Global Climate Disruption.

[InsaneApache]

First we had Global warming. Then we had Climate Change. Ladies and Gentlemen, may I proudly announce our new friend, Global Climate Disruption.

Now for those who questioned why I had changed my mind about Global Warming, here's why...

Last November things began to go seriously wrong for the IPCC version of science. Things started after a leading Indian glaciologist called VK Raina publicly pointed out that he disagreed with the IPCC conclusion that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away within 30 years. Raina said studies showed that at the present rate of melting, the glaciers would take hundreds of years to do so. The Indian public had previously been told that the waters from the Himalayas would dry up within their lifetimes, so this good news was published on the front pages of the Indian newspapers.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, using his title as the chairman of IPCC, reacted strongly against the good news and told the press there were no errors in the conclusions of the IPCC AR4 report. He told the press that VK Raina's conclusions were based on “voodoo science”, and that his opinions were not worth listening to. Questions were raised by observers, who couldn’t help noticing the strong reactions from the IPCC chairman, at the cost of addressing the errors themselves.

Pachauri’s crude attempts did not work and within days VK Raina found himself being interviewed by the Indian media alongside a very political Englishman who was not a glaciologist. Whether Raina appreciated Dr Richard North’s intervention I do not know, but certainly North had a different style about how to confront the smearing of Raina’s reputation by the chairman of the IPCC.



By that time, the error had been tracked back to a glaciologist called Syed Hasnain. Through a simple error, a rumour had developed that the glaciers would be gone within 40 years and the IPCC had published this story as part of its conclusions. Hasnain admitted to the press that there was an error in the IPCC report.

Eventually Pachauri had to acknowledge the IPCC’s error but the record in the assessment report (AR4) was never corrected, and remains incorrect to date.

One under-reported aspect of this scandal was the fact that Pachauri had a charity called TERI, which was poised to benefit from millions of euros and hundreds of thousands of dollars set aside to study the melting of the Himalayan glaciers. It turned out that TERI had used the IPCC’s very prediction of glacier doom in asking for funds. It also turned out that Hasnain was at work at TERI studying Himalayan glacier melt. It also turned out that Hasnain already knew about about the exaggerations in the IPCC report. The Sunday Telegraph became the venue where Richard North, who had uncovered major portions of this story, published these stories. Perhaps, as a result of this exposure, the Carnegie Corporation of New York decided to release no further funds to TERI.

On his blog, North asked obvious questions about the conflict of interest of one person being responsible for overseeing the writing of IPCC reports without error and running a charity which received money to study the conclusions of the IPCC reports. Was he tardy in responding because TERI’s glaciology team studied the same problem of catastrophic melt and therefore he assumed the problem to be genuine? North also raised questions about the accounts of TERI-Europe which is a charity run by Dr Pachauri from a suburban house in South London.

For the IPCC, there was more to come. Another claim that failed the test was that peer-reviewed scientific research had concluded that a small change in rainfall would decimate the Amazon tropical rainforests. North revealed this claim was gleaned from unsubstantiated gray literature put out by green advocacy groups. The scandal, which was published in the Sunday Times, became known as Amazongate.

By then of course, the public trust in climate science had taken a further severe knock after the leaking of the CRU Climategate emails. These emails showed how an inner circle of climate scientists had tampered with the proxy temperature records to “hide the decline”, hidden their raw data from other scientists and statisticians and perverted the conventions of peer review.

The Monbiot counter-attack

Following Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate and North’s articles about Pachauri, Monbiot was finding it harder to sell his messianic scare stories and views to a sceptical public. The two crutches on which he had always relied to convince his fans — the conclusions of IPCC reports and peer-reviewed papers written by climate scientists — no longer worked like they had in the past.

Certainly, someone had to be blamed.

Monbiot saw an opportunity to strike at North after the Sunday Times withdrew the Amazongate story. He saw the retraction as a green light, writing two successive pieces at the Guardian, accusing North of “peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood” in the first. North only showed that things were worse — the IPCC statement had been harvested from a defunct Brazilian website. North considered Monbiot’s accusations to be libelous and lawyers were called in to sort out the mess. Monbiot had to admit he had unfairly attacked North and give him space on his column for a reply. (Dr North’s complaints about Monbiot are still awaiting adjudication by the Press Commission).

The next opportunity arose for Monbiot when the Sunday Telegraph retracted its article and apologised for suggesting that Pachauri was corrupt. The retraction occurred after Pachauri undertook libel action against the paper. In the piece, Booker and North questioned the IPCC boss who donned several hats, working on the boards of several corporations that benefitted from business action against climate change.

Monbiot repeated the same strategy writing two more articles attacking North for “smearing” the reputation of Dr Pachauri. Perhaps he had not paused to notice, as with Amazongate, that the retracted Telegraph article neither referred to Pachauri’s conflicts of interest nor questions raised about TERI-Europe’s accounts.

Nevertheless for Monbiot, just as a newspaper retraction vindicated the IPCC earlier, another newspaper retraction, under threat of libel action seemed to absolve the IPCC chairman of all lapses. The caveat-laced, ‘limited review’ of Pachauri’s personal accounts in India, by a private corporation KPMG, which relied on information provided by him, seemed enough for Monbiot.

The second of the two articles defending Pachauri was titled: “Press continue to hound Rajendra Pachauri despite his innocence”. Members of the public were quick to use the comments forum on Monbiot’s blog to challenge his portrayal of Pachauri as a man who had been smeared by Dr North. Addressing one commenter, Monbiot wrote in his own comments section:


More than just smears

I responded with an open letter to George Monbiot asking him to explain his position more clearly. I wanted to know why Pachauri thought VK Raina’s report was “voodoo science”. Was he simply ignorant that the 2035 date in the AR4 report was incorrect and none of his team of experts in glaciology had alerted him to the error? Was not TERI using public funding from the EU, to study the same claim? Wasn’t Monbiot bothered by this? Why did he persist in giving Pachauri the benefit of the doubt? The letter was removed soon after I posted it.

Further comments were being deleted as well; but I was not willing to give up. I repeatedly asked for Monbiot to comment on why Pachauri made his “voodoo science” smear. I asked whether it was unreasonable to inquire if it had anything to do with TERI being funded to study the very "2035" glacier melting claim.

Monbiot never responded. As before however, there was more to come.

The UK Charity Commission made available TERI-Europe’s published and revised accounts. I presented them to Monbiot.
Year
Income as submitted before inquiries
Corrected figures submitted after inquiries

2006
7,000
16,610

2007
9,000
49,878

2008
8,000
103,980

TOTAL
24,000
170,468


Ritu Kumar, TERI’s director at London was compelled to revise their accounts, following the Telegraph’s inquiries into its dealings. The differences were astounding. What the new accounts showed was that, for three years running (the period shown above), TERI-Europe had grossly under-declared the income of the charity. It did not have any known subsidiaries. This was the same period TERI-Europe obtained DEFRA public funds, just for the IPCC synthesis report alone, an amount almost twice what it declared on the books.

In the period shown, only 15% of their income had been put through the charity’s accounts and 85% of TERI-Europe’s income had simply not been included in their declared income. Their complete accounts have not been submitted to date.


TERI-Europe Income reported to the Charity Commission UK

Monbiot asked visitors to his Guardian thread to come up with evidence of Dr Pachauri’s unreliable bookkeeping. He must have thought this impossible. The one account unable to be veiled from public scrutiny was Pachauri’s TERI-Europe’s and that had 85% of income missing from the books until prodded. I provided Monbiot with what he asked for.

Monbiot declared Pachauri's personal accounts and financial practices were shown by KPMG as being clean. In the light of the above however, Monbiot's unquestioning confidence in such conclusions were puzzling.

About midday the inconvenient evidence that I provided at the Guardian forum, along with discussions of that evidence with aghast Monbiot fans were removed from the thread. The thread was closed down.

Every single comment about the accounts was removed.

The new Monbiot

It was always faintly funny that the Monbiot should accuse Richard North of ‘smearing Pachauri’. We saw that Monbiot’s harmless IPCC-inspired pushing of the party line had shallow foundations that would one day be swept away by the growing awareness of the public. But we should revise that opinion. It is one thing to put forward one own points of view and cite half-truths as evidence; it is quite another to tamper with and remove facts from the public record to support an argument that does not stand up. To call for evidence and then hide is both hypocritical and paradoxical. Monbiot should be asking questions and releasing evidence, not covering it up to protect public figures like Pachauri. One wonders how long this charade will last.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2010/9/18/george-monbiot-scrubbing-the-record-clean.html

:idea2:

Not so much fishy as downright dishonest, methinks. :book:

[Fragony]

These eco-nostra scammers got so many gates by now that there aren't enough gardens. But some people will always be absolutely terrified anyway, the APOCALYPS by CO2, forgive me for I have consumed

[Furunculus]

its all good, the loonier elements of the activist policy makers/propagandists are gradually being winnowed out, and sensible people are starting to have their voice heard, its all to the good.

i'm pretty sure we'll have a good idea of what really id going on by the 2014 publication of the 5th IPCC report, now it looks like we might have some sensible policy-makers to respond to it.

[gaelic cowboy]

@mods
might as well lock this thread before it gets into another 50 page who is a bigger NAZI bore

[Louis VI the Fat]

@mods
might as well lock this thread before it gets into another 50 page who is a bigger NAZI boreAre you predicting this thread will get heated?

[Vladimir]

Are you predicting this thread will get heated?

No. Disrupted.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

When you do good science you acknowledge the uncertainty of your findings. Things are considered unresolved, a new study might show that current theories are wrong. When it comes to politics this makes it tough on people--the opposition can always say "well, that's uncertain". So scientists tend to claim certainty to get around that, confidant that they are right. This seems to have come back to bite them. But it's being overexploited by the opposition. They are falling into the same trap--arguing that global warming is bogus when they should be arguing that there are uncertainties. The former is a rallying cry, the latter only is if they former is heavily implied. But in truth there is no reason to think the science is not basically correct.

When they talk about how vaccines don't cause autism, they probably overstate the certainty of the findings. But I think they are right to do so. They are combating irrational disbelief. But vaccines are fairly simple in terms of the consequences and what to do. Global warming isn't, and is on a much longer scale.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No. Disrupted.

Cool!

[Louis VI the Fat]

Our future overlords, the Chinese, do not question Global Warming. Instead, they are taking the lead in clean energy industry and innovation. We must not let the totally bogus discrediting of climate science hijack public debate. That will keep us in the stone age while the Chinese overrun us:


What a contrast. In a year that’s on track to be our planet’s hottest on record, America turned “climate change” into a four-letter word that many U.S. politicians won’t even dare utter in public. If this were just some parlor game, it wouldn’t matter. But the totally bogus “discrediting” of climate science has had serious implications. For starters, it helped scuttle Senate passage of the energy-climate bill needed to scale U.S.-made clean technologies, leaving America at a distinct disadvantage in the next great global industry. And that brings me to the contrast: While American Republicans were turning climate change into a wedge issue, the Chinese Communists were turning it into a work issue.

“There is really no debate about climate change in China,” said Peggy Liu, chairwoman of the Joint U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy, a nonprofit group working to accelerate the greening of China. “China’s leaders are mostly engineers and scientists, so they don’t waste time questioning scientific data.” The push for green in China, she added, “is a practical discussion on health and wealth. There is no need to emphasize future consequences when people already see, eat and breathe pollution every day.”



And because runaway pollution in China means wasted lives, air, water, ecosystems and money — and wasted money means fewer jobs and more political instability — China’s leaders would never go a year (like we will) without energy legislation mandating new ways to do more with less. It’s a three-for-one shot for them. By becoming more energy efficient per unit of G.D.P., China saves money, takes the lead in the next great global industry and earns credit with the world for mitigating climate change.



So while America’s Republicans turned “climate change” into a four-letter word — J-O-K-E — China’s Communists also turned it into a four-letter word — J-O-B-S.



“China is changing from the factory of the world to the clean-tech laboratory of the world,” said Liu. “It has the unique ability to pit low-cost capital with large-scale experiments to find models that work.” China has designated and invested in pilot cities for electric vehicles, smart grids, LED lighting, rural biomass and low-carbon communities. “They’re able to quickly throw spaghetti on the wall to see what clean-tech models stick, and then have the political will to scale them quickly across the country,” Liu added. “This allows China to create jobs and learn quickly.”
This weekend's Thomas L. Friedman's column: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=general

[Sasaki Kojiro]

eh, I'm pretty ok with that. They have the motivation and the "unique ability" so let them work it out and we can buy the tech from them. Or steal it like they steal stuff from us :p

There's some weird nationalistic undertone to that column (at least the quoted bit). The world getting cleaner (and especially terribly polluted countries like china) is more important than a 1st place medal and cash. And they are in a much better place to work it out than we are, right? I guess he's just trying to be persuasive.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is simply an effort in rebranding. 'Global Warming' is an economic exercise first and foremost. It took quite a hit with the record low temperatures last year, and the powers that be have obviously adopted a smarter strategy that doesn't peg their message to one temperature extreme or another.

[naut]

Great piece on China Louis. As usual they are way ahead of their time. Green energy is big business, and while the rest of the world drags it's feet, China will profit in the short, medium and long-term.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why, as luck would have it, today's Guardian runs a very timely article about China's clean energy program:



China resorts to blackouts in pursuit of energy efficiency

With end of current five-year plan looming, many regions are desperately pulling the plug to meet usage targets


No TV. No internet. No air conditioning. Traffic lights off. Hospitals deprived of electricity. Tens of thousands of household fridges and freezers without power. Milk curdling. Vegetables rotting. The risks of delaying energy (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy)-saving measures have been all too apparent in a Chinese region where the authorities initiated draconian rationing last month to achieve the state's efficiency targets.

Anping County, in Hebei Province, cut electricity to homes, factories and public buildings for 22 hours every three days in a radical move that has highlighted both the serious last-minute effort that China (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/china) is making to achieve environmental goals and the immense long-term difficulty of shifting away from a dirty, wasteful model of economic growth.
There are less than four months left until the end of China's current five-year plan, during which the economy is supposed to have become 20% more energy efficient. That target (which measures energy use relative to GDP growth) is crucial for a nation that wants to move up the economic value chain and prove to the world that it is making a significant contribution toward tackling greenhouse gas emissions.

Progress towards this goal was initially good, with a 14.4% gain in efficiency until last year. But it was tilted off track in the first three months of 2010 by huge infrastructure spending – largely on energy-intensive steel and cement projects – aimed at warding off the worst effects of the global economic downturn.

This meant China's economy surged forward at more than double-digit pace, but was having to burn more coal for each yuan of productivity. After this was revealed, the state council – China's cabinet – ordered the provinces to step up their efforts to reach the energy efficiency (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energyefficiency) target by the end of the year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/19/china-blackouts-energy-efficiency

[rory_20_uk]

Most arguments about "global warming" are as sterile as using the last decade as the basis for evolution.

The only major difference is that if the earth were to heat up again, most of the globe will be under water. What is at fault is less relevant than trying to prevent this - man made or otherwise.

~:smoking:

[Louis VI the Fat]

eh, I'm pretty ok with that. They have the motivation and the "unique ability" so let them work it out and we can buy the tech from them. Or steal it like they steal stuff from us :p

There's some weird nationalistic undertone to that column (at least the quoted bit). The world getting cleaner (and especially terribly polluted countries like china) is more important than a 1st place medal and cash. And they are in a much better place to work it out than we are, right? I guess he's just trying to be persuasive.Friedman's pieces are always opinionated, striving to convince as well as inform. Can't say he did not come up with a surprising perspective on Global Warming, namely the planned communist economy taking the lead.

In such stark contrast to three decades ago, when Thatcher called for action to halt global warming while the Soviet block happily destroyed the environmental foundation of its society...

[gaelic cowboy]

In such stark contrast to three decades ago, when Thatcher called for action to halt global warming while the Soviet block happily destroyed the environmental foundation of its society...

You know why that was of course she did chemistry in college did she not.


It seems to me that the rise of the Professional Politician who has only ever maybe being a politician is detrimental to actually sorting out problems.

Maggie felt unions got too much money so she broke them a solution to the problem only a technical person would do.

Check the background of the political class of every broke country today there all lawyers or from political families who have only ever being politicians.

[Vladimir]

Great piece on China Louis. As usual they are way ahead of their time. Green energy is big business, and while the rest of the world drags it's feet, China will profit in the short, medium and long-term.


Why, as luck would have it, today's Guardian runs a very timely article about China's clean energy program:





Yes. Ahead of their time and brilliant. Much like their population control and internal security efforts.

[Xiahou]

Our future overlords, the Chinese, do not question Global Warming. Instead, they are taking the lead in clean energy industry and innovation. We must not let the totally bogus discrediting of climate science hijack public debate. That will keep us in the stone age while the Chinese overrun us:

This weekend's Thomas L. Friedman's column: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/19/opinion/19friedman.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=generalYes. China- friend to the environment. :laugh4:

[Ironside]

This is simply an effort in rebranding. 'Global Warming' is an economic exercise first and foremost. It took quite a hit with the record low temperatures last year, and the powers that be have obviously adopted a smarter strategy that doesn't peg their message to one temperature extreme or another.

2008 is 10:th warmest year on record, after 2009 kicked it down. Me think it had a lot more to do with talking about costful CO2 measurements during an economic downturn.

[naut]

Much like their population control and internal security efforts.
My dear man would you like some tartar sauce with your red herring?


Yes. China- friend to the environment. :laugh4:
CO2 per Capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita) and Energy Consumption per Capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita). When we look at Renewable Energy Production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production), China leads the way, and additionally produce 30% of the worlds Solar panels. China of course has it's issues, especially with 2/3 of it's energy production coming from coal. However, it is well ahead of anyone else.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes. China- friend to the environment. :laugh4:

Well, the Chinese have far more serious environmental problems on their hands than most of us. As a result it's not surprising that the government wants to do something about them, as among other things it threatens the food supply of the country and the livelihood of millions of Chinese... And I think the government remembers all too painfully what would happen if they let it out of control, a small taste of which they had with that scandal when the milk turned out to be polluted.

