Climate change another name for Weather

[wayneL]

there is very little any of a can say to counter 20 years of indoctrination. Extremist environmentalism has all the hallmarks of a religion.

Yes I posted an article on this topic earlier in the thread

And as the last link I posted shows, folks have been subjected to the most despicable propaganda imaginable via "An Inconvenient Truth", which has been shown to just about every schoolkid in the world.

Absolute tosh, the whole thing. Proven in a court of law.

As a result people are unable to be subjective about the science, as the GW zealots show us time and time again in this thread and elsewhere.

 

[Sean K]

Gore has never been on my radar (I haven't seen Gore's epic) and his actions are somewhat incidental to the underlying science.

Any thought of watching it Rob?

He won some sort of prize apparently, so must be some sort of champion or even an 'expert'.

'Incidental'? hmmm

I've seen in twice. Rivetting. Have the DVD which has been promoted by Intrepid Travel and inspired their CEO to take up the cause and aim to be carbon neutral etc... They are spending quite a lot on the project I think. Pretty much based on the movie. Hope it's right.....

 

[wayneL]

Good site that last link BTW:

eg

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/proved_no_climate_crisis.html

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
Written by Robert Ferguson
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/index.cfm] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes

 

[Calliope]

Thanks Wayne for the Gore exposure.

What drove Gore to such lengths of absurdity? Is he mad, or is he a covert terrorist? The gullible warmers are still spouting his nonsense.

He should be declared public enemy No 1.

 

[slim pickins]

what would drive al gore to such actions.... I think personally..... He is mad. I think he lost his sanity in the weeks and months after he lost the election. His beard and subsequent seclusion are proof if insanity hard to blame him. He lost it by a few hundred votes.

Such a trauma is enough to send any normal person into the abyss of environmentalism.

 

[explod]

Absolute tosh, the whole thing. Proven in a court of law.

Could you cite the legal finding on this Wayne and the specific relevant precedent.

As a result people are unable to be subjective about the science, as the GW zealots show us time and time again in this thread and elsewhere.

Also the angle on the word "subjective" in this context. The sentence makes little sense.

 

[wayneL]

Al Gore possesses perhaps the largest ego this side of the Crab Nebula.

This is a wonderful vehicle to be on front of people and have them fawn over him, collect prizes etc.

He's loving it.

 

[wayneL]

Could you cite the legal finding on this Wayne and the specific relevant precedent.

Here is a MSM article which refers to it: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/corporate_law/article2633838.ece

Also the angle on the word "subjective" in this context. The sentence makes little sense.

Apologies, I meant "objective".

Cheers

 

[explod]

However the right word for the finding is the word "subjective"

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

"was braodly accurate...of the causes and effects of climate change"

"some of the claims were wrong" in the context of alarmism and exaggeration. Strange words for a court of law. Sounds a bit like a political take to support business and government direction. And of course published in a business document. As with most Investor's "ASF" global warming theatens returns from conventional means.

So those of us who are genuinely concerned for global warming effects must expect your torrents of stones as the forward thinkers did in the middle ages when they contended that the eartch was round.

 

[Julia]

It will take a while for people to realize the true goals of the environmentalists, just as it did with communism. At least we won't have to worry about them getting nuclear weapons? but even without nukes their claims that the world is overpopulated sends shivers down my spine!

I'd like to know what these goals are. Can you elaborate on this?

 

[Pat]

Al Gore possesses perhaps the largest ego this side of the Crab Nebula.

I was thinking you came a close 2nd. ::

 

[basilio]

Perhaps it would be useful to actually read and quote a bit more of the Judge Sir Michael Burtons statement regarding Al Gores presentation. For example

Despite finding nine significant errors the judge said many of the claims made by the film were fully backed up by the weight of science. He identified “four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC”.

In particular, he agreed with the main thrust of Mr Gore’s arguments: “That climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’).”

The other three main points accepted by the judge were that global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise, that climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked, and that it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Regarding the number of scientists ect who support the view that GW is real.
Good old WIKI took the trouble of researching this question. Short story is that

With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[57]

You can all check the individual statements of the international scientific bodies for their comments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

And yes you can also find on wiki the details of the individual, known dissenting scientists and what parts of the model they are querying.

All comes back to same point. The vast majority of scientists in the field (and even the odd commercial law judge) have been convinced by the evidence of global warming and are concerned about what is likely to happen.

So what further evidence will give you reason to reconsider?

___________________________________________________

Global Warming and Peak Oil - the right solutions right now

 

[rederob]

Here is a meaningless and non-novel article on Gore's movie... 'specially for Rederob.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

I have no interest in Gore.
Monckton is Gore's antithesis.

