Man Made Global Warming / hype (merged)

Feel free to attempt to do so.

I appreciate the offer, Grey Area, but I don’t think I am seeing eye to eye with many here so I’ll just rest my case and if we are all still posting here in a decade we can revisit our arguments. I’ll happily eat humble pie, if I am wrong, and assume others will if they are.

It would achieve little to pick holes in any number of the points you raise here.

Feel free to attempt to do so.

It would achieve little to pick holes in any number of the points you raise here suffice to deal with your penultimate sentence, because it is the most important. I heartily agree with the first part but not the second. If one accepts the inevitability of global warming then it is a scandalous waste of money to try to mitigate the inevitable. The current targets call for trillions of pounds to be spent on reducing CO2 levels based on, let us say, dubious science. The effects on mankind are likely to be far worse than doing nothing.

Sooner or later it is probable that mankind will be wiped out by a massive cooling or warming in any case. All we will have achieved is a huge reduction in mankind’s quality of life for an unknown, unpredictable catastrophe.

The now infamous and totally discredited “hockey stick” was “peer reviewed”. The problem was that the review was not undertaken by disinterested scientists.

One instance out of thousands. Clutching at straws!

Presumably you would have us believe that the “sceptics” are disinterested scientists?

Despite it being a matter of record that a number of the most prominent dissenting voices are funded, to a greater or lesser degree, by petroleum and oil-related companies? No conflict of interest there, I’m sure.

For the record, I’m not convinced that human activity is wholly responsible for global warming.

Nor am I convinced that all of the heat, “greenhouse gasses” and excess carbon dioxide that human activity has added to the atmospheric has had no effect whatsoever.

When we talk glibly about “the climate” we are actually talking about a hugely complex interdependent chaotic system that even those who have spent a lifetime in studying it do not fully understand.

It may well be that human activity only has a small impact on a global scale. Equally, it may well be that a small impact is all that it takes to throw a complex chaotic system out of balance. The last straw, so to speak.

The truth is that we simply do not know for sure. Anyone – from either camp – who claims otherwise is being, at best, disingenuous or, at worst, mendacious,

The polar icecaps do not care about politics (whether of the right or of the left), so they keep on melting – changing the salinity of seawater and altering the direction and temperature of the ocean currents that are the engine that drives the world’s major weather systems and raising sea levels around the world.

Glaciers all over the world don’t give a toss what Jeremy Clarkson thinks, so they keep on melting, too – raising river levels and increasing rates of erosion further downstream and adding to the overall rise in sea levels.

The atmosphere doesn’t give a jot for the grandiose proclamations of Internet Warriors, so the levels of carbon dioxide slowly creep up, contributing to a slow but inexorable rise in global average temperatures.

These things – and many others – are really happening.

Only the cause is in dispute, not the effects. But it is the effects that cause the damage.

Instead of wasting precious time and resources on political posturing, blame shifting and point scoring, together with perpetuating a collective state of denial, the governments of the world should be bending their wills towards concrete action to mitigate the effects of global warming, in both the short and long terms.

Anything else is an irrelevance and a distraction.

I’m going to leave this now because there’s not enough facts coming back – such as the evidence or motive for why somebody deliberately manipulates data.

But glad we agree that the planet is warming – saves discussing the “hockey stick”.

Whether it has levelled off or not – I presume you mean this graph

You’re right, we don’t know which way it will go next year and to base an assumption that it has levelled off on three or fours years of data is fundamentally flawed. There is simply too much variation in the data to draw such a conclusion. Draw the graph as far as 1995 and you would have a much lower mean than shown.

EDIT to add – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

Perhaps you should direct your question to Prof Mann and others who manipulated the data. We have our theories and some rather interesting facts emerged during the senate hearings, but that’s for him to answer. I would have thought that the hockey stick and the more recent duplicity at CPL cannot be ignored, much as the IPCC and others would wish.

I am not drawing any conclusions, just stating a fact. And really you are making my point for me. Facts are in short supply in this debate.

The earth has warmed and cooled for millenia and it will continue to warm and cool until it dies. Those facts are indisputable but what is disputable is why. And it seems to me that to blame warming in the last few decades on a phenomenum that has only existed for a tiny fraction of the earth’s life is ridiculous.

