• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Manmade Climate Change: The Deeper Agenda

Cochise said:
Climate 'science' from the outset has tried to ignore the historical and geological record and has relied on computer models.
Just not true! They look at the geological records going millions of years back, and can correlate temperatures and CO2 levels, especially noticing what happens in times of previous climate changes.

They can also study ancient air directly, in the form of air bubbles trapped in deep ice cores.

You'll find all this referenced on the proper Global Warming thread.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known for years before computers were invented. That's as solid a scientific fact as the law of gravity. Trouble is, mankind has been upsetting the balance in recent centuries by releasing fossil carbon into the atmosphere at increasing rates, a fact the fossil fuel industry tries to cover up or deny. That's the conspiracy that this thread is about.
 
Cochise said:
Trying to use a period of 200 years to analyse climate movement is like basing your football match analysis entirely on extra time.

Yep, I tried to point this out a while ago, but my comments fell on deaf ears.
 
Cochise said:
I would have thought that the failure of the world to act on AGW is due to the fact that most of the world outside Europe and the Anglosphere has worked out that not merely is there no AGW, actual warming by normal climate fluctuation (which is constant, and goes in cycles of thousands or even 10's of thousands of years) has currently stopped.

No-one knows whether, in 200 years time the planet will be warmer or colder than it is now. It is as simple as that. Odds are that it will be warmer, fossil evidence tells us most of its history the planet has been warmer than it is now, but there may yet be another kick in the last Ice Age.

Civilization has existed in a 10,000 year period of stability at an intermediate level between the warmer norm and the colder ice ages - whatever humans do this is unlikely to last for ever.

Climate 'science' from the outset has tried to ignore the historical and geological record and has relied on computer models. Unfortunately computer models simply don't work for such a complex purpose. They are unable even to predict traffic densities on our roads five years ahead, a far less complex problem.

I suspect the fundamental problem for climate 'scientists', assuming they are not all politicised or corrupt, is that they, in common with much of the human race, simply can't get they heads around how fantastically long the Earth has been here and how long its climate cycles take to play out. Trying to use a period of 200 years to analyse climate movement is like basing your football match analysis entirely on extra time.

'Dark money'. Pish. And indeed tosh. How much money that is behind the AGW 'science' comes from people who expect to make a profit from the theory?

And before anyone questions my use of 'science' as quoted - Science is neither democratic nor statistical. For something to be a scientific fact it must be able to be confirmed by repeatable experiment. Belief does not enter into it. If you work in a discipline where such is not possible, you are not a scientist but a philosopher.
The only thing that's 'pish' here is the above post. From start to finish. Only someone who hasn't actually reviewed any of the current science on the subject could possibly write so much nonsense.

The very idea that climate scientists work entirely from computer models without checking the, 'historical and geological record', is ridiculous. Embarrassingly so.

Keep taking the Kool-Aid, boys! :lol:
 
Why do they start their analysis in 1750 then? Where is ANY proof other than statistical analysis and computer models? Not that the climate is changing, but that the climate change is caused by human generated CO2 emissions. As I point out, it would be hardly surprising if the climate did change. We probably should be expecting it to.

Anyway, this _is_ the conspiracy thread - either the AGW enthusiasts or the deniers are in a conspiracy - possibly both :)
 
Cochise said:
Why do they start their analysis in 1750 then?
That's yer actual 'istory, innit?

The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines, new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes, improved efficiency of water power, the increasing use of steam power and the development of machine tools. It also included the change from wood and other bio-fuels to coal. It began in Great Britain and within a few decades had spread to Western Europe and the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
If you want to know the quantified effects on the atmosphere of using fossil fuels, there's not much point starting before ~1750, because fossil fuel use in earlier times was negligable.

When wood and dried dung was used for heating, the trees, and the plants that animals ate, absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place, so there was a closed cycle of CO2, no net loss or gain.

But with the coming of the industrial revolution, everything changed. Burning fossil fuel suddenly released huge amounts of CO2 that had taken thousands of years to be locked away in the earth, and had remained there for millions of years since.

Unless we can find a practical way of locking CO2 from fossil fuels back in the earth again, then atmospheric CO2 is bound to increase.
 
If you want to know the quantified effects on the atmosphere of using fossil fuels, there's not much point starting before ~1750, because fossil fuel use in earlier times was negligable.

