Global Warming?

[badgerx16]

Thanks, but i got it right the first time... "52 scientists authored the "IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers".....Thats a 'fact'...you can spin it any way you want, I know it hurts, but it won't change the 'facts'

 

 

But you are also guilty of 'spin', but then again reasoned debate doesn't hurt.

 

And as regards changing 'facts', Copernicus, Gallileo, and Christopher Columbus are among many through history who have managed to do just that, so don't nail your flag too firmly to any particular mast.

[TopGun]

I had a long but fascinating Friday. Up at 6am in Manchester to travel to Kent for a meeting at the Scottish Power owned Dam Head Creek gas-fired 800MW power station at 11am.

 

Good look about that power station. Observations: Quite quiet even though it is air cooled rather than water (think old VW beetles). Adjacent Kingsnorth power station nicks all the allowable water that can be taken and returned to the Medway.

 

Had a look about land alongside where Scottish Power want to build a second station of 1,000MW. Observations: It has a good chance of consent as there are few insurmountables in the planning process. Bird life to be considered though. Visuals from all surrounding villages no more than current (I drove around the area villages for miles around). You should see how tall the Kingsnorth stack is! Anything else close is really insignificant. And gas stacks are about 1/3 the height and width of coal stacks as a rule. And half emissions for an equivalent output.

 

Wandered over the road (literally) to the controversial E-On coal fired Kingsnorth power station site and had a chat with them. Observation: They are trickling down the life of the current power station as they a) have to conform with EU regs to limit coal station power hours from 2015 and b) recognise climate change philosophy. Obviously they want to build a new coal power plant alongside with possible CCS ability (unproven at scale and hence the hassle). Government competition underway for a demo. Kingsnorth are in the running.

 

Fascinating day overall. Makes me laugh at George and Stanley even more though having chatted with so many practical scientists today at the sites who are fore square behind the dangers of CO2 emissions to the planet. The argument they put forward is energy security is also important. I discussed it over canteen sandwiches with them! No denial of Al Gore though.

Edited 21 February, 2009 by TopGun

[TheCholulaKid]

You made it a numbers game when you said..... "I am also open minded but if 99 people are telling me one thing and one person (especially if that person is from a previously unheard of university or David Bellamy) contradicts them then I can normally be pretty sure about the conclusion I have come to.

 

I just turned your statement around and kicked you up the arse with it....You lost...Now you don't want to talk about numbers any more...Fair enough, at least thats out the way....Well almost

 

And BTW If you cant see why anyone with a large stake in the Californian wine industry wouldn't be taking a serious interest in the climate then you really ain't that clever

 

And as for facts....52 scientists authored the "IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers" FACT!

 

Lifted from The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public works minority pagehttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

 

In May, UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland declared "it's completely immoral, even, to question" the UN's alleged global warming "consensus," according to a May 10, 2007 article.

 

There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world's top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.

 

According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported:

 

"Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species."

 

Many of the so-called "hundreds" of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as "expert reviewers" are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC "expert reviewers" but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.

 

 

So who's deluded?.......Looks like you fell for one of the many misconceptions put out by the Global warming wack jobs and the alarmist media...... Is this where i'm s'posed to call you a moron?.....You seem to pretty good at that sort of thing so i'll take your guidance

 

 

Feel free to add any 'facts' to this thread..it appears to be very lacking from the alarmist's side ....Just the usual hot air, spin, withdrawals from the debate (they always do when their errors and misconceptions get corrected) and a little abuse....No surprise there then

 

And yes, i read your link ....Nothing more than the normal sneering contempt from a lefty jurno.....If thats your 'facts' then there aint no hope 'realy'

 

Have a nice day

 

Sigh. I didn't make it a numbers game St George. My point was that I could ask 100 people something (anything) and if 99 come up with the same answer I'm more likely to believe them. In your desperation to points score you jumped on it. Didn't respond to my comments regarding the petition though? Why's that? Who are these mystery people who have signed this petition?

 

Also, I didn't say I couldn't see why your friend in the wine industry would take a serious interest in climate change. Read what I wrote before you try and twist it.

 

I don't need to respond to your comments regarding the IPCC - someone's already done it.

 

And there's no sneering contempt in that article. Just a whole load of evidence showing where David Bellamy got his 'facts' from. What's with the 'lefty' comment? Is this about politics? Is that what gets your goat? Is reasoned debate a bit too pinko/commie for you?

 

The thing is there's no point arguing with someone like you (so I won't be after this post) - you are so blinded by your prejudices. Why do I even bother replying? Because, unfortunately your reactionary approach to the climate change debate and the 'facts' that you post need some kind of countering lest they some how become the 'truth' in the eyes of other people.

 

FWIW, I'm a sceptic about man-made global warming. I find it hard to believe the amount of CO2 we've churned out in the last 300 years hasn't affected the environment in some way but I do need some convincing. Regardless, fossil fuels will run out sooner rather than later so we do need alternative energy resources whether you think the government are ripping us off or not.