Yes, that graph is one of a number readily available.

I’m going to leave this now because there’s not enough facts coming back – such as the evidence or motive for why somebody deliberately manipulates data.

But glad we agree that the planet is warming – saves discussing the “hockey stick”.

Whether it has levelled off or not – I presume you mean this graph

You’re right, we don’t know which way it will go next year and to base an assumption that it has levelled off on three or fours years of data is fundamentally flawed. There is simply too much variation in the data to draw such a conclusion. Draw the graph as far as 1995 and you would have a much lower mean than shown.

EDIT to add – http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm

No – the problem was that it was done way back in 1998 and the science has advanced. If you are saying it is totally discredited then you are saying that there is no global warming – man-made or otherwise.

Much more data has been added to the debate, the way it is analysed is more sophisticated and now even governments accept that the planet is warming.

Even if you ignore Mann et all (1998) “The Hockey Stick” there is plenty of other evidence – see here

You are confusing a number of things here.

1. The discrediting of the hockey stick is significant because the facts were being deliberately manipulated to produce the result required. I.e. proof of MMGW. Yes the science has advanced but not to support the hockey stick. All the computer models without the algorithm do not show a hockey stick.

2. To attribute a denial by me that the world is warming is factually incorrect.

3. “Even governments accept that the planet is warming”. Well, firstly of course they do because it is, or at least was until 4 or 5 years ago. And secondly of course they do because that is their agenda and that is why they are expending millions of pounds and thousands of tons of CO2 babbling together in Denmark.

4. Your final confusionm is to assume that I and presumably others deny the planet is warming. It did indeed start to warm but has now levelled off and no one knows what will happen next. I totally accept the warming and cooling cycles which have been taking place since long before man emmitted a single gram of CO2. And it will without any doubt whatsoever warm and cool in the millenia to come. But our contention is that we will not be causing it and we can nothing to prevent it.

The now infamous and totally discredited “hockey stick” was “peer reviewed”. The problem was that the review was not undertaken by disinterested scientists.

No – the problem was that it was done way back in 1998 and the science has advanced. If you are saying it is totally discredited then you are saying that there is no global warming – man-made or otherwise.

Much more data has been added to the debate, the way it is analysed is more sophisticated and now even governments accept that the planet is warming.

Even if you ignore Mann et all (1998) “The Hockey Stick” there is plenty of other evidence – see here

The 200 or so scientists, many with specialist knowledge who dissented from the last IPCC report. The scientists who gave evidence at the senate hearings in the US and countless others who have published papers on the subject.

Anything else?

Moggy, let me ask you one question out of many I would like to, if I may. How do you, as a clearly confirmed believer, account for all the previous warmings over the past 500,000 years and as recently as the Medieval Warming, all of which occurred when no CO2 was being produced by man?

Whilst in no way supporting Moggy I must take issue with you there. Man has always produce CO2 merely by breathing, or had you forgotten that one?:)

T How do you . . . account for all the previous warmings over the past 500,000 years and as recently as the Medieval Warming, all of which occurred when no CO2 was being produced by man?

The Medieval Warming happened in Europe but not elsewhere – European warming but not global warming.

See Science magazine which says “The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally.”

The emphasis is mine.

Classic conspiracy theorist tactic – big emphasis on something that sounds credible but which collapses once subjected to any investigation.

The current Act on CO2 ads are yet more evidence of this government lying to the people and using scare tactics to achieve it . The drowning puppy is about as low as you can get and the ASA has enough complaints about it on record – hopefully they’ll pull it.
http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/CO2+ad.htm

While I have no doubt that man’s activity is probably helping to change the climate to a small degree I think it is being blown out of all proportion. The new series Man On Earth pretty much cuts to the message that the world has cooled down, warmed up, cooled down and warmed up several times over the last 200,000 years.
Humans were almost on the brink of extinction until another warm spell came along. That’s of course if you can believe any programme hosted by Baldrick!…..

The developed west has already caused any damage but for the developing countries to claim some sort of immunity from any action on their CO2 emissions is something which should be stopped. They should be encouraged to use greener forms of energy – maybe build all the wind farms in China instead of here ….

