What Do We Think About Climate Change

I read that - just in case there was something of value.

... No worries there.

[fasteddy106]

OMG, I thought only Boston could be that elitist, ;obnoxious, condescending, and wrong at the same time!

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by Frosty

Ive never been to Florida --Is it nice?

Depends on what you call nice, I suppose. It was 85F here yesterday. Nice for the beach, crappy if you're doing a lot of buffing on a big job

Jimbo

[wardd]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

Many components of the theory of evolution are testable, and many have passed the test. Some have failed, forcing scientists to seek alternative explanations for these particular sub-components of the theory. The main sub-component, natural selection, is wholly testable, and passes easily.

There is not one component of the AGW narrative that passes the test. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is uncontested. It is an uncontested fact that CO2 is capable of causing about .6c for a doubling from 280ppm to 560ppm. What is contested is that CO2 drives water vapor concentration higher, causing dangerous warming. Tested and failed.

Jimbo

then you agree on what a scientific theory is

lets take it one step further

is there ANY possibility that co2 causes temp rise?

is there ANY possibility that human activity is the cause of the extra co2?

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by wardd

then you agree on what a scientific theory is

lets take it one step further

is there ANY possibility that co2 causes temp rise?

is there ANY possibility that human activity is the cause of the extra co2?

Yes, these assertions are plausible, but they must be tested to verify that they are true and correct before we begin to behave as if they were true and correct.

Start with CO2 as a greenhouse agent.


Jimbo

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by wardd

then you agree on what a scientific theory is

lets take it one step further

is there ANY possibility that co2 causes temp rise?

is there ANY possibility that human activity is the cause of the extra co2?

Of course not. Haven't you been reading Jimbo's posts? He's single-handedly destroyed the entire discipline, and proven the vast majority of climatologists to be frauds, liars, and/or incompetents..

[Jimbo1490]

Originally Posted by troy2000

Of course not. Haven't you been reading Jimbo's posts? He's single-handedly destroyed the entire discipline, and proven the vast majority of climatologists to be frauds, liars, and/or incompetents..

What's amazing about this post is that he wrote it 4 minutes AFTER I already affirmed to Wardd that the assertions ARE plausible! I guess this is how it's going to be with Troy; can't defend the science so out comes the hatchet.



Jimbo

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Jimbo1490

What's amazing about this post is that he wrote it 4 minutes AFTER I already affirmed to Wardd that the assertions ARE plausible! I guess this is how it's going to be with Troy; can't defend the science so out comes the hatchet.



Jimbo

Jimbo, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you don't like getting flamed a little, watch your own manners. You've been whacking on me regularly for a while with personal comments, and you shouldn't be surprised that I would respond in kind.

As far as the "four minutes" complaint goes, all I know is that when I started responding to wardd, you didn't have a post up. I'm sorry if I'm not fast enough to beat you to the punch-- but not really, really sorry; deal with it.

[Pericles]

Guillermo,

It's snowing now in Copenhagen, but I think Pontevedra is not going to escape the white stuff on Sunday.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MINT_DAY06_EUROP.gif

You have to feel sorry for the deluded fools. A white Christmas may please Denmark’s children but Copenhagen in the depths of winter is an odd setting to highlight the dangers of a warming world. Delegates from Africa, Asia and the Pacific are struggling with the freezing conditions. Some do not have the right clothes and are trying to minimise their time spent outside this week. Why UN organisers selected Copenhagen for the December summit remains a mystery. They might have had more success in drawing attention to the perils of hot weather if they had chosen Perth, where the temperature is forecast to reach 37 degrees this week, or Canberra where it will be 36.

A central issue at the summit is whether global warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. But some delegates are saying that Copenhagen in December might be more pleasant if it was about 15 degrees warmer. Copenhagen is also being criticised as the summit venue by delegates because it is very expensive. A cappuccino costs $5, a beer at least $7, a small hot dog from a street stand $8, and a “cheap”, simple lunch dish can easily cost $30. Clothes are also expensive, making it difficult for delegates from the developing world to buy gear for the cold snap.

So true.

http://www.icecap.us/

Very best wishes,

Perry

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by Pericles

Guillermo,

It's snowing now in Copenhagen, but I think Pontevedra is not going to escape the white stuff on Sunday.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MINT_DAY06_EUROP.gif

You have to feel sorry for the deluded fools. A white Christmas may please Denmark’s children but Copenhagen in the depths of winter is an odd setting to highlight the dangers of a warming world. Delegates from Africa, Asia and the Pacific are struggling with the freezing conditions. Some do not have the right clothes and are trying to minimise their time spent outside this week. Why UN organisers selected Copenhagen for the December summit remains a mystery. They might have had more success in drawing attention to the perils of hot weather if they had chosen Perth, where the temperature is forecast to reach 37 degrees this week, or Canberra where it will be 36.

