Climate change another name for Weather

[rederob]

.
Show me one instance where a scientist predicted an event 50 years forward, and was correct.

Don't be sorry. You're on a winner. The smug, arrogant climate change zealots have been hoist with their own petard and are now is disarray.

The science behind climate change is over 100 years old and was originally presented in Philosophical Magazine, 1896.
Svante Arrhenius works are the foundation stones of climate change, and his predictions about CO2 emissions and temperature are playing out as he predicted.
Arrhenius erred in determining the pace of climate change - he thought CO2 emissions would double in 3000 years - but has otherwise been pretty much on the money.
Trends, Rhythms and Aberrations in Global Climate 65 Ma to the Present (Ma is million years), by James Zachos, Mark Pagani, Lisa Sloan, Ellen Thomas and Katharina Billups is a good read for those that want some history that supports the predictability of future ice ages according to Milankovich cycles (100,000years).

 

[Smurf1976]

Back to Smurf's point about this whole thing being substantially an exercise in misinformation and marketing...

I went to not one but three hardware stores today trying to buy some pipe insulation.

Now, with all the fuss about saving energy I though this was going to be easy. I mean, in theory at least, improving the insulation of water heaters and pipes will save more energy than switching every light in the house to a CFL so people will be into this to help the environment, right?

In short, no. Only one of the 3 stores had any at all, and they didn't have the size I needed. They did say they could get some in and are happy to do so, but made the comment that it's not every week they sell even one length of the stuff, hence they don't always have all sizes in stock. And this is a rather large and well known hardware store.

Meanwhile, in the same store there are CFL's everywhere and all manner of things claiming to save water. Insulating hot water pipes would help with both of those but it seems that nobody's doing it.

Why? Because it's not promoted. The public are doing only what they're told and nothing else. They didn't switch to CFL's until forced and it will be much the same with anything else that saves energy. People act only when government forces them. Thinking for yourself and actually doing something about a problem seems to be an almost extinct concept these days. It's a truly sad reflection of what we've come to - mass hysteria about an issue but nobody does a damn thing unless government tells them to.

Meanwhile, I heard on the news today that there's a sudden rush to take advantage of cheaper petrol and go on a road trip. I guess people aren't so concerned about climate change after all - they were just saving money with all that fuel conservation.

I'll still be insulating my pipes but it seems I'd better not tell too many people or they'll think I'm the darkest green around. Truth is I'm doing it to keep the water hotter for longer - saving energy, money, CO2 etc being side benefits.

 

[wayneL]

People act only when government forces them. Thinking for yourself and actually doing something about a problem seems to be an almost extinct concept these days. It's a truly sad reflection of what we've come to - mass hysteria about an issue but nobody does a damn thing unless government tells them to.

Meanwhile, I heard on the news today that there's a sudden rush to take advantage of cheaper petrol and go on a road trip. I guess people aren't so concerned about climate change after all - they were just saving money with all that fuel conservation.

This includes a majority of climate alarmists. I've lost count of the number of people I know who preach about co2, but drive 4x4s or other large cars, live in houses larger than their needs, have every energy hungry utility known to man, regularly use jet aircraft for discretionary travel etc.

 

[Julia]

This includes a majority of climate alarmists. I've lost count of the number of people I know who preach about co2, but drive 4x4s or other large cars, live in houses larger than their needs, have every energy hungry utility known to man, regularly use jet aircraft for discretionary travel etc.

Exactly so.
A family I know were for ever on about the dreadful threat of climate change, how we humans were utterly irresponsible about caring for the planet etc etc.
Then they went on a driving holiday all around Australia, came home for a couple of weeks, and then went off for five months continuous around the world air travel.

Re Rederob's post above: I'm somewhat reminded of a Seventh Day Adventist friend who earnestly tells us that the Bible has predicted the fall of the human race. Problem is it's for ever imminent. I've known her for about 15 years and it's always been "about to happen".

 

[wayneL]

The hypocrisy is not lost on Top Gear's Jeremy Clarkeson either, who had this to say in an article that is actually about the BMW 330d M Sport:

...Likewise, I should very much enjoy for George Clooney to drop by one day and explain why each spoonful of the Nespresso coffee he advertises so suavely needs to be wrapped in an individual container. I am no environmentalist, but he is, and I would love to hear his views on why such an enormous amount of packaging is a good idea when a patio heater is not...

and..