That's true, but the starting point should be to assess the fluctuations in temperature and climate over a lengthy period and then deduce what may causing those fuctuations. By picking a date which coincides with industrial scale use of fossil fuels, you risk looking for data to validate your (forgone) conclusion rather than assessing the data and then thinking about a conclusion.

It is well established that higher temperatures have been seen at earlier points in human history, notably in the medieval warm period, and that this warm period was followed by a cooling which lasted several centuries before temperatures started to increase again in the 19th century. It would show a fuller and fairer picture if the graphs covered a longer period of time. Failing to do so opens their authors up to criticisms that they are cherry picking data to fit with the conclusion they wish to see.
 
Quake42 said:
...

It is well established that higher temperatures have been seen at earlier points in human history, notably in the medieval warm period, and that this warm period was followed by a cooling which lasted several centuries before temperatures started to increase again in the 19th century. It would show a fuller and fairer picture if the graphs covered a longer period of time. Failing to do so opens their authors up to criticisms that they are cherry picking data to fit with the conclusion they wish to see.
It's not well established, at all.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

What the science says... Basic

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.


Climate Myth...

Medieval Warm Period was warmer

The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.


One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.
The subject is treated in much greater depth over on the Skeptical Science site.
 
Quake42 said:
If you want to know the quantified effects on the atmosphere of using fossil fuels, there's not much point starting before ~1750, because fossil fuel use in earlier times was negligable.

It would show a fuller and fairer picture if the graphs covered a longer period of time. Failing to do so opens their authors up to criticisms they are cherry picking data to fit with the conclusion that they wish to see.
Not all graphs start in 1750! People research atmospheric changes for many reasons (biological, geological, astrophysical, etc), and not just to study climate change.

Any decent scientist would be appalled at your suggestion that "they are cherry picking data to fit with the conclusion that they wish to see." This is the sort of slur that CC deniers frequently lobbed around, suggesting that somehow researchers got more kudos or money if they could produce results fitting a particular agenda, but without actually specifying who was backing this particular agenda or why.

It's a dangerous argument for Climate Change deniers to employ, because it works much better in reverse - who could possibly be rich and powerful enough to persue an agenda denying that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes climate change... :twisted:
 
Any decent scientist would be appalled at your suggestion that "they are cherry picking data to fit with the conclusion that they wish to see."

I thought I made it clear that this was not necessarily something I believed; but that choosing an arbitrary date which coincides with industrial use of fossil fuels leaves one open to that accusation.

As I said earlier on the thread, scientists are not always the dispassionate, neutral players they are portayed as, particularly in an area as emotive as climate change. The area naturally attracts people with an interest in the subject and existing views, and those people are often very invested in particular outcomes. I know this from personal experience - I have a friend who is a researcher in this area and she was drawn to it from a wider concern about social justice and environmental issues.

Anyway, I see the "DENIER!" burn the heretic crap has started up again so I will bow out of this thread. As Yith said a few pages ago, the entrenched positions on both sides of this argument is deeply offputting to those of us not already hunkered down on one side or the other.
 
Quake42 said:
Any decent scientist would be appalled at your suggestion that "they are cherry picking data to fit with the conclusion that they wish to see."

I thought I made it clear that this was not necessarily something I believed; but that choosing an arbitrary date which coincides with industrial use of fossil fuels leaves one open to that accusation.

...
As Rynner has pointed out, it's only an arbitrary date in as much as it's about the date that the Industrial revolution started the large scale pumping of fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

There are plenty of other estimates and graphs which go back far further into the past and show a somewhat more natural fluctuation of the climate, before that date.
...

As I said earlier on the thread, scientists are not always the dispassionate, neutral players they are portayed as, particularly in an area as emotive as climate change. The area naturally attracts people with an interest in the subject and existing views, and those people are often very invested in particular outcomes. I know this from personal experience - I have a friend who is a researcher in this area and she was drawn to it from a wider concern about social justice and environmental issues.

Anyway, I see the "DENIER!" burn the heretic crap has started up again so I will bow out of this thread. As Yith said a few pages ago, the entrenched positions on both sides of this argument is deeply offputting to those of us not already hunkered down on one side or the other.
I'd just like to remind people that this thread was originally started by a denier with the intended purpose of attacking the science.

