Climate Change Deceit & Facts.

Like it………:o.
Cmon snafu, it will soon be bedtime…..need your input.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

How could he, Linc – he’s a zealot, as they all are.

You didn’t think for a second, that snafu would agree, did you Chas?.
Now standing by for a plethora of words from snafu, I always read his threads just before bed time, helps me to drop off quicker…….:D
Jim.
Lincoln .7

In a way thats right. Changes In climate over a few decades are totally irrelevant set against natural cycles of climate change over thousands of years.

.

.

I don’t agree chaps.

I think we are being fed a load of B/S, the simple truth is, you can’t argue with, and never will be able to argue with Mother Nature, it’s all a matter of what she, not us decides.However, it does keep a shed load of scientists in a well paid job, ennit?.

Jim.
Lincoln .7

I would summarise the opposing views by saying that the believers in AGW depend on the selection of data to suit the computer models they rely on and which have proved suspect, to say the least, and those who oppose that theory as relying on scientific data only, going back from the present to several million years ago.

.

John,

I note your comments alongside observiing them to be a largely an opinion piece with no data supporting them.

I have observed that a favoured tactic of todays society is to wrap oneself in the flag of that which you oppose in order to attempt to gain the high ground. I note this behaviour in your post.

As such i will assign the level of credibility required to your thoughts and continue to lament the decline in respect for science you and others exhibit.

The advance of the East versus the apparent decline of the West is another topic.

I will mention however that another tactic i have observed to be much in favour today is to spread confusion and dis-information by linking two or more tenously linked elements to arrive at a desired conclusion. Unfortunately this behaviour is also present in your post.

It is of interest that by raising the apparent decline of the West versus the (re-)emergence of the East you display the very fear based reasoning and decision making i have previously refered to.

I must extend my thanks to you for providing data to validate my thoughts.

Snafu

Your 163 is a farrago of utter nonsense. I, for one, comply with your baseline description. Yes, I’m not just old, I’m very, very old and without particular expertise on many matters including global warming. You certainly cast your net far and wide when trawling for ‘evidence’ to destroy the credibility of what you see as the opposition to your unthinking premise of man made global warming.

Most of those who you see as the ‘opposition’ understand and accept the concept of global warming and – let us not forget global cooling, in otherwords variability in the extremes of the Earth’s weather patterns. What we don’t accept is the connection that continues to be made by those that should know better – I refer to so-called weather ‘scientists’ and climatologists exemplified by a well known geneticist and newspaper writer commenting on the media about the ‘science’ supporting man made global warming and in doing so disparaging the opposition.

If science – any science, is about anything, it is about measurement and observation. Both criteria are inapplicable when applied to any examination of man made global warming because of the TIME SCALE required for observable, accurate measurement. Yet, here we are, the nation that once led the world in discovery, innovation and invention hitching ouselves to a runaway wagon of scare mongering and saddling ourselves with punitive taxes, levy’s and charges that once in place will never be removed, all at the behest of ignorant carpetbagging politicians supported by so called academic doomsayers indulging in spurious ‘science’.

So, what do we have? We have a weird kind of prophetic ‘science’ based upon opinion. An opinion that seems to be both politically inspired and driven by former polytechnics that require to produce catchy headlines in order to justify their often bloated ‘research’ budgets.

Meanwhile, the West is busy plotting its own industrial wake, agonising over which is the least polluting and deceiving itself as to the most cost effective choice of energy to keep the lights on – India, China, Indonesia, Russia adopt a slightly more pragmatic view and maintain their status quo. Against this, Britain’s contribution of self imposed hardship thru’ financial penalties borne by the consumer is laughable – in fact ‘snafu’ a bit like your 163.

You are early tonight!! I can’t speak for others you categorise but only as one seeking answers to very straightforward questions to which the AGW believers have no answers. I fear that the large body of believers has been swept up in the tide of certainty pressured by interested parties and political influence to the point where it is sacrilege to denounce it. We are the 21st century heretics.

.

.

I think you’ll find it is rather the other way around. “Believers” eh.

This may be a harsh sentiment but i cannot help but note that many of those in denial of human climate change impact are of an advanced age.

It is their legacy of wanton exploitation that they are seeking to deny whilst also exhibiting clear fears of having the comfortable lifestype constructed on the back of that explotation removed by efforts to combat human climate change.

Basically it is a very normal human fear of change which becomes more prevalent as one gets older.

