Professor David Bellamy came to dublin and a denier of anthropogenic global warming.

derry · 27-01-2009 10:21PM #1

Professor Bellamy came to Dublin and kick started the end of the junk science CO2 GlobalWarming from humans CO 2 emmisions and Climate Change science

For those to young to know who Professor Bellamy is he is one of the first of the TV scientists that made save the planets Eco systems a trendy idea when Eco tourism wasn't even invented and can be described as a botanist, author, broadcaster, and environmental campaigner.

he still practises the concept of eco tourism such as this example
http://www.barcelona2004.org/esp/banco_del_conocimiento/docs/PO_24_EN_BELLAMY.pdf

His TV programs in the 80s era went to many Eco system around the world and as one the early leading forefathers of enviomental tree hugger movements that helped develop the idea and fashionable trend of respect for the environment.He is a trained scientist who specialises in science and seems determined to remain in the scientific truth arena .

In the past it seemed he to believed in the CO2 global warming concept theory as a main green house forcing agent (He probably fell into the fashion based on peer pressure in the absence of in depth study of the subject coupled with the lack of data that existed in that time)

However over time and more in depth study of the subject he has come to seriously dought the validity of the CO2 global warming from humanity or global warming theory

Some other environmental movements prefer to describe him in more harsher term such as Professor David Bellamy is also a denier of anthropogenic global warming.

Much to my surprise he came to Dublin on Saturday and was a guest on the late late show ( Darn I missed the show but its online now )

http://www.rte.ie/tv/latelate/av_20090123.html?2480831,null,228

In this show he is quite adamant that he does not adhere to what he perceives to be the flawed science of anthropogenic global warming (Human generated sources of CO2 creating global warming effect ).It seems he is involved with some 30,000 plus scientist who also do not adhere to this anthropogenicglobal warming

THis link shows the general thrust of what Bellamy says where he is happy to state the case for his reasoning
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2709551.ece

His opinion as he expressed on the show is that most of the rise of the CO2 is from the heating up of the world that took place from the hotter period that comes from increased sun spot activity that we had up to recently .As the sea heats up it give out or releases dissolved or trapped CO2 gas that was in the oceans ( similar to heating up coco cola CO2 drinks would force the CO2 to exit the liquid ) and so CO2 levels were going to rise with or without mankind's inputs.So most of this warming process is from natural events out of control or influence from humanity.As sunspot and other galactic events have diminished we are now set to enter a cooler period lasting some thirty years .He states that in order to double CO2 levels from today's ~380 PPM to ~760 PPM it would require the burning up of all known oil and gas reserves and 50% of all the known coal reserves (estimated to be ~1000 years of coal at today's level of use) and if we succeeded to do that we would at most raise the temperature of the planet by 2 degrees centigrade

That would be totally different from the projections we have heard to date from the end of the world brigade where they say planet temperatures would increase to more than 5 degrees Centigrade for a lot less CO2 forcing

So we are starting to see real science and real scientists coming into the debate to prove that not only is the anthropogenic global warming debate not over and that not 99.99% of the science world adheres to this flawed anthropogenic global warming CO2 junk suedo science

Me thinks it the Ruas Bitter time for a lot of suedo science climate scientists on this anthropogenic global warming to start looking for a exit strategy and dusting down the CV so as to change to other more low profile science positions preferably in dark and dank corners in the basements of the colleges

The numbers are coming in from to may directions

For example its estimated that CO2 warming effect is ~2 watts per square meter at the tropics .The sunshine at the tropics has a average of some ~1400 watts per square meter. For the non maths people that's roughly about 0.001% extra heating effect

Often in science such low levels of difference such as less than 0.01% are classed as so close to zero to measure in terms of any noise from other factors can wipe it out that its thrown out

So the whole anthropogenic global warming CO2 story is based on something that science normally throws out.So the real question when this fiasco is finally thrown in the bin of science history is who is funding this junk science and who keeps breathing life back into what should be quack science and how the hell did religious terms and labels like denailist come into a science debate

Now I am sure Professor Bellamy and his fellow scientists don't want to see the world say whoopee lets go mad and burn fossil fuels as there are thousands of good reasons environmental not to extract and burn fossil fuels .But science true science cant stand behind a lie that CO a fairly harmless gas that exists in small amounts in nature is a threat when lots of new evidence shows this to be a lie

However the cult followers will revert to the usual hissing and denailist methods to say otherwise last kicks of a dying horse

I myself a joe soap a former believer of anthropogenic global warming before 2003 but when the numbers didn't add up and having tracked over many years the rise of this anthropogenic global warming movement am now quite convinced that its sponsored from junk science and cult followers who cant get of this junket machine they constructed

Derry

BrianMeehan · 28-01-2009 10:00AM

Derry, I have been looking through your previous posts. How you are not banned from this forum I will never know.

"DENIERS" are treated with contempt.

At this stage the dogs on the street know that global warming is a scam. They have even changed the issue to "climate change" (previously known as the weather) to cover their tracks.

Even those who knowingly promoted the scam are starting to have serious doubts. They realise that they have been hoodwinked. This global carbon tax proposal is the basis of the New World Order.

Environmentalism is nothing more than an excuse to break the developed nations, redistribute wealth and give an excuse for depopulation.

And of course the little man still believes his betters, but maybe he is just starting to see the light.....

BrianMeehan · 28-01-2009 10:10AM

derry wrote: »

So the real question when this fiasco is finally thrown in the bin of science history is who is funding this junk science and who keeps breathing life back into what should be quack science and how the hell did religious terms and labels like denailist come into a science debate

The real question, as I see it; how do we deal with the people who have knowingly promoted this scam on their fellow humans.

Bring back the public hanging, and another thing, hang them in their white coats. And no I'm not joking.

Macha · 28-01-2009 10:23AM

BrianMeehan wrote: »

"DENIERS" are treated with contempt..

Quite hypocritical of you to complain about this, considering you think that those who believe in climate change should be hanged...?

BrianMeehan wrote: »

Environmentalism is nothing more than an excuse to break the developed nations, redistribute wealth and give an excuse for depopulation.

It's incredibly childish to use the refuting of climate change as a valid argument to reject the entire environmental movement.

nevey · 28-01-2009 10:32AM

derry wrote: »

For example its estimated that CO2 warming effect is ~2 watts per square meter at the tropics .The sunshine at the tropics has a average of some ~1400 watts per square meter. For the non maths people that's roughly about 0.001% extra heating effect

Actually 2 watts increase above a current 1400 watts per square meter is 0.14% extra heating effect. Your calculation is out by a factor of 100.

derry · 28-01-2009 11:09AM

nevey wrote: »

Actually 2 watts increase above a current 1400 watts per square meter is 0.14% extra heating effect. Your calculation is out by a factor of 100.

Well maths was never my forte:D

Last figures I read was that sun brilliance changes by 0.007% over a forty year period.As the sun is a million times bigger than the earth and with many variables like less or more cloud cover the amounts of heat could change more than this ~2W at the equator or 0.14% world wide and make solar activity noise more likely to effect global temperatures than man made carbon dioxide

The issue is one time in the past in the early 1970s era when I fist looked at the subject of CO2 or Ice ge whatever it was just a quirky off the beaten academic track subject much like the sex lives of honey bees are ruined from local power station emissions

Some how the subject of Global warming on very thin data from a complex subject became a top agenda for all sorts of off the wall environmentalist movements with axes to grind .

Interesting to notice that BrianMeehan says one of the agendas is the wish to create depopulation in the world

I for one having seen big parts of Africa can say the real problem of large parts of Africa is serious underpopulation and I for one figure that those parts of Africa would need to get a population of at least 10 times larger to ensure a better future

However the wishers of depopulation will also throw junk science at this as they would find it difficult to keep Africa so enslaved as they do presently if Africa had a bigger population

SO when we check many of the credentials that Global warmers have and we check their population control logic often we find they are knee deep in population control think tanks first and later side lined into global warming as good wagon to hitch onto to spread that gospel

So is it global warming a means to an end to prove global warming exists to fool us into reducing population when in fact there is no need to reduce populations and are they hijacking the global warming debate to drive the real agenda junk science population control movements

So whenever I meet most peoples from third world and we enter the subject of population control I state that as far as I am concerned they should ignore this white mans university junk science tripe and if their country is underpopulated then actively populate it as fast as possible( usually I have not much resistance to that idea as outside of the brainwashed west a lot of the joe soaps from those parts always knew it was white mans university crap anyway but they often have to pay lip service to population control themes it to keep the wests funds flowing in )

Anyway with a bit of luck when the clean sweep comes into the colleges of science Waco ideas like climate change global warming and population control will be buried deep back where they belong as quaint backwater subjects and science and it reputation to stick to facts will be rescued from this hijacking event that makes 911 look like a walk in the park

Anyway I am sure the educational science intiutions have thier own forms of retrubution for those who bring science into the junk science areana complete with media circus of hanging them out to dry like cold and draughty reasearch labs in the bowels of the university where others who wish to hijack science can find out the fate .