Monckton epitomises junk science. His article "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" was trashed by scientific peers.
First, it demonstrated he had little understanding of the concept (or science) of radiative forcing.
He then goes on to fluff some basic science on modelling, and later draws prudent and conservative conclusions from his own calculations that in part use feedback data that he had just debunked.

Is there anything else you have that might warrant a second look?

 

[basilio]

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis
Written by Robert Ferguson
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 4,600-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.
Christopher Monckton, w.

As Red Rob noted Christopher Moncktons paper was dissected and trashed by scientific peers after its publication.

And by the way your source above completely lied about the peer reviewing of Moncktons paper. Go to the Journals website and you will read the following at the top of the article

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

And for further interest the Science and Public Policy Institute that promoted the story with the lying comment about peer review is just another Exxon funded front established to spread disinformation about global warming.

Exon ponied up $100,000 in 2002 to kick it off and $50 grand a year to keep it going.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Robert_Ferguson_(Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute)

_______________________________________________________

Global Warming and Peak Oil - The right solutions , right now

 

[basilio]

It's interesting isn't it. It is hard to appreciate just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You have to climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in your palm. You must ignore an entire field of science, the statements of the world’s most important scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. And if you are someone like Christopher Monckton you have to do it all while calling yourself a scientist.

___________________________________________________________

Global Warming and Peak Oil - The right solutions, right now

 

[Calliope]

So those of us who are genuinely concerned for global warming effects must expect your torrents of stones as the forward thinkers did in the middle ages when they contended that the eartch was round.

You're bit confused there explod. The forward thinkers who contended the earth was round were the sceptics. The vast majority believed otherwise. And of course sceptics will always get a torrent of stones and abuse. Witness Basilio's assault today

 

[Smurf1976]

It will take a while for people to realize the true goals of the environmentalists

Took me a while to work it out too. But it's not about:

Wild rivers / dams

Uranium / nuclear power

One or even all forests

Pulp mills

Cars

Coal

(items listed in the order the environmentalists raised them as major public issues in the Australian context).

It's about an entirely different way of thinking. One that's close to socialism but not quite. Equality and wealth redistribution certainly, but unlike pure socialism economic wealth in itself is not an objective although certain products of it are.

It's a political ideology comparable to socialism or capitalism in scale of impact. Hence I've long acknowledged that there are 3 major political parties in Australia - Liberal (supposedly capitalist), Labor (supposedly socialist) and Green (certainly environmentalist).

Environmentalists themselves would argue there are only two major political movements in Australiam, Laborials and Greens, since Labor is capitalist as well as socialist and Liberal is socialist as well as capitalist - they're not that far apart on the Left - Right scale overall with the key differences being specific policies more than fundamental ideology.

My own ideology is actually somewhat toward that of the environmentalists but I acknowledge the validity of capitalism as well. So I'm somewhere a bit left of centre if the scale is environmentalist - capitalist.

Main thing I don't like about the environmentalists is specific rather than general. All that protesting about dams and trees is missing the point in my view. We can reverse the damage from dams in a few decades at most (even Bob Brown admits that publicly) and forests can be regenerated eventually. But you can't put oil back in the ground - and yet environmentalists have essentially ignored that issue and largely still are despite the high profile CO2 issue. Right game but they've kicked the ball the wrong way.

 

[rederob]

You're bit confused there explod. The forward thinkers who contended the earth was round were the sceptics. The vast majority believed otherwise. And of course sceptics will always get a torrent of stones and abuse. Witness Basilio's assault today

Utterly wrong: Most people through the ages believed the earth was domed until some clever folk (mathmeticians and astronomers) a few thousand years ago worked out it was round.
I suspect you have confused a flat earth with an earth that was the centre of the universe. Copernicus championed the heliocentric theory and appears to have been encouraged by the Church to progress his work at the time.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

It was a day like any other day here in Townsville.
The sun rose in the East.
It was pleasant until about 0750.
It became quite hot after that
No hotter than ever for 2 days before Christmas.
Then towards evening a glorious sunset.
The sun set in the West
Insects, birds, animals and humans went about their daily business.
So where is all this warmening ??????????????????????

gg

 

[Calliope]

Bas and Co. Just supposing your plethora of scientific bodies are right. So what are they doing to try to mitigate the effects of their doomsday predictions? Don't tell me they are basing their faith on this increasingly industrialised world radically reducing carbon emissions.

Do you think these smart scientists can convince over half the world's population living in impoverished circumstances that they should deny themselves the material benefits that we have taken for granted for the past three or four generations. Just when they were getting close.

Should the scientists pursue the line, as you do, that they must do it for our grandchildren. And they will say "well when you put it like that, we would be selfish not to oblige you." And pigs might fly. They care as little about our grandchildren as we do for their aspirations.

These scientists will either start working hard on mitigation, or be shown up as hypocrites.