...Governments, of course, are fantastically uninterested in the people they are supposed to serve. Which is why you have Gordon Brown committing us all to a target of cutting CO2 emissions by 80%, which will cost about 2% of the nation’s GDP. And not work. While at the same time deciding that the navy’s new aircraft carriers will be powered by carbon-rich diesel, and not nuclear reactors, to save £3.50....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article5371946.ece

 

[Calliope]

Re Rederob's post above: I'm somewhat reminded of a Seventh Day Adventist friend who earnestly tells us that the Bible has predicted the fall of the human race. Problem is it's for ever imminent. I've known her for about 15 years and it's always been "about to happen".

An illustration of a man holding up a placard saying The End is Nigh has been a popular cartoon character for as long as I can remember.

Down through the ages doomsayers have been predicting the end of mankind by famine, fire, flood, plague, pestilence, tidal waves, you name it. And we are still here. Present day doomsayers are putting a new spin on it. Man will be responsible for his own extermination by not having the capability or the will to control the climate, and this will cause most of the above.

It's pretty ho-hum stuff. If perchance we do shuffle off this mortal coil en masse I think the agents will be much smaller critters than man. While our elite scientists are busy worrying about the climate, we may be outsmarted by the viruses or bacteria. Or it might be something from left field like the disease which in the process of devastating the honey bee population. No bees. No pollination. No food. Famine.

 

[wayneL]

While our elite scientists are busy worrying about the climate, we may be outsmarted by the viruses or bacteria. Or it might be something from left field like the disease which in the process of devastating the honey bee population. No bees. No pollination. No food. Famine.

Exactly Calliope!

This where I bang on about more pressing, real and measurable environmental problems. Honeys bees are an absolute prime example.

CC scaremongering draws attention and funds away from all those sorts of issues. Trillions go on some potential and possibly spurious future threat, meanwhile....

 

[wayneL]

More Clarkeson:

Happily, I have been giving the matter serious thought as well and I’ve come up with some ideas of my own. One of the reasons more people need the services of an ambulance driver is because of politically motivated weather forecasting.

The Met Office, which claims to know what the weather will be like in a hundred years but cannot tell what it will do tomorrow morning, now seems to be incapable of saying what it was like yesterday either.

It announced last week that thanks to patio heaters and Top Gear, the past decade has been the warmest on record even though temperatures have been falling since 1995 and Britain has been suffering from the coldest start to winter for 30 years.

And because the weathermen tell us it’s warm outside, and will get warmer still until we all burn in hell, people get dressed in a T-shirt and shorts and then die of hypothermia while scraping 6ft of sheet ice from the windscreen of what the Met Office calls a polar bear-killing, Arctic-melting, carbon-emitting, greenhouse-creating star-destroyer, but you and I know as a Ford Fiesta.

LOL - in typical JC style, the BS cut to the quick.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Actinic Keratosis

www.peplin.com

Hey WayneL, Im no scientist at all.
And I dont necessarily believe in GW.
But why do you think growths like this are becoming more prevelant in
places like OZ, NZ, US and South America.

I know John McCain has had some surgery related to these kind of problems?

Is it our behaviour or is it just some unusual seasonal conditions?

 

[rederob]

It's always possible that debate on climate change could revert to actual climate change science, or proof of a contrary happening, rather than indulging in labelling exercises ("cc alarmists"), or biblical prophecies.

The self-called "realists" or "rationals" that invoke a business as usual approach because they are not convinced by the science, consider it unnecessary to "model" a contrary view because its just weather and always changes. In any case you can make a model do what you want, so it's rather pointless!

Despite some robust defence of their anti-IPCC positions, the climate change detractors remain unable to explain the very observable and rapid changes of glacial volumes concurrently in north and south polar regions. And despite actual data since the keeping of reliable weather records around 150 years ago they indulge in cherry picking anomalies rather than explain underlying trends.

Their less clever acolytes add to the junk science by gleefully declaring that perverse weather vindicate their "just weather" and its unpredictable, stance. Some keep reminding us that Greenland had a significant warm event around 1000 years ago, so what's new.

Nothing is new. The earth's obliquity in medieval times explains the warming that was experienced, and localised to the northern hemisphere.

So how do IPCC detractors explain the present period of warming?
Answer: They don't have to and, anyway, its within the bounds of natural temperature variance.

How do IPCC detractors view the possible impact of increasing greenhouse gas levels? Some good answers here. Ignore it, because there are more pressing concerns. Adopt an adaptive approach in case it gets colder instead of hotter. But, best of all, let's wait until there really is scientific evidence supporting warming.

 

[basilio]

It's always possible that debate on climate change could revert to actual climate change science, or proof of a contrary happening, rather than indulging in labelling exercises ("cc alarmists"), or biblical prophecies.

And its equally possible that pigs might fly...

