Politics And AGW/GW

[Roo]

A fine example of why I give up. I'm utterly convinced some of you pro AGW lot don't want a reasonable conversation on any of this, far happier to throw stuff like this around.

I know....disgraceful isn't it?

[jethro]

I know....disgraceful isn't it?

How long have you spent watching those kiddies videos?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

If everyone else was as reasonable and ego-less as you TWS, we'd all have progressed much further on this forum. It is so nice to chat to someone who has obviously looked at the whole subject, without viewing it through polarised specs.

I agree entirely with that.

I remain very much on the side of natural/cyclical drivers, but it would still be nice to able to engage the other side of the story a bit more without being declared a numpty for not wholesale believing in it. It is that overriding impression which now puts me off bothering wanting to try anymore.

[Roo]

How long have you spent watching those kiddies videos?

This whole ridiculous thing started because the Met Office, who have always examined all aspects of the climate change debate and yet who are firmly on the side of AGW, wrote a piece which (yet again) examined all aspects of the climate change debate and came out firmly on the side of AGW. This of course has been taken to mean that, clearly, the whole AGW argument is about to collapse and that the Met Office have changed their position in advance of a giant climbdown!

I give up, I really do....

Sometimes the kiddies' videos make more sense!

[Devonian]

I agree entirely with that.

I remain very much on the side of natural/cyclical drivers, but it would still be nice to able to engage the other side of the story a bit more without being declared a numpty for not wholesale believing in it. It is that overriding impression which now puts me off bothering wanting to try anymore.

I do think I'd probably disagree with your pov but that's not to call you a numpty. We surely debate here on the basis we do disagree? That said I have to say numpty is bland compared to what people like Al Gore or Dr James Hansen get called

Anyway, what would your response be to this FAQ 'Climate change: some basics' that I read in the mid nineties and I still think captures the essence of the science?

[Solar Cycles]

This whole ridiculous thing started because the Met Office, who have always examined all aspects of the climate change debate and yet who are firmly on the side of AGW, wrote a piece which (yet again) examined all aspects of the climate change debate and came out firmly on the side of AGW. This of course has been taken to mean that, clearly, the whole AGW argument is about to collapse and that the Met Office have changed their position in advance of a giant climbdown!

I give up, I really do....

Sometimes the kiddies' videos make more sense!

No one as stated this Roo, we are aware the MetO haven't changed their stance on AGW, what they have done is distanced themselves from silly headline making stories. Which most of us from both sides of the debate welcome!

[VillagePlank]

This of course has been taken to mean that, clearly, the whole AGW argument is about to collapse and that the Met Office have changed their position in advance of a giant climbdown!

Who has said that?

[Roo]

No one as stated this Roo, we are aware the MetO haven't changed their stance on AGW, what they have done is distanced themselves from silly headline making stories. Which most of us from both sides of the debate welcome!

Various quotes copied from this thread and the other dedicated to this article:

'For me this is the stance the MetO should have took from the start'

'First tentative signs of the exit strategy'

'it makes a refreshing change for an authority such as the METO to accept, admit and begin to address this issue [of natural influences]'

'If, from the very beginning, the METO had been as moderate as this latest offering'

'It certainly reads to me like a moderating of their previous stance'

'How about the AGW types starting to take steps in accepting that their game is up?'

'I think the met office has a new train now the global warming express has been derailed and a public statement to back it all up'

The Met Office have always distanced themselves from silly headlines and they have always acknowledged the natural element of climate change, as has the IPCC: can someone, please, show me where they have done otherwise in the past?

Edited February 17, 2009 by Roo

[Solar Cycles]

Various quotes copied from this thread and the other dedicated to this article:

'For me this is the stance the MetO should have took from the start'

'First tentative signs of the exit strategy'

'it makes a refreshing change for an authority such as the METO to accept, admit and begin to address this issue [of natural influences]'

'If, from the very beginning, the METO had been as moderate as this latest offering'

'It certainly reads to me like a moderating of their previous stance'

'How about the AGW types starting to take steps in accepting that their game is up?'

'I think the met office has a new train now the global warming express has been derailed and a public statement to back it all up'

The Met Office have always distanced themselves from silly headlines and they have always acknowledged the natural element of climate change, as has the IPCC: can someone, please, show me where they have done otherwise in the past?

They have never distanced themselves in the past, they were more than happy to let various media and scientist make outrageous comments. This is a new stance by them, and one which we all should embrace. Seems some have hidden agendas though!!