 

Anyway, St George enjoy the rest of your existence. It must be a bilious, painful world out there for you right now.

[Saint George]

I had a long but fascinating Friday. Up at 6am in Manchester to travel to Kent for a meeting at the Scottish Power owned Dam Head Creek gas-fired 800MW power station at 11am.

 

Good look about that power station. Observations: Quite quiet even though it is air cooled rather than water (think old VW beetles). Adjacent Kingsnorth power station nicks all the allowable water that can be taken and returned to the Medway.

 

Had a look about land alongside where Scottish Power want to build a second station of 1,000MW. Observations: It has a good chance of consent as there are few insurmountables in the planning process. Bird life to be considered though. Visuals from all surrounding villages no more than current (I drove around the area villages for miles around). You should see how tall the Kingsnorth stack is! Anything else close is really insignificant. And gas stacks are about 1/3 the height and width of coal stacks as a rule. And half emissions for an equivalent output.

 

Wandered over the road (literally) to the controversial E-On coal fired Kingsnorth power station site and had a chat with them. Observation: They are trickling down the life of the current power station as they a) have to conform with EU regs to limit coal station power hours from 2015 and b) recognise climate change philosophy. Obviously they want to build a new coal power plant alongside with possible CCS ability (unproven at scale and hence the hassle). Government competition underway for a demo. Kingsnorth are in the running.

 

Fascinating day overall. Makes me laugh at George and Stanley even more though having chatted with so many practical scientists today at the sites who are fore square behind the dangers of CO2 emissions to the planet. The argument they put forward is energy security is also important. I discussed it over canteen sandwiches with them! No denial of Al Gore though.

 

Little piggies with their snouts wedged firmly into Gordy's Green trough of mythical Man made Global warming lol.....Boy, the Tax payers are going to love you lot if they ever get to see the real picture

 

Bet you didn't tell those scientists you said this the other week!.... "The graph shows that temperature follows CO2 over time so it is fair to assume temperatures will increase over this century."...Man, even 'they' would have laughed hard at that one lol

[Saint George]

Sigh. I didn't make it a numbers game St George. My point was that I could ask 100 people something (anything) and if 99 come up with the same answer I'm more likely to believe them. In your desperation to points score you jumped on it. Didn't respond to my comments regarding the petition though? Why's that? Who are these mystery people who have signed this petition?

 

Also, I didn't say I couldn't see why your friend in the wine industry would take a serious interest in climate change. Read what I wrote before you try and twist it.

 

I don't need to respond to your comments regarding the IPCC - someone's already done it.

 

And there's no sneering contempt in that article. Just a whole load of evidence showing where David Bellamy got his 'facts' from. What's with the 'lefty' comment? Is this about politics? Is that what gets your goat? Is reasoned debate a bit too pinko/commie for you?

 

The thing is there's no point arguing with someone like you (so I won't be after this post) - you are so blinded by your prejudices. Why do I even bother replying? Because, unfortunately your reactionary approach to the climate change debate and the 'facts' that you post need some kind of countering lest they some how become the 'truth' in the eyes of other people.

 

FWIW, I'm a sceptic about man-made global warming. I find it hard to believe the amount of CO2 we've churned out in the last 300 years hasn't affected the environment in some way but I do need some convincing. Regardless, fossil fuels will run out sooner rather than later so we do need alternative energy resources whether you think the government are ripping us off or not.

 

Anyway, St George enjoy the rest of your existence. It must be a bilious, painful world out there for you right now.

 

Buh bye ....Yet another that came to the table with nothing more than myths and misconseptions takes his leave....Peeps should be starting to see some kind of trend here.

 

In the mean time back to the 'facts'.......An interesting article from a few days back highlighting some of the things I've been saying in this thread http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4742293/Climate-change-rhetoric-spirals-out-of-control.html you guys should recognize some of the usual suspects by now

 

And more 'one way' errors from the Alarmists.....

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/20/sea-ice-sensor-degradation-hits-cryosphere-today/

 

Not to mention their complete disregard for this

 

http://www.surfacestations.org/

 

http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

 

Hardly science now is it

[bungle]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/23/spain-glaciers-climate-change

[saintwarwick]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/23/spain-glaciers-climate-change

 

I'm sure Saint George will come on here tomorrow and use up one of his three posts to dis-credit that link.

[badgerx16]

I'm sure Saint George will come on here tomorrow and use up one of his three posts to dis-credit that link.

You have to understand, the only FACTs are the ones that support St G's argument - all the rest are fables.

[Mole]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/23/spain-glaciers-climate-change

 

A link to a tree hugging lefty propaganda paper - i don't think i'll bother.

[badgerx16]

A link to a tree hugging lefty propaganda paper - i don't think i'll bother.