[PanzerJaeger]

CO2 per Capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita) and Energy Consumption per Capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita).

Per capita? Think about that one for a minute.



When we look at Renewable Energy Production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production), China leads the way, and additionally produce 30% of the worlds Solar panels. China of course has it's issues, especially with 2/3 of it's energy production coming from coal. However, it is well ahead of anyone else.

That is, as anyone who has looked at the issue past surface level knows, due solely to the broad use of hydroelectricity in China which - like most large scale public works projects in the US - is difficult to implement due to environmental issues (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Ecosystem_damage_and_loss_of_land) and the associated lawsuits. The United States leads China in every other measure in your list. Also, solar panel production does not tell the whole story. The producers of solar panels, like every other good, often look for the cheapest labor market. That does not mean that 30% of solar panels are used in China, which makes sense as both the European Union and the United States far exceed Chinese solar energy production on your list.

Don't get sucked into the propaganda... the same people who demand 'energy independence' keep us from investing in the most productive forms of alternate energy - nuclear and hyrdoelectric power. We're not going to get there on wind turbines and solar panels alone.

[Strike For The South]

My dear man would you like some tartar sauce with your red herring?


CO2 per Capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita) and Energy Consumption per Capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita). When we look at Renewable Energy Production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable_electricity_production), China leads the way, and additionally produce 30% of the worlds Solar panels. China of course has it's issues, especially with 2/3 of it's energy production coming from coal. However, it is well ahead of anyone else.

The top 4 countries are muslim nations.

Are you trying to warn us about an impending terror attack?

[Beskar]

Don't get sucked into the propaganda... the same people who demand 'energy independence' keep us from investing in the most productive forms of alternate energy - nuclear and hyrdoelectric power. We're not going to get there on wind turbines and solar panels alone.

Actually, not exactly true, I am very pro-Thermonuclear Fusion. :beam:

I agree with wind turbines and solar panels. They are for small scale establishments like panels per house, and wind turbine for villages and small towns. Not for the entire country.

They should give companies tax breaks on the building of new homes if they make them energy self-sufficient, such as installing solar panels, etc on them. That would produce some real change.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Per capita? Think about that one for a minute.
But that is highly relevant. Taking the USA for example:
population: 310M
CO2/capita: 30 u

Where u is the relevant unit of measurement, compare with China:

population: 1339M
CO/2 capita: 8 u

Normalise for population: 30 u / (1339/310) = 6.9u.

In other words assuming that 8 u of CO2/capita is “normal” you would expect to see the USA producing about 6.9u per capita wheras in truth they produce a good 12.5% more.

No doubt this has a lot to do with differences in purchasing power of the USA vs. that of China. Me I blame the airco, and the petrol cars.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Canada, australia, and the US are bright red. Size seems important then. Also I'm not sure why they factor out exports and imports. Do they take all of china's factory emissions and add them to the US if they are sending their products here? Weird.

[drone]

Canada, australia, and the US are bright red. Size seems important then.
Most likely it's a combination of a modern society and low pop density.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

hmm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Note that countries near the top of the list are the most efficient. They produce the most economic output with the least emissions. Countries at the bottom of the list are the worst polluters per unit of economic output.

China is 5th up from the bottom.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Also I'm not sure why they factor out exports and imports. Do they take all of china's factory emissions and add them to the US if they are sending their products here? Weird.
That's not weird at all. It shows the difference between economies which require relatively little travel (IOW: fuel burning) from those that do. It also helps to address the issue that if all your economy does is soak up laundered money or dodged taxes you would end up completely white even if your imports require an inordinate amount of CO2 to arrive.

[Tellos Athenaios]

hmm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions


China is 5th up from the bottom.

What is interesting there is the scope for improvement. China has a lot of old inefficient industry that is still running and their coal mines can hardly be described as environmental wonders of cleanliness either. Moving away from such industry towards modern alternatives and an economy more oriented towards service (tourism & gambling in particular) ought to be a fairly simple way of getting 3 for the price of one:
(a) Economy continues to grow fast which enables the administration to enact reforms that will cost jobs in some sectors without immediate revolution
(b) China becomes cleaner which should earn the government a modicum of “well done, I guess you're not all bad” from the significant population of Chinese that used to live with an environmental disaster next door or inside one...
(c) Politicians have some kind of target to channel the energies of the more restless elements in Chinese society. Think the government is doing a poor job? -> Why are you not actively helping solve the problem? Nothing like a grand revolution to keep people entertained/occupied. </sarcasm>
(d) Recovered territory may become useful to local populations once more which should reduce tensions with local government. E.g the Yangtzhe estuary at Shanghai, or the South Chinese Sea may once again provide a rich source for fishing...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's not weird at all. It shows the difference between economies which require relatively little travel (IOW: fuel burning) from those that do. It also helps to address the issue that if all your economy does is soak up laundered money or dodged taxes you would end up completely white even if your imports require an inordinate amount of CO2 to arrive.

But if they have terrible polluting factories where we would have nicer factories, that's on them not us, even if we buy their stuff. We can't pass laws regulating their pollution like we can in our own country.

[PanzerJaeger]

No doubt this has a lot to do with differences in purchasing power of the USA vs. that of China. Me I blame the airco, and the petrol cars.

That's the point. The Chinese numbers are illusory. Destitute people are capable of very limited energy utilization. While China does have a growing middle class, including hundreds of millions (billions?) of people into the per capita equation who live in a state of poverty not seen in the Western World skews the numbers in favor of the PRC. Unless Psychonaut is suggesting that the United States should drastically reduce the standard of living for a large portion of the population, there is little to be learned or emulated from China's energy policy. Their industrial practices are far inferior to those of the West in terms of pollution and energy conservation.

That is why most of Africa is virgin white on the map (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Energy_per_capita.png). It doesn't mean they are particularly better at energy conservation or that they are examples for industrialized first world nations to follow.

[Tellos Athenaios]

But if they have terrible polluting factories where we would have nicer factories, that's on them not us, even if we buy their stuff. We can't pass laws regulating their pollution like we can in our own country.

That's a most un-American attitude. I thought the Free Market offered you the ability to Vote With Your Wallet? :tongue:

[Beskar]

That's a most un-American attitude. I thought the Free Market offered you the ability to Vote With Your Wallet? :tongue:

That's economic democracy, not the free-market.

[Vladimir]

My dear man would you like some tartar sauce with your red herring?

They're that color because of the rose-tinted glasses. Panzer sufficiently addressed your post.

Wait...was that a Mongol joke?

[Fragony]

That's not weird at all. It shows the difference between economies which require relatively little travel (IOW: fuel burning) from those that do. It also helps to address the issue that if all your economy does is soak up laundered money or dodged taxes you would end up completely white even if your imports require an inordinate amount of CO2 to arrive.

What is especially interesting is the clockwork precision of climate-change, never heard about such a thing such as an industrial age every 50.000 years or so. Maybe planetary allighnment could have something to do with it, just musing. Interestingly enough CO2 levels rise after temperature does, which is of course amazing to everybody who didn't know that liquids vapourize when warmed.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Oh C02 levels would rise when the seas get hotter, and it has little to do with vapourising at all (it's simply that C02 gas becomes less soluble in water when temperature rises).
But on the other hand C02 levels would rise far more if the world's phytoplankton population were in decline for the world's phytoplankton reduces far more C02 than do the world's land based plants. Funnily enough phytoplankton populations might just have been doing exactly that: declining since the 50's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plankton#Population_decline

[Beskar]

Fragony's favourite movie was Waterworld.

[drone]

Fragony's favourite movie was Waterworld.
No personal attacks please. ~D

[Fragony]

Fragony's favourite movie was Waterworld.

Nah not nearly enough water, that's just silly

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Waterworld is one of the best movies ever made and anyone who says otherwise doesn't like movies (like people who say whiskey is bad because it burns).

[Beskar]

No personal attacks please. ~D

It wasn't a personal attack, or wasn't meant as such. Personal joke, yes. :beam:

[drone]

It wasn't a personal attack, or wasn't meant as such. Personal joke, yes. :beam:
I know, my post was more about the quality of Waterworld. :tongue2:

[Fragony]

I know, my post was more about the quality of Waterworld. :tongue2:

HA

My favorite movie atm must be Let the Right One In, it's about a vampire, you know vampires, they wanna bleed you dry

[Fragony]

omgwthwut? du jour

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1139201/bbeea800/verwarming_hoog_is_bloed_aan_de_muur_.html

I thought this was a parody about the green khmer making people absolutely terrified of CO2. I was wrong it isn't parody, the green khmer actually released this. WARNING INSANILY GORY but perfectly perfect young for children, you got to work that skull

[Furunculus]

did anyone notice the New Scientist article that turned up in my paper copy last week?

three different mechanisms by which the sun is now thought to impact earth's climate, via mechanisms surrounding cloud formation and influenced by cosmic rays.

notably; mention of the fact that the GCM's used to create projections for the 5th IPCC report in 2014 will now include such mechanisms.

a lot of people have received a lot of abuse from the catastrophe activists over the last few years for suggesting exactly these things, now its mainstream accepted theory in the process of being tested for the level of impact it has on earths climate, will they now apologise?

i understand the new scientist taking a very pro IPCC line over the past decade, they are a scientific magazine and should be expected to defend the scientific method: create a theory, test it for validity, accept it until new testing disputes its validity, or new theories better explain the observed results. there is no other way to properly conduct science.

but the IPCC isn't just laboratory science, it results in policy that has the potential to seriously impact the wellbeing and welfare of humanity for generations to come, so for this reason cost-benefit should be applied to policy that results from IPCC reports.

trying to retrofit the precautionary principle into scientific method has been a disaster for public trust in science generally, not just the the creation of sensible climate policy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Climate Facism from Rishard Curtis and Gillian Anderson: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/04/10-10-activism

This was not funny, and the fact that anyone should suggest this even in jest is abhorrent.

Heresy trials anyone?

I have decided I no longer believe in Global Warming, though I still believe recycling and emission reductions are important for our children's future - I no longer believe that humanity can have such a decisive effect on the Global climate, the science just doesn't seem to be there.

[Fragony]

Why is there doubt? Doubt, in your heart?

*splut*

[gaelic cowboy]

Climate Facism from Rishard Curtis and Gillian Anderson: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2010/oct/04/10-10-activismI have decided I no longer believe in Global Warming, though I still believe recycling and emission reductions are important for our children's future - I no longer believe that humanity can have such a decisive effect on the Global climate, the science just doesn't seem to be there.

The part that is dangerous here is not that you don't believe in global warming thats fine it is the statement I no longer believe that humanity can have such a decisive effect on the Global climate

The earth is a sphere all sphere's are finite therefore it is possible to cause some kind of effect on said sphere by human activity.

[InsaneApache]

I'm surprised that no one has posted this yet. As a former believer turned sceptic myself, I feel dejected by the whole mess that is AGW.

Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:

1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate

2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.

3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.

4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<

5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.

6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety
Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board


“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

:book:

[Furunculus]

I'm surprised that no one has posted this yet. As a former believer turned sceptic myself, I feel dejected by the whole mess that is AGW.


because it has not been a surprise to me.

my profile statement on AGW has not changed much in some time...........

[Fragony]

wow, just learned that the deception is now good for 4.48% of annual budget, that is 3 times our defence-budget to pay our socialism (only 1% of it doesn't go directly to the treac- I mean treasury)

26.000.0000.000 euro, stolen each year, eco-tax alone

[InsaneApache]

Interesting....


The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

I wonder if this little snippet of information will change anyone's mind?

[Furunculus]

interesting piece, and no, it hasn't changed my mind.

[Fragony]

Interesting....



http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

I wonder if this little snippet of information will change anyone's mind?

Nah the green khmer starts too early with terrifying kids, WAY before they start questioning what adults tell them. The adults who are still absolutely terrified of CO2 will probably never make a full recovery sadly

[HoreTore]

Not any more than how much I change my mind of capitalism by reading the rant of some random capitalist who has turned socialist.

Which is effectively zero. Or less than zero.

[Subotan]

If I was feeling cruel, I could surely produce an example of one denier who had changed his mind and realised the validity of the science on climate change with a quick Google search. As I am so good-natured, I'll be content to just concur with HoreTore's post and say that one dude changing his mind != not a change in the scientific consensus.

[InsaneApache]

You mean the political consensus.

Go ahead, be cruel. You never know you might even get me to change my mind back again.

[HoreTore]

If you do, can you promise not to write essays with a smug "I was once at the other side so therefore I know everything and you're ignorant if you disagree"-attitude? Oh, and without global conspiracy theories too?

[Subotan]

Yeh I'd need such a promise as well :)

[InsaneApache]

I do.

I'll make it clear. You provide evidence of what you say and if I'm proven wrong, I'll shave me head and paint it blue!

Will that do?

[HoreTore]

I do.

I'll make it clear. You provide evidence of what you say and if I'm proven wrong, I'll shave me head and paint it blue!

Will that do?

I was hoping for something involving transferring daughters, but meh... I guess it'll do.

Only problem is that I've never really been that interested in climate change... I've always been more into pollution, so I won't be much help I'm afraid :clown:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Interesting....



http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

I wonder if this little snippet of information will change anyone's mind?Change my mind? Nah (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php).

[a completely inoffensive name]

What can us humans do to an entire layer of ozone in the atmosphere that has always been there?

Humanity is adolescent god, in charge of a small domain as a test of its maturity.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What can us humans do to an entire layer of ozone in the atmosphere that has always been there?

Humanity is adolescent god, in charge of a small domain as a test of its maturity.There are no gods. The ozone layer has not always been there. It is the product of earthly life. Earth is a living planet. From algae to man, we shape this world, create a world of our own making.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There are no gods. The ozone layer has not always been there. It is the product of earthly life. Earth is a living planet. From algae to man, we shape this world, create a world of our own making.

Whoosh.

[Fragony]

If I was feeling cruel, I could surely produce an example of one denier who had changed his mind and realised the validity of the science on climate change with a quick Google search. As I am so good-natured, I'll be content to just concur with HoreTore's post and say that one dude changing his mind != not a change in the scientific consensus.

There is no scientific consensus

[a completely inoffensive name]

There is no scientific consensus

Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Statements by concurring organizations

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=7)] Academies of Science

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=8)] Joint science academies' statements

Since 2001, 32 national science academies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_academies) have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:


of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia),
of Belgium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgium),
of Brazil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil),
of Cameroon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameroon),
Royal Society of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Canada),
of the Caribbean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean),
of China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China),
Institut de France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_de_France),
of Ghana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana),
Leopoldina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Academy_of_Sciences_Leopoldina) of Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany),
of Indonesia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia),
of Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland),
Accademia nazionale delle scienze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accademia_nazionale_delle_scienze) of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy),
of India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India),
of Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan),
of Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya),
of Madagascar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar),
of Malaysia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia),
of Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico),
of Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria),
Royal Society of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_New_Zealand),
Russian Academy of Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Academy_of_Sciences),
of Senegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegal),
of South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa),
of Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan),
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Swedish_Academy_of_Sciences),
of Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania),
of Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey),
of Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda),
The Royal Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society) of the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom),
of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States),
of Zambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambia),
and of Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe).



2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Third_Assessment_Report), seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_%28journal%29) on May 18, 2001,[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-11) was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-The_Science_of_Climate_Change-12)



2005-The national science academies of the G8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8) nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action,[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-13) and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.



2007-In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33rd_G8_summit), the national science academies of the G8+5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8%2B5) nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report), the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-14) The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.



2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/34th_G8_summit), the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_carbon_society) and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-15) The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.



