General Climate Change Discussion.......

[osmposm]

I'm glad you're happy today, Kip. Must be because everyone's being so nice(-ish) to each other one here!

P.S. How weird - if I write "c o s" with an apostrophe in front of it instead of "because" - in order to sound informal, yet still correct - the thingy changes it to "because" anyway, but inexplicably retains the apostrophe!

P.P.S. Aaaaaaargh, I now find it does it even without the apostrophe - I'll have to write it with spaces between the letters.....be jolly inconvenient if this was a forum about lettuce-growing or trigonometry.

Edited July 30, 2009 by osmposm

[Chris Knight]

I'm glad you're happy today, Kip. Must be because everyone's being so nice(-ish) to each other one here!

P.S. How weird - if I write "c o s" with an apostrophe in front of it instead of "because" - in order to sound informal, yet still correct - the thingy changes it to "because" anyway, but inexplicably retains the apostrophe!

P.P.S. Aaaaaaargh, I now find it does it even without the apostrophe - I'll have to write it with spaces between the letters.....be jolly inconvenient if this was a forum about lettuce-growing or trigonometry.

Whaddaya mean "(-ish)"?

[Methuselah]

And, why does it work for me? 'Cos it does. That's why!

[jethro]

And, why does it work for me? 'because it does. That's why!

'because you've got to get some benefits from drawing the short straw of moderating us lot

Yup, mod benefits...

Edited July 30, 2009 by jethro

[Gray-Wolf]

'Global warming as new religion?' Give me a break — climate change is serious

By Jim Hoggan, Special to the Vancouver SunJuly 30, 2009#

There is a strange conviction, in certain circles, that the world's environmental community has grown superhumanly strong — an idea that, with the cock of an eyebrow or the curl of a lip, any leading environmentalist can strike fear into the hearts of academics, politicians and businesspeople around the globe.

As the chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, the leading environmental organization in Canada, I wish that it were so. To borrow the fiery rhetoric of Vancouver Sun columnist Jonathon Manthorpe, I would be delighted, if only for a day, to be one of the "ayatollahs of puritan environmentalism" or the "Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming."

Maybe then, I could use the power of religious fundamentalism and the threat of a Spanish-style inquisition to encourage the making climate change policy that was based on actual science rather than on overcharged emotion and obvious self-interest.

Apparently, however, that time has not yet come. Certainly not if we have to contend with the "reality" Manthorpe defined in his July 28, 2009 Sun column, "Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites."

Manthorpe rests his entire argument on the work of the Australian climate skeptic Ian Plimer and especially on Plimer's latest book, Heaven and Earth — Global Warming; The Missing Science.

Plimer, a mining geologist, dismisses the concern about climate change as irrelevant, a view Manthorpe endorses by adding, "It is, of course, not new to have a highly qualified scientist saying that global warming is an entirely natural phenomenon with many precedents in history."

If that were true, Manthorpe was honour bound to offer examples of these scientific leaders — even one example. Because the record shows that the "highly qualified" scientists — the ones who are actually doing research in the field and publishing their work in reputable journals rather than in populist books — are virtually unanimous that climate change is an urgent concern.

In addition to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the science academies in every major country in the world have endorsed the fundamental science of climate change and urged international action. Check the website of the Royal Society of Canada if you have any doubts.

Certainly, there are contrarian "scientists." These (like Plimer) tend to be experts in other fields (like geology) and (like Plimer) they are frequently associated with energy industry advocacy groups (like the Natural Resources Stewardship Project) that exist not to further the work of science but to confuse the public conversation.

If Manthorpe were truly interested in climate science, there are dozens of good books and thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers from which he might have gained reliable information. Instead, he read Plimer, whose book is riddled with errors (Google "Deltoid" and Ian Plimer for an entertaining list).

For example, Manthorpe writes: "(Plimer) says atmospheric carbon dioxide is now at the lowest levels it has been for 500 million years."

Well, Plimer may say so, but it is verifiably not true. There is reliable and widely reported research showing that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years — at least.

