I still say, our planet needs saving from us. Our foot print is just too large, we can be more efficient and therefore have less effect on the environment.
The "data" is a joke, anyone with an idea in testing and measurement knows it. ....
Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change derived from the meteorological station network [This is an update of Figure 6(b) in Hansen et al. (2001).]
Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits) are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for incomplete spatial sampling of data
Yes the evidence is there. They make reference to the hypothesis it in text books I'll be using in uni next year.Think I agree with mit - It sure does look like a mountain.
I like this quote mit. Denial of the AGW possibility due to pressure on the economy. Well we don't need AGW to stuff the world economy do we?It is the same for Evolution Denial, AIDS Denial and Holocaust Denial. They all sound the same.
Think I agree with mit - It sure does look like a mountain..
Here is NASA's website :-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
lusk, I assume you ("anyone with an idea in testing and measurement") know what confidence limits mean?
btw, remember we are heading for at least 2 degrees hotter than that by 2100. (assuming we really get behind this) - and a damned site more than that if we dontThe entire y axis as drawn is only 1.4degC.
I've noted on various occasions that public concern about the environment peaks when the economy peaks.The cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions is a luxury we can no longer afford. Bob Brown and the thousands of cloistered academics who have been predicting the end of the world from global warming will now become irrelevent.
The news coming out of the world's markets this morning should convince any rational person that the choices of saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren or saving ourselves now from the poorhouse are not compatible.
I wonder if we can cut the climate alarmist gravy train budget then?The cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions is a luxury we can no longer afford. Bob Brown and the thousands of cloistered academics who have been predicting the end of the world from global warming will now become irrelevent.
The news coming out of the world's markets this morning should convince any rational person that the choices of saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren or saving ourselves now from the poorhouse are not compatible.
"But there's a chance, just a chance, that humanity will deal with this matter in a way that future generations judge to be satisfactory.
"If we fail ... the failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time."
Humans have a brillant way of constantly wasting limited resources on things they can't change.
I reckon we waste more on administering red tape...Humans have a brillant way of constantly wasting limited resources on things they can't change.
Anthropogenic climate change is a scientist beat up?Absolutely,
Now please tell this to our politicians who, even though they know AGW is a scientist beatup designed to get them limitless funding, will do whatever it takes to keep the general public vote.
It is such a shame that people who are influencing decisions of this ludicrous position of AGW have no idea about science, and no idea of historical climate history, causes and implications.
I reckon we waste more on administering red tape.
Profitability is stopping the transition to cleaner transportation and power.
It is energy productivity that is the inherent barrier with alternative energy sources. Oil is simply the most productive thing we've come up with thus far with gas and coal not far behind.Profitability is stopping the transition to cleaner transportation and power.
They say we can slow it down because we have sped it up, or enhanced climate change.I don't believe humans can do anything major to slow down a natural event.
Yes this is true, we are unable to meet demand...It is energy productivity that is the inherent barrier with alternative energy sources. Oil is simply the most productive thing we've come up with thus far with gas and coal not far behind.
Productivity? Consider that just one barrel of oil represents the energy content of more than a full year's worth of hard manual labour. But it doesn't take anywhere near one man year of work to get a barrel of oil out of the ground - it is thus a means of leveraging human productivity and that's the primary reason we use it.
Oil, gas, coal, hydro are all highly productive in terms of return on human effort invested. To be a viable replacement, any alternative needs to achieve that same level of productivity - not easy when you're dealing with dispersed resources like wind, sun etc rather than the highly concentrated energy in oil, coal or from a single dam on a big river.
That's why oil, coal, hydro etc are viable energy sources but solar generally isn't - there's nowhere on Earth that has a natural high concentration of sunlight sufficient to enable high productivity in its use. We do the best we can with wind farms on hill tops, which do provide a natural concentration of wind to some extent, but it's still a diffuse energy source versus the highly concentrated energy in fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro.
Climate change groundhog day
The same nonsense, the same confusions - all seem to be endlessly repeated. But what needs more explaining? (From Real Climate.org)
..........recently there has been more of a sense that the issues being discussed (in the media or online) have a bit of a groundhog day quality to them. The same nonsense, the same logical fallacies, the same confusions - all seem to be endlessly repeated. The same strawmen are being constructed and demolished as if they were part of a make-work scheme for the building industry attached to the stimulus proposal. Indeed, the enthusiastic recycling of talking points long thought to have been dead and buried has been given a huge boost by the publication of a new book by Ian Plimer who seems to have been collecting them for years. Given the number of simply made-up 'facts' in that tome, one soon realises that the concept of an objective reality against which one should measure claims and judge arguments is not something that is universally shared. This is troubling - and although there is certainly a role for some to point out the incoherence of such arguments (which in that case Tim Lambert and Ian Enting are doing very well), it isn't something that requires much in the way of physical understanding or scientific background.
.....A case in point is a 100+ comment thread criticising my recent book in which it was clear that not a single critic had read a word of it (you can find the thread easily enough if you need to - it's too stupid to link to). Not only had no-one read it, none of the commenters even seemed to think they needed to - most found it easier to imagine what was contained within and criticise that instead. It is vaguely amusing in a somewhat uncomfortable way.
Communicating with people who won't open the book, read the blog post or watch the program because they already 'know' what must be in it, is tough and probably not worth one's time.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?