Better a "tree hugging lefty paper" than xenophobic, bigoted, rags devoted to greed and avarice like the Tory press.

 

Climate change is a fact - there can be absolutely no doubt about that. Whether it is solely due to natural geological and climatic cycles, or whether it is being made worse by the actions of man, does not alter the underlying truths; the Earth is coming out of an ice age, as a consequence the ice sheets are receding, the glaciers are melting, average annual temperatures are rising, sea levels are rising, trans-oceanic currents are changing course and effect, the percentage of CO2, and other "greenhouse" gases, in the atmosphere is increasing. If anybody does not accept this then they are either a fool or ignorant.

[brightspark]

Agree with climate change. Al Gore won me over.

 

The idea that Canada used to me a major ice like land and it melted, causing the whole of Europe to go to an ice age because of the introduction of more freshwater to the Atlantic Ocean... well its pretty reasonable.

 

And guess what, Greenland is melting. Similar place. Hello ice age?

[saintwarwick]

A link to a tree hugging lefty propaganda paper - i don't think i'll bother.

 

Of course you won't bother, there are opinions and there are opinions, as this one doesn't suit your thought you disregard it, brilliant.

[Saint George]

I'm sure Saint George will come on here tomorrow and use up one of his three posts to dis-credit that link.

 

No need.....The dim and gullible will probably see this article as some kind of testament to 'Man made' Global warming.....Meanwhile, the clever people will see it for what it is and will also see how it discredits it's self in spectacular and predictable fashion....

 

So for those who don't get it, let me explain...

 

First, the lefty Jurno presents some 'facts' about the melting Pyrenees glaciers...Yes the glaciers have been melting for 100 years, most of us know that..... and the clever peeps amongst us would also expect nothing else. The Earth has been in a warming cycle for some time ....More heat = less ice....So no news there.

 

Then he goes on to blend some 'opinion' and carefully chosen quotes with the 'facts' to push his 'Man made' agenda in true lefty fasion

 

But then he really screws himself up by saying this "The World Glacier Monitoring Service last year reported that glaciers around the planet were melting at a rate unseen for 5,000 years." ....Followed by this....."Changes were "without precedent in history".........Urm not even 5000 years ago? lol

 

At that point, any one who believed this article was any kind of factual testament to 'man made' global warming, as a few on here clearly did, should discard it in the bin....Or you could take this article as confirmation that the Earth and the Sun have been melting and forming ice caps and glaciers waay before man ever even heard of Oil and Coal

 

 

And badgerx16....maybe you should go back and read the thread from the start instead of jumping in backwards with both feet....That way you wont look so stupid......No one here is saying there is 'no' climate change...At least not the 'Man made' skeptics .....You may find some denial amongst some of the alarmist's tho. Many of whom, seem to believe the Earth had a totally 'constant' climate prior to the industrial revolution and we need to remove the 200 parts of carbon in a 'million' to save the world...Hell some one here, a while back even trotted out Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick graph....complete with 'ironed out' Little ice age and Medieval warm period

 

Like the Earth and the Sun will magically stop having any effect on the climate.....What a lovely fluffy bunny world they live in eh

 

 

Meanwhile Big Al has been forced into yet another humiliating retraction...and some peeps on here are still claiming he changed their lives lol

 

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/gore-pulls-cred-data-from-talk-4987.......Gore’s office has said that they will pull the slide, as it does not have a scientific foundation........No surprise there then LOL

[badgerx16]

And badgerx16....maybe you should go back and read the thread from the start instead of jumping in backwards with both feet....That way you wont look so stupid.

I wasn't sure at first whether I was offended or not, but I have decided that it is probably more sensitive and Christian to feel sorry for you.

[Sheaf Saint]

But then he really screws himself up by saying this "The World Glacier Monitoring Service last year reported that glaciers around the planet were melting at a rate unseen for 5,000 years." ....Followed by this....."Changes were "without precedent in history".........Urm not even 5000 years ago? lol

 

 

Yeah I raised an eyebrow when I read that bit too. What I would like to know is... Where are the historical records for the rate of glacial melt from 3,000 BC? Surely records have only been kept for, at most, only about 300-400 years - if that. How does anybody know that this current melt is at a rate unseen for 5,000 years? Answer: they don't.

[Saint George]

I wasn't sure at first whether I was offended or not, but I have decided that it is probably more sensitive and Christian to feel sorry for you.

 

 

Well let me say this....You mention the fact the climate has been ever changing, which it has and you mention some of consequences we know go with those changes......You also mention the fact that greenhouse gasses are increasing, which they are. However on re reading your post It's not clear if you're relating the two to each other...You don't actually say, but it does seem to be the implication.

 

You seem to imply, especially the way it was started, that 'Man made' global warming skeptics who have been contributing to this thread are denying 'any' climate change is taking place...When in fact we've all pointed out both present and historical 'climate change' ....We just believe that humans play a pretty insignificant role compared with the Sun and Mother Nature and we are no way, going to be able to change what Nature has in store for us...You only have to read the whole thread to see that.

