is "man made climate change". Sounds a bit like clutching at straws.

The extremely complicated and fluctuating layer of gases wrapped round our planet is just not well enough understood to make claims that man is effecting it that much. I would say that there are other massive factors are effecting it. These would be the SUN, the OCEAN, and VOLCANIC activity

ModernSlave

worldwheeler wrote: »

cepheus wrote: »

First, I mean on a global level, and not isolated events. I am referring to Temperature change. Sceptics are fond of reminding us that temperatures have been warmer 100 000 years ago or more. Although natural events can cause wide temperature changes, no scientist would claim otherwise, we know orbital changes over many tens of thousands of years can cause this. So what? To explain the rise in the last hundred we need to find something that changes on this sort of timescale that hasn't for many thousands of years, and there is only one reasonable candidate, something caused by the rise in human population and affluence.

cepheus wrote: »

So the increase you state has happened over the last century. Ice core samples have shown dramitic rises and falls have ocurred in the past over periods of only a decade or two.

Say we consider the Sun as an explanation (even without needing to do any physics or calculations) why would the Sun just happen to change over the last 100 years, when all indications temperatures have been steady since the last ice age? A remarkable coincidence. This is all about a sense of time periods, very basic statistics and common sense. There is hardly any need to invoke heavy science at all. Science is only necessary as a verification to raise our certainty of Anthropogenic warming from say 90% to 99% and we have done this as well.
Ah, you are ignoring the influence of the sun!!! That thermo-nuclear heat source that is many tens of thousands of times bigger than our planet. It is well recognised that the sun has many cycles which run at differing timescales. Combine them with varriations in earths orbit and angular orientation and the possible effects on earth are immense.

This is the point where a sceptic would invoke the psedoscientific principle of moving the goalposts. That is if one fact doesn't fit change it, and feed on peoples ignorance to justify it. Suddenly the temperatures must be wrong, either now or historically, what about the Medieval warm period, Greenland, oh yes the scientists published the figures wrong for November so everything must be wrong, what about the heat Island effect etc. Yawn Yawn. All these issues have been addressed and dismissed a thousand times, but they know people have short term memories. The policy is keep up the debate and add sufficient doubt so they don't need to prove anything, leave that to the poor scientists!
How was the medievel warm period address? Certainly not by Al Gore, who didn't even mention it because it would have bent his holy "hockey stick" graph.
Two scientific organisations, SEPP (led by Dr Singer)and the NRSP (led by Dr Ball) are out front in challenging MMCC theory and what their climatologists and atmospheric physicists have to say makes very good sense. They have formed a body called the Non-governmental Panel on Climate Change challenging the IPCC and its political MMCC dogmas. Some members of NRSP are disenchanted IPCC expert reviewers. As already stated free thinking is real science, bandwagons are not!!!The people will wake up to this scam. I recommend Lord Nigel Lawson's excellent book 'An Appeal to Reason'..a cool look at global warming.
There are many free thinkers in the scientific community but sadly this anthropogenic myth must be adhered to obtain/comtinue govt grant money in scientific research.
The IPCC spends most of its time editing, embelishing and rejecting scientific reports to make them adhere to its predetermined mindset to keep the gravy train going. In years to come this MMCC thing will be seen as a huge scam. The IPCC's reason for existence is not to investigate climate change and its possible causes..it is to use pathological science to prove humankind causes climate change.
Local councils are heavily brainwashed with the very weak theory of climate change by a central government devoted to tax hikes. The Green scam is such an opportunity for tax and price hikes, bin wardens, car parking charges, fuel taxes, congestion charges, road tolls etc etc. How could this government resist it?
As there has been no increase in global temperatures this decade and there are now signs of cooling, no prizes for guessing the next weak theory...yes back to the weak Man-made Global Cooling theories of the late sixties (the buzzwords will be Global Dimming).

Cold spell, must be the end of global warming, warm spell no proof of anything. Poor scientists have to provide definitive proof before they can say anything, so it isn't a fair fight, and one that should have been over years ago. There are no such restrictions for the imbeciles at the Telegraph.
Well as far as I have interpreted the press- there was the imminent new ice age reported in the late 60's to early 70's; then Global Warming through the late 90's and early this decade; now it is "man made climate change". Sounds a bit like clutching at straws.

The extremely complicated and fluctuating layer of gases wrapped round our planet is just not well enough understood to make claims that man is effecting it that much. I would guess that other massive factors are effecting it. These would be the SUN, the OCEAN, and VOLCANIC activity

SEPP eh? Guess if they have an acronym they must be right.

Here's a website that lists all the lovely, honest, nothing better to do than just help everyone out by telling the truth, lobbists. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/global-warming-skeptic.html

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.
Spin: Moreover, climate change won't be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.
Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon's Unification Church, including receipt of a year's free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.
Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz

NRSP eh? Here's what wikipedia has to say.