[jethro]

This whole ridiculous thing started because the Met Office, who have always examined all aspects of the climate change debate and yet who are firmly on the side of AGW, wrote a piece which (yet again) examined all aspects of the climate change debate and came out firmly on the side of AGW. This of course has been taken to mean that, clearly, the whole AGW argument is about to collapse and that the Met Office have changed their position in advance of a giant climbdown!

I give up, I really do....

Sometimes the kiddies' videos make more sense!

No, that's not how it's been taken nor interpreted. The applause has been because the METO have, over the past few years released many reports/press releases about climate change and warming. Either no, or little regard has been paid to natural variation, the emphasis has been upon AGW altering the climate. This latest offering has paid more heed to natural variation and the role it plays.

In their own words:

The chairman of the Met Office Robert Napier added: "The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet and all of us face uncertain consequences as temperatures rise. We need to make sense of this challenge — not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this.

Taken from here:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20070202.html

No mention whatsoever about natural drivers or variation.

Only in November of last year we had this:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...pr20081103.html

A paragraph...

In delivering its 'Fourth Assessment Report' in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that the human fingerprint could be detected in averaged temperature rise over each continent, except Antarctica. However, a new study of almost 60 years of temperature records by an international collaboration of scientists, including the Met Office Hadley Centre, says this is no longer the case, concluding that Antarctica has warmed as a result of human influence.

This is the same report which has been shown to be grossly inaccurate, creating temperature measurements where none exist.

Their mantra at the bottom of every press release is this:

The Met Office is the UK's national weather service, providing world-renowned scientific excellence in weather and climate change.

[Roo]

Erm....

This is a new stance by them

And two posts above you said:

the MetO haven't changed their stance

[Iceberg]

To quote from a MET Office release in 2007.

"The chairman of the Met Office Robert Napier added: "The challenge is that climate change is not linear, the planet and all of us face uncertain consequences as temperatures rise. We need to make sense of this challenge — not to scare or alarm but to present with scientific validity the probabilities of what might happen. The Met Office has the ability, the reputation and the responsibility to do this." "

Taken from a press release in March 2008.

"January 2008 may seem particularly cold compared to January 2007 — the warmest January on record and largely due to the warming phenomenon El Niño — but this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate.

In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind. "

to be fair they have persistantly mentioned natural variability.

[Solar Cycles]

Erm....

And two posts above you said:

Your obviously confused by all of this! I said they changed their stance regarding distancing themselves, and that they haven't changed their stance on the science. The first statement is welcomed. Are we clear now!

Some people are seeing what they want to see. Most of us welcome the MetO statement ( how many times have I said this ) can we please move on now, this is getting tiresome!

[Thundery wintry showers]

The Met Office have always distanced themselves from silly headlines and they have always acknowledged the natural element of climate change, as has the IPCC: can someone, please, show me where they have done otherwise in the past?

I don't think the Met Office has ever been particularly sensationalist- but in the past they haven't been as vocal in dismissing the sensationalist stuff and acknowledging the natural element of climate change as they have in pressing forward with the "AGW is potentially a very serious issue" argument. This goes for most other science groups as well including the IPCC- it's not what they have said, but rather that they've emphasised one side of the coin more than the other, making it seem that things are more settled and clear-cut than they really are.

I have seen some posts reflecting what Roo has said re. the Met Office supposedly weakening their stance on AGW- it's only a few members (and only a small percentage of the sceptics on here) but it has been expressed, as Roo quoted above. To be honest I don't think the prevailing stance among climate scientists has changed significantly since the slowdown of global warming over the last decade, but it's more about how the scientific consensus is presented to the public. I would like to see more sources providing the kind of stance that the MetO have offered in that article - hopefully some others will take notice!

[Solar Cycles]

I don't think the Met Office has ever been particularly sensationalist- but in the past they haven't been as vocal in dismissing the sensationalist stuff and acknowledging the natural element of climate change as they have in pressing forward with the "AGW is potentially a very serious issue" argument. This goes for most other science groups as well including the IPCC- it's not what they have said, but rather that they've emphasised one side of the coin more than the other, making it seem that things are more settled and clear-cut than they really are.

I have seen some posts reflecting what Roo has said re. the Met Office supposedly weakening their stance on AGW- it's only a few members (and only a small percentage of the sceptics on here) but it has been expressed, as Roo quoted above. To be honest I don't think the prevailing stance among climate scientists has changed significantly since the slowdown of global warming over the last decade, but it's more about how the scientific consensus is presented to the public. I would like to see more sources providing the kind of stance that the MetO have offered in that article - hopefully some others will take notice!

Yes, but Roo had implied that I was one of them. Which I'm most certainly not!

