We have updated our Privacy Notice, you can read the updated document here
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

2456716

Comments

  • #2


    elmex wrote: »
    What interests me about the polling is what it it does show, which is a significant shift in opinion, and that shift says that "48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated"
    Exaggerated by who?


  • #2


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Exaggerated by who?

    I don't think that question was asked by the pollsters, and I guess you might try mailing them if you want to know the answer to your question.

    For me its the fact that so many people now seem to think the case is exaggerated which is the salient point, and how that appears now to be beginning to be translated into using the ballot box to punish politicians who use the issue to raise taxes.

    Certainly in Ireland the Green party was more than decimated in the last general election, and in hindsight I wonder did that factor play a part, or whether that has anything to do with the perception in the Irish electorate that the Green Party was seen by some (growing) part of the electorate to be a party not in touch with this apparently growing phenomenon. Certainly in Queensland it seems to have been the major contributing factor to the election results there.

    I suppose a partial answer to your question is that the issue is seen to be exaggerated by politicians, but I don't think that's the answer you wanted.


  • #2


    elmex wrote: »
    What I said was that the numbers of those who no longer believe it are increasing. Your doubts seem to contradict the findings of a gallup poll last year, which concluded “…Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question…”

    It would be good to hear the argument you say you would argue, given the evidence from Gallup that, since 1997, 17% more Americans believe that the threat is generally exaggerated.
    So? 4 in 10 Americans also believe in Creationism, puritanically. We're talking about a question of science here, not whether or not Americans want to allow Gays to marry or Pot to be legalized: those are pretty much down to your personal opinions. Your belief in matters of science is really more of a question of how much attention you're paying. I have few doubts that most of the people who believe climate change is a hoax also believe in Creationism.


  • #2


    What about the English survey I mentioned, or the situation in Queensland in Australia?

    Your own doubts are interesting, but not an actual argument either way. When those same americans vote against a government who tries to impose taxes on them in the name of climate change, or green taxes, it will be of little consolation to that ousted government to believe that those same americans do, or don't, also believe in creationism.

    This phenomenon is not just happening in the USA, based on evidence, and not just based on personal beliefs.


  • #2


    Some of you may be familiar with a Prof. Richard Muller - he's definitely been mentioned on this forum in the past. I was familiar with him as a prominent figure who supported the work of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who published criticisms of Michael Mann's work.

    Well, it would appear Prof. Muller has done an about turn:
    A formerly sceptical climate scientist says human activity is causing the Earth to warm, as a new study confirms earlier results on rising temperatures.

    In a US newspaper opinion piece, Prof Richard Muller says: "Call me a converted sceptic."

    Muller leads the Berkeley Earth Project, which is using new methods and some new data to investigate the claims made by other climate researchers.

    Their latest study confirms the warming trend seen by other groups.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501

    Of course, the important point here is not that a "sceptic" has had a change of heart, but rather that the anthropogenic global warming theory has once again been demonstrated to be valid. This is perhaps even more significant in this case because the aim of the study (or the aim of many of its backers, at least) was to achieve precisely the opposite - to discredit the idea that global warming has been caused by humans.


  • #2


    A former chair of the IPCC - Professor Watson FRS - has stated that the notion of keeping to the UN-Kyoto Proposed 2C limit is unfeasible. This follows the apparently supportive US spokensman Stern who, a few weeks' ago, suggested that the proposed 2C limit was an obstacle to negotiations.

    When someone like Professor Watson says publically that warming will be 3 or even up to 5C, the climate crisis has clearly passed a significant point.

    ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19348194


  • #2


    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6514270139930450081#
    1:46:59
    An early documentary about global warming. It theorizes and tells facts about the effects global weather has had on our history. It then theorizes a lot more about its effects on our future and especially the way in which we will overcome it's bad effects. If you don't mind some, not proofed, theorizing from a reasonably intelligent guy, and are interested in our climate, this is probably a must see. I like it.

    A fascinating "lookback" from the future, but from a current perspective it's interesting to note how much slower things happened than were forecast but also just how much appears to be on track!


  • #2


    A couple of stories I came across in a recent issue of New Scientist.