If you intend to step into the climate debate and suggest that climate scientists are wrong, misleading the public for ideological reasons, or cherry picking their facts and information, perhaps you should check your own facts and information, first?

Deniers these days attempt to spread confusion and portray the climate debate as still evenly balanced and open to serious doubt. It has cost the likes of the Koch brothers, fossil fuel corporations and various other interested parties many millions. They obviously think the investment is worth it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks
Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science


• How Donors Trust distributed millions to anti-climate groups

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
The Guardian, Thursday 14 February 2013


Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising "wedge issue" for hardcore conservatives.

The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

Whitney Ball, chief executive of the Donors Trust told the Guardian that her organisation assured wealthy donors that their funds would never by diverted to liberal causes.

"We exist to help donors promote liberty which we understand to be limited government, personal responsibility, and free enterprise," she said in an interview.

By definition that means none of the money is going to end up with groups like Greenpeace, she said. "It won't be going to liberals."

Ball won't divulge names, but she said the stable of donors represents a wide range of opinion on the American right. Increasingly over the years, those conservative donors have been pushing funds towards organisations working to discredit climate science or block climate action.

Donors exhibit sharp differences of opinion on many issues, Ball said. They run the spectrum of conservative opinion, from social conservatives to libertarians. But in opposing mandatory cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, they found common ground.

"Are there both sides of an environmental issue? Probably not," she went on. "Here is the thing. If you look at libertarians, you tend to have a lot of differences on things like defence, immigration, drugs, the war, things like that compared to conservatives. When it comes to issues like the environment, if there are differences, they are not nearly as pronounced."

By 2010, the dark money amounted to $118m distributed to 102 thinktanks or action groups which have a record of denying the existence of a human factor in climate change, or opposing environmental regulations.

The money flowed to Washington thinktanks embedded in Republican party politics, obscure policy forums in Alaska and Tennessee, contrarian scientists at Harvard and lesser institutions, even to buy up DVDs of a film attacking Al Gore.

The ready stream of cash set off a conservative backlash against Barack Obama's environmental agenda that wrecked any chance of Congress taking action on climate change.

Those same groups are now mobilising against Obama's efforts to act on climate change in his second term. A top recipient of the secret funds on Wednesday put out a point-by-point critique of the climate content in the president's state of the union address.

And it was all done with a guarantee of complete anonymity for the donors who wished to remain hidden.

"The funding of the denial machine is becoming increasingly invisible to public scrutiny. It's also growing. Budgets for all these different groups are growing," said Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, which compiled the data on funding of the anti-climate groups using tax records.

"These groups are increasingly getting money from sources that are anonymous or untraceable. There is no transparency, no accountability for the money. There is no way to tell who is funding them," Davies said.

The trusts were established for the express purpose of managing donations to a host of conservative causes.

Such vehicles, called donor-advised funds, are not uncommon in America. They offer a number of advantages to wealthy donors. They are convenient, cheaper to run than a private foundation, offer tax breaks and are lawful.

That opposition hardened over the years, especially from the mid-2000s where the Greenpeace record shows a sharp spike in funds to the anti-climate cause.

In effect, the Donors Trust was bankrolling a movement, said Robert Brulle, a Drexel University sociologist who has extensively researched the networks of ultra-conservative donors.

"This is what I call the counter-movement, a large-scale effort that is an organised effort and that is part and parcel of the conservative movement in the United States " Brulle said. "We don't know where a lot of the money is coming from, but we do know that Donors Trust is just one example of the dark money flowing into this effort."

In his view, Brulle said: "Donors Trust is just the tip of a very big iceberg."

The rise of that movement is evident in the funding stream. In 2002, the two trusts raised less than $900,000 for the anti-climate cause. That was a fraction of what Exxon Mobil or the conservative oil billionaire Koch brothers donated to climate sceptic groups that year.

By 2010, the two Donor Trusts between them were channelling just under $30m to a host of conservative organisations opposing climate action or science. That accounted to 46% of all their grants to conservative causes, according to the Greenpeace analysis.

The funding stream far outstripped the support from more visible opponents of climate action such as the oil industry or the conservative billionaire Koch brothers, the records show. When it came to blocking action on the climate crisis, the obscure charity in the suburbs was outspending the Koch brothers by a factor of six to one.

