Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[jethro]

Interstennig link.

 

http://www.thegwpf.org/

 

I know you're trying to discredit the paper that Keith linked to by highlighting the clearly biased source of the link, but I'd like to raise a couple of points....firstly, the paper actually came from the Geophysical Research Letters, a peer reviewed, scientific journal. Secondly, Keith has been roundly criticised time and again for posting links to blog stuff and failing to post peer reviewed literature - now he does and your response is still critical, albeit obliquely so.

 

Not really on, is it? How about giving people a fair crack of the whip eh.

[Fergus Brown]

Northern Hemisphere. Not Global.

Apparently there are some flaws in the paper, but this does not mean it should be dismissed unless you have a reason (ie, an analysis of the paper) which offers a serious contradiction.

Note: elsewhere there is material on the recent slowdown of the AMOC and changes to the NAO. NAO fits broadly into natural variation, most likely - AMOC it's hard to say yet - not enough data/ analysis yet. If these are persistent, then regional scale cooling should be expected.

Just in case anyone thought otherwise, the paper does not say at any stage that there is a pause in GW. Because the authors know there isn't.

[Slinky]

Ahh it's good to see that this old chestnut is still raging on

I remember arguing/discussing with stratos ferric (if I remember the user name correctly) and others years and years ago on here in this section. In the end I have up posting here due to the strong views on both sides.

Back then GW seemed almost to be a new religion........

It will be interesting over the next few weeks, to see if anything has changed on either side :o

[knocker]

[stewfox]

Ahh it's good to see that this old chestnut is still raging on

I remember arguing/discussing with stratos ferric (if I remember the user name correctly) and others years and years ago on here in this section. In the end I have up posting here due to the strong views on both sides.

Back then GW seemed almost to be a new religion........

It will be interesting over the next few weeks, to see if anything has changed on either side

 

Global sea ice again back above the long term average and despite certain camps spin on that , its hard to see that would happen as a result of warming world

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

[Methuselah]

Just a wee reminder...any obviously pro-AGW posts will be moved to the appropriate thread... 

[Polar Maritime]

Is it so difficult to not post this propaganda rubbish in the sceptic thread?

It's not like it's a specific response to a point raised.

 

I have removed it myself 4 as wrong thread, but calling it propaganda rubbish is beyond me.

 

Where on Earth do you get your information and stats from ?

 

And anything can be posted in this thread, whether it's regarding a specific point raised or not, as long as it's on topic ok.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Polar Maritime

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd go further P.M. and insist that only truth should be posted on either thread and falsehoods should be challenged at source without there having to be a 'sir ,sir, jimmy's playing with my stuff again' incident.

 

We could maybe start an "Utter Tripe" thread for such lies though ( if folk need to persist in their telling of them)......or a 'sin bin' for claims that are proven to be no more than lies?

Edited October 20, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Tamara]

The point of posting this in a 'sceptic thread' held what intellectual purpose?

 

I think any sensible person would suggest that the whole (serious) debate about climate variation from any perspective of opinion has validity when presented in a respectful and open minded manner - but surely spam like this (also posted in the wrong designated thread) is exactly what isn't required.

 

The current sea ice situation does not mean that any sustained recovery is a surety by any means, but it does defy shortest term predictions most emphatically and gives a welcome overdue opportunity for perspective to reign supreme on the debate. There is so much yet to be understood - and that in itself provides its own golden opportunity to suspend theoretic assumptions and probe further sceptical *open minded* questions.

[mikeworst]

Well put and sensible Tamara.

[UV-RAY]

I'd go further P.M. and insist that only truth should be posted on either thread and falsehoods should be challenged at source without there having to be a 'sir ,sir, jimmy's playing with my stuff again' incident.

 

We could maybe start an "Utter Tripe" thread for such lies though ( if folk need to persist in their telling of them)......or a 'sin bin' for claims that are proven to be no more than lies?

Would that mean no more assumptions dressed up as facts posts by yourself then GW? 

[Gray-Wolf]

Well it might be a comment on the 'natural' ending of the last ice age and how it could have been misconstrued as a climate forcing from the mega fauna's emmisions?