    First of all, a recent report published by a Spanish organisation (DARA) states that climate change is already harming the global economy:
    According to the Climate Vulnerability Monitor – a report by Spanish non-profit organisation DARA – in 2010 climate change shaved 1.6 per cent off global gross domestic product. The figure was calculated by adding the harmful effects of climate change to the problems of the carbon-based economy, such as air pollution.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22300-climate-change-already-harming-the-global-economy.html

    I've not yet read the report in question, but I am sceptical that such conclusions can be made.

    In the same issue, more evidence that we may be in a "grand" solar minima:
    WAITING for solar fireworks to reach a grand finale next year? Um, sorry, looks like you already missed them. Structures in the sun's corona indicate that the peak in our star's latest cycle of activity has been and gone, at least in its northern hemisphere.

    ...

    This bizarre asymmetry strengthens a theory that has been bubbling among sun watchers for the past few years: our star is headed for hibernation. Having the sun's outbursts turned off for a while would provide a better baseline for studying how they influence Earth's climate.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528843.700-solar-maximum-oh-you-just-missed-it.html

    If the sun is indeed going to sleep for a time, I'm not sure whether this can be viewed as positive or negative. On the plus side, it should provide some breathing space for us to deal with increasing global temperatures. The downside, however, is that it may foster complacency.


  • #2


    As the now seemingly annual chaos caused by snowfalls in the south of England is upon us, I turn to my scrap book where I find a headline from 2000's Independent, headlining "“Snowfall now just a thing of the past”, quoting David Viner, of East Anglia’s celebrated Climatic Research Unit, predicting that falls of snow would, within a few years, become “a very rare and exciting event”.

    Having followed the debate now for many years, and having read many books, papers and followed many blogs and the like, it's really only possible to come to two conclusions which are;

    (i) No one can accurately predict what the temperature will be in 1 month's time, let alone in 100 years time and

    (ii) All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.


  • #2


    Having followed the debate now for many years, and having read many books, papers and followed many blogs and the like, it's really only possible to come to two conclusions which are;

    (i) No one can accurately predict what the temperature will be in 1 month's time, let alone in 100 years time and

    Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures. It is an explanation of temperature changes we are already experiencing. Therefore, the trend is what's important. Also, I don't think anyone is claiming to predict exact temperatures in 100 years.
    (ii) All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.
    By whom?


  • #2


    Macha wrote: »
    Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures. It is an explanation of temperature changes we are already experiencing. Therefore, the trend is what's important. Also, I don't think anyone is claiming to predict exact temperatures in 100 years.


    Is your argument that the computer modelling so widely discussed a few years ago did not predict a rise in temperatures? The computer models were not, in fact, set up to explain temperature changes we were already experiencing, but to predict changes in the future. Were you really not aware of that?

    I wasn't the person who predicted that snow would be a thing of the past, that was said by someone who was a leading proponent of the computer models, and I came across his prediction in my scrap book and repeated it here for everyone to make up their own mind on the accuracy of that individual prediction.


  • #2


    All the computer models predictions on which the claims for global warming have been made have been proved wrong.
    Complete nonsense. The projections detailed in the IPCC's first report back in 1990 have been shown so far to have been largely accurate:

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1763


  • #2


    I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.


  • #2


    I still try to keep an open mind on what percentage of the recent warming is manmade, I don't know what that percentage is but it is almost certainly between 20 & 80%, there is absolutely no way that all the changes man has made to the planet & all the pollution have no effects and at the same time there's no way that it could all be down to man!

    We still have the solar sunspot count well below average for the last century which is expected to be followed by a "Maunder minimum" type effect to really muddy the waters, that could really screw up the climate over the next couple of decades.


  • #2


    paddy147 wrote: »
    I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings...
    You thought wrong.


  • #2


    Macha wrote: »
    Sigh. Weather is not the same as climate. Also, the test of the validity of climate change is not how well we can predict temperatures.

    I am aware of the difference between Weather as being observed conditions and climate being the trend.

    I'm in Queensland at the moment, and in the past 2 years. we've had 1 in 100 year rain, wind and temperature conditions and records have been broken all the way up & down the coast.
    It seems that the "normal" tropical storms are bringing more moisture, more energy and are traveling further than has ever been previously recorded.
    Statistically this may be an anomaly, but a worst case scenario would be for this pattern to repeat.
    The Bureau of Meteorology here in Oz have had to re-design their temperature charts to cater for higher average temperatures. Hydrographers have had to revise all of their flood risk analyses and flood flag maps, and it seems as though they may have to revise their frequency intervals for some flood events in consideration of the recent events.
    I know that there was one recorded precedent for consecutive or 2 out of 3 years being record flood years back in the 1890's which may pan out in the years to come.