I’m sure you are right.

The scientists know nothing, the internet chatterers have it correct.

Halleluah! – We are all saved.

Here endeth my contribution to this futile ‘debate’

Moggy

That is a bit like the baby throwing his toys out of the pram. The subject is so very important that the debate is vital. The tragedy is that the warmists have closed their eyes and ears to any contradiction of the adopted view. Blinkered vision coupled with the ostrich stance afflicts our world leaders and it is appalling.

If you are interested there is plenty of science freely available on the internet and in print to support what I and many, many others have been saying here and elsewhere. It may be, however, that like the majority of warmists any consideration of the contradictory view is unnacceptable.

Those of us who take a more rational view have already been compared with holocaust deniers, such is the loathing in which we are held. I pity the warmists but ultimately they will ruin us all with their hair-brained schemes.

I’m sure you are right.

The scientists know nothing, the internet chatterers have it correct.

Halleluah! – We are all saved.

Here endeth my contribution to this futile ‘debate’

Moggy

How would that help the discussion? Nobody has ever disputed that the climate is subject to cyclical variation.

But never before has a natural warming or cooling had the massive increases in man-made emissions added to it.

Moggy

But it is CORE to the entire process. And cyclical variation is what has been such a serious problem that attempts have been made to subvert it, some already proven.

If your contention is correct we would expect to see widely increased variations, due to the “massive increases in man-made emmissions”, whereas the current warming is relatively mild compared to the three most recent cyclical warmings and of course there has been no increase in the warming for 5 or 6 years. You also mention cooling. And it was upon that the edifice was originally constructed about 20 years ago until it was clear that the earth was warming and so warming replaced cooling as the doomesday scenario. It cannot be both.

How do you, as a clearly confirmed believer, account for all the previous warmings over the past 500,000 years and as recently as the Medieval Warming, all of which occurred when no CO2 was being produced by man?

How would that help the discussion? Nobody has ever disputed that the climate is subject to cyclical variation.

But never before has a natural warming or cooling had the massive increases in man-made emissions added to it.

Moggy

So basically Mike

1) You are making statements based on something you remember reading on teletext several years ago. I suggest you Google The Heartland Institute to see if this rings any bells.

2) You then state as fact something that is totally untrue as GA has just pointed out.

Your case is looking just a tad flimsy.

Moggy

A few moment’s research will show you that this is patently not the case, whatever your stance on the issue.

The now infamous and totally discredited “hockey stick” was “peer reviewed”. The problem was that the review was not undertaken by disinterested scientists.

Mike repeats the same fiction above.

Where is your source?

Moggy

The 200 or so scientists, many with specialist knowledge who dissented from the last IPCC report. The scientists who gave evidence at the senate hearings in the US and countless others who have published papers on the subject.

Anything else?

Moggy, let me ask you one question out of many I would like to, if I may. How do you, as a clearly confirmed believer, account for all the previous warmings over the past 500,000 years and as recently as the Medieval Warming, all of which occurred when no CO2 was being produced by man?

Possibly because none of the”evidence” put forward by the so called experts has been peer reviewed.

A few moment’s research will show you that this is patently not the case, whatever your stance on the issue.

There’s precious little evidence of any sort in this debate so far here – certainly not of the peer-reviewed type that the scientific community demands.

It is fascinating that the sceptics’ arguments have an almost religious fervour, talking of belief more than quoting evidence and sources. I’ve kept an open mind on the subject but it is clear that the arguments put about by sceptics are so superficial. Conversely the Climatologists views have taken many, many years to investigate and prove, backed up with rafts of data.

So why is it that the UK has lost respect for the scientific community who have spent many years learning their trade?

I have a lot of time for Burt Rutan as an aircraft designer but as a hobby climatologist I found his arguments sounded like little more than those of a conspiracy theorist. Imagine discussing the future of a planet based on the type of arguments used to discus whether Prince Philip killed his daughter-in-law!

Possibly because none of the”evidence” put forward by the so called experts has been peer reviewed. Probably because the ones who put forward the “evidence” are scared that they would be told they were wrong if their ideas were subjected to peer review.