2009-In advance of the UNFCCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference_2009) negotiations to be held in Copenhagen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen) in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-16) The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=9)] InterAcademy Council

As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Sciences),[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-18) the InterAcademy Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InterAcademy_Council) (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-19) Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-20)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=10)] European Academy of Sciences and Arts

In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Academy_of_Sciences_and_Arts) issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:

Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather) including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-21)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=11)] International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Council_of_Academies_of_Engineering_and_Technological_Sciences) (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-22)

As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=12)] Network of African Science Academies

In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_of_African_Science_Academies) submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany:

A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change. The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-autogenerated1-23)

The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cameroon), Ghana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghana), Kenya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya), Madagascar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar), Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria), Senegal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senegal), South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa), Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan), Tanzania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzania), Uganda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda), Zambia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zambia), Zimbabwe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimbabwe), as well as the African Academy of Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Academy_of_Sciences).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=13)] Royal Society of New Zealand

Having signed onto the first joint science academies' statement in 2001, the Royal Society of New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_New_Zealand) released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":

The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-24)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=14)] Royal Society of the United Kingdom

The Royal Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society) of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance. According to the Telegraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph), "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after forty-three fellows complained that 'uncertainty in the debate' over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public."[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-telegraph.co.uk-25) In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-RS-CC-26) The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[28] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-27)[29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-28) the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-RS-CC-26)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=15)] Polish Academy of Sciences

In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Academy_of_Sciences) (PAN) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and states:

it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas. Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.
PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-29)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=16)] National Research Council (US)

In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Research_Council) published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-CCS:AASKQ-30) This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-CCS:AASKQ-30)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=17)] General science

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=18)] American Association for the Advancement of Science

As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_for_the_Advancement_of_Science) adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-aaas_board-31)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=19)] American Chemical Society

The American Chemical Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Chemical_Society) stated:

Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change. The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-32)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=20)] American Institute of Physics

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Physics) endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-33)

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=21)] American Physical Society

In November 2007, the American Physical Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society) (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-34)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=22)] Australian Institute of Physics

In 2005, the Australian Institute of Physics (AIP)[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-35) issued a science policy document in which they stated:

Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal. Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth’s climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity) will fundamentally change the ecology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecology) of Earth.[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-36)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=23)] European Physical Society

In 2007, the European Physical Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Physical_Society) issued a position paper regarding energy:

The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change.[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-37)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=24)] European Science Foundation

In 2007, the European Science Foundation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Science_Foundation) issued a Position Paper on climate change:

There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-38)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=25)] Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

In 2008, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation_of_Australian_Scientific_and_Technological_Societies) (FASTS) issued a policy statement on climate change:

Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years. Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.
The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[40] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-39)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=26)] Earth sciences

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=27)] American Geophysical Union

The American Geophysical Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union) (AGU) statement,[41] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-40) adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_average_surface_temperature) increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_shrinkage) is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica) shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=28)] European Federation of Geologists

In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-41)(EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :

The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization. It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.
CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[43] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-42)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=29)] European Geosciences Union

In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geosciences Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Geosciences_Union) (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Joint_science_academies.E2.80.99_statement_2005) on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community)", and asserts that the IPCC

represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-reviewed) scientific literature.[44] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-43)
Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification) which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere) increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_ecosystems) and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic_global_warming), there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[45] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-44)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=30)] Geological Society of America

In 2006, the Geological Society of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_Society_of_America) adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-45)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=31)] Geological Society of Australia

In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_Society_of_Australia) issued the position statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change:

Human activities have increasing impact on Earth’s environments. Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events. GSA therefore recommends…strong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-46)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=32)] Geological Society of London

In November 2010, the Geological Society of London (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_Society_of_London) issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:

The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater. There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on Homo sapiens. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-47)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=33)] International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_of_Geodesy_and_Geophysics) (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.”[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-48)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=34)] National Association of Geoscience Teachers

In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-49) (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":

NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[51] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-50)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=35)] Meteorology and oceanography

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=36)] American Meteorological Society

The American Meteorological Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society) (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-51)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=37)] Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Meteorological_and_Oceanographic_Society) has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:

Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect). The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation) and other human activity.”[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-52)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=38)] Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Foundation_for_Climate_and_Atmospheric_Sciences) (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Canada) stating that

We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-53)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=39)] Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Meteorological_and_Oceanographic_Society) 2002 Position Statement on Climate Change states that the society:

endorses the process of periodic climate science assessment carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and supports the conclusion, in its Third Assessment Report, which states that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-54)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=40)] Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Meteorological_Society) issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.”[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-55)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=41)] World Meteorological Organization

In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Meteorological_Organization) (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-56)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=42)] Paleoclimatology

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=43)] American Quaternary Association

The American Quaternary Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Quaternary_Association) (AMQUA) has stated

Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.[58] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-57)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=44)] International Union for Quaternary Research

The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_for_Quaternary_Research) (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNFCCC) principles.

Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.[59] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-58)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=45)] Biology and life sciences

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=46)] American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-59) (AAWV) has issued a position statement regarding "climate change, wildlife diseases, and wildlife health":

There is widespread scientific agreement that the world’s climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic) factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem) health due to extreme weather (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather) events, changing disease transmission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disease_transmission) dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseases), and alterations to habitat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitat) and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_conservation). Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_animal), wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-60)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=47)] American Institute of Biological Sciences

In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Institute_of_Biological_Sciences) (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement:[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-61)

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-62)
The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise) and increases in extreme weather events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events), water scarcity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_scarcity), heat waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_waves), wildfires (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildfires), and the disturbance of biological systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_systems). It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-63)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=48)] American Society for Microbiology

In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_for_Microbiology) issued a public policy report in which they recommend “reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gases:[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-64)

Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-65) Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere) on which we depend.[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-66)
Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyme_disease), hantavirus infections (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hantavirus_infections), dengue fever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever), bubonic plague (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague), and cholera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera), have been linked to climate change.[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-67)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=49)] Australian Coral Reef Society

In 2006, the Australian Coral Reef Society (http://www.australiancoralreefsociety.org/)

issued an official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrier_Reef) and the "world-wide decline in coral reefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_reefs) through processes such as overfishing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfishing), runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral_bleaching), global climate change, ocean acidification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification), pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution)", etc.:
There is almost total consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus) among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world’s experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Sciences) worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth’s atmosphere. There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming.[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-68)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=50)] Institute of Biology (UK)

The UK's Institute of Biology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Biology) states “there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity.” As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a “rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_diseases) is also expected.” Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe.”[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-69)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=51)] Society of American Foresters

In 2008, the Society of American Foresters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_American_Foresters) (SAF) issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC and the UNFCCC:

Forests are shaped by climate....Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere.[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-70) Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG.[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-71)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=52)] The Wildlife Society (international)

The Wildlife Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wildlife_Society) has issued a position statement titled Global Climate Change and Wildlife:[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-72)

Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer “if” climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife) and wildlife habitats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_habitat).
The statement goes on to assert that “evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change.”
The statement concludes with a call for “reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis) (i.e., plants).”
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=53)] Human health

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=54)] American Academy of Pediatrics

In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Pediatrics) issued the policy statement Global Climate Change and Children's Health:

There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children. Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events) and natural disasters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_disasters), increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_diseases), increases in air pollution–related illness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#Health_effects), and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups.[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-73)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=55)] American College of Preventive Medicine

In 2006, the American College of Preventive Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_College_of_Preventive_Medicine) issued a policy statement on “Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications”:

The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_health) consequences may be severe.[75] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-74)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=56)] American Medical Association

In 2008, the American Medical Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association) issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they:

Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health. Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies.[76] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-75)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=57)] American Public Health Association

In 2007, the American Public Health Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Public_Health_Association) issued a policy statement titled ‘’Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment’’:

The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GHG_emissions) are primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.[77] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-76)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=58)] Australian Medical Association

In 2004, the Australian Medical Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Medical_Association) issued the position statement Climate Change and Human Health in which they recommend policies "to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps."[78] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-77)
This statement was revised again in 2008:

The world’s climate – our life-support system – is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While ‘climate change’ can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases. Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave) and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_security) and water supply (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_supply), resource conflicts and population shifts.
Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria), dengue fever (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dengue_fever), Ross River virus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_River_virus) and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salmonellosis)) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health.
Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority.[79] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-78)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=59)] World Federation of Public Health Associations

In 2001, the World Federation of Public Health Associations[80] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-79) issued a policy resolution on global climate change:

Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,… water-borne diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-borne_diseases)…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts....[81] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-80)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change&action=edit&section=60)] World Health Organization

In 2008, the United Nations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations)' World Health Organization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Organization) issued their report Protecting health from climate change:

There is now widespread agreement that the earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.

The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_air_pollution), 1.8 million from diarrhoea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diarrhoea) resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition) and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.[82] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-81)


With the release of the revised statement[103] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#cite_note-102) by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists) in 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing rejects the findings of human-induced effects on global warming.

Call it a leftist conspiracy all you want, for the most part scientists are not being paid the big money to lie about their results. In fact, in order for me to get a great position as a chemist it looks like I have to spent 10+ years on post-docs and make 40,000 a year during that period.

[Fragony]

There certainly is consensus among people who make money with making people absolutely terrified of CO2, but that's all money and politics.

Read an interesting interview with a serious scientist. The question was why sceptics were always older than the howlers, the answer was very telling, they have already established their carreer so they don't have to worry about being shortcutted from future projects.

[HoreTore]

"Serious scientist" equals "scientist that agrees with Frags position".

Very telling, my fanatical friend.

[Tellos Athenaios]

There are no gods. The ozone layer has not always been there. It is the product of earthly life. Earth is a living planet. From algae to man, we shape this world, create a world of our own making.

You mean we have paper copiers at high altitudes? Or you forgot to take your chemistry today? (3 moleculse of oxygen plus an photon with wavelength in the UV spectrum make 2 molecules of ozone plus a photon with longer wavelength approximating a sky blue spectrum.) Ozone is quite toxic, btw.

[Louis VI the Fat]

You mean we have paper copiers at high altitudes? Or you forgot to take your chemistry today? (3 moleculse of oxygen plus an photon with wavelength in the UV spectrum make 2 molecules of ozone plus a photon with longer wavelength approximating a sky blue spectrum.) Ozone is quite toxic, btw.¿Que?

[Tellos Athenaios]

About the chemistry or about its relevance? It's an important distinction in your story of remaking the world unto our own image, because there are things which we rely on but cannot manufacture/control ourselves, things which may be able to destroy but which we cannot recreate when they are gone.

[Louis VI the Fat]

GAH!

[HoreTore]

I see.

May I suggest that next time you seek to show off your understanding of chemistry, however irrelevant to the discussion, you bear polite conversation manners in mind.

Awwwwwww Louis, you're so cute sometimes :sweetheart:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Awwwwwww Louis, you're so cute sometimes :sweetheart: Don't simultaneously quit smoking and have and internet connection. :beam: :idea:

[a completely inoffensive name]

There certainly is consensus among people who make money with making people absolutely terrified of CO2, but that's all money and politics.

Read an interesting interview with a serious scientist. The question was why sceptics were always older than the howlers, the answer was very telling, they have already established their carreer so they don't have to worry about being shortcutted from future projects.

disregard mountain of evidence, repeat opinion.

[Strike For The South]

Don't simultaneously quit smoking and have and internet connection. :beam: :idea:

Get a girlfriend

[InsaneApache]

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone read the link I posted, or just jumped in with the usual suspects saying the usual things.

I wonder why I bother sometimes.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone read the link I posted, or just jumped in with the usual suspects saying the usual things.

I wonder why I bother sometimes.

Calm down, I have no time to read your link until the weekend. I only popped in here with enough time to provide a copy paste of a wiki page to show what Fragony said was completely false.

[HoreTore]

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone read the link I posted, or just jumped in with the usual suspects saying the usual things.

I wonder why I bother sometimes.

I did, and I also read Louis' link. Did you?

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm beginning to wonder if anyone read the link I posted, or just jumped in with the usual suspects saying the usual things.

I wonder why I bother sometimes.I did, and I also read Louis' link.


There's a lot to be said about AGH. As with abortion, guns, gays, one does not feel like writing hefty posts, again. Very briefly, I think the process is real. I think the more interesting debate is 'does it matter', and 'can we be quite certain there will be no runaway processes'. One can question the measures taken to limit AGW. Some will win, others will lose. I'd be getting worried in Australia and even Spain, and be cheering in Canada or Russia.

It is also one of the topics on which I seem to mostly agree with Furunculus. :jumping:

[Banquo's Ghost]

here's a lot to be said about AGH. As with abortion, guns, gays, one does not feel like writing hefty posts, again. Very briefly, I think the process is real. I think the more interesting debate is 'does it matter', and 'can we be quite certain there will be no runaway processes'. One can question the measures taken to limit AGW. Some will win, others will lose. I'd be getting worried in Australia and even Spain, and be cheering in Canada or Russia.:

Indeed. And the other question that should be debated is why, even if anthropogenic heating is less dangerous or non-existent, we are not using the mere risk to drive energy technologies away from carbon anyway. Regardless of warming, we face significant strategic threats to our energy supplies through reliance on carbon. To seek to replace that reliance is good sense, and may also save the planet. The hardline denialist approach seems utterly bereft of sense because it includes this baby with their bathwater. (In the same sort of manner as the worst of the doom-mongers want us taxed back into unlit caves).

[Furunculus]

There's a lot to be said about AGH. As with abortion, guns, gays, one does not feel like writing hefty posts, again. Very briefly, I think the process is real. I think the more interesting debate is 'does it matter', and 'can we be quite certain there will be no runaway processes'. One can question the measures taken to limit AGW. Some will win, others will lose. I'd be getting worried in Australia and even Spain, and be cheering in Canada or Russia.

It is also one of the topics on which I seem to mostly agree with Furunculus. :jumping:


EDIT: A common acronym expressing some degree of surprise. BG

No-one doubts that climate changes, and I know that it can be catastrophic, but if this bout is not principally anthropogenic, or; is anthropogenic but not catastrophic, or; is catastrophic but not CO2 induced, then our current direction in spending trillions in future wealth growth on controlling CO2 may be as futile and pointless as Canute with his tides. I have grave doubts about the proposed political solution, and I do not accept that IPCC climate scientists are peerless and disinterested paragons worthy of unquestioning faith.

or in more extended form:


Articles of faith:
1. That climate change is always happening, and the recent historical temperature record has shown significant warming
2. That climate change has frequently been both rapid and severe, which by definition makes it catastrophic to species
3. That feedback mechanisms, both positive and negative, work to accelerate or mitigate the scale and rate of change
4. That humans are a climate feedback mechanism, and will have an impact on the state of climate equilibrium
5. That CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, and that anthropogenic CO2 is by definition anthropogenic climate change
6. That it may yet come to pass that we, as a species, are proven to be responsible for causing catastrophic climate change

However:

a) the IPCC has thus far failed to conclusively demonstrate that anthropogenic CO2 is principally responsible for what will be catastrophic climate change in the near future, or that the many claimed impacts which justify the title “catastrophe” are based on solid and sound science.

b) the IPCC climate change models that underpin this conclusion have insufficient data for long term projections, do not properly account for feedback mechanisms and thus fail to produce accurate projections, and contain too many errors to produce truthful projections.

c) the political solutions to the problem as presented by the IPCC are both staggeringly expensive for human society, and highly inefficient as a method achieving a non-catastrophic outcome, and thus require a large amount of certainty in (a) and (b) before implementing (c) becomes a sensible idea.

To put this another way; the IPCC solution will cost 12.9% of global GDP by 2100 (the equivalent of €27 trillion a year), at a time when tens of millions die unnecessarily each year from disease and poor infrastructure, and two thirds of the worlds current population lives in abject poverty, so, if you have little faith in the diagnosis, of what value is the prognosis, especially when the same resources applied to a different remedy could achieve a much better outcome for humanity?

The problems identified above have been compounded by the fact that parts of the IPCC process are not conducted in an open and scientific manner, they require our faith that the ‘consensus’ is correct and when they do not receive that faith the only option is to attack, to vilify, and to demean. Any public utterance of scepticism is met by the accusation of sin; “but you don’t believe in climate change, do you!” This is the real poison of the consensus as advocated through politics and eco-preaching, it is removing the responsibility of critical analysis from people, and replacing it with xenophobic faith. The healthiest aspect of the whole ‘Gates’ saga is that climate scientists have been proven not to be peerless and disinterested Gods labouring ceaselessly for the salvation of humanity, they are just as venal and flawed as the rest of us, and that trust is something to be earned not given.

This is no longer science, it is politics.

True scepticism is not immovable as climate science is advancing every day in its understanding, and a thorough review of climate science may indeed reveal that climate change is both catastrophic and anthropogenic in nature, but even were this to be the case I would not be surprised if the solution deemed necessary looked very different from that which is proposed today. We are after all a species that is the triumph of evolution and adaptation, and the technology of the 21st century will always be the best solution to whatever the sins of the 20th century might prove to be.

The ‘Gates’ saga is no bad thing, at the very least we will have a vastly greater understanding of climate change; its primary mechanisms, its feedback mechanisms, its impacts, and by extension the political measures that will effectively ameliorate the real impact. At best we may discover that stunting world growth for the next century is unnecessary, at worst that climate change is both imminent and catastrophic…….. but not principally anthropogenic!

Thank God for the ‘Gates’.

[Louis VI the Fat]

To get a sense of the relentless attack on science, some fun emails obtained from BP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/15/bp-control-science-gulf-oil-spill).

BP's criminal neglect and disregard for the environment and locals led the huge oil spill disaster. To make amends, BP pledged half a billion dollar towards research into the oil spill. This money, as it emerges from the obtained correspondence, BP tried to use to steer science, direct it favourably to its own interests.

Sadly, we live in an age of diminishing independent science. Of politics no longer content to try to spin their role within an accepted reality, but trying to obscure, confuse and change the perception of reality. Worrying developments.



BP (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/bp) officials tried to take control of a $500m fund pledged by the oil (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oil) company for independent research into the consequences of the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/13/deepwater-horizon-gulf-mexico-oil-spill), it has emerged.
Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show BP officials openly discussing (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/apr/15/bp-internal-meeting-notes) how to influence the work of scientists supported by the fund, which was created by the oil company in May last year.
Russell Putt, a BP environmental expert, wrote in an email to colleagues (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2011/apr/15/bp-internal-meeting-notes) on 24 June 2010: "Can we 'direct' GRI [Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative (http://www.gomri.org/)] funding to a specific study (as we now see the governor's offices trying to do)? What influence do we have over the vessels/equipment driving the studies vs the questions?".
The email was obtained by Greenpeace (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/greenpeace) and shared with the Guardian.


The documents are expected to reinforce fears voiced by scientists that BP has too much leverage over studies into the impact of last year's oil disaster.
Those concerns go far beyond academic interest into the impact of the spill. BP faces billions in fines and penalties, and possible criminal charges arising from the disaster. Its total liability will depend in part on a final account produced by scientists on how much oil entered the gulf from its blown-out well, and the damage done to marine life and coastal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. The oil company disputes the government estimate that 4.1m barrels (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/19/bp-oil-spill-scientist-retracts-assurances) of oil entered the gulf.


There is no evidence in the emails that BP officials were successful in directing research. The fund has since established procedures to protect its independence.
Other documents obtained by Greenpeace suggest that the politics of oil spill science was not confined to BP. The White House clashed with officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (http://www.noaa.gov/) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (http://www.epa.gov/) last summer when drafting the administration's account of what has happened to the spilled oil.
On 4 August, Jane Lubchenco, the NOAA administrator, demanded that the White House issue a correction after it claimed that the "vast majority" of BP oil was gone from the Gulf.

[Fragony]

disregard mountain of evidence, repeat opinion.

Hey that's my position, repeat repeat repeat, eventually people will take it for granted. :daisy:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Is the arctic ice retreating? Is there global warming?

Well, the world's arctic powers certainly seem to think so. Wikileaks shows how the arctic countries have been busy bees happily dividing between them the spoils of dissapearing ice sheets:


Secret US embassy cables released by Wikileaks show nations are racing to "carve up" Arctic resources - oil, gas and even rubies - as the ice retreats.

They suggest that Arctic states, including the US and Russia, are all pushing to stake a claim.
The opportunity to exploit resources has come because of a dramatic fall in the amount of ice in the Arctic.
The US Geological Survey estimates oil reserves off Greenland are as big as those in the North Sea.



The cables were released by the Wikileaks whistleblower website as foreign ministers from the eight Arctic Council member states - Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden and Iceland - met in Nuuk, Greenland on Thursday to sign a treaty on international search-and-rescue in the Arctic and discuss the region's future challenges.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/9483790.stm

[Fragony]

Kewl, an American school decided that making children absolutely terrified of CO2 isn't the same as a real education, and is honest about the fact that there is no consensus, that not every scientist is 100% sure we are ALL going to DIE unless we(you) ACT RIGHT NOW. Apocalyptoloco's are naturally coughing up their lungs screaming it's no different from denying the holocaust, odd religion.

[HoreTore]

Kewl, an American school decided that making children absolutely terrified of CO2 isn't the same as a real education, and is honest about the fact that there is no consensus, that not every scientist is 100% sure we are ALL going to DIE unless we(you) ACT RIGHT NOW. Apocalyptoloco's are naturally coughing up their lungs screaming it's no different from denying the holocaust, odd religion.

Not every scientist is 100% sure that evolution is correct.

I still see no reason to teach it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Indeed. And the other question that should be debated is why, even if anthropogenic heating is less dangerous or non-existent, we are not using the mere risk to drive energy technologies away from carbon anyway. Regardless of warming, we face significant strategic threats to our energy supplies through reliance on carbon. To seek to replace that reliance is good sense, and may also save the planet. The hardline denialist approach seems utterly bereft of sense because it includes this baby with their bathwater. (In the same sort of manner as the worst of the doom-mongers want us taxed back into unlit caves).

A fair point.

I wonder, however, just how well such a focus would work in practice. Invention seems to function best when prompted by market forces/obvious need (Edison's light bulb; Tesla's alternating current) or when it is a spinoff from some other compelling goal. To date, "climate change" hasn't really generated that kind of compelling response.

[HoreTore]

Yes, when we need stuff, the market is best suited to give it to us.

Other issues, however, are best solved by society(via the government or idealists). The market can't give everyone health treatment. The market cannot educate the public. The market cannot give us justice or safety.

But to be honest, I'm not sure which category climate change falls under...

[Fragony]

Not every scientist is 100% sure that evolution is correct.

I still see no reason to teach it.

Not all schools teach that god exists, but all schools do teach that we have to be absolutely terrified of CO2. Lying about the fact that there is no consensus is just as bad as not teaching the evolution-theory, even worse in fact as the hoax has much more direct impact

[HoreTore]

but all schools do teach that we have to be absolutely terrified of CO2.

If you want to be taken seriously, Frags, I suggest that you quit the hyperbole.

Here are the goals from my curriculum (http://www.udir.no/grep/Lareplan/?laereplanid=1099072&visning=5&sortering=2&kmsid=1099082) that concerns climate change and such:


- Observe and give examples of how human activity has impacted on an area in nature, identify different interest groups views on the impact and suggest measures which can protect nature for future generations.


- Assess use and abuse of resources, the consequences that can have for the environment and society, and the conflicts that can lead to locally and globally.

- Tell about nature with emphasis on inner and outer forces on the earth, movement in the air, the water circuit, weather, climate and vegetation, and discuss relationships between nature and society.

Do note that "climate change" is never mentioned specifically, and these three goals are very broad. Oh, and this is for the 10th grade.

As I see it, I'm not allowed to give high marks on the first goal if the student is unable to discuss at least one argument in favour of climate change as well as at least one that opposes it.

[Fragony]

Me using hyperbole that's funny, I'm not the one saying billions will die because of mass starvation and war IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

I can't, been dead since 2000, the other hoax did it

[HoreTore]

Me using hyperbole that's funny, I'm not the one saying billions will die because of mass starvation and war IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

I can't, been dead since 2000, the other hoax did it

.....no comment on Norwegian schools not conforming to your description? None at all?

[Fragony]

I can read the question but I can't read the desired answer so no no comment

[InsaneApache]

As they say, follow the money....

What is the link between a beautiful stretch of north Devon countryside, the brother of Diana, Princess of Wales, and that ever more curious body, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? The starting point for teasing out this riddle is a hefty new report just published by the IPCC on renewable energy. This has engulfed the IPCC in controversy yet again, after a preview of the report made headlines by claiming that, within 40 years, nearly 80 per cent of the world's energy needs could be met from renewable sources, most notably through a massive expansion of wind and solar power.

What only came to light when the full report was published last week was the peculiar source of this extraordinarily ambitious claim. It was based solely on a paper co-authored last year by an employee of Greenpeace International and something called the European Renewable Energy Council. This Brussels-based body, heavily funded by the EU, lobbies the European Commission on behalf of all the main renewable industries, such as wind and solar. The chief author of the Greenpeace paper, Sven Teske, was also a lead author on Chapter 10 of the IPCC report, which means that the report's headline message came from a full-time environmental activist, supported by a lobby group representing those industries that stand most to benefit financially from its findings.

Not surprisingly, expert critics of the IPCC have been quick to point out how this seems to reinforce the revelations 18 months ago, which did more to discredit the UN body's authority than anything in its history. At the centre of those scandals was the discovery that the more alarming predictions made by the IPCC's major 2007 report – such as a claim that most of the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 – were not based on proper science at all. They were simply scare stories originating from environmentalist lobby groups, used in a way that broke all the IPCC's own rules, which insist that its reports should be based only on properly accredited scientific studies.

Adding to this was the unfavourable publicity also directed at that time at the IPCC's chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. Yet in the preface to this new report, he is given special thanks for all he did to bring it about. Not only that – he also wrote an introduction to the controversial Greenpeace paper on which its headline claim was based.

As the IPCC's supposedly impartial chairman, and arguably the world's most influential public official, Dr Pachauri – whose Delhi-based research institute is heavily involved in various renewable energy projects – has also written forewords to two earlier Greenpeace publications.

So preoccupied have the sceptics been by the questionable provenance of the IPCC's new report, however, that they have not yet focused on what is, arguably, an even greater scandal. This is the astonishingly one-sided nature of the rest of the report, which reads less like a scientific document and more like a propaganda puff for the world's renewable industries.

A long chapter on wind energy, for instance, brushes aside some of the more peripheral objections raised to wind turbines, such as that they kill vast numbers of birds and bats, or have a damaging effect on house prices. And in all its 108 pages, there is no real attempt to address the central objection to wind turbines, which is that they are a ludicrously inefficient and expensive way to produce electricity – so unreliable, due to the intermittency of the wind, that the derisory amount of power they produce can make no significant contribution to meeting the world's energy needs.

Nowhere does the report properly address the major defect of these turbines, that they only generate, on average, 25 per cent or less of their nominal capacity. The figures the report gives for this, in a brief passage that skirts round the issue, are absurdly exaggerated. It claims that US turbines achieve 30 per cent of their capacity, without pointing out that the output of all 12,000 turbines in America equates on average to no more than that of two large coal-fired power stations. And nowhere does the chapter mention the mind-boggling cost of these machines, which no one would dream of building without the aid of subsidies that in Britain amount to 100 per cent of the value of the electricity they produce (and 200 per cent for offshore turbines).

Step out of this foetid IPCC hothouse into the real world and consider what is going on at Fullabrook Down in north Devon, where they are constructing what will soon be the largest onshore wind factory in England. The developers boast of how the 22 giant 3MW turbines they are building on the hills between Barnstaple and Ilfracombe, at a cost of more than £60 million, will have the "capacity" to generate 66MW of electricity, and how they will contribute £100,000 a year to "community projects" to buy off the hostility of local residents.

In reality, this wind farm's output is not likely to average more than 16.5MW, or 25 per cent of its capacity (the average output of UK turbines last year was only 21 per cent), an amount so pitifully small that it represents barely 2 per cent of the output of a medium-sized gas-fired power station. Yet for this, the developers can hope to earn £13 million a year, of which £6.5 million will be subsidy and of which the £100,000 they hand back to the local community will represent well under 1 per cent.

Another of the scores of sites across Britain where wind farm plans are now arousing huge anger and unhappiness among locals is the Althorp estate in Northamptonshire, where Earl Spencer is hoping that a French company, EDF, will be allowed to spend £2.5 million to erect 13 2MW turbines, towering 385ft over the Vale of Avon Dassett. These will provide their owners with subsidies of around £650,000 a year, for producing a quantity of power so small that its fluctuating contribution to the grid will scarcely register. Compare this to the nearly 900MW output of the £400 million gas-fired power station recently opened near Plymouth and it can be seen that the capital cost of these wind farms, for the puny amount of electricity they produce, is around 10 times as much. The expense of the Welsh Assembly's £2 billion plan to build 800 turbines, up to 415ft high, across a vast stretch of mid-Wales, plus 100 miles of pylons to connect them to the grid, will be a staggering 15 times higher than would be needed to produce the same amount of power from gas, without subsidy.

These are the kind of hard facts that appear nowhere in the IPCC's latest propaganda exercise. Its only purpose is to provide politicians, such as our Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, with a piece of paper they can wave to claim that their dreams of covering the Earth with wind turbines have been fully vindicated by "the world's top climate scientists".

Our Government, supported by virtually all our politicians, hopes to see us spend £100 billion on wind turbines in the next nine years. Even if this was practically achievable, it would necessitate building a score of gas-fired power stations just to provide instant back-up for whenever the wind failed to blow at the correct speeds. These would have to be kept spinning all the time, wholly negating any theoretical reduction in Britain's emissions of CO2.

Truly, this infatuation with the chimera of wind power ranks alongside the creation of the collapsing euro as one of the supreme follies of our age. It is, of course, delightful that Dr Pachauri's latest effort should coincide with those warnings from an array of US scientists that the current dramatic decline in solar activity might herald the approach of a "mini-ice age". But as the great global warming scare continues to fade away, the real problem is that our politicians have so much collective ego invested in this delusion that, even when hell freezes over, they will still find it impossible to admit they got it wrong.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8584210/The-IPCC-declares-Greenpeace-in-our-time.html

[Fragony]

Do a little google for 'emmision rights', making people absolutely terrified of CO2 is big business. Mankind needs religion sadly, as a bishop told a Dutch landlord (real story) ' You keep them poor and I'll keep them stupid'

'But as the great global warming scare continues to fade away, the real problem is that our politicians have so much collective ego invested in this delusion that, even when hell freezes over, they will still find it impossible to admit they got it wrong.'

Meh when most people realise it's all a hoax said politicians have long be rewarded by the lobbyists

[Fragony]

Interesting interview with a serious scientist, probably his last one for obvious reason, but than again maybe not as he seems too established to be ridiculed by the green rapturists. That he calls himself a heretic is very telling

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/letters-to-a-heretic-an-email-conversation-with-climate-change-sceptic-professor-freeman-dyson-2224912.html

[Furunculus]

I note the comments have been closed.

"The scientists who handle these models point out that they can accurately match up the computer predictions to real climatic trends in the past, and that it is only when they add CO2 influences to the models that they can explain recent global warming."

What a condescending prat!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This is a very good interview and article. It's sad that someone with a sharp mind like FD has to resort to childish arguments to avoid answering straightforward questions. But he is 87 years old so perhaps his mind is going or gone. That's not ad hom, it's just what happens at that age. Be that a lesson to us all - speak/act while you're brain is still functioning properly as nature will take its course as you age.

I could be wrong that his mind is going. He could have had this flaw all his life. According to Wikipedia he is a "non-denominational Christian" and was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion in 2000. Neither of these things would I want on my epitaph.

Just about sums up the quality of the "consensus"

How dare a Christian call himself a man of science, or a man of science not agree with the consensus?

[Fragony]

Another setback for doomday-preachers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html

Not that it's going to stop them from repeating we are all going to diehieee IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT

[a completely inoffensive name]

Another setback for doomday-preachers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2010757/Shivering-Britain-Little-Ice-Age-way.html

Not that it's going to stop them from repeating we are all going to diehieee IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT

Lol, I am from America and even I know the daily mail is trash.

[Fragony]

Lol, I am from America and even I know the daily mail is trash.

They are more likely to print of course as they never believed in the great scare. Don't care who prints it

[Vladimir]

Lol, I am from America and even I know the daily mail is trash.

You mean thrash! like trash metal. :rockstar: Daily Mail is awesome!

[Furunculus]

Lol, I am from America and even I know the daily mail is trash.

does that change the fact that multiple studies from NASAA and elsewhere have found what *may* be the start of a new grand-minimum, which may result in us limeys skating across the Thames once more?

play the ball, not the man.

[Fragony]

play the man, not the ball.

Isn't it the other way around, just sayin' (unless you are Nigel de Jong)

[Furunculus]

Isn't it the other way around, just sayin' (unless you are Nigel de Jong)

lol, quite. you can tell i'm no football fan!

[Fragony]

Space is cool http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Not that it's going to stop the Green Khmer from lying about the climate but still, it's Nasa

[a completely inoffensive name]

does that change the fact that multiple studies from NASAA and elsewhere have found what *may* be the start of a new grand-minimum, which may result in us limeys skating across the Thames once more?

play the ball, not the man.

Link the actual studies, not unintelligible crap a reporter cranks out after skimming the abstract and extrapolating it.

EDIT: No one should trust any "science" section of any newspaper, no matter how reputable. They always get it wrong, they always exaggerate, they always give half truths. Take your time on google scholar.

[Xiahou]

It's linked (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf) right in the article.

[Fragony]

Link the actual studies, not unintelligible crap a reporter cranks out after skimming the abstract and extrapolating it.

EDIT: No one should trust any "science" section of any newspaper, no matter how reputable. They always get it wrong, they always exaggerate, they always give half truths. Take your time on google scholar.

Does peer-reviewed don't matter anymore? It doesn't, but still

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's linked (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf) right in the article.

What? I have looked the page like 10 times and I still don't see where they put the link. Oh well, thanks for it. I will read it and see it. From a slight glance it is only 10 pages with one page obviously being sources. So to me this already screams, that it isn't exactly the most extensive paper considering how long the IPCC reports are.

[Fragony]

What? I have looked the page like 10 times and I still don't see where they put the link. Oh well, thanks for it. I will read it and see it. From a slight glance it is only 10 pages with one page obviously being sources. So to me this already screams, that it isn't exactly the most extensive paper considering how long the IPCC reports are.

A page devoted to sources just tend to be just there, common practise and all that. That is cool because you get to see wether or not conclusions are based on a column in a hiking magazine

[Furunculus]

What? I have looked the page like 10 times and I still don't see where they put the link. Oh well, thanks for it. I will read it and see it. From a slight glance it is only 10 pages with one page obviously being sources. So to me this already screams, that it isn't exactly the most extensive paper considering how long the IPCC reports are.

let me get this straight; you doubt the veracity of brand new scientific research because it does not have as many pages as some vaguely related ten year old research?

that's genius!

[Adrian II]

That is cool because you get to see wether or not conclusions are based on a column in a hiking magazine

Ouch :laugh4:

AII

[a completely inoffensive name]

A page devoted to sources just tend to be just there, common practise and all that. That is cool because you get to see wether or not conclusions are based on a column in a hiking magazine

That seemed oddly specific, is there a paper that did that?


let me get this straight; you doubt the veracity of brand new scientific research because it does not have as many pages as some vaguely related ten year old research?

that's genius!

LOL yes by saying that it doesn't seem extensive on the first glace considering the subject means "I THINK THIS IS FALSE."

That strawman was almost a bit insulting.

If you admit it is brand new scientific research than you have already failed by waving it around as a smoking gun.

[CBR]

Hmm Spencer and NASA data...

Must be what these links are talking about?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/)http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/

(http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/)http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/


Looks like my cup of Confirmation bias has been refilled, so whatever.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That seemed oddly specific, is there a paper that did that?

Yep.

It was kinda long as well.

Take a guess.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hmm Spencer and NASA data...

Must be what these links are talking about?

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/

(http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/)http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/

(http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/just-put-the-model-down-roy/)http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/


Looks like my cup of Confirmation bias has been refilled, so whatever.

So my skepticism was correct?

That's genius! :laugh:


Yep.

It was kinda long as well.

Take a guess.

Seriously, the IPCC report?

[Papewaio]

So at least Roy Spencer is consistent:

He also states that cigarettes are not anywhere as near harmful as health experts state and is rolling in loads of ExxonMobil and Big Tobacco cash. :deal2::devil:

I'd give him my money until it hurts and then some.:dunce2:

[Fragony]

Seriously, the IPCC report?

Yes that one.

Glad to see you started taking the bloggosphere seriously as a source by the way

[Louis VI the Fat]

So at least Roy Spencer is consistent:

He also states that cigarettes are not anywhere as near harmful as health experts state and is rolling in loads of ExxonMobil and Big Tobacco cash. :deal2::devil:

I'd give him my money until it hurts and then some.:dunce2:And don't forget Intelligent Design. NASA has discovered that the scientists are lying alarmist atheists!!




Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[/URL]
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#Views_on_intelligent_design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#cite_note-TCS-24)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes that one.

Glad to see you started taking the bloggosphere seriously as a source by the way

What's with all the strawmen? Do you guys seriously think I am that dumb?

I am not taking the "bloggosphere" seriously as 100% truth. But nevertheless those blogs raised some doubt on the article (I forget who posted it) brought up. SO I said, oh my skepticism was right because you guys dismissed it as if I have been drinking cool-aid this entire time.