    They had Al Gore on the box this morning speaking about how the energy in these systems and the frequency of the occurrence may indicate a climatic shift......but then he started talking about the book of revelations and I switched it off due to credibility.

    It's an interesting time for sure.
    I think food & water supply pressures are going to be the most pressing issues regardless of whether the climate is changing or we are just going through an intense period of storm activity.


  • #2


    djpbarry wrote: »
    You thought wrong.


    Well it made the headlines on BBC World News,ITV News and also Sky News.;)

    You should look into that,before telling me that Im wrong.



    Oh and maybe quote my entire post too aswell please.
    paddy147 wrote: »
    I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.





    Thanks.


  • #2


    paddy147 wrote: »
    I thougfht it was proven that all the scientists made up their findings and they basicly compiled a pack of bullshyte and lies on climate change being a man made thing.

    There is a difference between "findings" and "predictions".

    The former are observable and recordable facts, and are not in dispute.

    You are right that some tried to muddle their findings to make the theory fit (such as the notorious and widely discredited hockey stick graph), and others in what became known as "climategate" conspired together concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based. Then we had the IPCC making claims it said were based on scientific evidence which turned out to be lies when all they had, in one case, was a pamphlet produced by an activist with no scientific evidence of any kind.

    The latter, predictions, were where some scientists decided to try to predict the future and, for example in the example I gave of David Viner above, they simply got it wrong.

    We all have to make up our own minds as to whether these sorts of people are trustworthy, use proper scientific methods, and whether their other predictions are likely to be true.


  • #2


    paddy147 wrote: »
    Well it made the headlines on BBC World News,ITV News and also Sky News.
    Maybe you could provide a link to at least one article in which it demonstrates that all the scientists "made up their findings"?


  • #2


    You are right that some tried to muddle their findings to make the theory fit (such as the notorious and widely discredited hockey stick graph)...
    This is the same “hockey stick” graph that has been reproduced by several independent studies? That hardly counts as “widely discredited”.
    ...and others in what became known as "climategate" conspired together concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.
    So you’re just ignoring the fact that eight separate inquiries into the “climategate” affair found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct?
    Then we had the IPCC making claims it said were based on scientific evidence which turned out to be lies...
    I think you’ll find it was one single claim, which was quickly corrected. There then followed a concerted media campaign to find further errors in the report, which turned up nothing.

    So you’re saying the entire report should be binned because it contained one error?
    The latter, predictions, were where some scientists decided to try to predict the future and, for example in the example I gave of David Viner above, they simply got it wrong.
    Ignoring for a moment that what you’re referring to is an off-the-cuff comment in a newspaper article, maybe you could highlight what exactly is so wildly inaccurate in said article:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
    We all have to make up our own minds as to whether these sorts of people are trustworthy, use proper scientific methods, and whether their other predictions are likely to be true.
    So in other words, you’ve made up your mind that climate science is nonsense and nothing is going to convince you otherwise?

    Answer me this: why would scientists falsify data to give the impression that the planet is slowly warming?


  • #2


    djpbarry wrote: »
    This is the same “hockey stick” graph that has been reproduced by several independent studies? That hardly counts as “widely discredited”.

    If you judge that the hockey stick graph represents a true and accurate picture of what's happening, then that's your conclusion.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    T
    So you’re just ignoring the fact that eight separate inquiries into the “climategate” affair found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct?

    I actually read the emails and never claimed there was "fraud or scientific misconduct". If its your claim that the evidence didn't show attempts to conceal the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based, that's your conclusion.
    djpbarry wrote: »

    So you’re saying the entire report should be binned because it contained one error?

    No, that's not what I said. I never even mentioned any report.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ignoring for a moment that what you’re referring to is an off-the-cuff comment in a newspaper article, maybe you could highlight what exactly is so wildly inaccurate in said article:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

    I’ve already made a post about it and will repeat the relevant part again here;
    As the now seemingly annual chaos caused by snowfalls in the south of England is upon us, I turn to my scrap book where I find a headline from 2000's Independent, headlining "“Snowfall now just a thing of the past”, quoting David Viner, of East Anglia’s celebrated Climatic Research Unit, predicting that falls of snow would, within a few years, become “a very rare and exciting event”.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    So in other words, you’ve made up your mind that climate science is nonsense and nothing is going to convince you otherwise?