In science they dont want to stop debate and normally a scientist like Bellamy can change camps for or against climate change science 100 times in one day if he wishes as he and his peers thrash out the issues and churn the data

Then latter that night after the debate they all meeet up for a pint and are the best of friends

Where the system goes wrong is if some well moneyed outfit with some axe to grind joins in the fray complete with cult followers then we risk to find this new issue of junk science denailist regious fevour event

So what is needed is some better way to let the scientists get on with science and keep the media circus and cult followers and agenda driven junk science sponsors out of the necassery science deabtes between peers .

That doesnt mean us joe soaps are out of the loop only we will tend to revert back to deabting the results and not be in the kitchen of science contanamating the science broth in the making

Derry

Macha · 28-01-2009 11:53AM

You're doing a good job of equating all who believe in climate change as also believing in depopulation, Derry.

BrianMeehan · 28-01-2009 02:15PM

taconnol wrote: »

Quite hypocritical of you to complain about this, considering you think that those who believe in climate change should be hanged...?.

I believe in climate change, previously it was just called the weather. I said that those who promote this farce should be hanged, not the little man who believes the propaganda. What did Bernays say, with enough propaganda the masses can be made to believe anything, no matter how insane.

taconnol wrote: »

It's incredibly childish to use the refuting of climate change as a valid argument to reject the entire environmental movement.

I tell you what, you contact the dept. of the environment and ask for a grant so you can get a team togeather and collect litter. See how far you get. All other environmental problems can be easily solved, that is why we have been given "global warming". Something that cannot be proven, seen or ever solved.

Somewhat like the "war on terror". What exactly is "terror" and when will the war be won?

taconnol wrote: »

You're doing a good job of equating all who believe in climate change as also believing in depopulation, Derry.

You look into the areas he has mentioned. The two topics go hand in hand. The average man, through this crisis creation will be made to feel like a plight on the planet. Look at the latest food shortage warnings. What a joke, especially you read a few days before that the EU are buying up massive excess food to keep prices up (yes still excess food, even though half the farmers in Europe are paid not to produce anything).

All planned, all a scam. The science is a joke.

And what about Gormless. He cycles to work everyday. Good guy. Pity we all don't have a couple of Garda drivers following us to take in any documents and so on, pure show pony stuff. Great to see, because even the most docile idiot must start questioning such tatter.

djpbarry · 28-01-2009 03:14PM

David Bellamy is neither a professor nor a climatologist and if you listened to the interview you would have heard that he obtained his PhD for work "on the bogs of Ireland". This makes him an authority on climate change how?

He claims that the fact that ice cores show CO2 increases lagging behind temperature rises disproves the AGW theory, but all this proves is that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused, for example, the initial warming at the end of ice ages - but no climate scientist has ever claimed that CO2 was the trigger.

I don't have time to go through the rest of what he claims - I'll come back to it later.

bonkey · 28-01-2009 05:23PM

BrianMeehan wrote: »

I believe in climate change, previously it was just called the weather.

By those who didn't know what they were talking about, perhaps.

What did Bernays say, with enough propaganda the masses can be made to believe anything, no matter how insane.

This applies to either side of the argument. It also passes no comment on whether or not what is being propagandised is or is not true.

Indeed, one need only look at this thread and its ilk. You no doubt believe in the validity of the underlying claim its making, but the thread itself is still propaganda for a cause. You admit that enough propaganda will make the public believe anything, no matter how insane.

derry · 28-01-2009 07:47PM

djpbarry wrote: »

<snip>

I don't have time to go through the rest of what he claims - I'll come back to it later.

No problems in a nut shell Belamany says he adheres to the warming is a natural part of the warming up cycle (eg non human CO2 emmission related ) and now we move into the cooler period
Nature rules OK:D

Also he says he is part of the 34.000 scientist denailists that are determined not to let science be hijacked by this junk science movement human CO2 emmissions create most all the global warming that is going to cook our goose

The population controlers when thier dire predictions didn't happen as they planned it had to hitch onto another doom and gloom junk science logic so as to use it for thier own agenda

Now whats the real agenda to hijack population control movements logic and then global warming movements ????

As they say follow the money trail and we see that joe soap low level scientists have been forced to sell thier soul to feed thier families but the masters of this deception can possibly buy most all scientists graduates they need until they can vote in this bull crap science if they are given the chance

Now who has got the clout to make us pleb taxpayers sink $50 billlion dollors into this global warming science fiasco and then you start to see who the master pupeteers are that control the global warming movements
Al Gore is the Goebbels of that extremly rich and powerful master pupeteer set

Lucky 34,000 plus scientists stand in the way of junk science

Derry

nevey · 28-01-2009 08:21PM

derry wrote: »

Well maths was never my forte:D

Well then don't offer to do the maths for the rest of us. You've got to admit that it detracts from your argument somewhat if your numbers are so wildly inaccurate.

Especially since ...

derry wrote: »

For the non maths people that's roughly about 0.001% extra heating effect

As posted above ... the correct calculation is 0.14%, but as you go on to say ....

derry wrote: »

Often in science such low levels of difference such as less than 0.01% are classed as so close to zero to measure in terms of any noise from other factors can wipe it out that its thrown out
So the whole anthropogenic global warming CO2 story is based on something that science normally throws out.

So with the correct figure of 0.14% slotted in instead of your miscalculated figure, the increase cannot be classified as noise and should not be "thrown out".

Also

derry wrote: »

It seems he is involved with some 30,000 plus scientist who also do not adhere to this anthropogenicglobal warming

Also, this strikes me as a bit odd. Who are the 30,000 (or was that 34,000 ?) scientists (anybody with a BSc who signed up to a petition online, or do they attend conventions, or subscribe to a magazine) and most importantly are many of them from countries such as china who kind of have a vested interest in skipping some of the pesky environmental controls the rest of the world would like to impose.
All the vested interest baddies don't have to be westerners.

gerky · 28-01-2009 08:23PM

This article and blog basically covers Bellamy's method of so called "scientific research", I think he's a dedicated botanist and environmentalist but he obviously is talking rubbish.
He hasn't been on tv since 94 and seems to be just looking for a bit of attention.
Its rather sad as he was a great at getting children exited about the environment.

For the past three weeks, a set of figures has been working a hole in my mind. On April 16, New Scientist published a letter from the famous botanist David Bellamy. Many of the world's glaciers, he claimed, "are not shrinking but in fact are growing ... 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980". His letter was instantly taken up by climate change deniers. And it began to worry me. What if Bellamy was right?

He is a scientist, formerly a senior lecturer at the University of Durham. He knows, in other words, that you cannot credibly cite data unless it is well-sourced. Could it be that one of the main lines of evidence of the impact of global warming - the retreat of the world's glaciers - is wrong?

The question could scarcely be more important. If man-made climate change is happening, as the great majority of the world's climatologists claim, it could destroy the conditions that allow human beings to remain on the planet. The effort to cut greenhouse gases must come before everything else. This won't happen unless we can be confident that the science is right. Because Bellamy is president of the Conservation Foundation, the Wildlife Trusts, Plantlife International and the British Naturalists' Association, his statements carry a great deal of weight. When, for example, I challenged the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders over climate change, its spokesman cited Bellamy's position as a reason for remaining sceptical.

So last week I telephoned the World Glacier Monitoring Service and read out Bellamy's letter. I don't think the response would have been published in Nature, but it had the scientific virtue of clarity: "This is complete bull****." A few hours later, they sent me an email: "Despite his scientific reputation, he makes all the mistakes that are possible." He had cited data that was simply false, he had failed to provide references, he had completely misunderstood the scientific context and neglected current scientific literature. The latest studies show unequivocally that most of the world's glaciers are retreating.

But I still couldn't put the question out of my mind. The figures that Bellamy cited must have come from somewhere. I emailed him to ask for his source. After several requests, he replied to me at the end of last week. The data, he said, came from a website called www.iceagenow.com. Iceagenow was constructed by a man called Robert W Felix to promote his self-published book about "the coming ice age". It claims that sea levels are falling, not rising; that the Asian tsunami was caused by the "ice age cycle"; and that "underwater volcanic activity - not human activity - is heating the seas".

Is Felix a climatologist, a volcanologist or an oceanographer? Er, none of the above. His biography describes him as a "former architect". His website is so bonkers that I thought at first it was a spoof. Sadly, he appears to believe what he says. But there, indeed, was all the material that Bellamy cited in his letter, including the figures - or something resembling the figures - he quoted. "Since 1980, there has been an advance of more than 55% of the 625 mountain glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring group in Zurich." The source, which Bellamy also cited in his email to me, was given as "the latest issue of 21st Century Science and Technology".

21st Century Science and Technology? It sounds impressive, until you discover that it is published by Lyndon LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche is the American demagogue who in 1989 received a 15-year sentence for conspiracy, mail fraud and tax-code violations. He has claimed that the British royal family is running an international drugs syndicate, that Henry Kissinger is a communist agent, that the British government is controlled by Jewish bankers, and that modern science is a conspiracy against human potential.