Jeeze, I come around and say I am shocked the IPCC report let a blunder that big happen and you decide to take another jab at me. I'm gonna grab my Ben and Jerry's and have a nice cry while watching The Notebook.

[Fragony]

We are not angry, just a little disappointed

[Koga No Goshi]

It's as though I've entered a time machine and gone back 4 years, Fragony still here fighting global warming. ;)

[Fragony]

It's as though I've entered a time machine and gone back 4 years, Fragony still here fighting global warming. ;)

How (have you been)

nice to see ya

[Koga No Goshi]

Been working a lot.

[Papewaio]

Hi Koga!

[Vladimir]

Hah (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930)!

I'm going to go burn some trees in celebration.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I TOLD YOU GLOBAL WARMING WAS REAL! NOW ALIENS WILL DESTROY US! YOU PEOPLE HAPPY?



Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists

Rising greenhouse emissions could tip off aliens that we are a rapidly expanding threat, warns a report


It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth's atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/nasa)-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University We wouldn't be in any of this mess if only all you pesky sceptics would read the serious, leftwing, enviromentalist press: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations.



Louis - So it wasn't a lame excuse for Jeff the mailman when Strike blamed 'some alien probe thingy that did ouch' for those suspicious scratch marks on his behind.

[Montmorency]

Humanity was heard to say at a press conference, "Bring it on."

https://i494.photobucket.com/albums/rr309/desertSypglass/duke_nukem_004.jpg

[Louis VI the Fat]

Forget about Men in Black. When those aliens come, I'm going to call you.

Whaddya charge for keeping them the heck away from my Texas' love interests from now on?



Louis - in a bid to keep what little of his dignity he's got left decides to not google for a 'Cowboys vs Aliens' picture.

[InsaneApache]

Good God.

[Papewaio]

Wouldn't all our radio and tv broadcasts have a more significant signal.

After all by their thinking aliens would have to investigate every Venusian planet... Might explain their preference for probing :)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Good God.

I believe that.

[Ironside]

Wouldn't all our radio and tv broadcasts have a more significant signal.

After all by their thinking aliens would have to investigate every Venusian planet... Might explain their preference for probing :)

I'm not sure. Those signals diminish quite rapidly, while you can detect the components of the atmosphere quite far away (it's the next (or two) generation(s) technique of detecting planets with oxygen atmospheres iirc). I'm guessing that the light signal doesn't scatter as much.

Anyway, unless they use bioweapons, wiping out humanity is probably going to do massive ecological damage and the nuclear arsenal is still nasty enough to do it by itself, so I think the odds are quite low.

[Fragony]

Haven't you seen 'The Day the Earth Stood Stll'. A big robot will arive, when it gets the go ahead it will break up in millions of nanobots. These nanobots form a swarm and destroy all human life without harming as much as a fly.

(If we do not act right now)

[Adrian II]

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University

More peer-reviewed genius. :coffeenews:

[Louis VI the Fat]

More peer-reviewed genius. :coffeenews:I wonder how much of this is on purpose. You know, to humourusly tackle all that 'Scientists of Penn State University say....', 'NASA scientist says...'


A whole lot of people have been employed by NASA over the years. Quite a few of them go on to make a living of as 'NASA scientist reveals that'. That there is no global warming, no evolution, that communism is a satanic plot against American children. And now, that aliens will destroy earth unless we tackle global warming.




Louis- ever since I was a small boy I have known, a deep feeling, like the intuition of the howling prairie wolf, that the aliens would select me out of all the people in my trailer park...

[Subotan]

"Climategate" conclusively proven to have been a fabrication (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html)


A couple of the report conclusions are worth pointing out:
We found no basis to conclude that the [Climategate] emails were evidence of research misconduct or that they pointed to such evidence.


That’s clear enough, I think. They also said:
There is no specific evidence that [Mann] falsified or fabricated any data and no evidence that his actions amounted to research misconduct.


A big claim by the deniers is that researchers were using "tricks" to falsify conclusions about global warming, but the NSF report is pretty clear that’s not true. The most damning thing the investigators could muster was that there was "some concern" over the statistical methods used, but that’s not scandalous at all; there’s always some argument in science over methodology. The vague language of the report there indicates to me this isn’t a big deal, or else they would’ve been specific. The big point is that the data were not faked.


What does this mean for global warming? A lot of these attacks can be traced back to the famous "hockey stick" diagram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy), showing how Earth’s temperatures have been increasing rapidly in recent times. This graph is what really clinches the idea of man-made global warming, and so has been the epicenter of the manufactroversy. The fact that Dr. Mann has been cleared again, and that his data are good, shows that this graph is even more solid (http://www.desmogblog.com/national-science-foundation-vindicates-michael-mann) — or at least is not as weak as so many would lead you to believe.

And what does this mean about "ClimateGate"? That’s clear enough: all the outrage, all the claims of fraud and fakery, were just — haha — hot air. (Groan)
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/08/24/case-closed-climategate-was-manufactured/


I would be feeling smug, except this is something which has been known for a long, long time and has already done tremendous amounts of damage to the scientific cause. The mass media won't publish this in any level of the coverage they provided to the initial allegations, as correcting when the media was wrong is borrrrrrrrrring. Instead, the doubts sown by the anti-science advocates and their apologists in politics and the media will tragically persist in many a mind for a long time to come.

However, I will feel smug if Delingpole ever has the balls to admit that he was wrong to trust the allegations, and truly wicked for promoting them as the truth. It's the very least he deserves.

[Furunculus]

CERN: 'Climate models will need to be substantially revised'

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/25/cern_cloud_cosmic_ray_first_results/


What does this mean for global warming?

"It is clear that the treatment of aerosol formation in climate models will need to be substantially revised, since all models assume that nucleation is caused by these vapours [sulphuric acid and ammonia] and water alone."

[Vladimir]

So I'm a little bored and read the Wiki article. The summary I got was that massive CO2 emissions saved us from another ice age and that left on their own, global temperatures would continue to cool for the next 4,000(!) years.

Isn't a glacier harder to farm than a desert?

[Furunculus]

Isn't a glacier harder to farm than a desert?

sadly yes, it'll wreck even a decent plough!

[CBR]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/08/the-cerncloud-results-are-surprisingly-interesting/


One would need to demonstrate:
… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.
Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been (see the figure).

http://www.realclimate.org/images/cr2011.jpg
Figure 2: Normalised changes in cosmic rays since 1953. There has not been a significant downward trend. The exceptional solar minimum in 2008-2010 stands out a little.
The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009) (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037946.shtml), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/4001/2011/acp-11-4001-2011.html)).

[Furunculus]

good read, cheers.

[Fragony]

I think we are finally getting at the bottom of this, thanks to Al Gore. If you aren't 100% sure we have to be absolutely terrified of CO2 you are really a racist. Must make sense somehow but I'm really bad at leftist logic. But then again that IPPC chief already compared sceptics with nazi's so it has to be true

[Subotan]

One wonders if Delingpole ever worked in Ibiza, given the amount of foam that froths out of the poor man's mouth:


So we see that in each case above [Gore and Krugman's comments about climate change deniers], the response of the left-liberal political/media establishment to a contentious subject in which it is losing the argument is not to fight back with better arguments but simply to close down the debate altogether with smears, lies and authoritarian bullying. Funnily enough, Stalin used a similar ploy against the scientists who disagreed with his pet genetics expert Lysenko. And the Nazis used the same technique against inconvenient Jewish physics when they wrote their pamphlet 100 Scientists Against Einstein. If this is where things are going then those of us, at least, who believe in frank debate, freedom of speech and empiricism should be very worried. We are entering dark times and worse, much worse, is still to come.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102483/climate-scepticism-is-the-new-racism-says-gore/

And the pot calls the eminent Dr. Kettle black. I still see no apologies for his reporting on "Climategate". I'm almost tempted to write him a letter.

[Fragony]

Muhaha leftmensch trying to hit where it hurts, implicitely admitting it's all ideology. Splendid

[Subotan]

Geertz immedaitely comes to mind:


It is one of the minor ironies of modern intellectual history that the term "ideology" has itself become thoroughly ideologized....Almost universally now the familiar parodic paradigm applies: "I have a social philosophy; you have political opinions; he has an ideology."

[Furunculus]

One wonders if Delingpole ever worked in Ibiza, given the amount of foam that froths out of the poor man's mouth:



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100102483/climate-scepticism-is-the-new-racism-says-gore/

And the pot calls the eminent Dr. Kettle black. I still see no apologies for his reporting on "Climategate". I'm almost tempted to write him a letter.

i have some sympathy with his rejection of the the gore contention that i should be considered akin to a racist for holding to what i consider rational viewpoints.

[InsaneApache]

Oh dear....


Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.


Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: xxxx@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Oh dear oh dear...

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming

[Fragony]

Oh lollipop. Not that it is going to convince people who scream we should be absolutely terrified of capitalism CO2 the stakes are too high.

KNOW that we are all going to die

IF WE DO NOT ACT RIGHT NOW

[a completely inoffensive name]

A. You measure the average temperature of the earth with sensors and satellites. Lots of them. And we have lots of both. All over the world.
B. This guy is self contradicting. He is confident to say, "which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable,"

Then in the same article linked is quoted to have said, "We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is."

This is a joke. And I always laugh when I come in here and see the circlejerk when you get to pull out one dissenter every 2 months or so and get to claim how much of a fool the 98% consensus is among scientists.

Obviously every scientist is paid off by the gutmensch and this mysterious force paying them off is bigger and more powerful than the oil and gas companies who regularly supply politicians with hundreds of thousands of dollars while this mysterious, worldwide "green conspiracy" seems to have dropped the ball on paying off the people who actually make policies, considering that only one GOP candidate was willing to say that global warming is man made.

And .8 of a degree Celcius is actually a big deal on a global scale. It just shows how small minded those are who believe the Earth's ecosystem is some big sturdy force of nature that can't be so tainted by us humans, only the sun can influence something like the earth. Rocks that are just 10-15km wide can and have helped an extermination of the entire planet but billions of tons of carbon dioxide is nothing right?

[InsaneApache]

I've said it before but it's worth repeating.

Science is never settled. It changes and evolves all the time. Theories are presented and tested, sometimes to destruction but it is never settled.

That's for religion.

[Fragony]

A. You measure the average temperature of the earth with sensors and satellites. Lots of them. And we have lots of both. All over the world.
B. This guy is self contradicting. He is confident to say, "which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable,"

Then in the same article linked is quoted to have said, "We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is."

This is a joke. And I always laugh when I come in here and see the circlejerk when you get to pull out one dissenter every 2 months or so and get to claim how much of a fool the 98% consensus is among scientists.

Obviously every scientist is paid off by the gutmensch and this mysterious force paying them off is bigger and more powerful than the oil and gas companies who regularly supply politicians with hundreds of thousands of dollars while this mysterious, worldwide "green conspiracy" seems to have dropped the ball on paying off the people who actually make policies, considering that only one GOP candidate was willing to say that global warming is man made.

And .8 of a degree Celcius is actually a big deal on a global scale. It just shows how small minded those are who believe the Earth's ecosystem is some big sturdy force of nature that can't be so tainted by us humans, only the sun can influence something like the earth. Rocks that are just 10-15km wide can and have helped an extermination of the entire planet but billions of tons of carbon dioxide is nothing right?

Sattelites are awesome. But you still can't just decide that the earth is warming up. It has to be true otherwise it is not real. You should be happy really, as there will be no apocalypse. There will be no mass starvations, nor will global warming plunge us into WW3. If we do not act right now.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I've said it before but it's worth repeating.

Science is never settled. It changes and evolves all the time. Theories are presented and tested, sometimes to destruction but it is never settled.

That's for religion.

Quite right. That's why science works on the basis of consensus. When a large proportion of scientists in a field have tested and agreed on a hypothesis, that forms the basis of the consensus interpretation upon which further work and decisions are based. We do not through out the entire consensus because one or two voices of dissent appear until those dissenters bring enough solid evidence to over-turn the prevailing consensus and develop a new one.

Most scientists in the field hold a consensus that the theory of evolution is correct. A small percentage think that intelligent design is the explanation for biodiversity. Society proceeds on the basis of the consensus.

Most scientists in the field hold a consensus that electricity can be used to power electronic devices. A few think that tiny leprechauns power computers by pedalling hard on minute bicycles. Society proceeds on the basis of the consensus.

Most scientists in the field consider that anthropogenic climate change is a valid hypothesis with substantial evidence. A small percentage think that the dinosaurs did it. Society follows the oil money.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Most scientists in the field consider that anthropogenic climate change is a valid hypothesis with substantial evidence. A small percentage think that the dinosaurs did it. Society follows the oil money.

True, but on the other side you have to admit that these stories we are hearing now represent the potential unravelling of the consensus. Particularly interesting is the number of physicists who are dissenting, because they say the models are not reliable.

[CBR]

So a guy who is into solid state physics is now an expert in climatology and we are back to the basics of measuring temperature. Gee and here I thought temperature was increasing but that it was all natural. Why can't they not settle on the deniance because I'm confused.

[Fragony]

So a guy who is into solid state physics is now an expert in climatology and we are back to the basics of measuring temperature. Gee and here I thought temperature was increasing but that it was all natural. Why can't they not settle on the deniance because I'm confused.

Why don't you check the background of the knowologues behind the great scare, you will see that only a handful are from this field. The rise in global temperature, 0.2 degrees celcius in a century. How are Danish lakes doing by the way, are they still all completely dead because of acid rain? They never were completely dead of course, as acid rain also never existed, just like there is no reason to be absolutely terrified of CO2

[Fragony]

A serious scientist explains;

CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It?s OK to enter ?the highly political arena of the climate change debate? provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark?s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.andThe once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results

[CBR]

Yes the effects of cutting down SO2 emissions by 75% or more compared to 1980 has had no effect because there was no problem to begin with...Right

I thought I posted a graph of solar activity that shows that cosmic rays cannot be the cause, oh yeah I did in post #145. So although it still not entirely known how much cosmic rays really mean for cloud cover, it cannot explain the increase in temperature as the level of cosmic rays has stayed constant overall.

[Furunculus]

I thought I posted a graph of solar activity that shows that cosmic rays cannot be the cause, oh yeah I did in post #145.

That is a bold statement to make with so much certainty, and i certainly do not accept it, particularly given the recent results from CERN.

[CBR]

That is a bold statement to make with so much certainty, and i certainly do not accept it, particularly given the recent results from CERN.
Unless someone can come up with something else then that is what we have. In what way does the CERN results make it unacceptable?

[Fragony]

Yes the effects of cutting down SO2 emissions by 75% or more compared to 1980 has had no effect because there was no problem to begin with...Right

I thought I posted a graph of solar activity that shows that cosmic rays cannot be the cause, oh yeah I did in post #145. So although it still not entirely known how much cosmic rays really mean for cloud cover, it cannot explain the increase in temperature as the level of cosmic rays has stayed constant overall.

The effects of Denmark, even smaller than the Netherlands. Russia and China didn't change all that much, where is acid rain.

[CBR]

The effects of Denmark, even smaller than the Netherlands. Russia and China didn't change all that much, where is acid rain.
The effects of acid rain has been drastically reduced because countries has lowered their emissions a lot. I can find statistics for each country on how much it has been lowered.

Are you seriously asking if acid rain never happened? It is a well established phenomenon and the term acid rain was coined by a Robert Smith in 1872 in a report detailing the effects industry had on rain in Manchester.

It is obviously not something that hits each country in the same way as it depends on wind, how much rain etc. Based on graphics like this and others the Netherlands did not seem to be hit by it much http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/acid_rain_in_europe

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The effects of acid rain has been drastically reduced because countries has lowered their emissions a lot. I can find statistics for each country on how much it has been lowered.

Are you seriously asking if acid rain never happened? It is a well established phenomenon and the term acid rain was coined by a Robert Smith in 1872 in a report detailing the effects industry had on rain in Manchester.

It is obviously not something that hits each country in the same way as it depends on wind, how much rain etc. Based on graphics like this and others the Netherlands did not seem to be hit by it much http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/acid_rain_in_europe

Absolutely, one only has to look at the medieval statues that stood for hundreds of years and now look half melted to see acid rain at work. At the same time, we don't get it any more - the incurrable cancer turned out to be a minor thush infection.

With Global Warning I am not saying it isn't happening, but I no longer trust the scientists, they are demonstrably dishonest, and I am not encouraged by the number of eminant physicists and mathematicians who are increasingly saying that their computor models are not reliable and therefore the conclusions drawn are not safe. That is not to say I am against environmentalism, I am in favour of it - we should leave as smaller footprints on the ground we walk as possible. I don't need apocalyptic threat to encourage me to use paper bags and insulate my home.

Global Warming is becoming a religion, or at least a belief system - it uses fear to change people's behaviour and ostracises those who refuse to be cowed.

It also does more harm than good in some ways, the focus on CO2 has lead to such environmentally negative fads as flourecent "energy saving" light bulbs in our homes.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The effects of Denmark, even smaller than the Netherlands. Russia and China didn't change all that much, where is acid rain.

Tell that to the municipality of Den Bosch. I can just see you telling them they've spend tons of money repairing the damage done by something that does not exist to their landmark bell tower...

[a completely inoffensive name]

It also does more harm than good in some ways, the focus on CO2 has lead to such environmentally negative fads as flourecent "energy saving" light bulbs in our homes.

Florescent light bulbs are actually environmentally positive. It is much more efficient than incandescent to the point where the amount of mercury that is expelled from a coal plant into the air is greater when powering an incandescent over its lifetime as compared to the amount of mercury the same coal plant expels during the lifetime of a florescent light bulb (which is longer by the way) plus the amount of mercury used to make the florescent.

[CBR]

At the same time, we don't get it any more - the incurrable cancer turned out to be a minor thush infection.
I don't recall anyone using hyperbole like "incurable cancer" for acid rain. It was a serious issue and humanity took action and reduced the problem.


...but I no longer trust the scientists, they are demonstrably dishonest,
Who are "they" and why do you lump all scientists together as one? Does that include the scientists that don't believe in it?


...and I am not encouraged by the number of eminant physicists and mathematicians who are increasingly saying that their computor models are not reliable and therefore the conclusions drawn are not safe.
That sounds interesting, I like a "number" of examples please.

[InsaneApache]

Florescent light bulbs are actually environmentally positive.

No they're not. They contain mercury.

As you stated. That's good thing then?

[Montmorency]

But ACIN just countered that.

[Papewaio]

I don't think the Noble prize winners main objection was that global warming was occuring. It seems to me that he wasn't impressed by the amount ie statistically significant (0.8K out of 288K), that global warming might be actually a good thing, but most importantly as a scientist he would object to the word: "incontrovertible".

Science is debate, it is reason, it is never absolute. What he and I object to is making science a religion and group thunk (not think, "just dah like I thunk about it, and my boss told me it was so so it is").

Science needs debate and dissentors. Models are never 100% accurate, thats because in science no theory including gravity is 100% certain. What we are looking at is refining the solutions and the attitude in which we approach them.

Most of all when someone says they have incontrovertible or absolute proof they are NOT SCIENTISTS and you should back slowly away from them. They might as well be Kool Aid Zombie Vegans for all the good they can do.

[Fragony]

Tell that to the municipality of Den Bosch. I can just see you telling them they've spend tons of money repairing the damage done by something that does not exist to their landmark bell tower...

Will do when there. Rain is acid by nature, it's just rain. No dying trees. No dead lakes in Scandinavia. No mass starvations because of inedible crops. No WW3. And it's 2011 and we are all dead since 2000. And we really didn't act right now. Hoax. Like global warming. No reason to be absolutely terrified of rain you just get wet.

[Populus Romanus]

Will do when there. Rain is acid by nature, it's just rain. No dying trees. No dead lakes in Scandinavia. No mass starvations because of inedible crops. No WW3. And it's 2011 and we are all dead since 2000. And we really didn't act right now. Hoax. Like global warming. No reason to be absolutely terrified of rain you just get wet.Happy 20000th post Fragony!

[Fragony]

Happy 20000th post Fragony!

MUHA thx, and not a single one is spam, really

[Tellos Athenaios]

Will do when there. Rain is acid by nature, it's just rain. No dying trees. No dead lakes in Scandinavia. No mass starvations because of inedible crops. No WW3. And it's 2011 and we are all dead since 2000. And we really didn't act right now. Hoax. Like global warming. No reason to be absolutely terrified of rain you just get wet.

Rain is acidic by nature, yes. But unlike acid rain, healthy showers don't cause the limestone to be coated with calciumsulphate.... Anyway, you might want to look up the Peel experiments which consisted of building a roof over a forest floor and promptly seeing the biodiversity of the forest floor rise up sharply: reason (different) acid rain. That one is caused primarily by nitric acid.

[CBR]

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/activities/pdf/case_study1.pdf from 2004

p7

Efforts to reduce emissions that contribute to acidification have achieved significant reductions in both
regions, particularly for SO2. Since 1980, the EU-15 and US have reduced SO2 emissions by 77,6 and
39,1 percent, respectively.

So nations have been acting. How is this supposed to be a hoax and thereby one huge and elaborate conspiracy that has lasted for many decades and even involved nations behind the Iron Curtain. Even modern day China is having issues with it.

[Fragony]

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/activities/pdf/case_study1.pdf from 2004

p7

So nations have been acting. How is this supposed to be a hoax and thereby one huge and elaborate conspiracy that has lasted for many decades and even involved nations behind the Iron Curtain. Even modern day China is having issues with it.

I am sure they did, but the rain that falls in Europe didn't vapourise here. Mostly comes from the sea.

[CBR]

I am sure they did, but the rain that falls in Europe didn't vapourise here. Mostly comes from the sea.
And? The SO2 in the atmosphere reacts with it and becomes a weak acid.

[Fragony]

And? The SO2 in the atmosphere reacts with it and becomes a weak acid.

No it doesn't, that's a myth, it can pull some smogg like in 19th century London, acid rain simply doesn't exist. Like global warming It's pretty simple, energy companies now have to pay for emission rights, costs being forwarded to the customer, it's just covert taxation.

[Ironside]

No it doesn't, that's a myth, it can pull some smogg like in 19th century London, acid rain simply doesn't exist. Like global warming It's pretty simple, energy companies now have to pay for emission rights, costs being forwarded to the customer, it's just covert taxation.

You mean to perpetuate the myth, they falsified data, damaged/wiped out the roach population in 87% of the lakes in the worst affected areas (other fishes were less affected) and spent tons of money on lime treatment of lakes? I'm talking about the Swedish lakes here obviously.

Did they kill more than 4000 people in 1952 in Lonodn to get the Clean Air Act as well?

[Ironside]

Bleh double post.

[Tellos Athenaios]

No it doesn't, that's a myth, it can pull some smogg like in 19th century London, acid rain simply doesn't exist. Like global warming It's pretty simple, energy companies now have to pay for emission rights, costs being forwarded to the customer, it's just covert taxation.

I'll see your post and raise your a bottle of Château Migraine.

[CBR]

No it doesn't, that's a myth, it can pull some smogg like in 19th century London, acid rain simply doesn't exist. Like global warming It's pretty simple, energy companies now have to pay for emission rights, costs being forwarded to the customer, it's just covert taxation.
No, you need it to be a myth so you can draw a direct line to global warming being a myth too. Strikes me as no different than fundamentalists who need their religious texts to be 100% true. One conspiracy theory used to explain another and then who needs facts when one already has seen the light!

[Fragony]

You mean to perpetuate the myth, they falsified data, damaged/wiped out the roach population in 87% of the lakes in the worst affected areas (other fishes were less affected) and spent tons of money on lime treatment of lakes? I'm talking about the Swedish lakes here obviously.

Did they kill more than 4000 people in 1952 in Lonodn to get the Clean Air Act as well?

Just because they aren' caught doesn't mean they are gone, you jusy don't go after them. Like various planes like various altitudes fish like various depths, ask any sportfisher. How did they come back by the way

[Fragony]

I'll see your post and raise your a bottle of Château Migraine.

Seek out the emmision right scheme if headaches are your thing, not just a little bit of money. Billions. Might even set ACIN straight on why oil company's actually benefit from this

[Tellos Athenaios]

Seek out the emmision right scheme if headaches are your thing, not just a little bit of money. Billions. Might even set ACIN straight on why oil company's actually benefit from this

But what has that to do with the basic 2H2O + 2SO2 + O2 -> 2H2SO4 ? That reaction is the very reason why such wine has that nickname. It's a potent antioxidant.

[Fragony]

But what has that to do with the basic 2H2O + 2SO2 + O2 -> 2H2SO4 ? That reaction is the very reason why such wine has that nickname. It's a potent antioxidant.

Has to do with the global warming hoax, it's all about emmision-rights. Making people absolutely terrified of CO2 is very lucrative for just about everybody, but not for us we get the bill

[Ironside]

Just because they aren' caught doesn't mean they are gone, you jusy don't go after them. Like various planes like various altitudes fish like various depths, ask any sportfisher. How did they come back by the way

Yes, so when the sportfishers discovered that the lake acidation killed off their fishes, they started to complain. Or did you miss the part of them being one of the main driving forces of the lime treatment of lakes?


How did they come back by the way

Reestablishment after lime treatment back to more normal pH levels is done by either improving the water ways (like bypassing water works or simular) so fish can return by itself or by pure replantation.

And for a general comment. Do you know what the plants do nowadays with the sulphur dioxide (gotten by burning anything with sulphur in it)? Mostly they make it into sulphuric acid and sell it (as a net loss, sulphuric acid is cheap). That part and that that pure sulphur is pretty rare, should give a hint about how hard it is to get something else than sulphuric acid from sulphur. Ergo, the acid those plants produce today would been relased into the atmosphere before the regulations. And since it is thousands of tons of stuff that acts like this in concentrated form. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddZ5ftQb0Q) Basic chemistry is a hoax I tell you.

Yes, I'm aware that it's the wrong acid. Concentrated sulphuric acid behaves like this, but that's because it's also dehydrating in it's strongest form. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqFj8xuaH7M&feature=related)


And who would be the profiting part of this? If you state something like emmision-rights, then show the profit trail. It should be huge fines on those who fail the SO2 regulations.

[Fragony]

You can find it all on climategate, don't bother posting blogs as people keep asking MSM links to back it up, I can't win that fight

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Florescent light bulbs are actually environmentally positive. It is much more efficient than incandescent to the point where the amount of mercury that is expelled from a coal plant into the air is greater when powering an incandescent over its lifetime as compared to the amount of mercury the same coal plant expels during the lifetime of a florescent light bulb (which is longer by the way) plus the amount of mercury used to make the florescent.


But ACIN just countered that.

No he didn't, because you don't have to use coal plants to produce electricity, also you should look into the processes used to produce the bulbs, not just the amount of Mercury.

A little Mercury as aby-product is one thing, concentrating and refining it, and the associated processes are something else. The same with rechargable batteries, as well.

You want to reduce humanity's impact? Cut the global population, by about half. Job done.

We need to face up to reality here, technology helped create the environmental problem, using more complex technology which uses more heavy metals is not going to fix it. In the same vein, Nuclear Energy will not solve the energy crisis, using less energy will.

[Subotan]

You can find it all on climategate, don't bother posting blogs as people keep asking MSM links to back it up, I can't win that fight

Your continued use of "climategate" weakens your credibility and argument, Fragony. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-22/climate-change-scientist-cleared-in-u-s-data-altering-inquiry.html)

[Furunculus]

With Global Warning I am not saying it isn't happening, ......... , and I am not encouraged by the number of eminant physicists and mathematicians who are increasingly saying that their computor models are not reliable and therefore the conclusions drawn are not safe. That is not to say I am against environmentalism, I am in favour of it - we should leave as smaller footprints on the ground we walk as possible. I don't need apocalyptic threat to encourage me to use paper bags and insulate my home.

Global Warming is becoming a religion, or at least a belief system - it uses fear to change people's behaviour and ostracises those who refuse to be cowed.

Entirely agreed, and a wholly rational position to adopt.

[Tellos Athenaios]

And for a general comment. Do you know what the plants do nowadays with the sulphur dioxide (gotten by burning anything with sulphur in it)? Mostly they make it into sulphuric acid and sell it (as a net loss, sulphuric acid is cheap). That part and that that pure sulphur is pretty rare, should give a hint about how hard it is to get something else than sulphuric acid from sulphur. Ergo, the acid those plants produce today would been relased into the atmosphere before the regulations. And since it is thousands of tons of stuff that acts like this in concentrated form. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NddZ5ftQb0Q) Basic chemistry is a hoax I tell you.

Another common practice is installing calcium filters and sell used filters as gypsum.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No he didn't, because you don't have to use coal plants to produce electricity, A little Mercury as aby-product is one thing, concentrating and refining it, and the associated processes are something else. The same with rechargable batteries, as well.
The greater efficiency gives a greater benefit in the reduction of nuclear waste that lasts 10,000+ years than the impact of the making of the bulb.
The greater efficiency gives a greater benefit in the reduction of greenhouse gases from natural gas plants than the impact of the making of the bulb.
The greater efficiency gives a greater benefit in the preservation of reservoirs used by hydroelectric dams (because less water is needed to generate the electricity to operate the bulb) than the impact of the making of the bulb.

Incandescent bulbs get at most 3% efficiency while florescent are anywhere from 8-11.45% efficient. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Lighting_efficiency) That is a big difference, which does not even include the fact that florescent last much longer, which increases the efficiency benefits of the florescent bulb. When you are talking about the typical house and the energy used for lighting, it really is much more of an environmental benefit to use some something around 3-4 times more efficient that last at least 10 to 20 times longer (which means less​ florescent bulbs have to be made compared to incandescent to fill the demand.) despite the fact that there is 5mg or so of mercury within the product.



also you should look into the processes used to produce the bulbs, not just the amount of Mercury.
Maybe you should post some links?



A little Mercury as aby-product is one thing, concentrating and refining it, and the associated processes are something else. The same with rechargable batteries, as well.
Pray tell, why should we stick to the regular disposable batteries that currently leach acid into the ground instead of using a product that can replace an entire 20-pack of disposable batteries.



You want to reduce humanity's impact? Cut the global population, by about half. Job done.
And this is the "freedom lovers" counter to the "environmental fascists"!?!?!

Get the government off our backs with these regulations and just kill 3.25 billion people. Who should we kill Phillip, considering that the vast majority of the Earth's resources are being consumed by the West. Do you advocating killing off those that actually use all the resources (us)? In that case, why don't you set the example with yourself.

Oh but I know, your idea is much more "humane". You are not talking about killing anyone, just reduce the birth rate. In which case the West is exempt since the West has had an internal population rate less than the replenish rate with immigrants filling up the gap. So now we, the West in order to save the planet must tell those Africans, Chinese and Indians that they must take these pills and stop having sex and do as we say in order to save the planet. Which would work, if they were the ones actually consuming the most...



We need to face up to reality here, technology helped create the environmental problem, using more complex technology which uses more heavy metals is not going to fix it. In the same vein, Nuclear Energy will not solve the energy crisis, using less energy will.

So in other words, we need to be more efficient with our energy?

[classical_hero]

A. You measure the average temperature of the earth with sensors and satellites. Lots of them. And we have lots of both. All over the world.
B. This guy is self contradicting. He is confident to say, "which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable,"

Then in the same article linked is quoted to have said, "We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is."

This is a joke. And I always laugh when I come in here and see the circlejerk when you get to pull out one dissenter every 2 months or so and get to claim how much of a fool the 98% consensus is among scientists.

Obviously every scientist is paid off by the gutmensch and this mysterious force paying them off is bigger and more powerful than the oil and gas companies who regularly supply politicians with hundreds of thousands of dollars while this mysterious, worldwide "green conspiracy" seems to have dropped the ball on paying off the people who actually make policies, considering that only one GOP candidate was willing to say that global warming is man made.

And .8 of a degree Celcius is actually a big deal on a global scale. It just shows how small minded those are who believe the Earth's ecosystem is some big sturdy force of nature that can't be so tainted by us humans, only the sun can influence something like the earth. Rocks that are just 10-15km wide can and have helped an extermination of the entire planet but billions of tons of carbon dioxide is nothing right?So consensus makes the science right? DO you realise how laughable that statement is? Some of the best science we have seen is all about challenging the status quo. It does not make it right if the majority agrees, since plenty of things in the past have been overturned, It was once believed that stress and other things cause ulcers. It was one scientific fact that blacks were less evolved than whites. It was once scientific fact that the sun revolves around the earth.

Have a read of this. http://www.osta.com/gw/GWanalysis.htm

1.0 Has there been a GW trend in the recent past? Yes, a warming trend appears to have occurred over the last 130 years or so, from about 1880 AD on. The increase in average global temperature over this period appears to have been about 0.7 degrees Centigrade. Not all scientists agree on the magnitude of the increase in average global temperature, nor do they agree on the magnitude or direction of the change in average temperature predicted for the 21st century. Here are the highlights of my findings on why there are still differences of scientific opinion on this:


The temperature measurements used by the IPCC have been largely based on temperature gauges located on land.
Most temperature gauges were located in the northern hemisphere.
The predominance of temperature gauges in urban areas has biased average worldwide temperatures higher than they actually were.
Temperature measurements by satellite do not agree with those taken by temperature measurements taken by temperature gauges on land.
Global data from satellites does not show a GW trend since 2001, even though atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing.
Satellite temperature measurements were initially not considered by the IPCC.
The U.S average temperature has trended upward at about 0.5 degrees C per century over the last 130 years or so. This has included both GW and GC periods, each lasting approximately 30 years.
The earth has experienced GW and GC periods in the last few thousand years.
GW did occur in a medieval warm period from about 800 to 1200 AD, a period during which temperatures were higher than they are today.
A little ice age occurred from about 1300 to 1880 AD.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by about 30% since 1880.
The amount of methane in the atmosphere has also increased in this period.
Using CO2 “equivalency units” all GH gases have increased by about 60% in the period since 1880.
IPCC predicts a warming of 0.2 degrees centigrade per decade for the next two decades based on its climate models. However, this assumes that GW increases will continue near current rates and that global cooling (GC) will not occur.
There is no scientific consensus on the magnitude of temperature rise dependence on an increase in GH gases.
We are now (2008) apparently entering a GC cycle that is expected to last for 15 to 25 years, based on Dilley’s gravitational models [see below.]
The Monckton report indicates that even though CO2 concentration is increasing, the average global temperature is not increasing proportionally.
IPCC’s 4th assessment report published in 2007 has lowered the projections for the GW temperature increase and sea level rise of the earlier IPCC reports.


IPCC’s projection for GW in the future is based on its climate models and assumes that the GW trend of the last 25 to 30 years will continue. The IPCC projection is at variance with projections made by the NIPCC, Easterbrook, Dilley [see below], and others.
2.0 Is GW due to anthropogenic causes, e.g. CO2? One of the key questions in the GW discussion is that of the cause of GW. It is agreed that the existence of GH gases in the atmosphere has some impact on the average global temperature. But the overriding question is – is GW anthropogenic (caused by man) or is GW controlled by natural causes? Is and will GW be harmful? Here are the highlights of my findings on this question:


The “general consensus” is that the production of CO2 by humans burning fossil fuel is the main cause for the earth’s current (the last ~150 years) GW.
IPCC considers the following GH gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride.
IPCC does not consider water vapor to be a GH gas, but the NIPCC report does.
There is a disagreement among climate scientists over whether water vapor should be a dependent variable or an independent variable in climate models.
NIPCC has shown that the distribution of water vapor in the atmosphere can produce strong negative feedback effects on global temperature.
Water vapor in the atmosphere holds 93 times more atmospheric heat than the CO2 does.
IPCC does admit that water vapor and cloud cover are sources of uncertainty in the impact on climate change.
There are so many sources and sinks of CO2 that it is difficult to determine with any accuracy how much of the atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic GH emissions.
Many climatologists consider that GH gases are comprised of a) 95% water vapor, b) 4.7% ocean biologic, volcanos, plant/animal activity, and c) 0.3% human additions such as CO2.
The IPCC climate model considers CO2 to be the major driver of climate change, but it does not consider solar irradiation as a significant cause of climate change.
Studies by Arthur Robinson, et. al. have shown that computer model uncertainties in ocean surface flux, north-south heat flux by motions, humidity and clouds are far greater than any CO2 effects [see below.]
Most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is produced by natural, not manmade, causes.
CO2 in the atmosphere has increased during most of the 20th century at a fairly constant rate. However, we had a period of GC from 1940 to 1975 (even while CO2 concentrations increased) as well as a GW period from 1975 to the early part of this century.
High concentrations of CO2 have been detected in the distant past without any apparent ill effects. This did not have an anthropogenic cause.
In the past CO2 cycles have always happened in response to natural temperature cycles, even when man was not a factor in producing CO2.
Global temperatures rose for a hundred years (~ 0.5 degrees C) before significant CO2 use by humans. There has been a steady increase in the use of CO2 by humans over the last 150 years, time that included warming periods (e.g. 1910-1940, 1972-2000) as well as a significant cooling period (e.g. 1940-1972).
World glaciers have been retreating at a fairly steady rate for the past 200 years, well before the significant increased use of hydrocarbons by man.
There has been a 7 inches per century sea level rise over the last 150 years, starting well before the significant increase in use of hydrocarbons by man.
Past IPCC climate models based on anthropogenic causes for GW have not done a good job of predicting global temperatures.


The case made by the IPCC that GW is largely due to anthropogenic causes does not have wide support outside of the IPCC committee. It does not appear that human hydrocarbon use is causing significant increasing global termperatures.
3.0 Is GW due to natural causes? A number of independent studies by climate scientists have shown that GW is due to natural causes. Climatologists have identified at least the following natural causes – variations in solar output, variations in the earth’s orbital characteristics and tilt, volcanic eruptions, atmosphere/ocean heat exchange, and the moon’s gravitational cycles. Here are the highlights of some of these studies. The details of these studies can be found in the references listed at the end of this report.
1. The NIPCC report has concluded that climate change (GW and GC) may best be explained by natural causes due to the complex interactions between the atmosphere and oceans, and perhaps stimulated by variations of solar irradiation.
2. NIPCC has determined that internal oscillations such as North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) play a major role in climate change. These oscillations are identified as internal oscillations of the atmosphere-ocean system by the IPCC.
3. The orbital influences on climate are well documented and widely accepted, but apparently not considered by the IPCC.
4. The sun has been shown to be a much more important climate driver than the concentration of atmospheric CO2.
5. Studies by Baliunas and Jastrow, and Friis-Christensen and Lassen, have shown that solar activity indicates a strong correlation with global temperatures. The solar activity includes sunspot cycle length, changes of solar ultraviolet or of the solar wind and its magnetic effect on cosmic rays and thus on cloud coverage.
6. Some solar physicists have suggested that the sun could have caused more than two thirds of observed GW in the past.
7. Solar activity is expected to decline for the next 50 years, resulting in GC.
8. A study by Easterbrook in 2008 has shown a strong correlation between the Glacial Decadal Oscillation (GDO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the warming and cooling of the Pacific Ocean, and global temperature records. In a similar manner the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) shows that we are entering a cooling period. These correlations are unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
9. Studies have shown a connection between PDO and cloud variations.
10. Easterbrook’s climate model matches the alternate 27-year warming/cooling cycles since about 1470, and predicted the cooling cycle that we are now entering. The IPCC climate model predicted increasing temperatures looking forward in time.
11. Easterbrook’s climate model indicates that global climate changes correlate well with a) changes in solar irradiance, b) number of sunspots and sunspot cycle length, and c) production of BE10 and C14 in the atmosphere from radiation.
12. According to Easterbrook’s studies, there appears to be “no correlation between CO2 and GW in the past. Half of the warming in the past century occurred before CO2 began to rise sharply. For 30 years after CO2 began to soar, GC occurred, rather than GW. Of the 25 past periods of GW, only the last one (the past 30 years) corresponds to rising CO2. 96% of GW periods in the past 500 years have no correlation with CO2.”
13. Meteorologist Dilley has determined that there is a very significant link between GW and the moon’s recurring gravitational cycles. They also apparently explain the cooling cycle that we are now entering.
14. Dilley has identified the gravitational cycles as the Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) for Climate.
15. Dilley has also determined that the moon’s natural cycles explain the 50% increase in CO2 seen in the last 150 years, as well as over the past several thousands f years.
16. Dilley has determined that the magnitude of the current GW/CO2 cycle is due to the fact that the earth is presently at the peak of seven Primary Forcing Mechanism (PFM) cycles (caused by the moon’s gravitational cycles), and not due to man-made CO2 emissions since the mid 19th century.
17. Dilley’s model has about a 90% correlation with the average temperature data.
18. The “effect of sun irradiation on the ocean” model has about a 70% correlation with the average temperature data.
19. The assumption of GW caused by man-made CO2 has only about a 25% correlation with the average temperature data.

We must remember that warming does not tell us the cause of the warming, and that correlation does not necessarily indicate causation. However, we should pay attention to strong correlations that agree with postulated climate models. The natural causes of GW postulated by climate scientists need to be considered by the IPCC.
4.0 Do we need to do something about GW immediately? The science behind GW and GC cycles is still in a state of flux. The debate is not settled. Thus it is too early to recommend a “solution” to address the driving functions behind climate changes. Here are some reasons why the science is not yet considered settled and why a solution to the perceived GW problem should not be implemented hastily:


There is nothing unusual about the recent warming period when compared with historical periods of warming. GW and GC periods have occurred throughout the last few thousands of years with more extreme temperature changes than we have measured today.
The last GC period ending in the 1970’s resulted in a GC scare.
The IPCC study involved 52 scientists, not all of them climate scientists. The final IPCC reports were written by consensus among UN policy makers from many different countries, sometimes publishing results that were not approved by the IPCC scientists involved in the climate studies.
The NIPCC report expresses significant variances from the IPCC report.
More than 700 international scientists have expressed dissent in the U.S. Senate Minority Report over the man-made GW claims made in the IPCC report.
More than 31,000 scientists have signed a GW Petition that expresses strong disagreement with the conclusions drawn in the final IPCC report.
Meteorologist Dilley has put out a report based on 19 years of investigation that identifies the natural driving functions responsible for climate changes.
Dilley’s models predict GC from 2008 to 2014, again from 2020 to 2025, with the coldest point being reached in 2050.
Grant money to fund climate studies has overwhelmingly been made available to groups that are sympathetic to anthropogenic causes (e.g. burning of fossil fuels) for GW.
A number of developed nations agreed to reduce CO2 emissions by a certain percentage according to the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997. None of these nations came anywhere close to meeting their goals. More aggressive goals are not likely to be met in the future.
If the Kyoto Protocol were implemented and successful, GW would only be reduced by 0.07 degrees C by 2050.
There is no scientific consensus that somewhat larger concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are harmful. Some researchers have shown that increased CO2 has been beneficial for agriculture and to have economic benefits.
Major discrepancies still exist between temperature measurements and computer climate change models. Existing climate change models do not explain many climate observations.
The IPCC’s past predictions for future catastrophic consequences of GW have not come to pass since the IPCC climate models were inadequate.
The IPCC’s prediction of a large temperature increase by the year 2100 is not based on credible climate models.
Al Gore has hijacked the good work of IPCC scientists and become an alarmist when it comes to GW. His movie “An Inconvenient Truth” has received wide publicity, but it has been shown to contain falsehoods. In October 2007 the High Court in London identified nine significant “errors” in his movie. Lord Christopher Monckton also wrote a paper pointing out “35 Inconvenient Truths” (errors and exaggerations) in Gore’s movie. The movie has done a great disservice to getting the truth out about the extent and causes of GW and the likely impacts that we can expect in the future.
Al Gore has declared the GW debate over. This is a red flag when it comes to good science. If the debate were indeed over, Gore would be willing to debate protagonists, be able to articulate the causes for GW, and achieve general agreement from a majority of climate scientists – this has not happened.
We do not understand the costs of implementing the “consensus” GW solution. When asked to address this issue, Al Gore refuses. It is imperative that the economic costs of any solution be addressed and understood.
A recent poll indicates that GW ranks only 20th in a list of 20 major issues when prioritized by participants in the poll.


The IPCC report recommends a solution that assumes that GW is primarily due to anthropogenic causes, especially the emission of CO2. In contradiction, the NIPCC report concludes that there is no convincing evidence or observations of significant GW from other than natural causes. It appears the IPCC committee did not adequately consider the “second opinion” put forth by climate scientists outside of the IPCC “peer group” in drawing their conclusions and making their recommendations.

The recommended IPCC “consensus” GW solution involves:


Reducing CO2 emissions by 80% by the year 2050.
Establishing a cap-and-trade system to regulate conformance to the goals.


A number of analyses have been performed by different scientific groups to determine the probable causes of climate change, both anthropogenic and natural. We need to consider all of these analyses before drawing conclusions and determining what the best solution is for controlling the emission of GH gases, if indeed that is required. Implementing a solution for the perceived problem of GW before there is a strong consensus on the cause(s) of GW can do more harm than good.
5.0 Is the “consensus” GW solution based on good science? It is my understanding the IPCC reports were put together by 52 or more scientists plus additional policy makers selected from UN member countries. The final versions of the IPCC reports were edited by UN policy makers who apparently did not seek approval for technical changes from the scientists who provided the information for the reports. Some of these UN scientists have since disassociated themselves from the final reports and asked their names to be removed from these reports. The resulting IPCC reports have apparently not received wide support from the climate science community for the following reasons:
1. The climate model used by the IPCC assumes that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of GW.
2. The IPCC reports lack the approval of some of the IPCC scientists who provided input for them, nor did they include minority reports to outline the areas of disagreement.
3. NIPCC input was not adequately considered or rebutted. NIPCC concluded that GW is controlled by natural causes and that GH gases do not play a significant role in GW.
4. Satellite data was not adequately considered in measuring average global temperatures.
5. Solar irradiation was not considered as a cause of climate change.
6. Various well-known long-term and short-term gravitational cycles controlled by the orbits of the moon were not considered as a cause of climate change.
7. The “hockey-stick” graph included in early IPCC reports was based on an inaccurate climate model. The publication and subsequent withdrawal of this graph did not help the credibility of the IPCC.
8. The IPCC reports appear to be designed to show support for anthropogenic GW, and finding evidence of a human role in climate change, without scientific rebuttal to data that show otherwise.


The NIPCC report expresses significant variances from the IPCC report.

10. More than 700 international scientists have refuted the last IPCC report in the U.S. Senate Minority Report.
11. Dissent about the IPCC reports and the resulting Kyoto Protocol are expressed by more than 31,000 scientists who signed a GW Petition put out by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine.
12. The IPCC reports are apparently driven by a political agenda to find evidence for human causes for climate change.
13. Peer review has apparently been done by a select group of like-minded peers.
14. IPCC appears to be organized as “a government entity beholden to political agendas.”
15. Research grants have apparently predominantly gone to scientists and policy makers who are willing to support IPCC’s agenda.
16. Many IPCC reports have been controversial and their conclusions contradicted by subsequent research.
17. Most studies by climate scientists show that atmospheric man-made CO2 is not a significant cause of GW.
18. Reducing emissions of some GH gases to control pollution is important, but many climate scientists do not believe that this will not have a significant impact on the global climate.
19. Environmentalists have warned of a potential for a global catastrophe in the late 1970’s based on the GC that was occurring in the previous 25-30 years. This did not occur.

Climate scientists need to reach a much higher degree of consensus on the cause(s) of GW before the science underlying GW can be considered settled. For example, further analysis is required to determine the impact of GH gases such as water vapor on the global climate.
6.0 Who is hurt by the “consensus” GW solution? There is no such thing as a “free lunch.” The current recommended solution is so expensive for so little gain that it will significantly increase the cost of all energy products. This will impact the following:


The poor – Poor people can barely afford the cost of fuel today. An added cap-and-trade tax will increase the cost of fuel beyond their ability to pay.
Energy consumers – All energy consumers would pay extra for the additional costs of uneconomical energy solutions whose use would be mandated by government regulation.
Third world countries – Many countries in Africa are currently not allowed to build electrical plants, especially those using coal as a fuel source, because of the impact on the environment. Extra taxes will make it impossible for them to better their economic situation.
Developed nations (and their citizens) who sign up for limiting CO2 emissions would likely experience slower economic growth and lose their competitive edge in the short term. This would likely result in certain industries and/or jobs moving off shore. The prosperity of these nations would suffer.
Oil exporting countries would pay higher taxes under any cap-and-trade program.
The world economic growth rate would likely be slower under any ill-conceived GW programs.
The political backlash from an ill-conceived GW program would be immense and result in undermining any public support that a sound GW program might have.

7.0 What conclusions can we draw from the analysis? As the result of my reading and analysis, the major conclusions that I draw from my analysis of the issue are as follows:
1. The extent of the GW phenomena does not appear to be as great as has been presented to the public by the IPCC and the popular media.
2. The number of dissenting climate scientists is greater, by at least an order of magnitude, than the number of climate scientists who have contributed to the IPCC report. The number of dissenters is far too large to ignore.
3. The IPCC seems to have focused on the last 25 to 30 years during which a GW cycle has been observed. IPCC appears to have based its predictions of increased GW for the next century on the continuation of the recent GW trend, and ignoring prior trends in global temperatures, both warming and cooling.
4. Many climate scientists have determined that we are now entering a 25 to 30 year GC period, and not a period of GW.
5. The science behind GW is not well understood and is far from settled.
6. The economic and people costs of any proposed GW solution are not well researched or understood.
7. GW appears to be largely due to natural causes, with possibly minor contributions from man-made causes.
8. Technical contributions from hundreds of climate scientists outside of the IPCC have not been adequately considered by the IPCC in determining the extent or causes of GW.
9. Any extensive and costly action to control GW is premature because of significantly different opinions offered by different groups of climate scientists.
10. Deception, the unbalanced use of scientific data, and exaggeration by certain policy makers and politicians have damaged the credibility of the good work done by IPCC scientists.
11. Climate scientists need to regroup and be more inclusive of research done by climate scientists with opposing viewpoints in order to develop a true scientific consensus on the extent and cause(s) of GW.
8.0 What should the GW community do next? We need to recognize that the global climate is constantly changing; it always has and it always will. There are many open questions for which climate scientists do not yet have good answers. Here are my suggestions:


Recognize that the science of climate change is far from settled and that the scientific debate that can lead to better consensus is not over.
Separate the issue of pollution from that of GW. Most scientists agree on the major contributors to pollution and the need to control the emission of those pollutants.
Separate the green/renewable energy issue from that of GW. We need to promote green energy solutions (such as solar, wind, tidal, and geothermal) if and as they become economically viable anyway. That is just being a good steward of the earth’s resources.
There is no agreement yet on what the key drivers behind GW are, and whether there is a need to control these drivers, i.e. are man-made causes significant enough contributors to warrant costly remedial programs at this time?
Develop a list of significant open issues in the field of climatology that need to be resolved in order to develop a true “consensus” GW solution, if indeed a solution is required. This will benefit the research funding agencies.
Include both IPCC and NIPCC scientists in the “peer group” of climate scientists so that all scientific analyses and results are adequately considered.
Provide grants/funds for climate researchers with opposing viewpoints.
Develop credible climate models that accurately reflect the temperature measurements over the last few hundred years so that predictions of future climate changes have much greater credibility.
Perform a cost benefit analysis of any proposed solution.
Use common sense and take politics out of the determination of optimum climate change programs, if any should be required.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So consensus makes the science right? DO you realise how laughable that statement is? Some of the best science we have seen is all about challenging the status quo. It does not make it right if the majority agrees, since plenty of things in the past have been overturned, It was once believed that stress and other things cause ulcers. It was one scientific fact that blacks were less evolved than whites. It was once scientific fact that the sun revolves around the earth.

Consensus is what we must base our decisions on. There will always be scientists that disagree with the most basic scientific premises. There are biologist who genuinely think and have "data" to support intelligent design instead of the theory of evolution. Are we to not trust the scientists that fight to keep evolution in and I.D. out of the classroom?

This is an example of people taking a premise of how science should operate and trying to use it in the context of how science should be applied through policy. No one wants to silence the climate doubters or stop them from bringing up evidence that suggests otherwise (cue Fragony bringing up ClimateGate again). But no one wants to have the lone outsiders dictate what should be done or even have ourselves stagnate and not make a decision because there will always be that 2% of PhD holders that will claim that the Flat Earth Society is correct after all.

Science is always open to different opinions, how we should tackle a problem that even climate deniers now recognize (the fact that the Earth is indeed heating up for some reason) must be based upon what the consensus of the scientific community is, otherwise the answer to any given problem is to do nothing until that magical 100% agreement is achieved (AKA never).

[Montmorency]

The greater efficiency gives a greater benefit in the reduction of nuclear waste that lasts 10,000+ years than the impact of the making of the bulb.
The greater efficiency gives a greater benefit in the reduction of greenhouse gases from natural gas plants than the impact of the making of the bulb.
The greater efficiency gives a greater benefit in the preservation of reservoirs used by hydroelectric dams (because less water is needed to generate the electricity to operate the bulb) than the impact of the making of the bulb.

