Climate change another name for Weather

[Smurf1976]

Perhaps it is something as benign as energy security and self sufficiency, but I suspect more sinister motives, along with you.

If energy security was the objective then nuclear, hydro and coal win out over oil or gas any day. It's generally the reverse with evironmentalists so I think we can say with reasonable confidence that it's not about energy security.

 

[slim pickins]

smurf,

There is no problem in you wanting to drive an old car. I don't want to tellbyou what to do. The problem is in greens telling me what car I drive, how much water I spend, forcing me and then charging me for recycling. They should pay me to recyscle since I'm providind multinationals with resources. I want my aircon on with the windows open! My shower head to bucket down water on me. I don't want a water saving washing machine so my clothes are full of foam when I wear them.

The greens want to stop me. To take our freedoms. In there lies the distinction between you and them.

And if we are overpopulated the greens should lead by example and not have children. That would end this menace in 2 generations or so.

 

[wayneL]

t
But don't forget UK labor is not the greens. Labour is not dangerous. Misguided yes, dangerous no.

I agree with your general thrust, but I must disagree with this statement. Normally the Labour party, though quaintly typical of the tax and spend mold, are fairly benign and good intentioned (and misguided).

This Labour party however, IS dangerous and the Tories have much work to do to restore England's historic liberties. Even the Liberals, typically the "greenest" of the three main parties are concerned about where these Stasi-like cretins are going with their agenda, using CC and terrorism as the excuse.

 

[wayneL]

Here's a good balanced read on the AGW controversy.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...se_Inside_the_Global_Warming_Controversey.pdf

 

[GumbyLearner]

Here's a good balanced read on the AGW controversy.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...se_Inside_the_Global_Warming_Controversey.pdf

“When the facts change, I change my mind? What do you do, sir?”

Until it hurts

 

[wayneL]

“When the facts change, I change my mind? What do you do, sir?”

Until it hurts

Could you clarify your question?

 

[wayneL]

Guys, regarding the political angle of CC, read this most excellent speech from the President of the Czech Republic from earlier this year. Basically vindicating the sentiment expressed in recent posts.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/commentaries_essays/klaus_alarmism.html

SNIP:

After having studied this issue for a couple of years, I am convinced that this panic doesn’t have a solid ground and that it demonstrates an apparent disregard for the past experience of mankind. I know that its propagandists have been using all possible obstructions to avoid exposure to rational arguments and I know that the substance of their arguments is not science. It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism.

SNIP:

This shift seems to me dangerous. The new ambitions look more noble, more attractive and more appealing. They are also very shrewdly shifted towards the future and thus practically “immunized” from reality, from existing evidence, from available observations, and from standard testing of scientific hypotheses. That is the reason why they are loved by the politicians, the media and all their friends among public intellectuals. For the same reason I consider environmentalism to be the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of human freedom at this very moment.

SNIP:

I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading politicians, who privately express similar views, are more or less publicly silent. We keep hearing one-sided propaganda regarding the greenhouse hypothesis, but we are not introduced to serious counter-arguments, both inside climatology, and in the field of social sciences.

 

[slim pickins]

Hehehe, the good president exposes the "church of climetology" very well.

 

[rederob]

It depended on what part of the world you lived in. At the time of the European middle ages most of the world's population believed the world was flat. Hence those who didn't believe were sceptics

I guess you will offer up some proof.
The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

 

[rederob]

Here's a good balanced read on the AGW controversy.

So the skeptics public policy front funded by oil interests is presenting a "balanced read": And Lord Monckton is one of it's chief policy advisers.
The point of the article is to continuously sow the seeds of doubt, and quote selectively only from credentialled skeptics; hardly balanced!

Less controversial conclusions:

But at least two more decades of satellite data are needed to establish long term climate trends.

This will add 20 years of additional data and do nothing more.

Climate sensitivity is based on many complex interactions that are not fully understood.

Undoubtedly true, although it does not of itself mean that the principal relationships are not understood.

There is a high degree of correlation between these [ocean] oscillations and global temperature. According to climate specialist Joseph D’Aleo, this correlation has been known for years, but it is largely ignored by IPCC climate models.

D'Aleo and the IPCC have different views on causation.

To be fair, the author makes several extremely valid points, like:

All climate scientists agree that the recent flattening and decline in global temperature over the last decade is due to natural variability.

.
He omits that it's within the context of the hottest period of recorded temperature history, before going on to present further seeds of doubt.

I won't go on because it's already getting a bit too long. Suffice to say that the key issue missed by the skeptics is that the IPCC is proposing action now, based on the science. IPCC modelling takes us to 2100. Without any action, CO2 emissions in 2100 will be significantly greater and the probable impact on climate irreversible for the next century. It appears the skeptics learned nothing from the scientific debate over chlorofluorocarbons.

 

[wayneL]

The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

http://www.dailytech.com/Princeton+Physicist+Calls+Global+Warming+Science+Mistaken/article13773c.htm

Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.

"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility," Happer concluded.

In response to Happer's remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day".