[HighPressure]

Where I get fed up with argument is that it is a fact that a lot of uncertainty still exists whichever side of the fence you sit. I think that most people would agree that AGW exists the question is how much does human activity add to the warming process and how much is natural. Also what realistic changes to human behaviour can be achieved and what result that will have on GW. It appears to me that we cannot get past the oh yes it is, oh no its not phase with all the mud slinging that brings. I doubt wether anyone who contributes to this site or even the GW debate is actually 100% right and that means a genuine need to debate and that requires open minds.

The MetO are probably just backing away from the ridiculous situation we had when every hot day or every rainstorm was contributed to AGW to help sell the argument. The public have been sold the notion of ever increasing temperatures on a year to year basis, and that is just not the reality and its about time the correct message was delivered. This is a relatively slow process over 50, 100 or more years, the fact that it has snowed this winter does not mean GW has gone away. Those responsible for selling the message this way and that includes politicians deserve a severe reprimand.

We need the debate properly opened to all views, we need to honestly work out realistic human targets not just pie in the sky stuff that is just not going to happen or some paper exercise with the big guys buying some underdeveloped African nations carbon allowance. We need to be very skeptical of cash strapped governments selling us the green ticket as we do windmill salesman and global oil producers.

I look forward to the day we have a proper platform for meaningful debate and workable actions and maybe a 10yr cool off and world recession might just force that to happen?

Edited February 17, 2009 by HighPressure

[Solar Cycles]

Where I get fed up with argument is that it is a fact that a lot of uncertainty still exists whichever side of the fence you sit. I think that most people would agree that AGW exists the question is how much does human activity add to the warming process and how much is natural. Also what realistic changes to human behaviour can be achieved and what result that will have on GW. It appears to me that we cannot get past the oh yes it is, oh no its not phase with all the mud slinging that brings. I doubt wether anyone who contributes to this site or even the GW debate is actually 100% and that means a genuine need to debate and that requires open minds.

The MetO are probably just backing away from the ridiculous situation we had when every hot day or every rainstorm was contributed to AGW to help sell the argument. The public have been sold the notion of ever increasing temperatures on a year to year basis, and that is just not the reality and its about time the correct message was delivered. This is a relatively slow process over 50, 100 or more years, the fact that it has snowed this winter does not mean GW has gone away. Those responsible for selling the message this way and that includes politicians deserve a severe reprimand.

We need the debate properly opened to all views, we need to honestly work out realistic human targets not just pie in the sky stuff that is just not going to happen or some paper exercise with the big guys buying some underdeveloped African nations carbon allowance. We need to be very skeptical of cash strapped governments selling us the green ticket as we do windmill salesman and global oil producers.

I look forward to the day we have a proper platform for meaningful debate and workable actions and maybe a 10yr cool off and world recession might just force that to happen?

I agree with you. I don't think anyone really can say with certainty, that there 100% sure either way. TWS is probably the only one on any forum, who puts an excellent argument forward for AGW, whilst still be open to the idea that the science isn't settled.

Edited February 17, 2009 by Solar Cycles

[Solar Cycles]

I have to say, one gets the feeling that a lot of AGW supporters seem to have a hidden agenda. Ever since the MetO released their last press statement, there seems to be quite a few on here who are not best pleased!

[Iceberg]

Not sure I'd agree with that, I think all the main AGW supporters very much welcome the METO statement, it makes the life of an AGW supporter alot easier if they don't have media rubbish getting in the way of what they are trying to say.

RE TWS's point I think some things are quite clear cut at least in my mind AGW induced warming over the last 20 years of say 0.3C has imo very likely occured. So given the increase in CO2 warming by 2100 of 2C seems very very feasible all things being equal. The 2-4C range might well occur given enhanced feedback mechanism loss of ice leading to greater warming etc. above 4C and we start to get into the range where the evidence is very sketchy and instinct and opinions start to get more prominent. It becomes alot easier for Sceptics to argue against it and their are many valid points of view.

[pottyprof]

I have to say, one gets the feeling that a lot of AGW supporters seem to have a hidden agenda. Ever since the MetO released their last press statement, there seems to be quite a few on here who are not best pleased!

Have to disagree.. I think that most are happy with what the met have said. There is still the little argument as to what AGW is tho.. is it just CO2 and how much or is it that and other things lumped together?

Have to say that when you present things from government sites, some do go quiet when they have been boosting the anthro a bit too much.. Especially when they are unaware of real facts.. but thats another issue....

[osmposm]

I have to say, one gets the feeling that a lot of AGW supporters seem to have a hidden agenda. Ever since the MetO released their last press statement, there seems to be quite a few on here who are not best pleased!

Can you provide us with even one example, SC, of an AGW supporter on here who has expressed displeasure at that Met Office press release?