Probably the most powerful piece of research I came across was the discovery that much of the anti GW material was co-ordinated by lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industries and promoted through a range of trumped up organisations. All the drama about "junk science", the diatribe on GW "fanatics" and red herrings of the lifestyles of the GW's is pure emotional disinformation.

Crude, manipulative, very effective. We see the results everyday particularly with the dismissal of thousands of scientists work as just "self interested" and "junk science".

How do we know that what I'm am asserting is fundamentally true? Because it comes from original documentation from the perpetrators, it was explicitly detailed in the press and in books and was never taken to court for libel.

It's a challenge Wayne. The reality of global warming is that within our lifetime our world will become far hotter, far wilder and far less pleasant to live in. In fact in many areas uninhabitable.

You take the view that this is just not going to happen. That somehow 20-30 years of research, examination and finally physical evidence of warming cannot be compared to a relative handful of people who dispute the evidence.

If you wanted to consider a valid comparison think about the public debates on cigarette smoking and asbestos related disease.

Doctors in London 1939 established that cigarette smoking was causing a huge increase in lung cancer. And yet the tobacco industry continued its promotion, development, advertising and misinformation on the facts.

During the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's the industry just lied and lied to protect profits.

Asbestos was similarly identified as a killer in the 30's. Same story of deliberate lies and malfeasance. In both cases it seemed amazing that in the face of repeated proof that their products were killers, spurious arguments of "individual right to smoke" "freedom of thought" deliberately twisted research, national bribery, and so on allowed both industries to continue making awesome profits while killing millions of people.

Does any of this sound familiar Wayne?

It might because apart from many similarities in the arguments it so happens that the same immoral, lying bastards who kept the tobacco industry going are the ones who developed a similar patter on global warming in the 90's and to this day.

We've been stooged Wayne et al. When we finally realised in the 80's that we were on the wrong track as far as the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere we had some sort of rough chance of turning things around. Twenty years later that opportunity is thin... and that's being wildly optimistic.

I have attached a story which outlines with dates, names and evidence the process that used the tobacco lobbyists skills for Global Warming deniers.


The denial industry
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2

 

[basilio]

We now know who will be leading President elect Obama's climate change team. The position will be held by Harvard physicist John Holdren. He outlined his position on global warming as follows.

Holdren, whose expertise runs from nuclear-weapons proliferation to global warming, recently warned in a speech at Harvard that he considered "global warming" to be a misnomer. "It implies something gradual, something uniform, something quite possibly benign, and what we're experiencing is none of those. There is already widespread harm ... occurring from climate change. This is not just a problem for our children and our grandchildren."

As he pointed out, new figures point to a rapid acceleration in the loss of Arctic sea ice, as well as dramatic acidification of the ocean.

Another critical appointment was Jane Lubchenco to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Her position on the issue is

She has warned that even if the world abruptly shifts away from fossil fuels, the oceans will continue to soak up carbon dioxide and become more acidic. She recommends protecting marine life by reducing overfishing, cutting back on nutrient run-off and creating marine reserves to protect marine eco-systems.

"The Bush administration has not been respectful of the science," she said earlier this year. "I am very much looking forward to a new administration that does respect scientific information and considers it very seriously in making environmental policies."

These are amongst the top scientists in their field. These are the people whose work has been recognised as outstanding over 30 plus years. These are the people wayne and others would have us believe are using junk science.

Go figger.

CV John Holdren http://www.whrc.org/about_us/whos_who/CV/jholdren.htm

Bio Jane Lubchenco http://www.motherjones.com/radio/2006/08/lubchenco_bio.html?welcome=true

Obama's speech introducing the new appointments

http://www.politicalbase.com/people/jane-lubchenco/31146/

 

[spooly74]

Basilo,

So we are all on the same page, can you provide some links to this 'junk science' you keep referring to? The term seems contradictory to me.

No tobacco industry rants, no long winded opinionated articles....just 'junk science'.

 

[Calliope]

Basil, I admire the evangelical zeal you put into your efforts to convert the sinners to the gospel according to Monbiot.

It's a shame that Obama does not share your abhorrence of big tobacco, but as he enjoys a cigarette he is compromised, and I guess he is one of the" immoral, lying bastards" you have no time for.

 

[wayneL]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3883550/Facts-melted-by-global-warming.html

Facts melted by 'global warming'
Something very odd had happened to the daily updated graph on the official Nansen website last weekend, writes Christopher Booker.

Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:54PM GMT 21 Dec 2008
Comments 15 | Comment on this article

Butterflies and polar ice are enlisted in warmist cause Photo: Getty

Last weekend, that heroically diligent US meteorologist Anthony Watts noticed that something very odd had happened to the daily updated graph on the official Nansen website that shows how much sea-ice there is in the Arctic. Without explanation, as he reported on his Watts Up With That website, half a million square kilometres of ice simply vanished overnight.
This might have brought cheer to all those, such as Al Gore and the BBC, who have been obsessively telling us that the Arctic ice will soon disappear altogether. They were dismayed enough last winter when, after reaching its lowest point in 30 years, the ice bounded back to near "normal". This winter the freeze has been even faster and greater, making the extent of the ice, according to the other main Arctic website, Crysophere Today, 500,000 sq km greater than this time last year. How better to maintain the chosen narrative than to lose that half-million square kilometres simply by "adjusting" the graph downwards?

The warmists are so locked into their general narrative that the plummeting temperatures and abnormal snowfalls of the past two winters have thrown their army of media groupies into quite a tizzy. The BBC did at least deign last week to notice the worst snowstorm to hit Las Vegas for 30 years, but without mentioning the freak snow and ice storms affecting many other parts of the US, as far south as New Orleans. The BBC was also quick to pick up from Pravda the unusual lack of snow in Moscow, without mentioning Siberia's record freeze that lowered temperatures to -60C.
Elsewhere in recent days, there have been reports of seven species of penguin being put on the endangered list owing to global warming – although Antarctic sea-ice this year reached easily its highest level since satellite records began in 1979.

Another warmist perennial to get an outing, from Dr Martin Warren of Butterfly Conservation, is the threat to the survival of many of our butterflies. As a longtime student of butterflies, I am keenly aware of various factors leading to the alarming decline in their numbers, but global warming is not one of them. If it were, how did such dwindling species as the Mountain Ringlet and even the Small Tortoiseshell survive the much warmer temperatures 1,000 years ago, before SUVs were invented?

Perhaps the get-out for the beleaguered warmists was provided by Friday's Today programme, when it reported heavy snowfalls on the Cairngorm ski slopes, only two years after the BBC was excitably reporting fears that ski-ing in Scotland might soon be but a memory. A local spokeswoman helpfully suggested that the thing about "climate change" was that it was always coming up with the unexpected.

So whatever happens, hot or cold, wet or dry, it can all be put down to that pesky old "climate change". As the rest of us might observe with a wry smile, how very true.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Actinic Keratosis

www.peplin.com

Hey WayneL, Im no scientist at all.
And I dont necessarily believe in GW.
But why do you think growths like this are becoming more prevelant in
places like OZ, NZ, US and South America.

I know John McCain has had some surgery related to these kind of problems?

Is it our behaviour or is it just some unusual seasonal conditions? 1.

Sorry I'm not WayneL, but I'll answer it anyway.

1. John McCain

He was sat in a bamboo cage in the tropical sun for 3 or 4 years by his communist captors with high exposure to charlie's sun.

2. People in Oz, UK etc are more prosperous and can have intermittent high exposure to uv light on their holidays, it appears to be more cancer inducing than steady low exposure.

3. People nowadays don't cover up. don't wear hats and get pissed and fall asleep in the sun.

4. It has sfa do do with weather.

gg

 

[wayneL]

Thanks GG.

BTW, an update on Arctic Sea Ice compare to exactly 10 years ago (And another inconvenient fact is that Antarctic see ice is 20% greater than average for this time of year.

Those worried about melting polar regions have reason to take heart, the trend seems to be reversing... in fact never got started in the Antarctic.

 

[explod]

3. People nowadays don't cover up. don't wear hats and get pissed and fall asleep in the sun.


gg

What figues back up this preposterous claim. In the 60's on the beach there was never a hat to be seen. Gentlemen used to wear hats as dress up till late 50's. Look in any school yard and at the beach these days and there are hats everywhere. Cancer is a proven problem due to thinning ozone layer, which also varies seasonally as do satellite photo's following snow storms, which in turn melt in a few weeks.

and what is the anacronym "sfa" ? if we a losing an argument we go down to the gutter, albeit: ratbag attention seeking

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

What figues back up this preposterous claim. In the 60's on the beach there was never a hat to be seen. Gentlemen used to wear hats as dress up till late 50's. Look in any school yard and at the beach these days and there are hats everywhere. Cancer is a proven problem due to thinning ozone layer, which also varies seasonally as do satellite photo's following snow storms, which in turn melt in a few weeks.

and what is the anacronym "sfa" ? if we a losing an argument we go down to the gutter, albeit: ratbag attention seeking

sfa comes from a particularly nice verse in Virgil from memory.

Sic fundit amitus.

What did you think it meant?, or am I on the way to the lock up already?

It is used quite frequently in pubs of low repute.

gg

 

[wayneL]

Let's not go down the ad hominem route again... nothing wrong with normal conversational language or acronyms thereof.