 

[Calliope]

I guess you will offer up some proof.
The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

It depends on how you tweak the figures and you're the expert in that game. I can't compete. However your whinge that you are the recipient of a torrent of stones because you are a forward thinker is pathetic.

 

[wayneL]

So the skeptics public policy front funded by oil interests is presenting a "balanced read": And Lord Monckton is one of it's chief policy advisers.
The point of the article is to continuously sow the seeds of doubt, and quote selectively only from credentialled skeptics; hardly balanced!

Less controversial conclusions:

This will add 20 years of additional data and do nothing more.


Undoubtedly true, although it does not of itself mean that the principal relationships are not understood.


D'Aleo and the IPCC have different views on causation.

To be fair, the author makes several extremely valid points, like:
.
He omits that it's within the context of the hottest period of recorded temperature history, before going on to present further seeds of doubt.

I won't go on because it's already getting a bit too long. Suffice to say that the key issue missed by the skeptics is that the IPCC is proposing action now, based on the science. IPCC modelling takes us to 2100. Without any action, CO2 emissions in 2100 will be significantly greater and the probable impact on climate irreversible for the next century. It appears the skeptics learned nothing from the scientific debate over chlorofluorocarbons.

So you agree with the bits that fit your hypothesis?

Great science there mate. LOL

The Czech President has it sussed and has the balls to say it, controversy sorted as far as I'm concerned. The fight now has been exposed as a political one (always has been).

 

[mayk]

I think one of the main agenda of CG is to curtail the world population to near 500Million. Right now we are way over crowded. A China like one-child policy might be the solution to fix this problem. It is amazing how it can effect the population growth. Consider 1B can be reduced to .5B in over 70-80 years. A 2-Child policy might not work as it will keep the population kinda constant.


Global warming can help the industry shift back to western nations. If a UN sanction (like inthe case of pre-Saddam Iraq) is imposed on all the nations not able to comply with strict GW standards, then we can limit the trade and hence have to grow/produce the things ourself.


The main point ignored in the climate change debate is the impact of Sun on global warming. I believe Sun has more impact on global warming than mere humans. A crazy science fiction idea will be to use an umbrella like satellite to block the rays of sun reaching earth, so as to cool it down .

 

[Pat]

HAha, only because you don't like my opinion.

On the contrary-

The assumption that underlies all of science is that everything in the material world is governed by scientific laws. Because even theories and laws are open to question when new evidence is found, hypotheses, theories and laws are continually re-examined. In fact, the key to scientific method is disprovability... Any theory that cannot, at least possibly, be disproved, is not scientific.

I love the GW/CC debate. Without the arguments for and against, there would be minimal scientific evolution. I suppose you could say it helps fire advancement.

I have not seen any evidence so far that dismisses the AGW hypothesis. Nor have I seen good reason not to change our pollutant ways, which includes releasing greenhouse gases into our fragile environment.

 

[Calliope]

Obama prefers the warming to the cooling.

 

[Calliope]

And furthermore Red Rob your belief that that somebody on the loony left could be a forward thinker is an oxymoron.

The last century threw up a lot of evil people claiming they were forward thinkers. Some who come to mind are Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Jong.

Their forward thinking involved the extermination of millions of their fellow citizens in a crazy attempt to rid themselves of all dissent.

Slim Pickings, who seems aware of what these people are like, has good cause to feel scared about your brand of forward thinking.

 

[explod]

And furthermore Red Rob your belief that that somebody on the loony left could be a forward thinker is an oxymoron.

The last century threw up a lot of evil people claiming they were forward thinkers. Some who come to mind are Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Jong.

Their forward thinking involved the extermination of millions of their fellow citizens in a crazy attempt to rid themselves of all dissent.

Slim Pickings, who seems aware of what these people are like, has good cause to feel scared about your brand of forward thinking.

Yeh, and history will probably add, Greenspan, Cheney and the gopher Bush to that list as well.

 

[rederob]

So you agree with the bits that fit your hypothesis?

Great science there mate. LOL

The Czech President has it sussed and has the balls to say it, controversy sorted as far as I'm concerned. The fight now has been exposed as a political one (always has been).

Your arguments are getting more and more pathetic.
You keep attacking the man while simultaneously saying we should stop.
You keep invoking the "straw man" defence when your position is countered.
You keep quoting junk scientists and lay people to support your propositions.
You have not provided a shred of credible information in this thread that counters the recorded and visible evidence that is consistent with the theory underpinning global warming.
You appear to rely on snippets of information that fit your mindset, and remain closed to a contrary view.
You quote credentialled scientists that are skeptics, but are unable to disprove AGW.
The most rational scientists in this debate are not those that hold to a pro or anti position, but remain uncertain that the evidence is presently definitive. They do not dispute the science, but recognise much of the available data is conceivably within the bounds of statistical uncertainty.

 

[wayneL]

Yeh, and history will probably add, Greenspan, Cheney and the gopher Bush to that list as well.

Come now. History will no doubt be justifiably scathing, but not in the same class as the others.