Is the earth really dying?

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Dorts

I'm sorry Dave
...
Dorts.

There are so many outlandish and ridiculous claims in just this one post that it's difficult to count them all, let alone rebut them individually. For one thing, it's full of unattributed vague claims e.g. scientists say X, government climate models show Y). These statements are just meaningless rhetoric unless you can actually back them up with a link/reference to the actual scientists / climate models in question.

For instance, which are the models (plural) that claim it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees, assuming no further CO2 emissions? Plus, I don't see why this scenario is particularly relevant to future climate change, since it isn't going to happen.

And:

"The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off and has started to cool."

Again, where is the evidence for this? In any case, the use of 1998 as a baseline for subsequent 'cooling' is inappropriate since 1) there's so much year-to-year variability that using a single selected year in this way isn't very valid statistically, and 2) 1998 was particularly hot due to El Nino so it is hardly representative of the underlying trend (try using either 1997 or 1999, for instance, and see where that gets you).

Finally, perhaps you could back up your claim that:

"few serious scientist's (sic) still believe that any recent global warming is a problem, let alone it being caused by man."

You might look here first: Anderegg et al. 2010, Expert credibility in climate change. Does 97-98% of the most actively publishing climate researchers fit your definition of 'few'? Alternatively, try this survey: Doran & Zimmermann 2009, Examining the scientific consensus on climate change.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by King Edward

There are so many outlandish and ridiculous claims in just this one post that it's difficult to count them all, let alone rebut them individually. For one thing, it's full of unattributed vague claims e.g. scientists say X, government climate models show Y). These statements are just meaningless rhetoric unless you can actually back them up with a link/reference to the actual scientists / climate models in question.
.

I see you playing that old 'consensus' card. (Anderegg et al. 2010, Expert credibility in climate change) Scientific theories are not proven by consensus.

This whole 'consensus' thing is based on media hype and mis-information. It is often quoted 'that 97% of climate scientists believe the science is settled'.
Here's what actually happened re. the numbers that refer to the famous 97%.

Questioners had originally asked over 10,000 people if they believed in Man-made Global Warming. Of which 31% responded and of those only 157 were supposedly 'climate scientists'. In fact, after much probing, it transpired that only 77 were actual scientists and 75 of them responded positively to the question.
Hence the 98% = 75 out of 77. Not 98% of 10,000!!
Science and Public Policy (above and others)

As for the sources of my information.
I have closely been following this 'debate' since the late 80's-early 90's. I have a not insignificant library on the subject. I read as much scientific literature, debate, theory, etc. on this subject that I can get hold of (as long as the cost is not ridiculous).

I can attribute every quote I make to its source, (though it may occasionally take some time).

I try to read and familiarise myself with all sides of the argument. If you want to understand where I am coming from read some of the long running threads on this and similsar subjects that I have contibuted to on WAB over the winter period.

Perhaps you thought I was writing some off-the-cuff, unatributable, ill-informed divel in my last post, nothing can be futher from the truth. My comments are based on the feelings and current position among many, many scientist. Please don't take my word for it, do a bit of digging yourself.

Below are just a few of my large list of sources.

Yamal and Hide-the-Decline Climate Audit (and many similar)

The Death Blow to Anthropogenic Global Warming by Stephen Wilde | Climate Realists

http://climaterealists.com/attachmen...HANGE2-g11.pdf

http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/35681.html(Co2 is a coolant)

The Hockey Stick Illusion by AW Montford

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...bTemp.JNET.pdf

Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists June 4, 2009

Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought - environment - 25 April 2011 - New Scientist

Popular Technology.net: 800 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming (AGW) Alarm

Data collected by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.,

Gerlach TM, McGee KA, Ekiast T, Sutton AJ, Doukas MP, 2002. Carbon dioxide emission rate of Kilauea Volcano: Implications for primary magma and the summit reservoir. Journal of geophysical research, 107: ECV3.1-ECV 3.15.

Home | Climate Realists

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

“The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon was Converted into a False World Emergency”.

wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Bob Brinsmead- The Vindication of Carbon.

theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html

uddebatt.com/2008/04/01/the-wonderful-benefits-of-CO2/ .
nationalcenter.org/NPA334.html

Studies by Raval & Ramanathan (1989)

Johnson, C., ‘FRS Multiplication Table and CO2,

co2science.org/articles/V6/N26/EDIT.php and other

the Air Vent (one of the best)

Kaiser, K., ‘The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math.
articles.

geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Henrik Svensmark’s The Chilling Stars

No scientific ?consensus? about ?global warming? An Honest Climate Debate

The Gulf Stream Myth

Ocean Dynamics, von Storch et al. (2008)

AccuWeather.com - Weather Video - Live Video Feed

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/

paleo-climate graphs at Geocraft.com

There are plenty more when you have read these.
Dorts.

[Dorts]

Here are just a few interesting and (maybe) enlightening quotes that may help with thinking on - 'Global Warming/Climate Change-Crisis-Catastrophe etc. etc.

'The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it a is a travesty that we can't'. - Keven Trenberth, lead author of the 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change. 10/12/09

'The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statiscaly significant'. Phil Jones.University of East Anglia,Lead author IPCC.

'Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.' MARTIN KEELEY, BBC News, Dec. 6, 2004

'Global warming -- at least the modern nightmare vision -- is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.'
DAVID BELLAMY, July 9, 2004

"To Capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest" Stephen Schneider, lead UN IPCC report author and climate expert. (He was also a large proponent of Global Cooling in 1970!)

“Man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Chair of the Senate Committee on the Environment:

Mmmmmmm.
Dorts.

[King Edward]

Dorts,

I don't understand why you have provided a general link to 'Science and Public Policy' when the figures for the number of survey respondents are in the original paper. At no point is any attempt made to claim that 98% out of 10,000 accept man-made global warming - the various numbers are clearly explained.

Did you look at the Anderegg paper in Nature? This was an analysis of published papers, rather than a survey. The two papers independently reach similar figures for the acceptance of man-made climate change around the 97-98% of climate scientists, so this seems a reasonable indication of the level of consensus unless you have alternative published data (i.e. not on some dodgy website).

You claimed that few serious scientists 1) believe global warming is a problem, and 2) believe it is due to man. You have not so far come up with any specific figures to support this view.

You have also failed to answer either of my specific questions in relation to supporting data. Instead you have provided a long list of dubious links, which I am certainly not going to waste a lot of time reading through. Specific articles, yes, but all that lunatic fringe rubbish, no.

For instance, the 800+ (now 900) papers listed on Popular Technology. Do you really claim this as a serious resource? A quick glance reveals articles such as "An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers" (Iron & Steel Technology, 2008) and "Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Skeptical Point of View" (Missouri Medicine, 2008). There is also a large proportion of papers from "Energy and Environment", which is a publication with a very low scientific reputation known for publishing poorly reviewed, low quality papers. Even Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, its editor, admits that papers are selected in accordance with her political agenda.

Another example. This page: johnosullivan - Debunking the Greenhouse Gas Theory in Three Simple Steps is so clearly wacky that it hardly needs answering. Anyone who recommends this page as a credible source forfeits all credibility.

Edit: In reply to the last post, selecting a few quotations is not a particularly convincing line of argument.

[Dorts]

Thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by King Edward

Dorts,
Edit: In reply to the last post, selecting a few quotations is not a particularly convincing line of argument.

K.E. Did you not notice that three of those quotes are from 'leading authors for the IPCC.' Now if they don't believe that there has been any recent global warming, then why should you or I? Please enlighten me.

If an increase in Co2 causes warming, how come there has been no rise in temerature since 1998 when Co2 levels have contiued to rise? These are facts that cannot and are not disputed, as shown in my 'quotes'

The whole alarmist case started as a global warming scare that extra Co2 in the atmosphere would absorb radiation from the earth and send some of it back to earth, thus leaving us warmer than otherwise. We are told this may cause global temperature to rise a couple of degrees or so in a century or so.

For many people, a bit of warming would be welcomed. So the alarmists decided that "Global Warming" was not scaring enough people, especially as temperatures were not warming, ice was not melting and sea levels were not rising.(Plenty of data available to back this up).

So a new scare slogan was invented – "Climate Change".
No new theory was invented to support it – but innocent Co2 was still the villain. But now any change, flood or drought, snow or heat wave, even earthquakes, locust swarms, bush fires or almost anything could be blamed on "Climate Change" - this was 'great', now nothing could ever be proved wrong. Trouble is all these things are perfectly natural and have been happening for generations and have not suddenly increased in severity or frequency.

I don't at this time want to go over all the facts and figures of Co2 and its part in our climate, those can be found in many of my previous posts.

Yes I take in all views, some should be taken seriously, some should be taken with a large pinch of salt. But eventually, if you sift through all this 'stuff' for long enough, the truth begins to emerge. All I ask is that anyone with the view that the 'science is settled', should now start to look seriously at the other side of the debate. See what those without a vested interest have to say.

I am frequently reminded of the old saying, 'there's none so blind as those that don't want to see'.

You see K.E. I don't think that increasing atmospheric CO2 from 0.085% to 0.0385% has anything to do with any warming. (That's an extra two molecules in every 10,000 of what is no more than a minor gas).

All this 'Gobal Warming' hype started with Professor Micheal Mann, the infamous creator of the now discredited ‘hockey stick’ graph. (do read The Hockey Stick Illusion by AW Montford, if that doesn't open your eyes, nothing will).

Proffesor Mann was once the darling of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who blames mankind for raising global temperatures by 0.7 degrees during the 20th Century.

The IPCC plucked Mann from total obscurity after his “rushed” Ph.D was only granted after a two year delay and later he was required to make many corrections. Then, despite no reputation whatsoever in the field of tree ring proxy research, Mann was bizarrely appointed not only as an expert by the IPCC, but as Lead Author for the 2001 Third Report.

Several fellow academics smelt something was fishy and their fears were confirmed when Canadian statistical experts, Steve McIntyre, (of the Climate Audit web site, which is not as you have intimated, a 'loony' site. His work is now recognised as having done more than anyone in bringing down this whole debacle), along with Professor Ross McKitrick, found a string of ‘errors’ in Mann’s work. All the errors skewed the data in favor of the man-made global warming hype. McIntyre is still, as I write, bringing down Manns work, and this can be found on his site.

It transpired that Mann and his secretive clique of climatologists who ‘pal reviewed’ his junk science, benefited to the tune of millions of dollars in government research grants. He and his cohorts are hardly likely to come out now and admit they got it all wrong, so the scam continues.

We should all feel obliged to look a little deeper into this muddy pool called 'Climate Science', a term which by the way, at this moment in time is an oxymoron.

As for the 'Climate Scientists', a good start to restoring credibility would be for the alarmists among them to apologize and show a little humility in the face of a climate system of almost incomprehensible complexity, and not one that is based on, or driven by those extra two molecules in every 10,000.
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Dorts

[Mmmmmmm.
Dorts.

David Bellamy?

Dorts you blew it. If the best you can do is quote David Bellamy . . . Oh dear I'm going to have a lie down. David Bellamy !!!! hooboy what an authority !!!



Ric

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

David Bellamy?

Dorts you blew it. If the best you can do is quote David Bellamy . . . Oh dear I'm going to have a lie down. David Bellamy !!!! hooboy what an authority !!!
Ric

Now, Now Ric, calm down.
David Blamy, despite his rather clownish, media persona, is an extremely knowledgable very respected botanist/ecologist, taught by my dear old friend Dr. Francis Rose. His knowledge is far greater than yours or mine, and if he has come to the same conclusion that I have, I respect that and have no reason whatsoever to find his view laughable, as you seem to have done.

So, just take a deep breath, then lie down.
Dorts.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by Dorts

Now, Now Ric, calm down.
David Blamy, despite his rather clownish, media persona, is an extremely knowledgable very respected botanist/ecologist, taught by my dear old friend Dr. Francis Rose. His knowledge is far greater than yours or mine, and if he has come to the same conclusion that I have, I respect that and have no reason whatsoever to find his view laughable, as you seem to have done.

So, just take a deep breath, then lie down.
Dorts.

Dorts, if you go back 4 pages in General Wildlife and look at the thread Who do you most admire. post 30, RKB put up a link to a You Tube film of George Monbiot destroying Bellamy's arguments. I know you won't approve of Monbiot, but Bellamy makes a total prat of himself. He was fired from his university post shortly after the appearance of the film. Not a trustworthy source I fear.

Ric

[nikolai_avenger]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

I know you won't approve of Monbiot, but Bellamy makes a total prat of himself. He was fired from his university post shortly after the appearance of the film. Not a trustworthy source I fear.

Ric

I agree, and even though I think it is more a case of Monbiot making a total prat of Bellamy, the end result is still the same and after watching this it is easy to disregard Mr D. Bellamy as a valid source of authority on the subject.

I am totally on the fence though with regard to this subject and this thread (and links to articles/papers that have been cited within it) provides some splendind lunch time reading.

Cheers. Nik.

[JdeV]

This is an interesting place to debate climatology data. I couldn't find in this thread any new evidence about man's effect on climate. If something does come up please someone forward it to a scientific journal.