    Where did anyone say “climate science” is nonsense? Climate science is interesting and worthwhile, and your apparent conclusion that I have made up my mind and think it nonsense simply demonstrates your ability to ignore what I have said, and make things up.
    djpbarry wrote: »
    Answer me this: why would scientists falsify data to give the impression that the planet is slowly warming?

    Again, you are asking me to speculate which is not something I am comfortable with, and again highlights your approach where you think speculation without evidence is useful. I don’t.


  • #2


    If you judge that the hockey stick graph represents a true and accurate picture of what's happening, then that's your conclusion.
    It is the consensus position of paleoclimatologists everywhere, based on the available evidence – my opinion isn’t really important.
    I actually read the emails and never claimed there was "fraud or scientific misconduct".
    Yes, you did. You claimed that individuals conspired to conceal raw data – that is an accusation of scientific misconduct.

    I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that you have absolutely no evidence to support your accusation?
    No, that's not what I said. I never even mentioned any report.
    You referred to claims made by the IPCC, which obviously means you were referring to the IPCC’s most recent assessment report.
    I’ve already made a post about it and will repeat the relevant part again here;...
    Ok – what’s your point? Do you have one?
    Where did anyone say “climate science” is nonsense?
    Eh, you just questioned whether individuals involved are “trustworthy” and whether they use “proper scientific methods”.

    Whether individuals are trustworthy is irrelevant – scientific papers are not published on the basis of trust. Whether or not the appropriate methods were used in any given study can be verified by consulting said study.

    Would you like to draw our attention to any particular study in the field of climate science that employed improper methodology? Didn’t think so.
    Again, you are asking me to speculate...
    No, I’m asking you to support your argument. You have stated quite categorically, without providing any evidence, that climate scientists have acted inappropriately and are concealing data from the public. You must have some cause for believing this to be the case? Have you stumbled open the concealed data in question? Has anyone?


  • #2


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Maybe you could provide a link to at least one article in which it demonstrates that all the scientists "made up their findings"?


    Maybe you could actually research/investigate the matter a bit more before telling me that Im wrong.


    Oh for the the joys of google,the BBC world service and Sky News..


  • #2


    paddy147 wrote: »
    Maybe you could actually research/investigate the matter a bit more before telling me that Im wrong.
    The onus is on you to back up your own claims.

    The fact that you are unable to do so indicates to me that your original claim is nonsense.


  • #2


    djpbarry wrote: »
    The onus is on you to back up your own claims.

    The fact that you are unable to do so indicates to me that your original claim is nonsense.


    GOOGLE IT.....you might even learn something


  • #2


    paddy147 wrote: »
    GOOGLE IT....
    I'm still not entirely sure what "IT" is, but I suspect I've already addressed it in one of the above posts.


  • #2


    paddy147 wrote: »
    GOOGLE IT.....you might even learn something

    I'm not sure of any decent debating forum (other than maybe inside Google), where "Google it" is considered an adequate or even polite response to someone's request for evidence to back up a point or claim.

    Have you read this forum's charter? My advice would be to read it: you might even learn something.


  • #2


    djpbarry wrote: »
    I'm still not entirely sure what "IT" is, but I suspect I've already addressed it in one of the above posts.


    You could have quickly and easily googled climate change data falsified and also looked it up on the various news broadcasting websites/stations too.


  • #2


    paddy147 wrote: »
    You could have quickly and easily googled climate change data falsified and also looked it up on the various news broadcasting websites/stations too.
    Ok, let's see what I can find:

    'No malpractice' by climate unit


  • #2


    djpbarry wrote: »
    Ok, let's see what I can find:

    'No malpractice' by climate unit

    Ah sure we cant have world leaders (who keep banging on about climate change) looking like idiots on the world stage now can we????



    I wonder why the panel made such a rushed job of their investigation and decision then???


    Hmmmm.....let me think here now for a second...

    World leaders and their scientists looking like complete fools.

    We cant have that now,can we??:rolleyes:


    Dr Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, criticised the panel for producing a report that was "not even-handed" and appeared to be the product of a "rushed job".
    He said: "This has produced a very superficial report. The panel should have taken more time to come to more balanced and trustworthy conclusions.


Society & Culture