It wasn't hard to find out that this is one of his vehicles: LaRouche is named on the front page of the magazine's website, and the edition Bellamy cites contains an article beginning: "We in LaRouche's Youth Movement find ourselves in combat with an old enemy that destroys human beings ... it is empiricism."

Oh well, at least there is a source for Bellamy's figures. But where did 21st Century Science and Technology get them from? It doesn't say. But I think we can make an informed guess, for the same data can be found all over the internet. They were first published online by Professor Fred Singer, one of the very few climate change deniers who has a vaguely relevant qualification (he is, or was, an environmental scientist). He posted them on his website, www.sepp.org, and they were then reproduced by the appropriately named junkscience.com, by the Cooler Heads Coalition, the US National Centre for Public Policy Research and countless others. They have even found their way into the Washington Post.

They are constantly quoted as evidence that man-made climate change is not happening. But where did they come from? Singer cites half a source: "A paper published in Science in 1989." Well, the paper might be 16 years old, but at least, and at last, there is one. Surely?

I went through every edition of Science published in 1989, both manually and electronically. Not only did it contain nothing resembling those figures, throughout that year there was no paper published in this journal about glacial advance or retreat.

So it wasn't looking too good for Bellamy, or Singer, or any of the deniers who have cited these figures. But there was still one mystery to clear up. While Bellamy's source claimed that 55% of 625 glaciers are advancing, Bellamy claimed that 555 of them - or 89% - are advancing. This figure appears to exist nowhere else. But on the standard English keyboard, 5 and % occupy the same key. If you try to hit %, but fail to press shift, you get 555, instead of 55%. This is the only explanation I can produce for his figure. When I challenged him, he admitted that there had been "a glitch of the electronics".

So, in Bellamy's poor typing, we have the basis for a whole new front in the war against climate science. The 555 figure is now being cited as definitive evidence that global warming is a "fraud", a "scam", a "lie". I phoned New Scientist to ask if Bellamy had requested a correction. He had not.

It is hard to convey just how selective you have to be to dismiss the evidence for climate change. You must climb over a mountain of evidence to pick up a crumb: a crumb which then disintegrates in the palm of your hand. You must ignore an entire canon of science, the statements of the world's most eminent scientific institutions, and thousands of papers published in the foremost scientific journals. You must, if you are David Bellamy, embrace instead the claims of an eccentric former architect, which are based on what appears to be a non-existent data set. And you must do all this while calling yourself a scientist.

Botanist and environmentalist David Bellamy was a relatively successful broadcaster until 1994 when his broadcasting career tanked. More recently he has been a climate change / global warming Denier who got some attention when some sloppy writing on his part led to a major new Denier myth.

Now we learn that Bellamy is the new Denier martyr because he was the victim of a vicious witch hunt by Enviro-Nazis Global Warming storm troopers. In the Daily Express where we are told “BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE.” In a nutshell, Bellamy was a “skeptic” so the BBC tossed him out.

Interesting. Just one or two problems with this story.

For one thing Bellamy’s career tanked in 1994, a dozen years before Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” Long before 99% of the media had even heard of climate change, much less had any sort of official or unofficial policy or attitude about it.

Are we being asked to believe that the BBC was so forward thinking as to be suppressing climate skepticism in 1994, while at the same time not actually producing any programing advocating climate science, or giving it any particular attention in the news cycle? Was it some sort of passive aggressive Draconian indifference then? Is that the suggestion?
Naturalist David Bellamy

Right.

Soldiering on.

In the article Bellamy alleges that his fall from grace with the BBC was due to denouncing wind farms on an episode of Blue Peter and having a written an article declaring climate change to be “poppycock.”

Trouble is, he says that was 1996, two years after his BBC career was effectively over.

Another puzzling thing is that at different times Bellamy gives different reasons for BBC’s apparent dissatisfaction. The Blue Peter program is somewhat consistent, but his stance on climate is not.

In a Jun 7 2008 interview with the Liverpool Daily Post it was “my stance on having an anti-EU referendum was unpopular with TV bosses,” no mention of it at all in a Times interview a year ago, and in a 2002 Guardian interview it was because he stood against John Major for the anti-European Referendum party:

“In some ways it was probably the most stupid thing I ever did because I’m sure that if I have been banned from television, that’s why. I used to be on Blue Peter and all those things, regularly, and it all, pffffft, stopped.”

But even then the script didn’t match. As the interviewer observes, his stand against Major was in 1997 and Bellamy’s BBC career was over in 1994.

Gee, some inconsistencies in a Denier narrative - how unusual.

One other problem with the story is that Bellamy clearly wasn’t a Denier/Skeptic in 1994 (or 1996, or 1997). In 1989 he wrote a forward to the book The Greenhouse Effect in which he says ” … there is no doubt. Earth’s temperature is showing an upward swing, the so-called greenhouse effect …” After that I can find no mention of Bellamy and climate for over a decade.

It isn’t until 2004 that “Bellamy the Denier” actually appears on stage in a Daily Mail piece. In fact this would appear to be the “poppycock” article that he now thinks he wrote in 1996, 2 years after the BBC started shunning him. Aside, like all the Denier dreck the article is full of unsubstantiated and wildly inaccurate nonsense.

The response to his article suggests this stance is new for Bellamy. Then it is only in 2005 that various environmental organizations distance themselves from him because of his “new” stance on climate. A Telegraph interview that same year refers to his recent conversion to Denierism, and Denier sites from 2007 report him as “recently converted to skepticism.”

To sum up: in 1996/1997 David Bellamy ran against John Major and had anti-EU sympathies which caused a BBC that did not give a damn about climate change to dismiss him in 1994 for opinions on climate that he would not hold until some time in 2003/2004 and for an article that he would not write until 2004. That Damn BBC, always so far ahead of the curve!

Which is about as coherent and fact filled as Denierism ever gets.

In all likelihood this is the sad and undignified denouement to what was the honourable and enviable career of a committed environmentalist. It is just too bad that the jackals and vultures of the media and the Denialosphere have used it for their own venal purposes and could not instead have let this tragic farce play out in private.

Apologies they are quite long.

djpbarry · 28-01-2009 08:25PM

derry wrote: »

No problems in a nut shell Belamany says he adheres to the warming is a natural part of the warming up cycle (eg non human CO2 emmission related ) and now we move into the cooler period

And he's right because?

derry wrote: »

Also he says he is part of the 34.000 scientist denailists...

"Scientist" is such a vague term; who are these people? Fellow botanists? And the term "denialists" is probably not the bet to use in this context, as it implies the rejection of evidence.

derry wrote: »

As they say follow the money trail and we see that joe soap low level scientists have been forced to sell thier soul to feed thier families but the masters of this deception can possibly buy most all scientists graduates they need until they can vote in this bull crap science if they are given the chance

You keep towing this same line, that everyone and anyone is being paid to conduct climate research, without producing a singe shred of evidence. This gives an idea of how much research funding is available to DIT researchers through various bodies. Note that funding available for research on "Environment and Climate Change" is only just ahead of that for Space research and both are dwarfed by the likes of Health, Transport and ICT.

derry · 28-01-2009 09:09PM

djpbarry wrote: »

You keep towing this same line, that everyone and anyone is being paid to conduct climate research, without producing a singe shred of evidence. This gives an idea of how much research funding is available to DIT researchers through various bodies. Note that funding available for research on "Environment and Climate Change" is only just ahead of that for Space research and both are dwarfed by the likes of Health, Transport and ICT.

Yes DIT is the trend setting college of the planet from which all colleges clone thier division of research plans

Come on wake up there are science research projects like "The study of bees hives stressed from global warming " which will get the funding over a similar project which just says "study of bee hives"

Add global warming into the subject any subject and the chance to get the funding is increased.

The Issue is if 34,000 scientists are taking on the global warming myth maybe they twigged that junk science deep inside one part of science will bring all science into disrepute and risk all science to become junk science.

For me its simple there may or may not be a real global warming issue or even a real over population issue but science with deep pocketed agenda drivin junk science dictating the truth they want ,sure cant be good for real science and we are unlikely to find out the real truth in this senario

Worse one day when we might really need real science to solve some real problem like a new avian flu or something we might lose the real war because all the science is so corrupted with junk science setting the agenda

"Denialists" is the term the well heeled pro global warming lobby and suitably pro gloabal warming media giants and the junk science movement label the 34,000 scientist with.

I agree that using the term "Denialists" implies the rejection of evidence and is what applies most aptly to the pro global warmers who coined the term.They the global warmer science brigade dont want to enter a science debate they just want to hijack this global warming science by force or suedo democratic voting global warming in to suit thier agenda and use non science terms like the climate change or global warming debate is over . I suspect probably later then its hijack all science and junk science the whole subject science

Derry

derry · 28-01-2009 09:54PM

nevey wrote: »

Also, this strikes me as a bit odd. Who are the 30,000 (or was that 34,000 ?) scientists (anybody with a BSc who signed up to a petition online, or do they attend conventions, or subscribe to a magazine) and most importantly are many of them from countries such as china who kind of have a vested interest in skipping some of the pesky environmental controls the rest of the world would like to impose.
All the vested interest baddies don't have to be westerners.