Incandescent bulbs get at most 3% efficiency while florescent are anywhere from 8-11.45% efficient. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Lighting_efficiency) That is a big difference, which does not even include the fact that florescent last much longer, which increases the efficiency benefits of the florescent bulb. When you are talking about the typical house and the energy used for lighting, it really is much more of an environmental benefit to use some something around 3-4 times more efficient that last at least 10 to 20 times longer (which means less​ florescent bulbs have to be made compared to incandescent to fill the demand.) despite the fact that there is 5mg or so of mercury within the product.


Maybe you should post some links?


Pray tell, why should we stick to the regular disposable batteries that currently leach acid into the ground instead of using a product that can replace an entire 20-pack of disposable batteries.


And this is the "freedom lovers" counter to the "environmental fascists"!?!?!

Get the government off our backs with these regulations and just kill 3.25 billion people. Who should we kill Phillip, considering that the vast majority of the Earth's resources are being consumed by the West. Do you advocating killing off those that actually use all the resources (us)? In that case, why don't you set the example with yourself.

Oh but I know, your idea is much more "humane". You are not talking about killing anyone, just reduce the birth rate. In which case the West is exempt since the West has had an internal population rate less than the replenish rate with immigrants filling up the gap. So now we, the West in order to save the planet must tell those Africans, Chinese and Indians that they must take these pills and stop having sex and do as we say in order to save the planet. Which would work, if they were the ones actually consuming the most...



So in other words, we need to be more efficient with our energy?

Using more efficient light bulbs doesn't actually affect the quantity of nuclear waste produced.

The Chinese use plenty of energy. And it's only increasing. This line is particularly ironic:
So now we, the West in order to save the planet must tell those Africans, Chinese and Indians that they must take these pills and stop having sex and do as we say in order to save the planet. India will probably overtake China as the most populous country in the world in the next two decades.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Using more efficient light bulbs doesn't actually affect the quantity of nuclear waste produced.
I am not an expert on nuclear power plants. If less energy is needed, why does the plant still produce the same amount of waste?



The Chinese use plenty of energy. And it's only increasing. This line is particularly ironic: India will probably overtake China as the most populous country in the world in the next two decades.
Because they are becoming Westernized in their lifestyle.

I don't see how the line is ironic. China, Africa and India all have large populations or large birth rates. Explain how it detracts from my point.

[Montmorency]

Neither am I, but I figure that even if every incandescent bulb is replaced with a fluorescent one, we won't suddenly have to shut down reactors on weekends. There won't be a glut of unused power, that is.

Ironic in terms of the bolded words.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Neither am I, but I figure that even if every incandescent bulb is replaced with a fluorescent one, we won't suddenly have to shut down reactors on weekends. There won't be a glut of unused power, that is.
My limited understanding of nuclear reactors is that if less energy is needed, the rate of fission within the reactor is slowed down and the amount of waste being produced in a given amount of time is reduced as well.



Ironic in terms of the bolded words.

Ahh, I see now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And this is the "freedom lovers" counter to the "environmental fascists"!?!?!

Get the government off our backs with these regulations and just kill 3.25 billion people. Who should we kill Phillip, considering that the vast majority of the Earth's resources are being consumed by the West. Do you advocating killing off those that actually use all the resources (us)? In that case, why don't you set the example with yourself.

Oh but I know, your idea is much more "humane". You are not talking about killing anyone, just reduce the birth rate. In which case the West is exempt since the West has had an internal population rate less than the replenish rate with immigrants filling up the gap. So now we, the West in order to save the planet must tell those Africans, Chinese and Indians that they must take these pills and stop having sex and do as we say in order to save the planet. Which would work, if they were the ones actually consuming the most...



So in other words, we need to be more efficient with our energy?

That's a good troll there ACIN, have +1 Internets.

Except:

I don't "love Freedom" and I'm more than happy for the Population of England to drop by 1/3 and to outlaw carrier bags and plastic cups.

You're also not entirely correct about us consuming more, because the developing world produce a lot of the stuff we throw away, and in any case consumerism is a way to prop up out economies so that we can generate wealth faster than the more populous developing world (that chicken has, of course, not come home to roost).

[Montmorency]

Sure - if the reactor operator is trying to keep energy prices at a certain level by curtailing the energy supply...

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's a good troll there ACIN, have +1 Internets.

Except:

I don't "love Freedom" and I'm more than happy for the Population of England to drop by 1/3 and to outlaw carrier bags and plastic cups.

You're also not entirely correct about us consuming more, because the developing world produce a lot of the stuff we throw away, and in any case consumerism is a way to prop up out economies so that we can generate wealth faster than the more populous developing world (that chicken has, of course, not come home to roost).
How would you like the population to decline by 1/3? My underlying point was that any attempt at reducing population is worse than simply forcing people to buy more efficient appliances.

They produce a lot, but don't consume anywhere near the same level as we do (except for China which is getting there). I once heard a statistic that the US at one point was using 20-25% of the world's oil even though our population is nowhere near that percentage of the global population.


Sure - if the reactor operator is trying to keep energy prices at a certain level by curtailing the energy supply...

Well now you have just brought up all the rage I had after seeing, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room". Nevertheless, that kind of stuff isn't a given.

[Furunculus]

"Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money."

^ Word! ^

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

[Fragony]

^ Word! ^

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8786565/War-of-words-over-global-warming-as-Nobel-laureate-resigns-in-protest.html

But we do know, last 100 years global temperature rised 0.2 degrees celcius. That's the problem with alarmists, as you can't just decide the earth is warming up, it has to be real otherwise it isn't true. God doesn't exist, and the earth isn't warming up.

'"I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming?" he said. "I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around.'

I like him, just wondering why we are all going to die next round, if we do not act right now

[CBR]

Ivar Giaever has also said

...so I don't claim to know much about the global warming really, but I looked at Google...
But at least he is one of them noble scientists so he knows what he is talking about!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Acid rain and the ozone problem were both solved by governments taking action in the face of an overwhelming scientific community.

The ozone hole is still there, but is now declining in size, not to be fully repaired until ~2050. This is because of world wide action against CFC's being used. This is all not debatable.

[Fragony]

Acid rain and the ozone problem were both solved by governments taking action in the face of an overwhelming scientific community.

The ozone hole is still there, but is now declining in size, not to be fully repaired until ~2050. This is because of world wide action against CFC's being used. This is all not debatable.

Yes it really is

[CBR]

Yes it really is
Any links to why it is debatable?

[Fragony]

Any links to why it is debatable?

Plenty, but right now I'm in the middle of a staring contest with my cat. I'm winning

[a completely inoffensive name]

Plenty, but right now I'm in the middle of a staring contest with my cat. I'm winning

Bah, you got nothing.

[Fragony]

Bah, you got nothing.

True. I got no acid rain, no global warming, no god. I'm an atheist I don't believe in death by apocalyps. If we don't act right now.

But do have a tip, google will do fine

edit lol http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/20/times-atlas-apologizes-for-misleading-greenland-ice-melting-claim/?test=latestnews

Himaliya-gate is the IPCC deciding there is consensus because of a collumn in a hiker's magazine by the way, mentioned it earlier. You can't know that because of quality media so I oblige thee

[CBR]

So, not believing in gods means you don't believe we can ruin the environment? That is a very religious attitude if you ask me.

Publishers of an atlas who fouls up the facts is proof of what? That the science is wrong or that it is a big conspiracy? Gee, if it is the scientists pointing out the error then what to make of it? "Himalaya-gate" is an excellent example of how one should NOT rely too much on non peer reviewed articles. It actually looks like the scientific process works fine as it weeds out mistakes, yet at the same time the really big "mistakes" seem to persist because somehow the deniers are kept down or something.

Your two examples does not show global warming is wrong nor does it provide anything on why the ozone hole and acid rain is debatable. Heck, I'll provide a book for you then: The Holes in the Ozone Scare: The Scientific Evidence That the Sky Isn't Falling from 1993. It is a great example of bad science, demonizing environmentalism and juicy global conspiracies. You'll love it.

[Fragony]

' So, not believing in gods means you don't believe we can ruin the environment? That is a very religious attitude if you ask me'

Sure we can, few nukes will absolutely change the climate. But you still can't just decide temperatures are rising, it really has to happen. And it isn't happening. I don't really care if you believe in god or are absolutely terrified of CO2, just don't pass me the bill as I don't have the patience

[CBR]

How do you know the average global temperature has not been rising?

[Ironside]

How do you know the average global temperature has not been rising?

For fun. Care to guess how many month in a row the global land temperature has been above the 1901-2000 average, for that month?
The same for sea temperature is just silly.

[Fragony]

How do you know the average global temperature has not been rising?

Oh it did, rised 0.2 degrees celsius

[a completely inoffensive name]

For fun. Care to guess how many month in a row the global land temperature has been above the 1901-2000 average, for that month?
The same for sea temperature is just silly.

I actually want to know the answer to this. 14?

[Ironside]

Oh it did, rised 0.2 degrees celsius

From wich time period? I'm seeing a 0.4 degrees celsius rise compared to the 1961-1990 average data. I got trouble to get anything on what influence that has though. Extrapolation from the only source I could find, that equals a climate zone move of about 50-70 kilometers.

It's worth remembering that it's larger closer to the poles. Sweden got about 1.0 degrees celsius in the same period and it's even more around the north pole.


I actually want to know the answer to this. 14?

:laugh4: More (I will give the answer later).
It might be helpful to know that the 1901-2000 average is lower than the 1961-1990 average.

[Fragony]

Ok possibly 0.4 degrees celcius in a hundred of years please tell me it isn't so

[a completely inoffensive name]

:laugh4: More (I will give the answer later).
It might be helpful to know that the 1901-2000 average is lower than the 1961-1990 average.

Hmmm. Second guess. 35 years x 12 months/year = 420 months.

[Ironside]

Ok possibly 0.4 degrees celcius in a hundred of years please tell me it isn't so

In a hundred years it's about 0.6 degrees celcius. Well, larger actually, since that's the current deviation from the 1901-2000 average. 1901 was colder than that. I admit that should it stabilise at this level long term (it's done it short term), it's not much of a problem. Except for polar bears.

Why they're obsessed with the 1961-1990 data is because they have a rigid 30 year system. The next data set of the same type will be 1991-2020.


Hmmm. Second guess. 35 years x 12 months/year = 420 months.

:bow:
That's actually spot on for the sea temperature, it's been above average since october 1976.

Now for land temperature, it's been above average for a shorter period. You're closer in one way and further away in another. It's only happened once after februari 1994, but was quite common before that. And no, the answer is not close to mars 1994.

[a completely inoffensive name]

:bow:
That's actually spot on for the sea temperature, it's been above average since october 1976.
Awesome, my intuition was right. Interesting how the warming trend affected oceans much sooner than the land.



Now for land temperature, it's been above average for a shorter period. You're closer in one way and further away in another. It's only happened once after februari 1994, but was quite common before that. And no, the answer is not close to mars 1994.
My intuition is telling me around 200-220 months.

[Fragony]

Oh you don't have to worry about teh polar bear, they are doing just fine, becomming a problem actually. Their population almost doubled since the fifties. There are so many of them that they started mating grizley's resulting in a hellish terror-bears

[a completely inoffensive name]

Oh you don't have to worry about teh polar bear, they are doing just fine, becomming a problem actually. Their population almost doubled since the fifties. There are so many of them that they started mating grizley's resulting in a hellish terror-bears

More lies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distribution

" In Nunavut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distribution), some Inuit have reported increases in bear sightings around human settlements in recent years, leading to a belief that populations are increasing. [...]
Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data."

[Fragony]

More lies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distribution

" In Nunavut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_bear#Population_and_distribution), some Inuit have reported increases in bear sightings around human settlements in recent years, leading to a belief that populations are increasing. [...]
Of the 19 recognized polar bear subpopulations, eight are declining, three are stable, one is increasing, and seven have insufficient data."

My bad, four times as many, and since the sixties, 5.000 then, 20.000 now

http://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46634000/jpg/_46634012_bearlineupwalking4.jpg <- terrorbears from hell, half polar bear half grizly. Yikes

[CBR]

Ok possibly 0.4 degrees celcius in a hundred of years please tell me it isn't so
Could you please provide a link to where you get 0.4 degrees Celsius because it seems to be at least 0.2 less than what I have seen.

[Fragony]

Could you please provide a link to where you get 0.4 degrees Celsius because it seems to be at least 0.2 less than what I have seen.

0.2 according to some but that's blogosphere.

[CBR]

0.2 according to some but that's blogosphere.
Blogosphere or not there should be some reference to where that number came from. If not it is worthless.

[Fragony]

Blogosphere or not there should be some reference to where that number came from. If not it is worthless.

I'll oblige but promise me you won't treat me cruelly http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data

[CBR]

I'll oblige but promise me you won't treat me cruelly http://www.climategate.com/australiagate-now-nasa-caught-in-trick-over-aussie-climate-data
That is temperature for Australia and not global.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My bad, four times as many, and since the sixties, 5.000 then, 20.000 now

http://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an

You don't even read the articles you site to support your :daisy:. Every single paragraph except the first one states how early guesses of polar bear populations were limited to one nesting place and extrapolated globally, or were incredibly crude and inaccurate compared to modern testing techniques. EDIT: The scientists they quote even went so far as to call them "wild ass guesses".

Every. Single. Statement you make, is a big lie covered with articles from crazy blogs and credible pieces that actually speak against what you are saying. :daisy:

[Ironside]

Awesome, my intuition was right. Interesting how the warming trend affected oceans much sooner than the land.

I think it has rather to do with lower temperature fluctations for the sea, but I haven't red through the data that carefully to make comparations.


My intuition is telling me around 200-220 months.

Not quite. It's 142, since november 2000. So you were only an extra number wrong with your first guess.
Source (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.php)

[Fragony]

That is temperature for Australia and not global.

I know, same models

[Fragony]

You don't even read the articles you site to support your :daisy:. Every single paragraph except the first one states how early guesses of polar bear populations were limited to one nesting place and extrapolated globally, or were incredibly crude and inaccurate compared to modern testing techniques. EDIT: The scientists they quote even went so far as to call them "wild ass guesses".

Every. Single. Statement you make, is a big lie covered with articles from crazy blogs and credible pieces that actually speak against what you are saying. :daisy:

Sure, there is no climate gate, no Himaliya-gate, no rising water-gate, IPCC wasn't forced to resign because he manipulated data, the models aren't flawed

[Subotan]

Sure, there is no climate gate, no Himaliya-gate, no rising water-gate, IPCC wasn't forced to resign because he manipulated data, the models aren't flawed

This is the first true statement you have made all thread.

[Fragony]

This is the first true statement you have made all thread.

Can't just decide that, it has to be true otherwise it isn't real. Feel free to google. Forgot Greenland-gate by the way

[CBR]

I know, same models
What models? At best (for the skeptics) this is manipulation of individual data for one country. That it is not a model.

[Fragony]

At best (for the skeptics) this is manipulation of individual data for one country.

IPCC calculation model. It doesn't really matter that this is Ausie only. At least a MSM source but not really what I was looking for though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

[CBR]

Ah yes, the climategate that has been checked over several times now, yet it apparently does not satisfy the skeptics because somehow the scientists keep getting exonerated. Must be a conspiracy somewhere.

They should be more open with their research though and have AFAIK rightfully been criticised for that.

[Fragony]

Ah yes, the climategate that has been checked over several times now, yet it apparently does not satisfy the skeptics because somehow the scientists keep getting exonerated. Must be a conspiracy somewhere.

They should be more open with their research though and have AFAIK rightfully been criticised for that.

The butcher judging his own product as we say here, the models on which the consensus is based are flawed or at least disputed, and that's the nicest thing you can say about it, outright fraud would be more accurat. It reeks of post-normal sciene, and not a little bit. Wouldn't go as far as calling it a conpiracy, but a lie yes, and a very lucrative one.

[Subotan]

Can't just decide that, it has to be true otherwise it isn't real. Feel free to google. Forgot Greenland-gate by the way
I have told you in this thread multiple times. You are living in denial.



IPCC calculation model. It doesn't really matter that this is Ausie only. At least a MSM source but not really what I was looking for though http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

First, that article is outdated. Second, Booker is a fringe journalist, who has lost all respect he may have ever gained from being a founder of Private Eye.

[CBR]

There were several independent investigations of it, both UK and US making it a total of six so far I believe. But it will never be enough.

Don't worry Fragony. If you ever get tired of it all and want to find a more remote place to live I hear they need more farmers on Greenland.

[Fragony]

There were several independent investigations of it, both UK and US making it a total of six so far I believe. But it will never be enough.

Don't worry Fragony. If you ever get tired of it all and want to find a more remote place to live I hear they need more farmers on Greenland.

Funny you bring that up, as the 15% decrease in ice was actually only 0.1% of it. They even apoligised for it

[CBR]

Funny you bring that up, as the 15% decrease in ice was actually only 0.1% of it. They even apoligised for it
Yes and? Evidence of global warming being wrong? Evidence of conspiracy? They still grow more crops up there and then it does not matter how many blogs goes into frenzy over how much ice there is or not.

[Fragony]

Yes and? Evidence of global warming being wrong? Evidence of conspiracy? They still grow more crops up there and then it does not matter how many blogs goes into frenzy over how much ice there is or not.

It wouldn't matter to you if global warming is a lie? The earth just isn't warming up. Fact.

[Ironside]

It wouldn't matter to you if global warming is a lie? The earth just isn't warming up. Fact.

And there's is no such thing as an ice free Northwest Passage.

I give you that there's no clear increase for the last decade, but it's worth to remember that 1998 was an extreme year in 1998, while it's a warm year in 2011.

[Fragony]

And there's is no such thing as an ice free Northwest Passage.

I give you that there's no clear increase for the last decade, but it's worth to remember that 1998 was an extreme year in 1998, while it's a warm year in 2011.

I'm sure 1998 was pretty extreme in 1998, weren't we all.

Free passage existed by the way you dreadbeards found it