 

If that wasn't your intention I'll happily withdraw my comment and apologize

 

 

Meanwhile yet more scientists are falling off the Porky Gore bandwagon http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

 

"Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.

 

Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.

 

One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology." (i LOL'ed at that one) "Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis,"(the reason can be found in one of the 'factual' links i posted above) "and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased."

[badgerx16]

With regard to re-reading the whole thread and making judgements on 'sceptics', go back and re-read posts #1 and #9

 

Just to make my position clear;

 

I am a biological scientist by training, though not any longer by vocation

 

I have NOT seen any of the Al Gore film, though I have seen 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'.

 

I base my views on interpreting articles in magazines such as New Scientist, and looking at research such as that conducted by the British Antarctic Survey and the Greenland Ice Sheet Project. I do not read much of the printed daily press anymore.

 

I personally believe that human activity is exacerbating a natural phenomenon, though I do not think that we will be able to conclusively prove this within my lifetime, ( and I hope there is plenty of that still to come ). This activity is not restricted to the burning of hydrocarbon fuels; de-forestation and marine pollution also have an impact on the 'carbon cycle'.

 

And regardless of whether we are making things worse or not, there is plenty we need to do to mitigate the impact of climate change, and if that includes changing people's behaviour and expectations 'just in case' we are affecting things, I do not see that as a a problem. After all, we need to know what we will be doing when the oil and gas run out.

[Mole]

But then he really screws himself up by saying this "The World Glacier Monitoring Service last year reported that glaciers around the planet were melting at a rate unseen for 5,000 years." ....Followed by this....."Changes were "without precedent in history".........Urm not even 5000 years ago? lol

 

It's amazing how the lefties fiddle the facts to suit their arguments. As i've stated before i see nothing wrong with moving away from fossil fuels becuase it's intolerable to think of middle eastern states holding the whip hand over us in the future. I can see why the civilised world needs to use "man made global warming" as an excuse though as it would be foolish to tell the truth. For one OPEC states would cut production! Therefore maybe it's best that lies are peddled and the gullible are brainwashed.

[Mole]

After all, we need to know what we will be doing when the oil and gas run out.

 

Nuclear Power is the answer. At present there is the issue of disposal of radioactive waste and there will always be security worries. The latter point will never go away but disposal in the future is straightfoward. Look up and all we have to is fire the depleted uranium into space.

[hamster]

Global Warming Rule Number 1:

Make YOUR OWN mind up.

 

Do not be influenced by magazine articles, news items, websites, and certainly not self proclaimed experts. Make your own mind up by using your own eyes and take a common sense approach.

 

The wealthiest people on this planet control everything that we mere mortals do. accept it, if there wasn't a buck to be made, then we wouldn't see it on the shelf.

 

Whether it be what we buy, or what we do with the crap that is comes wrapped in.

 

Buy your new LCD HD TV. Kid yourself that you are 'doing your bit' by donating your perfectly good CRT one to freecycle. Fly to the next 'must see' holiday destination. Get the latest most economic (lol) car going even though your old one works just fine. Make sure that your PC/Laptop/iPhone is bettter and more powerful than your mates. I really could not care less.

 

But please, do not try to kid me (and yourself) that you care about, and are doing it for the planet. The mere fact that you are arguing the toss on and internet forum tells me that you really do not give a ****.

 

No disrespect, but who are you really trying to convince?

 

HTH.

Edited 26 February, 2009 by hamster

[TopGun]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/06/spain-wind-power

 

Spain set a new record for wind power generation yesterday as gales blew across the country, with more than 40% of the country's energy needs being covered by wind turbines at one stage.

 

The peak of 11,180mw of electricity supply came mid-morning yesterday, as fierce winds swept across much of north-west Spain, where most of the country's extensive wind farms are situated.

 

That covered 29% of Spain's energy needs at the time. The percentage had been even higher, reaching above 40% for several hours, earlier in the morning when demand for electricity was lower.

 

Spain's Wind Energy Association said at the moment of peak production, the country's turbines were working at 69% of their maximum theoretical potential.

 

Wind energy alone has covered 11.5% of demand so far this year, with production up by a third on last year.

 

The figures came as the World Wildlife Fund praised Spain's rapid move into renewable energies. These provided 31% of total electricity supply in Spain in February, partly thanks to heavy rainfall that increased hydroelectric production.

 

Together with a fall in demand over the past year, that meant a 38% reduction in CO² emissions compared with 2008.

 

WWF praised Spain's efforts to develop renewable energy over the past 12 years. It said it was now on target to produce 30% of annual demand for electricity from renewable sources by next year.

 

"This shows that Spain's commitment to renewable energies is paying off," said Heikki Willstedt of WWF. "This advance has been possible thanks to both the legislative and financial support received."