And what 'hidden agenda' are you referring to? Why do you find it so hard to believe that most of the people you're referring to here - and at the Met Office, for that matter - are just people seeking the truth, and who after reading a great deal of evidence over a long period of time, honestly hold the belief that AGW is real and significant, and has possibly serious implications for our future?

[Methuselah]

I have to say, one gets the feeling that a lot of AGW supporters seem to have a hidden agenda. Ever since the MetO released their last press statement, there seems to be quite a few on here who are not best pleased!

I think you're being a tad disingenuous there, SC...Statements like that do not really do much to encourage friendly discussions now, do they?

Is it only 'warmists' that have a 'hidden agenda'?

[Solar Cycles]

I think you're being a tad disingenuous there, SC...Statements like that do not really do much to encourage friendly discussions now, do they?

Is it only 'warmists' that have a 'hidden agenda'?

With hindsight your probabaly right Pete, besides I'm not going to name them personally. As for what Os said, I don't believe I've ever had a pop at the MetO, might not agree with them, but I don't think that's a crime ( yet )!

[osmposm]

With hindsight your probably right Pete, besides I'm not going to name them personally. As for what Os said, I don't believe I've ever had a pop at the MetO, might not agree with them, but I don't think that's a crime ( yet )!

I only included the Met Office as an aside....."and at the Met Office, for that matter". My main question to you was about your asssertion that a lot of AGWers on here have a "hidden agenda". It is a clever, if unsatisfactory answer to effectively repeat that assertion (by not withdrawing it), yet avoid the question by saying "I'm not going to name them personally".

So, I take it you cannot, as I requested, "provide us with even one example....of an AGW supporter on here who has expressed displeasure at that Met Office press release?" And if indeed you can't, perhaps you'd care to withdraw your suggestion that "ever since the MetO released their last press statement, there seems to be quite a few on here who are not best pleased"?

"I don't believe I've ever had a pop at the MetO", you say. Let me remind you of your first response to John Holmes' posting of the link to the press release on 13th Feb: "It does make you wonder though, as to why it's taken this long for the MetO to speak out on all the outlandish claims that have been made in the past! The cynic in me says, probably because the climate isn't doing what they said it should be doing, over the last few years......" You certainly pulled back from that view pretty quickly afterwards, and have been warm in admiration since. But that "pop" was your initial reaction, SC.

Laserguy was of course still taking this stance just yesterday: ".....why have they chosen now,so late in the day to intervene? I'll tell ya - because things ain't going to plan,that's why. Does anyone seriously believe they'd have piped up and berated the crazed alarmists if warming was actually occuring and looked liked continuing to do so? Uh hu."

Can we take it that you now disagree with Barrie on this?

Ossie

Edited February 18, 2009 by osmposm

[Solar Cycles]

I only included the Met Office as an aside....."and at the Met Office, for that matter". My main question to you was about your asssertion that a lot of AGWers on here have a "hidden agenda". It is a clever, if unsatisfactory answer to effectively repeat that assertion (by not withdrawing it), yet avoid the question by saying "I'm not going to name them personally".

So, I take it you cannot, as I requested, "provide us with even one example....of an AGW supporter on here who has expressed displeasure at that Met Office press release?" And if indeed you can't, perhaps you'd care to withdraw your suggestion that "ever since the MetO released their last press statement, there seems to be quite a few on here who are not best pleased"?

"I don't believe I've ever had a pop at the MetO", you say. Let me remind you of your first response to John Holmes' posting of the link to the press release on 13th Feb: "It does make you wonder though, as to why it's taken this long for the MetO to speak out on all the outlandish claims that have been made in the past! The cynic in me says, probably because the climate isn't doing what they said it should be doing, over the last few years......" You certainly pulled back from that view pretty quickly afterwards, and have been warm in admiration since. But that "pop" was your initial reaction, SC.

Laserguy was of course still taking this stance just yesterday: ".....why have they chosen now,so late in the day to intervene? I'll tell ya - because things ain't going to plan,that's why. Does anyone seriously believe they'd have piped up and berated the crazed alarmists if warming was actually occuring and looked liked continuing to do so? Uh hu."

Can we take it that you now disagree with Barrie on this?

Ossie

That wasn't a pop at the MetO as such, yes I believe they should have acted quicker in distancing themselves from silly stories. But apart from that, I really welcome their move to come out and say what they did. As for naming people, well your right no one has come out and said anything against the MetO. What I was implying, was that it appeared some on here didn't appear too happy by the Met's stance. But that's my opinion Ossie, not a fact! And actually Barrie is only saying more or less what I said!