The NRSP has been criticised on the basis that it is an industry-funded body which presents itself as a grassroots organization, an activity referred as Astroturfing.[1] [2] Harris rejects this criticism but refuses to reveal the sources of NRSP funding.
A report in the Toronto Star on 2007-01-28 stated:[3]
"Harris has not revealed who funds the Stewardship Project, launched in October 2005: 'I get donations ... from Canadians all across the country.' Two were for $10,000 each. 'Because of the tenor of the debate, the possibility of vicious attacks, (donors) don't want us to make our names public ... We don't want them to get 3 a.m. phone calls.' The project is no orphan, though. According to Harris, the idea behind the project came from Timothy Egan, President of the High Park Group, a Toronto-based lobby organization. Harris is the former head of its Ottawa office. The federal Lobbyists Registration System indicates that High Park's clients include the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association. Harris argues that there's nothing wrong with industry funding. "For the most part, it doesn't support research," he adds, paying only for communications instead." NRSP has been mentioned in at least two op-ed pieces. [2][3]
Don Trella, featured Opinions columnist of The Brown Daily Herald (Brown University's campus daily) mocked the NRSP in the introduction to his column on the media's portrayal of the global warming issue. [4]

But if NRSP is legit, why won't they reveal the funding??

cepheus

Worldwheeler

It is typical of these 'organisations'. When you investigate them they consist of people who either don't exist, or are paid to talk bo**ocks.

Four of the nine science advisors listed on (the SEPP) web site (William Mitchell, William Nierenberg, Michael J. Higatsberger, and Chauncey Starr) are deceased.

Most of the others are also on the notorious right wing think tank the GC Marshall Institute funded by the fossil fuel industry.

I am sure any remaining questions (not addressed by the common sense approach which you have ignored) are fully answered on the Q & A link I posted. If you wan't more, there is lots of information from reputable sources out there.

And if you are still convinced there is no warming I will take a bet with you on future global temperatures. Name the time period, odds and price. If not then you are like most of the rest of sceptics, fraudalent and sowing misinformation because you are only interested in your own short term future, and don't even believe your own nonsense.

worldwheeler

Most of the others are also on the notorious right wing think tank the GC Marshall Institute funded by the fossil fuel industry.
The IPCC is a think tank that is funded to produce a set of result that the funders require. They quote an increase in CO2 from 280 to 380 parts per million since the start of the industrial revolution as the reason for supposed warming. That's a 0.01% increase, wow!
The fossil fuel industry!? Companies like Shell, Exxon and the like. Well the global warming lobby is being driven by these as the major fact that has been expelled is renewable energy.This has focused on wind power. Wind power is very unreliable and require a back up (coal,oil or gas) to be running in the back ground to step in when wind drops. Wow, double revenue for the power companies. Especially as wind power and carbon reduction is funded by EU law directly from TAX PAYERS, the most reliable source of revenue.
Governments and corporation benefit from the "fight to save the planet" by the implementation of emotive arguements to TAX the people.

I am sure any remaining questions (not addressed by the common sense approach which you have ignored) are fully answered on the Q & A link I posted.
The "common sense approach"! Ah the one you have used to disregard the influence of the SUN, OCEANS and VOLCANOES!! The same approach that ignores the the Medieval warm period and starts the temperature graph, to prove warming, from the LITTLE ICE AGE!!! And common sense that ignores ice cores that show that the climate temperature has always been in flux. Any temperature swings that happened in the past must have been due to something that now has no influence on our climate as any warming, cooling or freak weather happening now must be caused by human behaviour!!! VERY PRESUMPTUOUS.

If you wan't more, there is lots of information from reputable sources out there.
Funny how these reputable sources rely on funding from bodies that benefit from the on going tax on society as the implementation of carbon tax payments. Any public figure who refutes the consensus is ridiculed and ostracised. Some scientific institutes refuse to acknowledge qualifications of scientist if the do not agree with the principle of man made global warming.

And if you are still convinced there is no warming I will take a bet with you on future global temperatures. Name the time period, odds and price. If not then you are like most of the rest of sceptics, fraudalent and sowing misinformation because you are only interested in your own short term future, and don't even believe your own nonsense.
I will take that bet for the period 2003-2008. My own intersets are not to line the pockets of corporations and governments for a solution that doesn't work (windpower) to a problem that is being presented to us by the very people who stand to benefit.

punamulta

I just sincerely hope that on this one occasion the majority actually are right, science has never been a democratic process and very often in the past it's been the minority that were correct, with 'groupthink' psychology herding the majority in a given direction..A good example is Galileo
I recall he was told the same thing about his theories, that ''the majority of your peer scientists say you are wrong'' and he was thrown in jail. Now he would be dismissed as a right wing stooge I suppose.
Despite the fact that as much of the recent pollution came from the Left wing socialist block's heavy industries, a fact conveniently overlooked by the new red-greens.