Again, Google "Lonnie Thompson" and "Antarctic ice cores" if you want confirmation.

Climate change is a serious issue — and one that should be taken seriously, especially by journalists who have a soap box and a good reputation. In an age when reliable, peer-reviewed scientific reports are readily available to anyone with an internet connection, we all should reject arguments that are based on epithets and ad hominem attacks and that gloss over the actual details of this unprecedented scientific and environmental crisis.

But don't take my word for it. You should search out your own good sources.

And the next time someone tells you that Canadian environmentalists are more influential than, say, the most profitable (energy) companies in the history of profit, pause and reflect. The next time someone argues that selfish (and by implication, dishonest) scientists created the threat of global warming because they want to fatten their research budget, imagine how much easier it would be to get research from government funding agencies or from the private-sector interests devoted to big oil if only your research showed that climate change was, in Manthorpe's words, "a harbinger of good things to come."

Jim Hoggan is the chair of the David Suzuki Foundation in Vancouver.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Though only a newspaper snippet I found this intersting.

Oh, and this (Chortle)

The rules

Published by Mercurius11 hours, 2 minutes agoin Climate change. 37 Comments

Hello world. It’s your friendly neighbourhood denialist here. Look, we need to talk. I think we got off on the wrong foot. You’ve got me all wrong. I’m really an open-minded guy. All I’m asking for is evidence of your AGW claims. Surely that’s not too much to ask?

And please note, that when I say evidence, I mean:

1) Nothing that was recorded by instruments such as weather-stations, ocean buoys or satellite data. Since all instruments are subject to error, we cannot use them to measure climate.

2) Nothing that has been corrected to account for the error of recording instruments. Any corrected data is a fudge. You must use only the raw data, which is previously disqualified under rule #1. Got that? OK, moving along…

3) Nothing that was produced by a computer model. We all know that you can’t trust computer models, and they have a terrible track record in any industrial, architectural, engineering, astronomical or medical context.

4) Nothing that was researched or published by a scientist. Such appeals to authority are invalid. We all know that scientists are just writing these papers to keep their grant money.

See? I’m a reasonable guy. I’m perfectly open to being convinced by real evidence — you know, the kind that doesn’t rely on scientific instruments, or corrected data, or computers, or results recorded by other scientists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I’m sure you’d agree that any evidence which meets my criteria would be extraordinary indeed.

And before you accuse me of hypocrisy, I apply all these rules to myself. For example, I have perfectly good evidence that the ETS will destroy the economy. I haven’t relied on any measurements, or projections, or the advice of economists in making this prediction. Therefore my evidence for this prediction of economic doom is water-tight. (On a related note, how can you predict the climate next decade when you can’t predict the weather next week? And did you know I can predict economic doom from the ETS next year, even though I can’t predict the stock market tomorrow?)

Before I go, here are some corollaries that devolve from the above 4 rules:

A) Any previous errors in climate science are automatic proof that new data is also wrong. For example, if you produce results which show a reduction in ice coverage, or a warming of ocean temperatures, all I have to do is shout ‘Hockey Stick!’ and the new data is instantly dispelled.

So, before I will accept your new data, it must retrospectively correct any errors in past data, and erase them from the space-time continuum as though they never occurred. Furthermore, if you do manage to perform this feat, your data will be invalid because corrected data is disqualified under rule #2.

C) Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite and a liar and a fraud who jets around the world and has a big house and eats puppies for breakfast. And will you please stop the ad hominem attacks on Ian Plimer?

D) Will somebody, please, somewhere, anywhere, address the science in Ian Plimer’s book? I mean, surely that’s not too much to ask? By the way, anybody who addresses the science in Ian Plimer’s book is just a nit-picker who hasn’t addressed the main issue.

E) Please, spare me your conspiracy theories. It’s not my fault that AGW is a giant hoax perpetrated by Big Green to take over the world in a socialist plot. I’m just trying to uncover the truth here, with the assistance of a lot of commentators, media personalities, corporate executives and hired scientists who just happen to share similar political views to my own.