 

It could be a comment on the slow pace of change that past climate shifts took place under?

[UV-RAY]

Well it might be a comment on the 'natural' ending of the last ice age and how it could have been misconstrued as a climate forcing from the mega fauna's emmisions?

 

It could be a comment on the slow pace of change that past climate shifts took place under?

So that's a no then.

[stewfox]

I'd go further P.M. and insist that only truth should be posted on either thread and falsehoods should be challenged at source without there having to be a 'sir ,sir, jimmy's playing with my stuff again' incident.

 

We could maybe start an "Utter Tripe" thread for such lies though ( if folk need to persist in their telling of them)......or a 'sin bin' for claims that are proven to be no more than lies?

 

Most of the truths posted on the other thread are just theories at best or just projections that this could or couldn't happen in next 20/30yrs.

 

Some people will always be taken in more then others.

 

Its not that some of these theories could in fact turn out to be correct but many want far more evidence then the BBC1 showing someone sketching a single glacier at 18000ft. He has been doing it for years apparently and seen it receed year on year and  that's 'proof' all glaciers are in peril.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2013 by stewfox

[keithlucky]

Antarctic ice sets a all time record for October were as ice growth normally stops around 22nd of September

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/antarctic-ice-sets-new-all-time-record-in-october/

[jethro]

I'd go further P.M. and insist that only truth should be posted on either thread and falsehoods should be challenged at source without there having to be a 'sir ,sir, jimmy's playing with my stuff again' incident.

 

We could maybe start an "Utter Tripe" thread for such lies though ( if folk need to persist in their telling of them)......or a 'sin bin' for claims that are proven to be no more than lies?

 

The trouble with that stance is that some science, even by some of the leading experts, would fall foul of the 'truth' requirement. People pick and choose their truths, the things they want to believe, by the people they want to believe in. I can think of many things you'd want posted in the 'utter tripe' section or condemned to the 'sin bin' - top of my list would be Mark Serreze......I can hear you squealing that he's an expert, and well he may be, but that didn't stop him from issuing utter tripe which belonged in the sin bin. Wasn't it the summer just gone that the Arctic was supposed to be completely ice free?

 

People in glass houses and all that GW.

[knocker]

The point of posting this in a 'sceptic thread' held what intellectual purpose?

 

None. It was was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek post. And as for intellectual  purpose I have no idea as I'm a long way from being an intellectual. Although I tend to agree with a  well known Frenchman.

 

"An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself".

Edited October 21, 2013 by knocker

[VillagePlank]

"An intellectual is someone whose mind watches itself".

 

 

Existentialism really doesn't appeal to the idea of consensus, mate.

[Tamara]

 There is one common bond that most all of us share on both 'sceptic' and AGW advocate sides of the debate on climate change (call it what you will! ) and that is a need to aim to protect our global environment in general and adjust our lifestyles accordingly to enable this to happen. We mostly all agree that there is an awful lot to achieve and improve upon in this respect - less waste of consumables, sustainability of foodstuffs, crops and other resources, much more economical and cleaner energy efficiency..the list goes on.

 

These factors also happen to address the AGW assuaged beliefs about artificial harm to the climate, and steps to take to alleviate any possible artifical interference, and in turn reduce any possible risks to how the global environment might be affected by our actions. At face value, whatever one believes about climate variation, this is sensible as precautionary practice.

 

The huge differences arise however in terms of beliefs of what actually does drives our climate, and why it varies, and hence to what extent we may or may not be affecting our environment globally. We cannot however make a good assessment of climate drivers if we make too many theoretical assumptions about them and risk skewing the reality.

 

I think that environmental prudence, and the associated morality of that, is where a lot of the problems begin in terms of attitudes and where perhaps the preachy advocacy of some AGW adherents arises that creates friction amongst others when 'shared' with those whose opinions are less emphatic and strident in belief, and instead measured and more open minded on the subject of climate variation. In short 'sceptical'.

 

It should be remembered that such open mindedness/scepticism is actually another form of caring and desire to find the truth about climate variation, so that we can gauge most accurately to what extent, or otherwise, that our lifestyles impinge/don't impinge on our climate.

 

It is perfectly reasonable and constructive in purpose to suppose that we can affect our climate through our lifestyles - but over assumptiveness over man-made climate theory clearly becomes an artifact adopted to preach to everyone, of whatever level of opinion or belief.

 

This occurs in the way as suggested above as being derived from a profoundest belief to do right to our environment.

 

Most will agree that taking precautions to reduce carbon/GHG emissions, in live with the environmental prudence outlined at the beginning is sound practice, irrespective of how whether climate is articially influenced or not to whatever extent it may or may not be. Hence (just f.e) the likes of Laserguy and GW, who have the most starkly polarically different opinions, attitudes and philosphies on 'climate change', may still wish to find common ground here in terms of being equally 'Green' in real everyday lifestyle  

 

What differs so starkly is the attitudes, open mindedness (or otherwise) of such individuals (and many other of us) in terms of wishing to find the truth to what drives and influences our climate. 'Scepticism' as such in this respect is simply such open-mindedness - a wish to take a balanced and measured approach to ALL the research. Such scepticism is much more likely to uncover the truth in a rational way than fanaticism, on the other hand, is actually much more likely to cause harm and hamper progress through its extremes of thought and opinion. This is said whilst acknowledging that such fanaticism is simply an overreactive state to a well meant intention to 'care for the planet' . However, as with all extremes of belief and opinion - fanaticism and too much passion and 'care' usually finds error rather than accuracy in truth. Plus it becomes preachy and sanctimoneous in its desire to want to 'open the eyes of others'  

 

It is this in my humble little opinion that causes frictions, entrenches and polarises attitudes, and creates barriers to the debate

Edited October 21, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[UV-RAY]

But none of the above doesn't alter the fact that there has been no warming for 15 years, the science is correct on greenhouse gases but not on magnitude of warming, if it was temp would still be climbing.Edit; This post is probably better in the sceptics thread, so could it be reported in there please.

Edited October 22, 2013 by A Boy Named Sue
Good thinking, Batman!

[stewfox]

But none of the above doesn't alter the fact that there has been no warming for 15 years, the science is correct on greenhouse gases but not on magnitude of warming, if it was temp would still be climbing.Edit; This post is probably better in the sceptics thread, so could it be reported in there please.

 

That's the point its half time and at best its 0-0

 

Regardless of however well argued the man made camp put forward views of the likely result at the end of the game , its still at the very best 0-0 at half time.

 

If it was 4-0 half time (substantial sea level rises, ice melt both poles, marked increases in global warming etc) the man made camp would be in a better position to argue were going to win by the end of the game but they cant.

 

Lets see what the next 30 years bring

[stewfox]

Relevance to this thread?

 

Direct response to Dev comment " """"I don't regard money spent to help diversifying our energy supply so we less dependant upon dangerous regimes as a waste. etc etc etc"""""

 

A lot of people do.

 

Very relevant as there is a big 'cost' going down its all 'man made' but the post was taken off so your safe you can ignore the cost. 

[stewfox]

Your not allowed to discuss the 'cost' related to 'green initiatives' in the Man Made thread.

 

Rolling back green taxes on energy is good in the short term given the short comings around 'global warming theory'. People feeling the pinch now.

[Methuselah]

Your not allowed to discuss the 'cost' related to 'green initiatives' in the Man Made thread.

 

Rolling back green taxes on energy is good in the short term given the short comings around 'global warming theory'. People feeling the pinch now.

Well, we do have an entire thread devoted to discussing energy prices, Stew... 

[4wd]

Climate change increased the number of deaths

 

[2013-10-21] The increased temperatures caused by ongoing climate change in Stockholm, Sweden between 1980 and 2009 caused 300 more premature deaths than if the temperature increase did not take place. In Sweden as a whole, it would mean about 1,500 more premature deaths, according to a study from researchers at Umeå University published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

 

http://www.medfak.umu.se/english/about-the-faculty/news/newsdetailpage//climate-change-increased-the-number-of-deaths.cid223558

There are a number of problems with this study - outlined here.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/24/claim-climate-change-caused-more-deaths-in-stockholm/