A central issue at the summit is whether global warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees. But some delegates are saying that Copenhagen in December might be more pleasant if it was about 15 degrees warmer. Copenhagen is also being criticised as the summit venue by delegates because it is very expensive. A cappuccino costs $5, a beer at least $7, a small hot dog from a street stand $8, and a “cheap”, simple lunch dish can easily cost $30. Clothes are also expensive, making it difficult for delegates from the developing world to buy gear for the cold snap.

So true.

http://www.icecap.us/

Very best wishes,

Perry

I don't really see your point. It reminds me of Rush Limbaugh carrying on about how there was six inches of snow on the ground somewhere last winter, and environmentalist wackos were still claiming global warming was real....like any of them had ever claimed it would never snow again.

Would climate change naysayers have been happier if the conference had been held in the middle of tropical Africa? I doubt it. They'd have been carrying on about how the organizers tried to stack the deck, by holding it somewhere that's always been hot and sticky.

[masalai]

Just a link from my economic emails that may be of interest (I have not read it yet so a copy and past of the intro and the report billbell.pdf attached)

http://www.caseyresearch.com/displayGsd.php find the stuff of relevance near the end of the essay...

The next three items all have to do with this big climate change/new world government conference taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark right now. As you have probably already figured out, I consider this to be the biggest crock of b.s. ever foisted on an unsuspecting public... and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Here's a full-page ad that a Canadian geologist took out in Alberta's Calgary Herald last week. He paid for it himself. There's a lot to read in this all-text advertisement, but it's worth your time. The headline reads "The Scam of Our Lifetime"... "The idea that humans are causing global warming is little more than nonsense. The goal of the perpetrators is a transfer of wealth with the apparent forfeiture of power to a proposed environmental world government formed by the United Nations. A possible vote on this sociopolitical concept could be held in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December." I thank reader, C.H. from Calgary, for sending this along... and the link is here.

One person mentioned in this commentary linked above is Lord Christopher W. Monckton - 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He was Former Prime Ministerial adviser on scientific and domestic policy to Margaret Thatcher. Lord Monckton is now, perhaps, the world's leading expert on the case against Man-made Global Warming; and, as such, is a household name in the United States and elsewhere. Eric King over at King World News spent a long time interviewing Lord Monckton last Friday... and that interview is linked here. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6956783.ece It's an eye-opener and definitely worth your time.

And lastly... finally... is this piece from The Times in London. It's literally 'hot off the press' as they used to say... dated this morning. The man that made the Internet possible, Al Gore stepped in another fresh cow pie yesterday... "There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday"... "Mr. Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated that "Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” Needless to say, climatologist Maslowski, politely ripped Al a new one. - - - - - - - - - this continues with graphics that do not copy easily to BD.net... http://www.caseyresearch.com/displayGsd.php starting at the paragraph above the "Horizon auto-centre" sign picture...

[dskira]

I hope it stop to warm up. If the guy in Florida start to invade Maine, I will be pist!
Just kidding, no offence intended for my good friends down in Florida.
I hope you water problem is resolve, I heard you ahave some trouble about drinking water.
Cheers
Daniel

[Guillermo]

Perry,
I'm not in Pontevedra at this moment, but my wife told me Galician government has ordered closing schools tomorrow because they expect a lot of snow. Somewhat hysterical, but of course my children are delighted....

Now, I've found this most interesting work from the Theory of Games master (and AGW believer) Bruce Bueno de Mesquita

Copenhaguen, a recipe for failure:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...pe_for_failure

Cheers.

P.S. Still waiting for some of the friends in the "warmers" front to comment my post on NOAA's Greenland temperature record for the last 5000 years. I'm wondering why no one has commented. May be it is of no interest for them but only to "coolers"? A bit of worrying about where a simple reasoning may bring us, perhaps....? Troy? dskira? wardd....?

[wardd]

if there is any chance that man made co2 is changing the climate catastrophically then taking measures to curb it would be prudent

lifeboats and insurance are examples of prudence, you hope you don't need them but if you do need them, you need them

[Willallison]

FYI...

A Major Deception on Global Warming
Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate Change 1995," its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.

This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.

The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:


"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."


"No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."


"Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

IPCC reports are often called the "consensus" view. If they lead to carbon taxes and restraints on economic growth, they will have a major and almost certainly destructive impact on the economies of the world. Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.

If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures, it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process, or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change, and look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.


Mr. Seitz is president emeritus of Rockefeller University and chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute.

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm