Global Climate Disruption.

[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/ja...ism-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/...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/arch...ase_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/arch...ase_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.