A valid point is that " All the vested interest baddies don't have to be westerners."
Junk Science is a good useful tool for many parties.History is littered with the reminantes of junk science from the Nazi regime through to the Soviet era where the safest subject to stud was abstact Phyisics.

However I am just one joe and cant filter out 34,000 scientists credentials contries of origin and thier willing or coheresed inclusion from the regimes they live in.
However if Bellamy who at age 76 with no real personal axe to grind like looking for a new job or something has chosen to include this I suspect the majority of these scientists are in there for the real isssue save science from this junk science hijacking event

I suspect the damage that this civil war within science that is taking place presently with large outside cash injections to keep some junk scientists going and the deeply embedded agenda drivin junk scientists along side the media monguls on board the junk science racket for other reasons means that its now just a simple war true science versus junk science war. The global warming or climate change is just a trojan horse manover to totaly hijack all science so as to junk all science

Derry

djpbarry · 29-01-2009 06:04AM

derry wrote: »

Yes DIT is the trend setting college of the planet from which all colleges clone thier division of research plans

:rolleyes: Eh, that funding is not exclusively reserved for DIT researchers – it is a list of the amounts made available by the various funding bodies, mostly at European level. You think DIT has a research budget of the order of billions of Euros?!? Whether you care to admit it or not, climate change does not command the sort of research funding that you would like to think it does.

derry wrote: »

Come on wake up there are science research projects like "The study of bees hives stressed from global warming " which will get the funding over a similar project which just says "study of bee hives"

Whether a project gets funding or not is almost entirely dependent on the application for funding. You are seriously deluded if you think a simple change to the project title is enough to secure the funding required – working titles change on a regular basis during the course of any research project.

derry wrote: »

Add global warming into the subject any subject and the chance to get the funding is increased.

Funding from a particular body is usually independent of the subject matter and is usually fixed to a particular research programme, e.g. MPhil, PhD, etc. Sticking “climate change” (or any other term for that matter) into one’s funding application will not yield any increase in funding.

derry wrote: »

The Issue is if 34,000 scientists are taking on the global warming myth maybe they twigged that junk science deep inside one part of science will bring all science into disrepute and risk all science to become junk science.

So who are these 34,000 brave souls? Any ideas?

derry wrote: »

Worse one day when we might really need real science to solve some real problem like a new avian flu or something we might lose the real war because all the science is so corrupted with junk science setting the agenda

:rolleyes: Yeah, no “real” research taking place anywhere. Have a look at this list for example:

http://www.dit.ie/study/postgraduate-research/current-students/schoolofbiologicalsciences

It’s all climate change this and climate change that. You can’t move with all the climate change in this place...

derry wrote: »

"Denialists" is the term the well heeled pro global warming lobby and suitably pro gloabal warming media giants and the junk science movement label the 34,000 scientist with.

Ah yes, the famous 34k – any names yet?

derry wrote: »

They the global warmer science brigade dont want to enter a science debate...

You’re not much interested in any sort of debate yourself, are you? Every post consists of a long-winded rant that usually ignores any points that have been made that contradict your own point of view.

derry wrote: »

However I am just one joe and cant filter out 34,000 scientists credentials contries of origin and thier willing or coheresed inclusion from the regimes they live in.

So in other words, you have no idea who they are or what they do, but 34,000 sounds like a nice big number so you’re going to roll with it.

derry wrote: »

However if Bellamy who at age 76 with no real personal axe to grind like looking for a new job or something has chosen to include this I suspect the majority of these scientists are in there for the real isssue save science from this junk science hijacking event

In other words, you’ve no idea if what he’s saying is in any way accurate, but you’re prepared to accept it because it supports your own point of view.

derry wrote: »

I suspect the damage that this civil war within science that is taking place presently with large outside cash injections...

Ah yes, the massive funding available for climate research – still not going to provide any information on where this mountain of cash is available from, eh?

hoser expat · 29-01-2009 10:38AM

djpbarry wrote: »

David Bellamy is neither a professor nor a climatologist and if you listened to the interview you would have heard that he obtained his PhD for work "on the bogs of Ireland". This makes him an authority on climate change how?

Hey, my PhD is on the bogs of Canada! But where he looked at bogs from a botanical perspective, I study bugs from a carbon cycling / climate perspective. Well, I did up until last year, when I gave up my tenured and endowed position teaching and researching glacial geology and climatology in the US (the myth of this research being awash in funds just isn't true) to move in to university administration. So Derry, some people on this board do have some credentials (and can do the math)....I can't see any credentials from your end....just ranting based on biased sources. One lesson you need to learn is to get your information from the scientists themselves, not from the media.

Love the expose of Bellamy and the mistakes he makes....he's just a talking head who is well past his prime. Unfortunately he talks and some people listen.

I'd also love to see the names of these 34,000 scientists. Probably based on the thoroughly discredited Oregon Petition.

silverharp · 29-01-2009 01:40PM

http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=1986

D Bellamy didnt come off too well in this C4 Interview, he maybe irrelevent to the discussion either way

bonkey · 29-01-2009 08:25PM

derry wrote: »

Come on wake up there are science research projects like "The study of bees hives stressed from global warming " which will get the funding over a similar project which just says "study of bee hives"

I'm guessing this is speculation on your part.

There was some furore some while back about someone claiming that they felt their project got funding because they had made it about global warming, but it turned out that the same person had never actually looked for funding for the topic without it being about global warming.

I seem to recall that in the ensuing discussions on the topic (here and elsewhere), no-one could produce a single verifiable case where what you allege actually occurred.

I would, however, be very interested in knowing if such occurrences have been found. Have they been found?

For me its simple there may or may not be a real global warming issue or even a real over population issue but science with deep pocketed agenda drivin junk science dictating the truth they want ,sure cant be good for real science and we are unlikely to find out the real truth in this senario

Junk science generally gets found out. Its one of the reasons, for example, that we (generally) accept the link between smoking and lung cancer.

Indeed, thats an interesting analagy, because if we followed the money, we should have come to the conclusion that there was no connection.

I would also point out that the arguments of the likes of Bellamy tend to spark a new rise in outcry, only for it (quickly) to appear that his position appears to be based on...you guessed it...a large dose of junk science.

There is junk science on both sides. It should be stripped away. I agree completely with any such sentiment. However, when we strip away what we find to be junk science, and ignore the general invective on both sides, we tend to find that one side has a lot of science left in its corner, and the other side has...well...very little but the insistence that the science is wrong.

"Denialists" is the term the well heeled pro global warming lobby and suitably pro gloabal warming media giants and the junk science movement label the 34,000 scientist with.

People get too caught up with labels.

First we had the "Global Warming" label, only that got replaced because of all the "but look...we have all these cold records being set too" and "but look...some glaciers are growing" type of comments. So Global Warming fell out of favour, and Climate Change came in. What do we see now? That's right...people making (obvious) points along the lines that "the climate has always changed and will always change".

Its a label. Anyone who believes labels are or can be accurate are missing the point.

Similarly, we had Skeptics...only many of them weren't skeptical, they were flat-out rejecting the findings. So now they're Denialists. That label is no more accurate than Skeptics was, nor than any other label can be.

People who get caught up in the inaccuracy of labels are missing the point...or deliberately trying to move the argument away from the real issue.

derry · 30-01-2009 08:59AM

silverharp wrote: »

http://www.channel4.com/player/v2/player.jsp?showId=1986

D Bellamy didn't come off too well in this C4 Interview, he maybe irrelevent to the discussion either way

Oh good someone came up with this link the very one I had done a lot of leg work for some time checking into

I didn't want to prime you with this link as I was interested to see how deep an insight others might get from this debate

and what a web we weave when we check it out

First is is normal to see to in science news stories statements like Bullsh!te used by Monbiot the adversary in this program,Second Having watched many debates it is not the norm to use such adversarial methods as wandering into scientific fraud or claim falsely that 99% of climate scientists adhere to global warming forcing from CO2 emissions .

It make good media mongols juicy stories though

I don't hang in science debate circles as I prefer to just receive the final known results in the suitable outlets usually web sites or science journals magazines whatever and watch the odd debate which tweaks my interest

However some media Mongols for whatever reason have chosen that if we were in deep and bloody at the coal face as the different camps slog it out that we would have a better picture of the global warming story

Enter our adversarial journalist Monbiot who is also qualified scientist that work for the Guardian newspaper as their strong advocate for the global warming CO2 forcing from human CO2 emissions

Without getting into all the other gory details of Monibots links to various think tanks not of global warming but linked to previous failed agendas and we can say that global warming is for him a very profitable industry full for junkets on the world circuit

This debate on C4 is not about global warming but how to fine tune the media Mongols who have newspapers to sell showing a gladiatorial blood bath where their guy wins so as to sell more papers and hopefully dictate the science agenda.