F) Your position is based on religious faith, not on the science. I can tell because you pay attention to the scientific instruments, the corrected data, the computer models and the writings of published scientists, instead of what I know, deep in my heart to be the truth: that AGW is a giant hoax and a fraud.

G) If you ever refuse to debate with me, that is proof that your position is untenable, you’re frightened of the truth and you don’t have the evidence. And, by the way, when will Burt Newton respond publicly to the claims that he’s a trans-gender vampire who was regenerated in a vat from a single hair of Vlad the Impaler? His silence on this issue is telling…

—-

I’m so glad we could have this chat. I’m sure if we can just conduct this discussion using the rules and corollaries above, it will be an enlightening and fruitful enterprise that is well worth the time and effort of everybody involved.

I look forward to having this debate, at every opportunity, on every forum, on every website, from now until the end of time.

Yours truly,

The Marquess of Queensbury

Edited August 1, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Isn't that true of denialism in general, G-W - circular reasoning guaranteed?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Denialism is the most unhelpful slogan/word surrounding this subject. As long as it continues to be used then consensus will be blocked.

The word itself suggests that one side of the debate is fact and the other side needs to wake up and smell the Kenco.

Such a situation is not reality, but sadly won't change irrespective of that.

[Methuselah]

Denialism is the most unhelpful slogan/word surrounding this subject. As long as it continues to be used then consensus will be blocked.

The word itself suggests that one side of the debate is fact and the other side needs to wake up and smell the Kenco.

Such a situation is not reality, but sadly won't change irrespective of that.

I disagree, Tamara. Denialism is not merely a slogan, it is a state of mind. It could be (and, on some websites, almost certainly is) natual cycles that are are being denied; it could be the moonlandings, the association of Al-Quaeda with 9/11, it doesn't much matter; it is the mindset that is important, not the particular object of denial?

What evidence do the various denialists usually put forward, in support of their claims? In a word: nothing! All they're capabable of is nit-picking, scaremongering and babbling about 'invisible' conspiracies.

Which is why, IMO, we should all eschew denialist websites (on both sides of the debate!): they have no interest in truth-finding. All they want is to impose their-own jaundiced and anti-scientific paranoia on the world...

Now, I cannot see how antiscience, paranoia and conspiracy theories add anything to, what is an essentially scientific, debate.

[Gray-Wolf]

And this is what confuses me as well.

Surely the amount of climate science that has been undertaken over the past 40yrs would have thrown up enough 'troubling truths' to have AGW a fringe science? As it is all the studies undertaken seem to reinforce that we are in a novel period of climate change not experienced in our records of the earths geological past (and yes we have warmed before but not at the same rate nor purely under the influence of GHG's as an initial driver).

Why, with such a wealth of reinforcing evidence (as accepted by the experts in such fields), would we actively seek to find alternative reasons for the changes we are witnessing?

Why would we seek to prove the exact opposite (the 'coolists') of that which we live through?

Apart from being within the first stage of grieving I find it impossible to plumb.

If it is that these folk are so sensitised to the demise of our current way of being then surely they deserve our support and sympathy (those of us that can 'bite the bullet' that is ) and not the constant derision that they demand of us.

Oh , and "What's up with Watts"

Edited August 1, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[MR EXTREMES]

i gotta laugh planet earth once nearly covered totally in ice then it retreated back and this happened without the help of man then it came back.

then the Medieval Climatic Anomaly where greenland had less ice than today.

[Methuselah]

And this is what confuses me as well.

Surely the amount of climate science that has been undertaken over the past 40yrs would have thrown up enough 'troubling truths' to have AGW a fringe science? As it is all the studies undertaken seem to reinforce that we are in a novel period of climate change not experienced in our records of the earths geological past (and yes we have warmed before but not at the same rate nor purely under the influence of GHG's as an initial driver).

