Posted by kozmicstu on Friday, 09 March 2007 22:47:35

bogush that's because the link should actually have been http://www.phantom-rouge.co.uk/endoftheworld.rtf sorry. Getting my com's and co.uk's mixed up.

Incidentally, the Earth is a little flat at the poles :-)

Stu

Posted by bogush on Friday, 09 March 2007 22:47:53

Dave Gould posted:

"Err, there are no peer reviewed scientific papers that deny climate change is happening and is man-made.

Seriously. There are none.

There are thousands of peer review scientific papers that support that climate change is happening."



Well, there's a surprise!

Richard Lindzen, another contributor has commented:

“Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse"

And:

"In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."



But, again, he's not a proper "climate scientist"

He's only an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves.

He is a member of the National Academy Of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy. He previously held positions at and Harvard.

And he's a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

So what would he know.

Strangely though, despite not being a "climate scientist" he worked on Chapter 7 of IPCC Working Group 1and was a contributer to Chapter 4 of the IPCC Second Assessment, "Climate Change 1995".

Posted by DaveGould on Friday, 09 March 2007 22:56:11

"Posted by bogush on Friday, 09 March 2007 22:31:04

So the fact that CO2 levels rise AFTER temperatures have already risen has either been acknowledged for 20 years or is completely irrelevant to the debate?"

It's already been acknowledged and is already taken into account in IPCC predictions:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/

"So the fact that temperature changes almost perfectly match sun spot activity, unlike the CO2 graph has either been acknowledged for 20 years or is completely irrelevant to the debate?"

It's already been acknowledged and is already taken into account in IPCC predictions:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/#more-180

Oh, your guy Fred Singer...

... works for SEPP "who received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis." -- http://www.exxonsecrets.org/

 

Comment edited by DaveGould on Friday, 09 March 2007 23:10:38

Posted by bogush on Friday, 09 March 2007 23:28:57

Unlike the "real" climate scientists who are all of independent means and wouldn't touch a carbon-tax funded global warming research grant with a barge pole!



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores

"All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming....."



http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/#more-180

"And while we're at it it might just be worth mentioning that part of North America seems to have had a LIA (and MWP) as well according to this

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/medieval_marsh.html

But apart from that - nothing ....unless you include South America, of course

Villalba, R., "Tree-ring and Glacial Evidence for the Medieval Warm Epoch and the Little Ice Age in Southern South America". Climate Change, 26:183-197, 1994

And ...er ....South Africa

Tyson, P.D. et al., "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa". South African Journal of Science, 96:121-126, 2000

But that's definitely it. Once you discount other studies from China, the Caribbean, sub-saharan Arica, Japan and one or two other locations, there's not a single shred of evidence left to suggest that the Little Ice Age was anything other than a figment of the rather fertile imagination of artists and writers.

Posted by DaveGould on Saturday, 10 March 2007 14:41:34

Posted by bogush on Friday, 09 March 2007 23:28:57
"The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have caused the first 1/6 of the warming....."

Time-wise, correct. But humankind wasn't pumping out 3 trillion (!) tons of CO2 then (each ton of CO2 is about 2 million litres at atmospheric pressure).

"In Europe, Henk...."

So nothing you could actually prove then.

Posted by Henry2 on Saturday, 10 March 2007 15:08:36

Do you know they used to think the earth was flat and you could fall off the edge. Then they discovered that the earth was round but believed that it was the centre of the universe. Then they thought that everything went round the sun. However they then discovered that the sun was just another star in the galaxy. Then they discovered that the galaxy was not unique, there were lots more out there.

They used to think that the Earth was unique but now they say there are other stars out there with planets. Perhaps there are other life forms out there.

So where along the discovery line are we with global warning and its causes? It is taught by the Open University that there have been warm and cold episodes in the earth's geological history, some a long time before man appeared on the planet.

I think the jury is still out and that the Channel 4 programme was a welcome reminder that there are alternative views.

Posted by bogush on Sunday, 11 March 2007 14:05:45

Did I mention that global warming has been observed on other planets in the Solar System.

So is that caused by little not-so-green men in 4x4's ?

Posted by IAmNoOne on Sunday, 11 March 2007 14:12:49

The docu is here for anyone who hasn't seen it:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q;=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle

I agree with Henry2. A timely reminder to never stop questioning EVERYTHING.

Posted by DaveGould on Sunday, 11 March 2007 20:13:18

Posted by bogush on Sunday, 11 March 2007 14:05:45
"Did I mention that global warming has been observed on other planets in the Solar System.

So is that caused by little not-so-green men in 4x4's ?"

Is it observed by the universe's longest thermometer?

BTW, it seems one of the scientists shown on the programme is considering suing for misrepresentation, calling it "'grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two".

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2031457,00.html

Posted by RichardDent on Sunday, 11 March 2007 22:46:20

The Great Global Warming Swindle is just terrible journalism. Just google the title + 'response' and you'll see that all their points are easily demolished. There is an argument that global warming isn't due to human activity and it is not ridiculous. But when scientists weigh up all the date, not just climate or weather data, then everything points to the 'high likelihood' humans are not causing but accelerating global warming way faster than the planet is used to.

Just look at the species extinction data. The only greater extinction incident is, I think, when the dinosaurs were wiped out. We're losing 1/3 of all species by 2012. That is not a natural cycle.

Posted by Graham on Sunday, 11 March 2007 23:09:25

The Great Channel 4 Swindle

Experts who aren't experts. Media pundits who pretend to be scientists. People who claim not to be paid by the coal and oil industry but who have. Comments taken grossly out of context and distorted etc etc etc.

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/

If you don't believe in Global Warming, find a better (=more credible) source for your objections.

Posted by unreal229 on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 20:52:45

This is definately ESSENTIAL VIEWING if it is to be repeated. I was aware of these views before the release but this is the first time a group of the media have dared to challenge this principle.

Even before the program had been broadcast there were forums attacking it just to show the dilema. One forum exen made a connection between one of the scientists and exxonmobil with the connection being that the scientist had once worked for a company that has a connection with exxonmobil.

Cameron take this on board.

Posted by IAmNoOne on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 21:09:51

The supposed connection between the anti-manmade GW crowd and oil companies is a red herring. Oil companies are the biggest investers in solar and other renewable technologies, and so they stand to gain no matter what!

Posted by Graham on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 21:28:06

Channel 4’s Problem with Science

It doesn’t give a damn about whether the facts stack up – as long as it creates a controversy.

The problem with “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the British government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands of people have been misled into believing that there is no problem to address.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/#more-1047

Posted by IAmNoOne on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 21:41:31

People are NOT saying there is no problem to address. What people ARE saying is that a) the existence of the problem is NOT proven, and b) if it WAS proven the solution STILL wouldn't be tax!!

 

Comment edited by IAmNoOne on Tuesday, 13 March 2007 21:42:34