 

He also said that Spain should be able to cover half its energy needs with renewables by 2020 if it maintains its current enthusiasm.

[trousers]

It's only a planet, FFS

[Saint George]

Friends,

 

Your attempt to convince people that humans are causing a global warming crisis would be more credible if you were more honest in your depictions.

 

You claim, “The list of speakers and the free-market think tanks co-sponsoring the conference provides a reasonably comprehensive guide to the most active of the remaining global warming skeptics.” This attempt to mislead your readers about the large number of scientists who are skeptical of a human-induced global warming crisis makes one wonder about your commitment to truth and honesty.

 

As an organizer of the conference, I have had so many impeccably credentialed scientists ask to speak that I have had to beat them off with a stick. Of the more than 100 speakers at last year’s conference, we have been able to invite less than half of them back because we have had so many inquiries from scientists who we could not fit on last year’s agenda. Still other highly credentialed scientists are waiting in the wings for 2010 because we haven’t been able to fit them into the 2008 or 2009 program. And even then, we will only be able to invite a minority of them because there are way too many scientists to fit on the agenda.

 

Moreover, these are some of the most brilliant minds in science speaking out against the so-called global warming crisis. Among the speakers at next week’s conference are scientists from Harvard, MIT, NASA, NOAA, etc. etc.

 

If the science is on your side, then you shouldn’t feel the need to deliberately misrepresent the nature of your opposition and their scientific arguments. If you encourage a fair, open, and respectful discussion, the truth will eventually prevail.

 

James M. Taylor

Senior Fellow, Environment Policy

The Heartland Institute

[Saint George]

'Real' climate science

 

 

 

 

 

See?.....everything follows the Suns natual cycles......Look at how temps tie in with solar activity, despite the wack jobs trying thier best to force their carbon related, fantasy 'Junk science' warming theories onto the dim and gulible...It just aint happening.......Recent Carbon levels would be of the top of the page on that graph just like it shows on 'mynameisthehulks's' graph and yet the Earth is cooling nicely, as it should with the current solar cycle

 

Peeps are leaving the idiot club daily now....Don't 'you' let yourself be the last remaining member

[TheCholulaKid]

The Heartland Institute?

 

Doesn't believe in human contributions to global warming and is also part funded by Exxon Mobil.

 

'Cuts through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups' and is part funded by Philip Morris.

 

No conflict of interest there then.

[Mole]

'Real' climate science

 

 

 

 

 

See?.....everything follows the Suns natual cycles......Look at how temps tie in with solar activity, despite the wack jobs trying thier best to force their carbon related, fantasy 'Junk science' warming theories onto the dim and gulible...It just aint happening.......Recent Carbon levels would be of the top of the page on that graph just like it shows on 'mynameisthehulks's' graph and yet the Earth is cooling nicely, as it should with the current solar cycle

 

Peeps are leaving the idiot club daily now....Don't 'you' let yourself be the last remaining member

 

These are real facts and only a blithering idiot would dispute them.

[badgerx16]

The Heartland Institute?

 

Doesn't believe in human contributions to global warming and is also part funded by Exxon Mobil.

 

'Cuts through the propaganda and exaggeration of anti-smoking groups' and is part funded by Philip Morris.

 

No conflict of interest there then.

 

Quotes from some of the 500 or so scientists listed by the Heartland Institute as supporting that organisation's work in de-bunking Global Warming :-

 

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite." - Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

 

“I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."- Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

 

“I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."- Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

 

“Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"- Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

 

“I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."- Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

 

“They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science."- Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey

 

“Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research."- Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

[saintwarwick]

Quotes from some of the 500 or so scientists listed by the Heartland Institute as supporting that organisation's work in de-bunking Global Warming :-

 

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite." - Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

 

“I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."- Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

 

“I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."- Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

 

“Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!!"- Dr. Svante Bjorck, Geo Biosphere Science Centre, Lund University

 

“I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."- Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

 

“They have taken our ice core research in Wyoming and twisted it to meet their own agenda. This is not science."- Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Hydrologist, US Geological Survey

 

“Please remove my name IMMEDIATELY from the following article and from the list which misrepresents my research."- Dr. Mary Alice Coffroth, Department of Geology, State University of New York at Buffalo

 

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Don't worry Saint George will be back with some other link that he feels is the only correct fact and that other links posted by others are dismissed because it goes against his belief.

[badgerx16]

'Real' climate science

 

 

 

 

 

See?.....everything follows the Suns natual cycles......Look at how temps tie in with solar activity, despite the wack jobs trying thier best to force their carbon related, fantasy 'Junk science' warming theories onto the dim and gulible...It just aint happening.......Recent Carbon levels would be of the top of the page on that graph just like it shows on 'mynameisthehulks's' graph and yet the Earth is cooling nicely, as it should with the current solar cycle

 

Peeps are leaving the idiot club daily now....Don't 'you' let yourself be the last remaining member

Please refer to the following link :http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229&gclid=CK2OqfnxkpkCFQ0zQgodu0zxbQ

 

and look at 'misleading argument 6'. :cool:

 

Plus, this is from the British Antarctic Survey in response to the 'documentary film' "The Great Global Warming Swindle" : A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions.

 

( http://www.antarctica.ac.uk//about_bas/news/news_story.php?id=178 )

Edited 8 March, 2009 by badgerx16

[Barney Trubble]

I'm not sure whether i'd class Prince Charles as a valid source but according to old Charlie we only have 100 months left to save the world :smt017

 

We are all doomed

[badgerx16]

I'm not sure whether i'd class Prince Charles as a valid source but according to old Charlie we only have 100 months left to save the world :smt017

 

We are all doomed

Well that is one source of hot air I'd willingly cull for the good of the planet

[Sheaf Saint]

Interesting article in the Independent today...

 

Link here

[Special K]

I'm not sure whether i'd class Prince Charles as a valid source but according to old Charlie we only have 100 months left to save the world :smt017

 

We are all doomed

 

Good to see they're sending him all over the world in (presumably) a private jet to lecture all the fuzzy wuzzies on how they shouldn't be naughty by polluting the atmosphere.

 

Geology shows the the planet to have been subject to all manner of different climates and extinction events throughout it's life. Hugging a few trees, closing down a few powerstations and not going to the shops in the car are hardly going to stop that.

[Sheaf Saint]

Geology shows the the planet to have been subject to all manner of different climates and extinction events throughout it's life. Hugging a few trees, closing down a few powerstations and not going to the shops in the car are hardly going to stop that.

 

This may or may not be true, but we need to change our practises with regard to energy consumption anyway. There is only a finite amount of coal/oil/gas available on this planet, and surely nobody is blind enought to believe that by burning all of it we are not adversely affecting the natural balance of the climate in any way.

 

Eventually these energy resources are going to run out, so do we carry on polluting the atmosphere and maybe affecting the climate of the planet until it runs out, or do we do something about it and look at clean, renewable energy sources NOW?

[Special K]

This may or may not be true, but we need to change our practises with regard to energy consumption anyway. There is only a finite amount of coal/oil/gas available on this planet, and surely nobody is blind enought to believe that by burning all of it we are not adversely affecting the natural balance of the climate in any way.

 

Eventually these energy resources are going to run out, so do we carry on polluting the atmosphere and maybe affecting the climate of the planet until it runs out, or do we do something about it and look at clean, renewable energy sources NOW?

 

There is no natural balance, because it's always changing. In the same way that continental plates are always moving and shifting, weather patterns constantly change too and have done since this planet came into existence. All we are seeing is a snapshot in time. There have been favourable conditions that mean we are here today in the form that we are, but we cannot influence what the planet wants to do, although we have these grandiose ideas that we can change climates for the benefit of ourselves and everything will be alright. But what is the motivation for this? Ultimately, it appears to be the self protection of the developed nations as an economic powerbase.

 

I agree with sourcing alternative energies on the basis that the old lot runs out or to become more self sustainable and not subject to political volatility elsewhere. But i don't agree with it being dressed up in a green suit.

[TopGun]

Here's one especially for St George and Stanley.

 

The top ten climate change deniers.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

[Saint George]

Here's one especially for St George and Stanley.

 

The top ten climate change deniers.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/mar/06/climate-change-deniers-top-10

 

Not even close.....Clasic case of celebrity star stricken.....There's thousands more better qualified higher up the list than most of those peeps.

 

No cigar for you

[saintwarwick]

There's thousands more better qualified higher up the list than most of those peeps.

 

No cigar for you

 

Just like there are thousands more qualified than you to give an opinion, cigars not required.

[TopGun]

The Age of Stupid looks interesting.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/postlethwaite-age-of-stupid-climate-deniers

 

Actor Pete Postlethwaite yesterday denounced climate change deniers as a "negative force" with their "heads in the sand". Ahead of Sunday's premiere of The Age of Stupid, an environmental doomsday docudrama, he compared those who do not accept that human-induced global warming is occurring with Holocaust deniers, and said the evidence for global change is now beyond doubt

[hamster]

The Age of Stupid looks interesting.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/postlethwaite-age-of-stupid-climate-deniers

 

Actor Pete Postlethwaite yesterday denounced climate change deniers as a "negative force" with their "heads in the sand". Ahead of Sunday's premiere of The Age of Stupid, an environmental doomsday docudrama, he compared those who do not accept that human-induced global warming is occurring with Holocaust deniers, and said the evidence for global change is now beyond doubt

In all honesty, this argument is WAY WAY over my head now, but it certsainly does not make the argument stronger, just because a programme has been made about it.

I would like to say though, that imo, short of mass protest (and on a global scale) the avareage man or woman cannot bring about change. And in my opinion, change will only come when someone see's a profit at the end of it. At the moment, there is far too much money being made from creating waste, when creating it is criminalised,and/or dealing with it properly is rewarded this will not change.

[Saint George]

In all honesty, this argument is WAY WAY over my head now, but it certsainly does not make the argument stronger, just because a programme has been made about it.

I would like to say though, that imo, short of mass protest (and on a global scale) the avareage man or woman cannot bring about change. And in my opinion, change will only come when someone see's a profit at the end of it. At the moment, there is far too much money being made from creating waste, when creating it is criminalised,and/or dealing with it properly is rewarded this will not change.

 

You sir, are 100% correct .....Unfortuanetly the dim and gullible 'do' form their opinions based on what they see on the TV...Sad but true......Control the media and you control their tiny minds

 

Meanwhile, the number of clever peeps who understand the truth, continue to rise............. "Washington DC:....... Fifty nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007."

 

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

 

"The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.

 

“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues,” noted Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros on March 3, 2009. Cuadros is of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers.

 

Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers, was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences lamented the current fears over global warming.

 

“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best,” Austin told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on March 2, 2009.

 

 

 

 

Could turn the climate change world upside down’

 

The rise in skeptical scientists are responding not only to an increase in dire “predictions” of climate change, but also a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data, and inconvenient developments have further cast doubts on the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. The latest peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters is being touted as a development that “could turn the climate change world upside down.” The study finds that the “Earth is undergoing natural climate shift.”

 

 

Indian Scientist Mocks Nobel Prize Award to Gore

August 19, 2008 -- A major international scientific conference prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. The International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Oslo, Norway, from August 4-14.

[The conference was criticized by the activists at RealClimate.org (who apparently are threatened by any challenges to their version of ‘consensus' on global warming science) for being too balanced and allowing skeptical scientists to have a forum. RealClimate's Rasmus E. Benestad lamented on August 19 that the actual scientific debate during the conference "seemed to be a step backwards towards confusion rather than a progress towards resolution." ]

During the Geologic conference, Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia of the Center of Advanced Study in Geology at Punjab University and a visiting scholar of the Geology Department at University of Cincinnati, openly ridiculed former Vice President Al Gore and the UN IPCC's coveted Nobel Peace Prize. [An online video of an August 8, 2008, conference climate change panel has been posted and is a must-see video for anyone desiring healthy scientific debate. See: HERE ]

 

"I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," Ahluwalia, a fellow of the Geological Society of India, said during a question and answer panel discussion. [Ahluwalia's remarks can be viewed beginning at 22:14 of the online video] - [ Ahluwalia's full bio here: ]

 

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808191759/energy-and-environment/global-warming-skeptics-prominently-featured-at-international-scientific-meeting.html

 

Oh dear.......A big green stack of cards about to come tumbling down....

[Saint George]

The Sun, or Co2?.....You decide!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"The graph shows that temperature follows CO2 over time so it is fair to assume temperatures will increase over this century.".....yeah?.....man, i still laugh at that one LOL

[badgerx16]

The Sun, or Co2?.....You decide!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"The graph shows that temperature follows CO2 over time so it is fair to assume temperatures will increase over this century.".....yeah?.....man, i still laugh at that one LOL

 

 

Icecap.US is not an unbiased, nor faultless, source, founded by a notable climate change sceptic, Dr Joseph D'Aleo, who has ties to ExxonMobil through the Fraser Institute.

 

http://circleh.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/icecap-a-group-of-fake-climate-experts/

 

There are two sides to this debate, and people are free to choose, or even change, sides as things progress.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

[bungle]

A film.

 

http://www.ageofstupid.net/

[badgerx16]

A film.

 

http://www.ageofstupid.net/

Saint George will tell you that it is at best misguided, at worst deliberately slanted propaganda touted by the 'looney lefties'.

[Saint George]

A film.

 

http://www.ageofstupid.net/

 

And?......

 

Surely you're not presenting a fictional movie as any kind of evidence of 'man made' Global warming?!?!?....Tell me it aint so

 

 

What you see here peeps, is exactly my point......And some wonder why i make references to "the dim and gullible"

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in the real world based on facts and science IPCC's scientists have admitted to yet more humiliating errors in their data

 

"So sceptics have been correct for decades."

 

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=204

 

"History made as Jones et al 2008 paper admits huge urban warming in IPCC flagship CRUT3 gridded data over China

March 16th, 2009 by Warwick Hughes

So sceptics have been correct for decades.

 

Yes you have to pinch yourself, the old canard so long clung to by the IPCC, that the urban influence in large area gridded data is “an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale” is now severely compromised.

 

The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, Western USSR and Eastern China, to conclude that “In none of the three regions studied is there any indication of significant urban influence..” That has led to the IPCC claim that for decades, urban warming is less than 0.05 per century.