Why, with such a wealth of reinforcing evidence (as accepted by the experts in such fields), would we actively seek to find alternative reasons for the changes we are witnessing?

Why would we seek to prove the exact opposite (the 'coolists') of that which we live through?

Apart from being within the first stage of grieving I find it impossible to plumb.

If it is that these folk are so sensitised to the demise of our current way of being then surely they deserve our support and sympathy (those of us that can 'bite the bullet' that is ) and not the constant derision that they demand of us.

Oh , and "What's up with Watts"

Are you really sure about the bit I've bolded, G-W? Do you really mean augmented by GHGs?

PS: I'm going away to have a laugh at Watts's expense. Easily done! :lol:

[MR EXTREMES]

would it also be fair to say if temps drop one way then temps rising the oposite way would be fairly normal whether it be faster rate or slower at this moment in time there is not a major problem.

just over hyped along with help from organisations and the media.

to put thing in perspective there has been no dramatic temps rise since 98 so its been said.

this must be the pete and graywolf show.

as for watts hes just one person plenty of other respectable scientist that feel gw is rubbish.

http://wattsupwithth...r-june-09-zero/

http://www.intelliwe...nat_640x480.jpg

nice swathe of the usa cool.

Edited August 1, 2009 by badboy657

[Methuselah]

Well badboy, are they climate scientists? (Aren't they all in on the conspiracy, anyway?) Or are they a hotch-potch collection of metallurgists, geologists, oil-extraction engineers or what have you?

Anyway, the Pete & Gray-Wolf Show will be on-air shortly. :lol:

[MR EXTREMES]

Well badboy, are they climate scientists? (Aren't they all in on the conspiracy, anyway?) Or are they a hotch-potch collection of metallurgists, geologists, oil-extraction engineers or what have you?

Anyway, the Pete & Gray-Wolf Show will be on-air shortly.

lol :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

Isn't that true of denialism in general, G-W - circular reasoning guaranteed?

Here's a question, whose the deniers, those who beleive in a theory. Or those who think, that the theory is over estimated?

Well badboy, are they climate scientists? (Aren't they all in on the conspiracy, anyway?) Or are they a hotch-potch collection of metallurgists, geologists, oil-extraction engineers or what have you?

Anyway, the Pete & Gray-Wolf Show will be on-air shortly.

No conspiracy Pete, just bad practices!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think of denier as a general reference to those who deny the truth, or possibility of truth, of something no matter how much contrary evidence appears. They tend to ignore all evidence that contradicts their views and focus only on evidence that supports them.

This is distinguished from sceptics, those who are sceptical about the truth of something and thus hold the view that it shouldn't be taken for granted.

And we also have climate change cynics who think it's all a conspiracy!

[Methuselah]

This is distinguished from sceptics, those who are sceptical about the truth of something and thus hold the view that it shouldn't be taken for granted.

Aye, TWS. That's what I'm always saying, too. :lol: And, a sceptic should be prepared to doubt any new claims that are being made...

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Denier is a nasty term used 'only' by warmists towards those who dare stand against the AGW theory...yes theory [unless someone can show me a coolist using the term towards a warmist] :lol:

BFTP

[Solar Cycles]

I think of denier as a general reference to those who deny the truth, or possibility of truth, of something no matter how much contrary evidence appears. They tend to ignore all evidence that contradicts their views and focus only on evidence that supports them.

This is distinguished from sceptics, those who are sceptical about the truth of something and thus hold the view that it shouldn't be taken for granted.

And we also have climate change cynics who think it's all a conspiracy!

But that doesn't answer my question!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Here's a question, whose the deniers, those who beleive in a theory. Or those who think, that the theory is over estimated?

The answer to that question is, "it depends". Since neither of those two positions have been proved or disproved, there can be no "denial" involved in holding one of those views. However, when valid alternative views exist, and the person(s) concerned refuse to accept this, then they can be "deniers" in that sense.