Bellany isn't stupid he knew the media circus arena he entered and he chose to maintain his typical science debate style not to win the debate but to show clearly to the other scientists out there that there isn't going to be any science debate tolerated from that this Global warming cult following movement which has chosen to hijack this subject for it junk science agenda

Bellany for me won in that from science its not always the winning the debate that counts but really proving your argument.All I saw was that Monbiot has fixed in concrete agenda and Belanmy is still interested in that science always pursues the truth.

Given a choice between Monibiots cult following agenda driven science and Bellany a respectable scientist maybe not always correct but willing to continue in true science debate I wouuld rather go with Bellamy

Rerun the debate and its often what Bellany doesn't say that is very interesting

For me Bellamy or any true science debate follower can flip flop between camps both for and against the global warming forcing debate a 100 times or more in one day if that is what is necessary to find out what the science truth is.If Bellany needs to change camps for whatever reason I would suspect he can do it as I supect he sticks to his training over his ego

Those that chose another route can be shown up in sharp relief for what they really are with this debate

And if you look up Monibiot very public and his agendas driven thinking then so far for me he still isn't a fraction of the scientist that Bellany is.

So for those who are in science I suspect that science won a insight into what this new media circus driven debate is producing

Follow the money and the trail of who drives the agenda driven science becomes a lot more clear

This single debate pointed me firmly to where the trail is starting with Monibiot and the think tanks he is attached to and there a Sh!t lot of money on that trail

Thanks for the link and your deep insight into it.
The differece is Bellany has left a marker in the sand for others in the future to see when this science fraud is exposed as to how to spot a simialr science fraud in the making.
Yes I agree Bellamy is irrellevant to the global warming debate as he is 76 years old and has nothing to lose to show us where the science truth is and winning the debate isnt everthing and sometimes lossing a battle turn the tide in the war

Does that mean I do or dont belive in global warming. It not really a debate a i can contribute properly too other than to say the science seems to be total disrepute and we are unlikely to get the true facts while we have the well moneyed outfits driving the agenda in the direction they wish the results to go to.

Bellamy stated on the late late we can expect soon that the true extent of this scam will be shown up

Then after that true science can get back to what it should do following the science truth

Derry

robtri · 30-01-2009 10:16AM

derry wrote: »

Oh good someone came up with this link the very one I had done a lot of leg work for some time checking into

I didn't want to prime you with this link as I was interested to see how deep an insight others might get from this debate

and what a web we weave when we check it out

First is is normal to see to in science news stories statements like Bullsh!te used by Monbiot the adversary in this program,Second Having watched many debates it is not the norm to use such adversarial methods as wandering into scientific fraud or claim falsely that 99% of climate scientists adhere to global warming forcing from CO2 emissions .

It make good media mongols juicy stories though

I don't hang in science debate circles as I prefer to just receive the final known results in the suitable outlets usually web sites or science journals magazines whatever and watch the odd debate which tweaks my interest

However some media Mongols for whatever reason have chosen that if we were in deep and bloody at the coal face as the different camps slog it out that we would have a better picture of the global warming story

Enter our adversarial journalist Monbiot who is also qualified scientist that work for the Guardian newspaper as their strong advocate for the global warming CO2 forcing from human CO2 emissions

Without getting into all the other gory details of Monibots links to various think tanks not of global warming but linked to previous failed agendas and we can say that global warming is for him a very profitable industry full for junkets on the world circuit

This debate on C4 is not about global warming but how to fine tune the media Mongols who have newspapers to sell showing a gladiatorial blood bath where their guy wins so as to sell more papers and hopefully dictate the science agenda.

Bellany isn't stupid he knew the media circus arena he entered and he chose to maintain his typical science debate style not to win the debate but to show clearly to the other scientists out there that there isn't going to be any science debate tolerated from that this Global warming cult following movement which has chosen to hijack this subject for it junk science agenda

Bellany for me won in that from science its not always the winning the debate that counts but really proving your argument.All I saw was that Monbiot has fixed in concrete agenda and Belanmy is still interested in that science always pursues the truth.

Given a choice between Monibiots cult following agenda driven science and Bellany a respectable scientist maybe not always correct but willing to continue in true science debate I wouuld rather go with Bellamy

Rerun the debate and its often what Bellany doesn't say that is very interesting

For me Bellamy or any true science debate follower can flip flop between camps both for and against the global warming forcing debate a 100 times or more in one day if that is what is necessary to find out what the science truth is.If Bellany needs to change camps for whatever reason I would suspect he can do it as I supect he sticks to his training over his ego

Those that chose another route can be shown up in sharp relief for what they really are with this debate

And if you look up Monibiot very public and his agendas driven thinking then so far for me he still isn't a fraction of the scientist that Bellany is.

So for those who are in science I suspect that science won a insight into what this new media circus driven debate is producing

Follow the money and the trail of who drives the agenda driven science becomes a lot more clear

This single debate pointed me firmly to where the trail is starting with Monibiot and the think tanks he is attached to and there a Sh!t lot of money on that trail

Thanks for the link and your deep insight into it.
The differece is Bellany has left a marker in the sand for others in the future to see when this science fraud is exposed as to how to spot a simialr science fraud in the making.
Yes I agree Bellamy is irrellevant to the global warming debate as he is 76 years old and has nothing to lose to show us where the science truth is and winning the debate isnt everthing and sometimes lossing a battle turn the tide in the war

Does that mean I do or dont belive in global warming. It not really a debate a i can contribute properly too other than to say the science seems to be total disrepute and we are unlikely to get the true facts while we have the well moneyed outfits driving the agenda in the direction they wish the results to go to.

Bellamy stated on the late late we can expect soon that the true extent of this scam will be shown up

Then after that true science can get back to what it should do following the science truth

Derry

Any chance Derry you could keep your replies shorter..... and get to the point quicker.... :rolleyes:

silverharp · 30-01-2009 01:42PM

derry wrote: »

Oh good someone came up with this link the very one I had done a lot of leg work for some time checking into

I didn't want to prime you with this link as I was interested to see how deep an insight others might get from this debate

All that matters is that an open and informed debate can continue in the media. Obviously a 5min debate on the C4 news is neither here nor there but people like Bellamy have to use bulletproof logic. If he makes an assertion that most or all glaciers are growing, this is a statement of fact, its not a projection that can be argued with. Now it looked like he couldnt defend his point.

derry · 30-01-2009 05:06PM

robtri wrote: »

Any chance Derry you could keep your replies shorter..... and get to the point quicker.... :rolleyes:

Wham bam thank you mam solutions ,global warming cooks our goose yes, no , that available from instant Macdo

Here the food for thought is more chunky etc

Derry

djpbarry · 30-01-2009 05:43PM

derry wrote: »

Bellany for me won in that from science its not always the winning the debate that counts but really proving your argument.

How did he achieve the latter?

derry wrote: »

Given a choice between Monibiots cult following agenda driven science and Bellany a respectable scientist maybe not always correct but willing to continue in true science debate I wouuld rather go with Bellamy

Hang on now; you're essentially saying that it doesn't matter whether what Bellamy says is correct or not, you still think he's a respectable scientist?!? So his arguments don't really matter? All that matters is that he's a scientists and he agrees with your point of view?

I don’t know why I’m bothering to ask these questions when I know you won’t answer them.

derry · 30-01-2009 08:31PM

silverharp wrote:

All that matters is that an open and informed debate can continue in the media. Obviously a 5min debate on the C4 news is neither here nor there but people like Bellamy have to use bulletproof logic. If he makes an assertion that most or all glaciers are growing, this is a statement of fact, its not a projection that can be argued with. Now it looked like he couldnt defend his point.