The decline in understanding and respect for the scientific process is disasterous and appalling.

When “because it was on the internet” (and fits in with my beliefs and selfish desires) becomes the accepted standard test and evidence i shall retrieve the shotgun and retire to the shed.

What i find pathetic is the materially orientated and incredibly selfish attitiude of the majority of the baby boomer generation. A generation that essentaily had life handed to them on a plate and are now crying foul at any small attempt to change their established, comfortable and priviledged lifestyle for the benefit of all.

They cannot, so resort to name calling. Pathetic, really.

If I recall my university science classes…”real” science is not afraid of scrutiny.
But there does seem a ongoing effort to immediately discredit anyone who challenges climate change.
When agencies are caught fudging figures, or if someone publishes data that seems to lessen the problem, little notice is seemingly paid to that….which only heightens the suspicions of critics.
I’d be happier if the believers would spend more time answering any doubts with proof and spend less time name calling.

I do not know to what you refer. But, yes, that’s probably a good idea because my questions remain unanswered and we are never going to find common ground.

Quality is what matters, not quantity.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]222138[/ATTACH]

I think on that note I’ll leave this thread.

Moggy

“The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, as its name suggests, is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures and influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations.

NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.”

Quality is what matters, not quantity. And until the IPCC answers the key question posed above the have failed to make the case for AGW. Indeed, if you have done your reading there is an interesting study going on to determine the possibility that CO2 might be increasing as a result of warming rather than the other way round.

And coming back to Steve Jones I think he was hypocritical in his implied criticism of the geologist, when the IPCC is lead by a railway engineer. And secondly whilst accusing “deniers” of being blinkered in not accepting settled science he on the other hand stated that science can never be accepted and cited a pertinent example. Scientists eminent in their various fields are picking holes in the flawed IPCC report and the true believers don’t like it.

There is a wealth of contrary information on the internet

Indeed.

It tells me that honey and cinammon will cure cancer too.

Moggy

The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists, think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from conventional wisdom.

The NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors.

The NIPCC does not employ the same rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are accurate and inclusive.

Moggy – we will have to agree to profoundly disagree. The description of “scientific rigour” as applied to the IPCC is laughable. If you have actually read the detailed report written by the NIPCC scientists you will realise how flawed the IPCC claims are scientifically. There is a wealth of contrary information on the internet, much not worth looking at too closely, I agree, but much setting down a far more rigourous scientific basis than the IPCC ever has. The problem is that the IPCC is now an entirely politicised organisation which has to perpetuate its existence, despite the myriad of flaws in its findings.

And it has never addressed the key question which is that since we all agree that climate has warmed and cooled through the millenia, which is why geological/paleontological input is so important, why is what has been happening over the last few decades so much more signficant than what has happened many times in the past?

Yes it was in that Steve Jones, a committed believer in AGW, was critical of a geologist speaking against AGW but failed to mention that the leading proponent of the belief and Chairman of the IPCC is a railway engineer.
The point which eludes Steve Jones and others is that climate effects are recorded in the geology of the planet over millennia and that evidence shows incontrovertibly how climate has changed long before man’s arrival and the impact of his presence. And a very long time before man made computer modelling.

Yes, I remember watching a documentary (long before all this climate change talk) that detailed how the history of the Earth left “fingerprints” in the rock.

They could even tell that the Earth’s magnetic poles had switched at least once before possible more. So the poles switching, as they seem more and more inclined to do lately, isn’t a disaster in the making.

Likewise the climate change. The rocks showed that the Earth’s climate changes fairly regularly (every 50 thousand year or so if I recall correctly) and has done so since the formation of this rock.

Humans came into existence during the last shift and the climate has remained “abnormally” stable (how they put it in the docu) for a long period of time. But now the balance may have been tipped and change could be upon us.

Are we helping? Probably not.
Are we the cause: I very much doubt it.

It happened long before we existed. It will continue to happen long after we are gone.

Climate change was not invented to provide a vehicle for more taxation. But, it has been used as an excuse nonetheless.

I can’t see that what he said even came close to hypocrisy

A few years back I had cancer, went to a doctor, had it treated. I didn’t follow advice on the Internet that mixing honey and cinnamon would cure cancer, heart disease, the plague and probably many other things.

I, and most others, prefer to take the best opinion from those qualified to give it, and discount the stuff that has no scientific rigour. That’s not ‘being blinkered, it’s looking to the source.

Moggy