I'm well aware that there are a fair number of people out there who take the IPCC's stance on AGW to be fact, and label anyone who disagrees as a "denier"- and that's somewhat wide of the mark. But there are things related to climate change that have been proved or disproved as fact, for example the world warming overall during the last 50 years, and thus it's not unreasonable to label those who cling onto the idea that the world hasn't warmed, through blind faith alone, as "deniers".

[Solar Cycles]

The answer to that question is, "it depends". Since neither of those two positions have been proved or disproved, there can be no "denial" involved in holding one of those views. However, when valid alternative views exist, and the person(s) concerned refuse to accept this, then they can be "deniers" in that sense.

I'm well aware that there are a fair number of people out there who take the IPCC's stance on AGW to be fact, and label anyone who disagrees as a "denier"- and that's somewhat wide of the mark. But there are things related to climate change that have been proved or disproved as fact, for example the world warming overall during the last 50 years, and thus it's not unreasonable to label those who cling onto the idea that the world hasn't warmed, through blind faith alone, as "deniers".

I'll go along with that TWS, beats me how anyone can deny we have warmed though!

[laserguy]

Well badboy, are they climate scientists? (Aren't they all in on the conspiracy, anyway?)

In the fullness of time (not much time now,actually),you'll find that the 'conspirators' consist of all shades of the warmista spectrum which comprise the AGW movement.

[osmposm]

I'll go along with that TWS, beats me how anyone can deny we have warmed though!

Beats me, too, Solar.....and yet there are plenty of them, some even on here.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Denier is a nasty term used 'only' by warmists towards those who dare stand against the AGW theory...yes theory [unless someone can show me a coolist using the term towards a warmist]

BFTP

I agree Fred.

It is a very unwanted and arrogant term and represents an unhelpful mindset. The denial process can of course be attributed to any mindset, but within the context of climate change it is as you say symptomatic of some AGW proponents towards non or lesser 'believers'.

The other problem is that if it is bracketed together as representing a mindset of people then it lumps too many together who actually as individuals stand for varying beliefs within a same framework who are done an injustice by being crated into a denial 'box'. Another example of cloning too many individuals together as one and giving them a label.

Others are lumped into that box simply by continual misrepresention in terms of what they believe and are portrayed erroneously as contrary mavericks - almost as if for the sake of being contrary. Much as I tried to suggest yesterday. Such wrongly labelled mavericks are then boxed into the denial mindset - as seen by some AGW proponents, much as you suggest who 'dare' to stand against their hypothesis. That is purely expressing doubt about an uncertain science - it is not disbelieving a settled science - as the term 'denier' implies. Being suspicious of underlying biases - poorly handled requests for data, being critical of over zealous and biased presentations and seasonal forecasts that blur edges with climate change campaigns (not long term forecasting) represent looking for the truth and seeking a balance in the way that the science is portrayed and represented. Such processes are entitled to be criticised without, again, being put into another unhelpful box (a paranoiac or conspirational one this time) - if no-one questioned anything or harboured doubts where exactly would we be?

A few examples of stout AGW proponents do exist however who don't seek to impose the hypothesis, nor 'box' people. Paramedies 3 is (was) one such comparatively rare individual who strongly advocates IPCC reporting and the overall hypothesis and whilst explaining it in detail, is not preachy, judgemental and overbearing with it at the same time. Without wanting to take anything for granted, I doubt if he would get touchy if the IPCC or METO et al were 'dared' to be criticised either - even if he disagreed with the criticisms.

In such cases, one might not still be 'converted' to AGW'ism but at least it makes overall discussion easier and more pleasant without tagging, boxing and insults.

Edited August 2, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

Well, on the subject of deniers, it's not a partisan thing. (Although I can see the attraction in being quick to label it thus!)

I have no truck with the ultra-AGWers who dismiss natural climate change out of hand a priori. What is their contribution to debate? Where are their uncherry-picked data? Why are any data that points away from their beliefs dismissed out of hand?

And, one can (and should IMO?) ask those exact same questions of the opposite extreme...

It's part of what it means to be sceptical. It has nothing to do with 'lumping'!