The C4 news article say Bellamy says 525 of 625 glaciers are growing mot shrinking

The glacier monitoring service say bullsh!t

Then we have Monbiot say the Glacier monitoring service of the 88 glaciers they monitor 82 are in retreat and from that 94% of glaciers are in retreat with a few in statis( static ) forgeting to include the other few hundred glaciers out there so we see distortion from the start

Then we have a spiel from Monbiot about how one of the sources Bellamy supplied was wrong and then a launch into how Bellamy is part taking in science fraud

I ant no expert on Glaciers but I do recall these things are often very big sometimes several miles long and like river they flow downhill in the valleys. The snow falls in the high up place and pushes the low down stuff into the valley where it melts often at the front face but some times on the top .As long as the amount at the top that fall equals the amount that melts at the bottom then the Glacier is neither growing or shrinking .Any difference between the two the glacier is growing or shrinking.All through History the mega glaciers since the Ice age have mostly melted and the remnants left over from the ice age .These smaller glaciers have expanded or contracted with cycles in the earth climates such as medieval hot period or the 15th century mini Ice age ( some of those glaciers have dissappered completly in past warm periods like the medivial warming period)

So I read through the site reports from the glacier monitoring service and a few other sites on the subject( poxy stuff I tell you reading those data tables )

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb10/sum07.html

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/mbb7/MBB7.pdf

Reading these two papers above they only show 80 or 50 glaciers respectively from the ~530 I found in the lower paper listed below

The consistant theme from glacier monetoring service is these 80 odd glacier s from glacier monitoring service were specially chosen as they were smaller glaciers in the logic that smaller glaciers would show signs of temperature melting better than bigger glaciers and help prove humans were creating temperature rises
So from the worlds ~530 plus glaciers there is a selected group abnormal from the rest of the ~530 galciers in the world . What is interesting for me is who choises what glaciers and why and who drives the agenda in Glacier monitoring Service

The majority of Glaciers shows signs of loss but often these losses are marginal best I can tell .
They explain the gains in the winter and the losses in the summer and arrive at a figure which shows a net loss.
However these losses often are in few meters and rarely talk in terms of hundreds of meters losses.
A few hard winters with extra snow falls with a few less cooler winters and over ten years of that cycle most all the melt could be replaced best I can tell,
Some glaciers did seem to suffer 10% losses over short periods which is fairly large but considering glacier monitoring service are looking at the smaller glaciers which seems are more prone to melt faster than larger blocks with several kilometers thick of ice to try to melt

This link below shows ~530 glaciers with loads of info

Much more data and the piture changes a whole lot more

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/fog/fog7.pdf

The bomb one is here bomb info I mark in red

reproduced for legitimate educational use

geo.unizh.ch wrote:

GLACIERS OF MOUNT KENYA 1899–2004,
KENYA, (1:5000)
(Glaciological Map)
S. Hastenrath
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, U.S.A.
The map documents in the context of the century-long history of glacier recession on
Mount Kenya. Observations from early expeditions provide evidence from the end of
the 19th century to the 1940s, and photogrammetric mappings in 1947, 1963, 1974, 1978,
1982, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1993 and 2004 give quantitative detail for the later decades. Of
the eighteen ice entities at the end of the 19th century, one glacier may have disappeared
before 1926, five vanished after 1926, one after 1978, and one after 1993. All other
glaciers also suffered substantial shrinkage, especially from the 1970s onward. Mount
Kenya, right under the Equator, is the mountain with best documentation of glacier recession
in all of the tropics. Full documentation on this map is contained in Hastenrath
(2005b). Further background information is available in Hastenrath (1984), Caukwell and
Hastenrath (2006), Rostom and Hastenrath (2007).

So Glaciers have been melting away to disappear in the ~1926 through the thirties and fourties at a fierce rate long before humans were making vast amounts of carbon???

That's one the glacier monitoring service neglect to tell us that extinction of glaciers is possibly a normal event and that all glaciers have been constantly melting for some time now .
So is this melting something we should have expected all along ???
Are most all the glaciers that are left a hang over from the mini ice age in 15th century and will all melt from warm period ~1700 onwards weather we like it or not

The logic that small glaciers melting show us human activity is to blame now for me looks very very suspect and I only been at this research for a short duration

I am sure Bellamy well embedded in the science field with a few pointers from fellow scientists in the trade knows a lot more about this kinda issue

So now we see that instead for two scientists to have a debate about the things like the measure systems accuracy and other quirky issues like the bloody Glaciers were possibly always melting we got a message of some sort of agenda media gladiator driven something or other from Monbiot who harps on about web sites and science fraud

When you look the Antarctic the reading random or seldom done I suppose because its bitch to measure in that place show mostly no sign of melting best I could figure

Norway has most Glaciers melting a tad best I can figure but some are growing marginally and some are in stasis

I suspect our science orientated Belllamy is onto something but possibly in this cult follower driven set up that exists he is just waiting for the data to come home to roost

Just an exercise to see if I could figure what a lot of these measure s were for the list of glaciers I did this

Basically there is some consistent melting from this chosen glacier s KARLINGER K. but it seems to be one of the bigger melts in the table so less prone to error for me as some glaciers barely melt at all best I can figure.

it a bit tecky so others might chose to ignore it if they wish

so at random i chose a single glacier which had bigger numbers than a few meters loss of Ice and that was KARLINGER K.

I have copied to Here and pasted the info for KARLINGER K. best as possible but it might scramble up with different browsers

GLACIER NAME PSFG-NR DATA DATATABLE AND RECORD NUMBER

KARLINGER K. A 00701 568 A.334 B.249

NR GLACIER NAME PSFG NR LAT LONG CODE EXP ELEVATION AREA LEN TYPE OF
AC AB MAX MED MIN KM2 KM DATA

334 KARLINGER K. A00701 47.08 N 12.42 E 6 2 4 NE N 3340 2800 2060 4.04 3.6 B

NR GLACIER NAME PSFG NR FIRST LAST METHOD VARIATIONS IN METERS
SURVEY 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

249 KARLINGER K. A00701 1896 1990 C - 12.0 - 10.0 - 84.0 - 37.0 - X

Best I can make out this glacier is 4 kilometres surface area and 3.6 kilometers long and is at about 2800 meters high

best I can figure they are saying the front face is retreating at ~average of ~35 meters a year over five years
If that's the case ~35 meters on 3.6 kilometers isn't exactly a huge melt rate on this Glacier and a few years cold weather and it could reverse this process. It might be an issue if the melt process lasted a hundred years from the time we first measure and the melt rate was always 35 meters .I don't see historical data so I cant verify that but if it did melt at that rate for the last hundred years and if it did do that well then humans would not probably be the reason as most big CO2 emissions started after ~1950

end KARLINGER K.

Now the vast majority of the Glaciers seemed to in negative numbers but often figures of only ~-1 or ~ -2 meters a year .

Having read the other papers and looked the weird and wonderful shapes of Glaciers I am not going to get swayed much with melt figures in the negative of ~1 meter or 2 meters as I am not familiar with the methods to measure they use and its easy to fool a non expert with such small reading of 1 meter on several kilometers.
The possibility for mistakes in reading of a few meters plus or minus definitely exists accidentally whatever with electronic measure devices and cameras drifting of calibration with cold temperatures or other factors but bigger melts are more for sure correct I figure

I figure from this short sample the subject measuring of Glaciers a lot of them only surveyed from 1995 is highly suspect region of global warming measures.
It requires a check into who what where when how all the measure done on these glaciers were done in case we got a measuring issue.
The history of science is littered with measuring mistakes thee most famous case the Antarctic Ozone hole and satellite measuring system fiasco
It shows how for ~10 years they got the Antarctic Ozone figures completely wrong.The satellite was programed to ignore reading exceeding a certain value and use a average instead so when it saw a thin layer of ozone over the Antarctic it rejected this information and took an average reading instead.

A resetting of the calibration ~10 years later showed this error up and they had to trawl through ten years of data manually to see when and how the Ozone hole hole event started and grew in the Antarctic.

So Monibiot didn't actually do any real science that I saw on that C4 show so all he did for me was a media stunt and appeared to win and for me the more I look at him the more less time I would give him and his media driven stunts that he pushes in the Guardian newspaper

Screw ups happen in science all the time but the case that humans emissions of CO2 are warming the planet is getting very shaky and when the likes of Bellamy shakes the monkey tree I suspect a lot of monkey scientists will fall from a great height

Derry

bonkey · 31-01-2009 10:09AM

derry wrote: »

Given a choice between Monibiots cult following agenda driven science and Bellany a respectable scientist maybe not always correct but willing to continue in true science debate I wouuld rather go with Bellamy

Me...I'd rather not pay attention to who is saying what, but rather look at the analysis of what they are saying.

If Bellamy or Monbiot (or anyone else for that matter) are demonstrably wrong on an issue, they are not worth listening to on that issue. If they are right, they are worth listening to. It doesn't matter if you love or hate their personalities or agendas - science isn't about such things.

More importantly, I believe one shouldn't assume they are right or wrong until after analysing (or seeing analysis of) their claims.

silverharp wrote:

All that matters is that an open and informed debate can continue in the media.

The problem is that the media mostly only care that its an open debate. They don't really care about how informed it is. Regardless of what's right or wrong, as long as it remains a hot topic, the media will be happy to report it.

bonkey · 31-01-2009 10:27AM

derry wrote: »

The consistant theme from glacier monetoring service is these 80 odd glacier s from glacier monitoring service were specially chosen as they were smaller glaciers in the logic that smaller glaciers would show signs of temperature melting better than bigger glaciers and help prove humans were creating temperature rises

Correct on the first part, not necessarily on the second...the aim is to see whether or not the observation matches the expected result.

What is interesting for me is who choises what glaciers and why and who drives the agenda in Glacier monitoring Service

Thats a very fair concern. Unfortunately, unless we can show that there is something biased in the way the glaciers were chosen, there's not much to go on there.

However these losses often are in few meters and rarely talk in terms of hundreds of meters losses.

Fair enough. So you agree that they're shrinking, but question the degree.

A few hard winters with extra snow falls with a few less cooler winters and over ten years of that cycle most all the melt could be replaced best I can tell,

Agreed. If there was a sustained cooling globally, this would be the expected result.