"There is plenty of money coming from elsewhere," said John Mashey, a retired computer executive who has researched funding for climate contrarians. "Focusing on the Kochs gets things confused. You can not ignore the Kochs. They have their fingers in too many things, but they are not the only ones."

It is also possible the Kochs continued to fund their favourite projects using the anonymity offered by Donor Trust.

But the records suggest many other wealthy conservatives opened up their wallets to the anti-climate cause – an impression Ball wishes to stick.

She argued the media had overblown the Kochs support for conservative causes like climate contrarianism over the years. "It's so funny that on the right we think George Soros funds everything, and on the left you guys think it is the evil Koch brothers who are behind everything. It's just not true. If the Koch brothers didn't exist we would still have a very healthy organisation," Ball said.
See also: 'Charities' Funnel Millions to Climate-Change Denial Live Science.com
Marc Lallanilla, Assistant Editor. January 25, 2013 05:47pm ET


And more recently:
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html

Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort

Phys.Org News. Dec 20, 2013

A new study conducted by Drexel University's environmental sociologist Robert J. Brulle, PhD, exposes the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the powerful climate change countermovement. This study marks the first peer-reviewed, comprehensive analysis ever conducted of the sources of funding that maintain the denial effort.

Through an analysis of the financial structure of the organizations that constitute the core of the countermovement and their sources of monetary support, Brulle found that, while the largest and most consistent funders behind the countermovement are a number of well-known conservative foundations, the majority of donations are "dark money," or concealed funding.

The data also indicates that Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, two of the largest supporters of climate science denial, have recently pulled back from publicly funding countermovement organizations. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to countermovement organizations through third party pass-through foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital, whose funders cannot be traced, has risen dramatically.

Brulle, a professor of sociology and environmental science in Drexel's College of Arts and Sciences, conducted the study during a year-long fellowship at Stanford University's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. The study was published today in Climatic Change, one of the top 10 climate science journals in the world.

The climate change countermovement is a well-funded and organized effort to undermine public faith in climate science and block action by the U.S. government to regulate emissions. This countermovement involves a large number of organizations, including conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, trade associations and conservative foundations, with strong links to sympathetic media outlets and conservative politicians.

"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming," said Brulle. "Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations. If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on behind the scenes."

To uncover how the countermovement was built and maintained, Brulle developed a listing of 118 important climate denial organizations in the U.S. He then coded data on philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service. The final sample for analysis consisted of 140 foundations making 5,299 grants totaling $558 million to 91 organizations from 2003 to 2010.

Key findings include:

Conservative foundations have bank-rolled denial. The largest and most consistent funders of organizations orchestrating climate change denial are a number of well-known conservative foundations, such as the Searle Freedom Trust, the John William Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. These foundations promote ultra-free-market ideas in many realms.
Koch and ExxonMobil have recently pulled back from publicly visible funding. From 2003 to 2007, the Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were heavily involved in funding climate-change denial organizations. But since 2008, they are no longer making publicly traceable contributions.
Funding has shifted to pass through untraceable sources. Coinciding with the decline in traceable funding, the amount of funding given to denial organizations by the Donors Trust has risen dramatically. Donors Trust is a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one foundation now provides about 25% of all traceable foundation funding used by organizations engaged in promoting systematic denial of climate change.
Most funding for denial efforts is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analyses, only a fraction of the hundreds of millions in contributions to climate change denying organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. Approximately 75% of the income of these organizations comes from unidentifiable sources.

"The real issue here is one of democracy. Without a free flow of accurate information, democratic politics and government accountability become impossible," said Brulle. "Money amplifies certain voices above others and, in effect, gives them a megaphone in the public square. Powerful funders are supporting the campaign to deny scientific findings about global warming and raise public doubts about the roots and remedies of this massive global threat. At the very least, American voters deserve to know who is behind these efforts."

This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate.

Explore further: The politics of climate change

More information: Full paper: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx
 
Quake42 said:
Any decent scientist would be appalled at your suggestion that "they are cherry picking data to fit with the conclusion that they wish to see."

I thought I made it clear that this was not necessarily something I believed; but that choosing an arbitrary date which coincides with industrial use of fossil fuels leaves one open to that accusation.

As I said earlier on the thread, scientists are not always the dispassionate, neutral players they are portayed as, particularly in an area as emotive as climate change.