 

Now Jones et al 2008 are saying in their Abstract, “Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade, hey that equates to a degree per century. Huge."

 

 

For those of you who dont understand the technicalities.... IPCC scientists have finally admitted that data reporting stations in urban area's should be adjusted to allow for the fact they create 'Urban heat islands' and scew the data....Even more so when you consider many urban stations were in relatively rural surroundings say 50 years ago and subsequently significantly cooler...amazingly the IPCC's models have always pig headily refused to take this into account.....

 

It looks like their **** up accounts for about 1 degree in 100 years ...Which in climate change terms is 'huge' and accounts for a large amount of the total warming that some peeps are getting 'stuck on stupid' over.

 

 

For more info check out this guy.....He's been on a campaign to correct urban data for years.....http://www.surfacestations.org/

[badgerx16]

And?......

 

Surely you're not presenting a fictional movie as any kind of evidence of 'man made' Global warming?!?!?....Tell me it aint so

 

 

What you see here peeps, is exactly my point......And some wonder why i make references to "the dim and gullible"

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile back in the real world based on facts and science IPCC's scientists have admitted to yet more humiliating errors in their data

 

"So sceptics have been correct for decades."

 

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=204

 

"History made as Jones et al 2008 paper admits huge urban warming in IPCC flagship CRUT3 gridded data over China

March 16th, 2009 by Warwick Hughes

So sceptics have been correct for decades.

 

Yes you have to pinch yourself, the old canard so long clung to by the IPCC, that the urban influence in large area gridded data is “an order of magnitude less than the warming seen on a century timescale” is now severely compromised.

 

The IPCC drew that conclusion from the Jones et al 1990 Letter to Nature which examined temperature data from regions in Eastern Australia, Western USSR and Eastern China, to conclude that “In none of the three regions studied is there any indication of significant urban influence..” That has led to the IPCC claim that for decades, urban warming is less than 0.05 per century.

 

Now Jones et al 2008 are saying in their Abstract, “Urban-related warming over China is shown to be about 0.1 degree per decade, hey that equates to a degree per century. Huge."

 

 

For those of you who dont understand the technicalities.... IPCC scientists have finally admitted that data reporting stations in urban area's should be adjusted to allow for the fact they create 'Urban heat islands' and scew the data....Even more so when you consider many urban stations were in relatively rural surroundings say 50 years ago and subsequently significantly cooler...amazingly the IPCC's models have always pig headily refused to take this into account.....

 

It looks like their **** up accounts for about 1 degree in 100 years ...Which in climate change terms is 'huge' and accounts for a large amount of the total warming that some peeps are getting 'stuck on stupid' over.

 

 

For more info check out this guy.....He's been on a campaign to correct urban data for years.....http://www.surfacestations.org/

Anthony Watts -yet another climate change denier - the opposing view of his SurfaceStations program is here http://frankbi.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/surface-stations-redux/#more-517

[Special K]

The Age of Stupid looks interesting.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/13/postlethwaite-age-of-stupid-climate-deniers

 

Actor Pete Postlethwaite yesterday denounced climate change deniers as a "negative force" with their "heads in the sand". Ahead of Sunday's premiere of The Age of Stupid, an environmental doomsday docudrama, he compared those who do not accept that human-induced global warming is occurring with Holocaust deniers, and said the evidence for global change is now beyond doubt

 

I'm convinced now that an actor has said it. To be honest, all the mixed messages from Scientists on both sides of the argument, who have spent many, many years working on their theories was never convincing for me. I was always waiting for an actor of gravitas to come out and say it.

 

Let's hope the **** remembers this when he's flying all over the world to promote his new found concern for the environment.

[TopGun]

I'm convinced now that an actor has said it. To be honest, all the mixed messages from Scientists on both sides of the argument, who have spent many, many years working on their theories was never convincing for me. I was always waiting for an actor of gravitas to come out and say it.

 

Let's hope the **** remembers this when he's flying all over the world to promote his new found concern for the environment.

 

I merely said it was interesting!

 

 

Tbh I can't summon up the effort to present any more charts that 'prove' the opposite to George's contentions anyway.

[Minty]

Tbh I can't summon up the effort to present any more charts that 'prove' the opposite to George's contentions anyway.

I gave up trying to talk to George ages ago, when it was clear that he was unwilling to discuss my points, unless he could respond with charts and facts to abuse me or anyone who has concerns. I said then, and I maintain now, that I am open to any and all information on the subject. My sole point throughout was simply that despite all the science, no one actually knows exactly what is happening and what will happen, therefore to make judgements one way or the other is extremely blinkered IMO... but George seemed intent on only denouncing anything or anyone who expressed perfectly legitimate concerns for the future of our race.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a precautionary principle should guide us... i.e. if there are concerns that our actions are causing harm then we should do everything within our power to prevent that harm occurring.