So Glaciers have been melting away to disappear in the ~1926 through the thirties and fourties at a fierce rate long before humans were making vast amounts of carbon???

I think you should look at the figures a bit like the stock market. Individual stocks are always going up and down. Some are stable, some less so. The market has an overall trend which we can measure. Even if the market has a sustained trend in one direction, we will still expect to find individual stocks going in the opposite direction.

What we are seeing today with glaciers is a change in the overall trend. Its not a "big crash" like we've just had on the stock market, but we are seeing more glaciers in sustained retreat than we would expect from historical trends...that the overall rate has shifted.

Sure...some glaciers are growing, just like some stocks are climbing even in today's markets. Some glaciers are mostly stable. But the overall trend has shifted.

This doesn't prove the warming hypothesis - no evidence can do so. It is, however, consistent with it - it supports it. As you correctly point out, a sustained set of cold conditions could reverse this trend. Such a trend would support other hypotheses.

The difference is that one set of events - the sustained, recent retreat - has been observed, while the other - the conditions necessary to reverse it - is hypothetical.

Observations support hypotheses. Hypothetical events are predictions of what would support hypotheses if they were to occur.

Do you see the difference?

derry · 31-01-2009 11:28AM

bonkey wrote: »

<snip>

This doesn't prove the warming hypothesis - no evidence can do so. It is, however, consistent with it - it supports it. As you correctly point out, a sustained set of cold conditions could reverse this trend. Such a trend would support other hypotheses.

The difference is that one set of events - the sustained, recent retreat - has been observed, while the other - the conditions necessary to reverse it - is hypothetical.

Observations support hypotheses. Hypothetical events are predictions of what would support hypotheses if they were to occur.

Do you see the difference?

So we now know that when Monbiot went in firing on all cylinders that his phone call to Glacier monitoring service and his acceptance of their data was bordering on an act of faith at best and that maybe he is backing up knowingly or unknowingly a possible science :rolleyes: irregularity?? to be bit more polite about it. Considering he has vastly more resources than possibly Bellamy had to hand he chose to chase down only Bellamy links rather than the science behind all glacier melting Hypothesis which only took me a non scientist a few hours to twig its a dodgy slippery banana skin slope of a science to mount a defence on top of.

I suspect that if the same debate was held in a less gladiatorial way like a back office in some university the two parties might have been more able to get down and dirty maybe even throw the odd slagging match at each other whatever out of sight " where the cooks brew the broth for us to eat "so to speak and exited possibly having advanced science a tad more. Its not interesting for me to spectate what these guys do there stuff all I want from them is the information yes no maybe whatever it is preferably on a plate but if not in a bowl .Me I ant to fussy how they serve up the finished results

As it was all we got a C4 media circus and science has to get all tangled up in this political correctness terms and restraint and the other baloney that media circus arena brings which just want thrill seeking reruns of Al gore work of fiction which made them wet their pants

Now this C4 program shows that we didn't see what we thought we saw at all

What else do we not see or even worse do not want to see like maybe just maybe CO2 global warming is quack science

Bellamy being a duck specialist might figure if it walks like a duck swims like a duck and "quacks" like a duck . the probability is high that it is a duck

Derry

bonkey · 31-01-2009 11:46AM

derry wrote: »

So we now know that when Monbiot went in firing on all cylinders that his phone call to Glacier monitoring service and his acceptance of their data was bordering on an act of faith at best and that maybe he is backing up knowingly or unknowingly a possible science :rolleyes: irregularity?? to be bit more polite about it.

As I said in my post...I'm not too concerned with who says what...I'm concerned with the underlying facts.

I couldn't care less if Monbiot is right or wrong. It has no bearing whatsoever on what is actually happening with global climate. The same applies to Bellamy.

This idea of supporting / attacking pundits is simply playing the media / propaganda game. I'm not interested in that game, and I discourage others from playing it. We should be discussing the underlying facts and implications, not who is championing them.

silverharp · 31-01-2009 11:56AM

bonkey wrote: »

The problem is that the media mostly only care that its an open debate. They don't really care about how informed it is. Regardless of what's right or wrong, as long as it remains a hot topic, the media will be happy to report it.

When it comes down to it on this issue I am left for better or worse on noting the views of my favourite "gurus" , here is one guy I have alot of respet for as he has an excellent historical perspective

http://www.safehaven.com/article-9848.htm

April 01, 2008

Global Warming
by Bob Hoye

News Item:

"Gore Launches Ambitious Advocacy Campaign"

- Washington Post, March 31, 2008

On Wednesday, Al Gore will launch a three-year campaign to promote his personal revelations that increased carbon in the atmosphere "causes" global warming.

Unfortunately, this is without foundation:

Historical evidence of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age has been falsified by Mann's "Hockey Stick" version of climate history.

The thesis about anthropogenic warming does not explain that the climate was warmer in the late 1200s than now. Nor can it explain cooling.

The logic is hopeless and is a stunning example of a primitive syllogism, that falsely assumes that because two things occur at the same time they are causally linked.

The record of temperature and the amount of carbon in the air has been reliably established for over 200,000 years.

Over this period the amount of carbon in the atmostphere follows the increase in temperature by some 400 to 800 years.

Our study on the subject was sent out on January 4th - titled "Intellectual Hysteria". The mania side of the story merits serious review.

INTELLECTUAL HYSTERIA
(ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING)

The title Intellectual Hysteria may seem like a non-sequiter. Regretably it is not, and starting with Thomas Malthus at the end of the 1700s, there have been some outstanding examples of otherwise introspective intellectuals becoming high-profile preachers of doom and gloom. Malthus provides the first well-documented example and his case was that social catastrophe would be due to a shortage of food. On the next eruption of catastrophic visions in the 1860s it was a looming shortage of coal. The latest mania is about global warming.

Such manias about disaster have had much in common. Each started with personal revelations by a charismatic intellectual. What's more, each has occurred during the build-up of social tensions common to every period of soaring prices. Although the specific "cause" of pending calamity has changed over the centuries, the generally perceived problem has been and is too many people. That is despite the very long trend of generally increasing prosperity and population.

Fortunately, each phase of soaring commodities, social tensions and stressed-out intellectuals eventually has ended. Unfortunately, the latter excesses are too soon forgotten, which permits the next phase of revelations to seem fresh enough to inspire flocks of new believers.

The term "Malthusian Catharsis" could also be used with the implication that the phenomenon is highly emotional, has a climax, and as with commodities records a long rest before the next eruption of catastrophic inanities.

Malthus remains the model and rather than paraphrasing the message delivered on each example, it is more effective to use the direct quotation. All are vivid, and some remarkably similar.

Recent detractors of his population theory that most of mankind was going to starve to death have described him as Parson Malthus, but he was an eminently qualified intellectual. After majoring in mathematics, he became Britain's first professor of political economy with stature sufficient, and to use a today's term, to set the chattering classes agog with grave concerns about the course of humanity.

His famous theory was that population grows relentlessly at a geometric pace, while unfortunately increases in food-supply were growing at only an arithmetic rate.

Malthus observed "The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race."

The conclusion was that measures to restrict population growth must be imposed.

His An Essay on the Principle of Population was published in 1798. That phase of soaring prices and accumulating social distress ran for a generation. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic period attest to the degree of distress. Goethe summed up the corruption of the times with:

"Most men only care for science so far as they get a living by it, but they will worship error when it affords them a subsistence."

The next phase of soaring commodities culminated with the disorders as represented by the U. S. Civil War.

Generally, prices had been increasing since the mid 1840s and reached a peak in the mid 1860s, and was accompanied by growing concerns that coal supplies would be exhausted.

With outstanding credentials, Stanley Jevons became the guru of the age. Having earned degrees in science and logic he became one of the important economists of the 19th century. Widespread fame was acquired in popularizing fears about failing coal supplies.

His equivalent to today's concerns about "Peak Oil" was published in a book The Coal Question in 1865, and a few quotations vividly record grave concerns.

It is important to note that coal was the main energy source during that era, and to quote Jevons:

"With coal almost any feat is possible or easy; without it we are thrown into the laborious poverty of early times."

The impatience of his persuasion is shown with "I am convinced that this question must be before long force itself upon our attention with painful urgency."

Then he flatters his readers with "This is a question of almost religious importance which needs the separate study and determination of every intelligent person."

And as with Malthus the cause of concern was too much population for a diminishing amount of resources. One solution was less population.

The next major surge in consumer prices to 1920 was associated with remarkable political conflict, and untempered intellectual speculation. The prime example was the Russian Revolution under the leadership of Lenin. The main theme didn't assume that there were too many people on earth, but that all of them under the Communist International needed to be controlled by a dictatorship.

Ironically, the result of the most intense social experiment in history to create the "new man" was the political murder of some 100 million undesirables. This was from an intelligentsia that was oddly unconcerned about overpopulation. Another contrast with previous and future urgent apostles of pending catastrophe, the communists promised "heaven on earth", but delivered a nightmare.