Scientists can also be lazy, flawed and untruthful:

http://themetapicture.com/scientists-tell-the-truth/
 
...scientists are not always the dispassionate, neutral players they are portayed as, particularly in an area as emotive as climate change.
But who made it emotive?

CC deniers accusing them of massaging their results! Effectively calling them liars!

Yes, that would make me emotive, if I thought I'd been doing an honest job, trying to uncover nature's secrets, and some f*ckwit came along and accused me of cheating!

And still the sniping and the snide innuendo goes on!

This is the problem with the CC deniers (and their unwitting accomplices) - they never give up. They put forward Argument A - when that is demolished, they move on to Argument B, and then Argument C... All these are dealt with, and suddenly they revert to Argument A, as if it was something new!

I'd hoped this thread had been killed off, but there are still a few deniers twitching away. Maybe they'll die off when the evidence for CC becomes incontrovertible, but I don't hold out much hope - look at the enthusiasm of the deniers as they embrace the joys of Fracking! :(
 
The natural gas we get from fracking is helping us to shut down coal fired plants. You will just have to get used to lower emissions and cleaner air. Sorry! :lol:
 
tonyblair11 said:
The natural gas we get from fracking is helping us to shut down coal fired plants. You will just have to get used to lower emissions and cleaner air. Sorry! :lol:
But NOT air with lower CO2 levels, because it's still a fossil fuel you're burning. So it won't solve the global warming problem.
 
Two points for the AGW enthusiasts to consider:

1) If the 'science' is so good, why do the 'scientists' need to hide the figures? Give us the raw data and we can all analyse it. That's the scientific method. It is precisely because they won't release those figures that they get accused of massaging them.

2) If the contribution of trees to the CO2 cycle is so important why the flaming heck are we STILL allowing vast tracts of forest to be destroyed?

The industrial revolution and the commercial use of coal started before 1750 - there were mines extracting coal in Germany in the 1500's. Deforestation has been going on - on a vast scale - since man stopped being a hunter-gatherer. At one time the whole temperate zone of the planet was pretty much forest.

I was unfair in saying the enthusiasts do not use any geohistory evidence, but they do ignore the known geohistorical climate change pattern, just as they ignore the historical evidence of the Roman and Medieval warm periods.

Currently the global warming 'problem' seems to have cured itself - it hasn't got any warmer since 1997. But the odds are that over the next 1000 years the planet will get on average warmer, because its normal state over geological time is in fact warmer than it has been for the last age. Civilization will have to adapt to that, like it or not, and regardless of how many windmills we build.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of renewable energy, its just that windmills are the most pathetic form of renewable energy available - and the way they are being applied makes their known inefficiencies even worse.

The fact that - even if you accept the whole AGW argument - the remedies being put in place are so pathetic, and so geared to making money for large corporations instead of the much more practical things we could do at a local or individual level, makes me believe that whether or not the theory is true, it has been hijacked by some extremely powerful forces whose only interest is to line their own pockets.

Which brings me back to why I ventured my recent contribution to this discussion in the first place - the utter hypocrisy of the stuff about 'dark money'. I certainly didn't expect to change anyone's mind.
 
Also I have a cold and I'm feeling grumpy(':sceptic:')
 
The only thing that's 'pish' here is the above post. From start to finish. Only someone who hasn't actually reviewed any of the current science on the subject could possibly write so much nonsense.

The very idea that climate scientists work entirely from computer models without checking the, 'historical and geological record', is ridiculous. Embarrassingly so.

but the whole universe is only 3500 years old ?

so the last global ice age 20,0000 to 60,000 years ago never happened

so historically its hard to tell.... really isnt it ?
 
Cochise said:
Two points for the AGW enthusiasts to consider:

1) If the 'science' is so good, why do the 'scientists' need to hide the figures? Give us the raw data and we can all analyse it. That's the scientific method. It is precisely because they won't release those figures that they get accused of massaging them.

2) If the contribution of trees to the CO2 cycle is so important why the flaming heck are we STILL allowing vast tracts of forest to be destroyed?
1) 17 different sets of raw data in one location. I googled "raw temperature data download".
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
or
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
or
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/

2) There are more trees now that 100 years ago. (The source bemoans the fact that there is less old growth forest).
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi...-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true
 
Seems a bit unfair to blame climate science for the felling of various forests around the World. They're being cut down for the same reasons that fossil fuels are still big business. Greed, stupidity and short term profit.
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
tonyblair11 said:
If only we could build houses out of opinions. :p
How's the polar vortex down your way?
How about this one?
The polar vortex is a conspiracy to make Americans believe there is no global warming, so they will continue to drive emission belching giant suvs.

;)
 
One example of a counter opinion. Warning - Probably funded by dark money or aliens attempting to destabilise our society.

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.co. ... imate.html

I'm not blaming the deforestation on the climate people specifically, more that those intent on carrying on do it under a smokescreen of supporting AGW, while the same thing is being used to distract those people who used to try and defend the forests.

A conifer forest on a northern hill is not a substitute for the same acreage of rainforest, either in terms of CO2 reduction or in terms of sheer biodiversity.
 
Cochise said:
One example of a counter opinion. Warning - Probably funded by dark money or aliens attempting to destabilise our society.

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.co. ... imate.html

...
Or, the magic weather pixies.

The problem is that the World is not cooling or about to start cooling, as stated by the above linked site. In fact warming is going into overdrive. That means more extreme weather, Globally, as trapped heat is converted into other forms of energy.

More about, 'Climate Sense' blogger (and oil consultant) Dr Norman Page here: http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/277/
 
Pietro_Mercurios said:
Cochise said:
One example of a counter opinion. Warning - Probably funded by dark money or aliens attempting to destabilise our society.

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.co. ... imate.html

...
Or, the magic weather pixies.

The problem is that the World is not cooling or about to start cooling, as stated by the above linked site. In fact warming is going into overdrive. That means more extreme weather, Globally, as trapped heat is converted into other forms of energy.

More about, 'Climate Sense' blogger (and oil consultant) Dr Norman Page here: http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/277/

But even the Met Office say its stopped warming since 1997:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html

Of course the met office is funded by oil money collected in the form of taxation on petrol...
 
Cochise said:
...

But even the Met Office say its stopped warming since 1997:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ve-it.html

Of course the met office is funded by oil money collected in the form of taxation on petrol...
Not quite. That's the Mail saying that The Met Office said that Global Warming had stopped.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/16/daily-mail-global-warming-stopped-wrong

Why the Mail on Sunday was wrong to claim global warming has stopped

Newspaper's claim that 'world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago' is simply wrong, says Met Office

theguardian.com, Dana Nuccitelli for Skeptical Science, part of the Guardian Environment Network. 16 October 2012

The British newspaper the Mail on Sunday and its writer David Rose are notorious for publishing misleading (at best) climate-related articles, as we have discussed previously here, for example. They have recently struck again, claiming that according to a "quietly released" Met Office report, global warming stopped 16 years ago (a myth which Skeptical Science debunks here and here). This assertion is entirely fabricated, as the Met Office explained by publishing David Rose's inquiry and the Met Office's responses.
"Firstly, the Met Office has not issued a report on this issue. We can only assume the article is referring to the completion of work to update the HadCRUT4 global temperature dataset compiled by ourselves and the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.

We announced that this work was going on in March and it was finished this week. You can see the HadCRUT4 website here."
Rose's factually challenged article was predictably reproduced uncritically by the usual climate denial blogs and referenced by Fox News, perhaps in an attempt to distract from this year's record-breaking Arctic sea ice minimum. However, virtually every point made in the article was factually incorrect, as Rose would have known if he were a Skeptical Science reader, because we recently pre-bunked his piece.

Rose Tries to Lead the Witness Down the Up Escalator

Rose attempted to elicit a statement from the Met Office by asking a question which would be described in court as "leading the witness":

"First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997."
The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator can be used to test this question. The trend in the HadCRUT4 global surface temperature dataset since 1997 is 0.084 ± 0.152°C per decade (although we have not yet updated the HadCRUT4 data, the GISS and NCDC datasts show a similar warming trend since 1997). While the trend is not statistically significant, the central value is positive, meaning the average surface temperature has most likely warmed over this period.

The Met Office also explained that Rose is essentially trying to go down the up escalator (Figure 1) by focusing on short-term noise while ignoring the long-term trend.
"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8ºC. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."
...

Rose and Curry Ignore 90+% of Global Warming

Perhaps most importantly, focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet (Figure 2).

Figure 2:
GW_Components_00_zps0e63cb00.jpg


...
More at link.

Skeptical Science goes into the whole story in more detail on its own website:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/resolving-met-office-confusion.html

Resolving Confusion Over the Met Office Statement and Continued Global Warming

Skeptical Science.com. by dana1981. 10 January 2013

Recently, the British Met Office issued a prediction for global surface temperature changes over the next five years (Figure 1).

MetOffice2012DecadalPrediction_zpsec460189.png


Figure 1: Observed (black, from Hadley Centre, GISS and NCDC) and predicted global average annual surface temperature difference relative to 1971-2000. Previous predictions starting from June 1960, 1965, ..., 2005 are shown as white curves, with red shading representing their probable range, such that the observations are expected to lie within the shading 90% of the time. The most recent forecast (thick blue curve with thin blue curves showing range) starts from November 2012. All data are rolling annual mean values. The gap between the black and blue curves arises because the last observed value represents the period November 2011 to October 2012 whereas the first forecast period is November 2012 to October 2013.

This latest prediction anticipates a bit less global surface warming than the prediction from last year, as the Met Office explained:
"The latest decadal prediction suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than predicted from the previous prediction issued in December 2011.
However, both versions are consistent in predicting that we will continue to see near-record levels of global temperatures in the next few years."
"...changes in ocean surface temperatures in some parts of the world over the past year are understood to have made a key contribution to the difference between the 2011 and 2012 forecasts, but other factors will also have played a role."
In other words, the Met Office anticipates that natural factors which have dampened the global surface warming over the past decade (a preponderance of La Niña events and low solar activity, for example), may continue to have an overall dampening effect over the next 5 years.
Media Confusion About Continued Global Warming

Unfortunately, the Met Office prediction has resulted in quite a few confused articles in the mainstream media. For example, the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Canada's National Post, the Times, and the Indian Express all incorrectly reported that the Met Office is admitting that global warming has "stalled", or some similar variant. These headlines are in direct contradiction to the Met Office forecast, which specifically stated:
"The forecast of continued global warming is largely driven by increasing levels of greenhouse gases."
The confusion arises from the fact that the thick blue line in Figure 1 (the central Met Office prediction) does not rise very far above the previous highest global surface temperatures in 2010, 2005, and 1998. However, by no means does this indicate that global warming has "stalled".

Underlying Human-Caused Surface Warming Continues

...
More at link.

& etc.
 
So in fact what they say is that the world is not getting warmer. The rest is a series of excuses, or , to use the modern word, 'spin' to explain why the data does not match the model. And a forecast that it will get warmer, honest, even though it isn't at the moment.

How many years of it not getting warmer are they going to have to find excuses for before _everyone_ (outside the committed believers) realises they have no credibility?

I'm not really wanting to have a loud argument about this. Most of the evidence people quote - including the evidence above - re global warming stalling can equally be read as evidence that the models - philosophical or computer - on which the theory is based simply do not take into account all, or even most, of the factors involved. Hence the predictions fail, resulting in an ever-lengthening list of 'explanations' instead of revisiting the theory

Yer man from the Antarctic was on Beeb 4 last night revealing they have only 40 years of data regarding sea ice extent. Given that the climate cycles we know about - and there are many - can have intervals of anything from 10 years to millennia can you imagine how utterly useless 40 years of data is for predicting the future?

But you and I will never agree on this because we are approaching it from different angles - I was simply trying to point out the hypocrisy of accusing 'my' side of being funded by dark money when the provenance of money for the believers is also corrupted, derived from oil revenues and people expecting to line their pockets from green policies introduced as a result of the theory.
 
No. They're saying that the World is getting warmer. Much warmer.

And the denier campaign is funded by dark money. Often using the same agencies that muddied the water on tobacco for many years.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/what_climate_denial_has_learnt_from_tobacco_denial.html

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

It's not, 'hypocrisy', it's strictly business, only instead of people's hearts and lungs, this time it's the planet.
 
How many people in the current government have relatives profiting from wind farms and the like?

It does tremendous harm to the credibility of any argument to maintain all one side are saints and all the other side are sinners - it makes it look religious.

As an aside, my scepticism on this matter was started when I was in Russia - Russia would benefit considerably from global warming since huge areas would become more inhabitable, and the extraction of natural resources from those areas would be a whole lot easier. But the Russian climate people believe it is going to get colder, not warmer, at least for the next 50 years.
 
Back
Top