The next secular rise in prices didn't begin to excite politics until the late 1960s, when Paul Ehrlich became so passionate about his revelations about food shortages. In what now must be a collector's item, the New Scientist of December 1967, Ehrlich wrote "India couldn't possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980." To which he added, "I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1980."

It is interesting that a scientist would turn to a consensus of conventional wisdom to make his point, and then even worse he resorted to dogma and declared "The battle to feed humanity is over."

"Global Cooling" became the next mantra of anxious intellectuals, as well as those whose ambition was to sell books. Social catastrophe was the general product, cooling was the specific threat.

"If [cooling] continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, and world chaos, and this could all come about by the year 2000."

This extrapolation of personal revelation was recorded by Lowell Ponte in his book The Cooling, published in 1975. Granted, temperatures had been declining since the 1930s but the extrapolations were sensational.

Another example was "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind." The author was Nigel Calder in the June, 1975 edition of International Wildlife.

Then prices carried the rate of inflation up to 1980, which at 14% was the highest ever recorded in the long history of the senior economy. With the subsequent long decline in real commodity prices the left's anxieties focused on the scariness of "Cowboy" Reagan and the era of "Greed", leaving little energy for specific nightmare scenarios. Typically, the political consensus turns back to the center during post-boom contractions, and one of the most important political events has been the reform that was symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

This was a global movement that definitely curbed the ability to directly promote socialist central planning as the means of political control. Authoritarians turned to the climate. With the boom that began in the mid 1990s, the politically ambitious found new vitality with the new gospels of "Global Warming" and "Climate Change".

Urgency helps to get the message across, as Elizabeth Kolbert used in an article in the New Yorker of April 25, 2005. "The problem is that, once global warming is something that most people can feel, it will be too late to prevent catastrophic change."

This is remarkably similar to Ehrlich's claim that "the battle is over" with the 1970s intellectual fad about food shortages. Not only has India since accomplished food self sufficiency by sidestepping a stultifying bureaucracy it boasts some 160 million ranked as productive middle class.

As the outstanding huckster of this revival of undisciplined intellectualism, Al Gore has been accorded an Academy Award and a Nobel Peace Prize, but some of his claims rank of demagoguery used during previous outbreaks of Malthusian manias.

"[Global warming] threatens the future of human civilization."

This is the big threat and skeptics are condemned as heretics with:

"The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community."

The promotion of anthropogenic global warming has not gone unchallenged, and the progress of a new form of political science can be sketched. An old saying in physics provides perspective. "If you keep your data base short enough it will fit your theory."

Control freaks who can't stand the traditions of a free world looked at the rise in global temperature since the 1800s and concluded that it was due to the launch of the Industrial Revolution and subsequent expansion of consumption and pollution.

Any veteran in earth sciences thought "so what" - warming has been on since the last ice age and in the 1930s temps were almost as high as those reached in the late 1200s. The foundation of a long data base eventually got through to the political movement and it became essential to replace the known climate history with an arbitrary one.

In a Senate Hearing in December, 2006, David Deming testified that he had received an email in 1995 stating "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm period." This was from an important researcher in climate change.

As if he was working with new cloth, Michael Mann plugged in various sections of data into his computer and in 1998 worked up a model popularly called the "Hockey Stick". This statistically eliminated the Medieval Warming, as well as the Little Ice Age when temps plunged to very bitter cold in the late 1600s. Then the trend to warming resumed. As an expert on climate, Mann in eliminating the earlier extremes, placed himself at risk of professional infamy.

Fortunately, two impartial researchers, McIntyre and McKitrick, have shown that Mann's model was corrupt. Even feeding in a random data series generates a "Hockey Stick". It seem that Mann "worshipped error" for political expedience.

The link between existential guilt and global warming is purported to be modern society's output of carbon. While the main greenhouse gas continues to be water vapor, carbon is deemed to be the culprit, despite occurring in the atmosphere in amounts best measured in parts per million. Actual climate change was well-documented long before it began a political cause. Core-drilling of ancient glaciers has detailed climate variation over the past 200,000 years as well as the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The main conclusion from the evidence is that warming leads an increase in carbon by some 400 to 800 years.

Also the mechanism of the forces behind climate change has also been well understood, and it is simply due to the amount of energy received by the earth. One variable is the amount of radiation from the sun, which has an approximate cycle of 1,500 years from high to high, or from low to low. The major highs have been associated with warming trends on earth and vice versa.

Since the "Maunder Minimum" in the late 1600s solar activity has been increasing to extraordinary highs from 1960 to 1990.

The overriding feature of the amount of energy reaching us has to do with the mechanics of the solar system. If one can understand seasonal variation one can understand the change from ice age to interglacial warming and back again. Of course, winter occurs as the Northern Hemisphere tilts away from the sun. This changes on a long periodicity, as does the shape of the elliptical orbit around the sun such that seasons become colder or warmer. For the past 15,000 years or so these variables have netted out to a long warming trend.

The third main variable has been volcanic activity, which with major eruptions can cause sudden cooling. The first half of the 1900s recorded rather low activity. Of more immediate interest is that a year ago in late December volcanoes throughout Kamchatka Peninsula became unusually active, but without any huge eruptions.

Another blunder by the political movement is a failure in logic, which is the primitive syllogism that insists that because two things occur at the same time they are causally related. The old "roosters and sunrise" story. This time around it is too many people living the modern life.

Beyond this, there is an important item in the philosophy of science is that any theory about warming is that it must be able to explain all warm periods in the long history of climate change. This would include the current interglacial that began some 12,000 years ago, as well as the medieval warming within which temps until around 1300 were warmer than recent.

However, the main issue of this essay is to review the history of some intellectuals and political demagogues in promoting catastrophic warnings attributed to too much population growth. The earliest well-documented one was the grave concern that was revealed to Malthus, and like subsequent examples the mania occurred with the social tensions that are part of soaring prices.

The outstanding examples of such booms occurred in the early 1800s, the mid 1860s, the early 1900s, as well as over the past 30 years. Each had its champion of social catastrophe, and although the prime cause of concern has changed from just plain starvation to climate change, the common issue has been too many people. The exception is the monstrous irony that the international socialists, who wanted the most people under their control did the best in actually reducing population.

Perhaps contrived theories about controlling people have been the ultimate in social diseases, but the harm that population growth does to people seems unfounded. Well, it keeps growing and its prosperity has always been proportionate to the degree of freedom, and inversely proportional to central control.

The numbers are interesting. At the time of the first Malthusian mania the world's population, as estimated by the United Nations, amounted to 978,000,000. By the 1860s promotion about grave concerns that civilization would collapse as coal production failed the count had reached 1,262,000,000 souls.

The current number is about 6 billion and the degree of prosperity, living standards and mortality rates have been the best in history and continue to improve.

The total amount is the macro approach, and it is worth reviewing on the micro level, which deals with population density. If growth is bad, density must be worse.

The initiative of prosperity and the funds to finance innovation have always occurred in the towns, which were so important to the decline of authoritarian feudalism. Beginning in the 13th century in Northern Europe, the rule was that if a serf had the initiative to break away from the manor, and established himself as self-sufficient in a town for a year he became a free man.

Towns grew to become cities and under an exceptional regime of political and economic freedom, Antwerp and then Amsterdam became the financial and commercial center of the world. These cities were crowded and enjoyed an unprecedented individual prosperity, demonstrating the benefits of population density. Through market forces, the financial center eventually moved to London and New York.

Fortunately, prosperity has had a long history of surviving not just its own financial excesses, but also it has been inevitably resistant to promotions of authoritarian control, no matter how charismatic the message or messenger. The current boom in business, commodities, and finance, by stages has reached a climax and is starting to unwind. And as any veteran of the financial markets would observe, "So long as the price is going up the public will believe the most preposterous story". Once an unsustainable level of conviction has been accomplished any loss of momentum takes the "story" down, and the loss of belief can be shockingly fast.

Great intellectual fads have advanced with a boom and evaporated with the consequent contraction. That the promotion of global warming achieved a remarkable level of belief with equally intense beliefs about various asset classes is not coincidental, but seems to be the way that history works.

Four hundred years prior to our example, the Sixteenth Century was the also a rare century that suffered a relentless experiment in authoritarian government, financed by equally relentless currency depreciation, and accompanied by propaganda about the wisdom of central control. Two important superstitions employed from time to time were astrology and alchemy. With the subsequent long political reform, the evolution of disciplined scientific inquiry gradually turned these into astronomy and chemistry.

The proper methods of science are well established and the data base on climate history is extensive - as is the understanding of the comings and goings of ice ages. On a more detailed approach, the mechanism of the major changes in warming and cooling over just the past thousand years has been well understood before the mania about global warming brewed up.

The understanding of the physics of the earth's climate will continue to advance under a disciplined, rather than hysterical approach. Convictions about man-made global warming will soon be ranked with convictions about astrology and alchemy.

Professor David Bellamy came to dublin and a denier of anthropogenic global warming.

Comments