Global warming scam exposed!

[HoonDing]

To the extent they are melting, which is also not established, that would be local temperature fluctuations, not "global". The global temperature has been stable for over a decade. The problem is the so-called evidence for global warming is always being played up, while evidence to the contrary is suppressed, both by the biased scientists and their allies in the media.

[213374U]

The trend is well documented, now I can't be arsed arguing about it, just saying, it's not really contested.

Those progressions are from 1970 to present day. The Arctic ice cap is what, 1M years old? The mechanisms behind the observed shrinkage are NOT understood, so attempts at making accurate predictions are futile.

 

So, again, it's good to know about relative and absolute extremum before drawing conclusions. If you mean "the ice seems to have receded since we have satellites", nobody's going to contest that. But you went on to claim that it's undisputable proof that "global warming" is a reality.

 

Anyway, I look forward to my summer resort in Antarctica being finished.

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...1023esuice.html

 

 

 

The trend is well documented, now I can't be arsed arguing about it, just saying, it's not really contested.

The NASA thing is just how much the ice retreats during summer each year, not that it's permanently melted. I think there are some indications it's recovered a bit lately, though it's hard to tell which claims are more credible. In any case that doesn't prove there's global warming or that it's produced by human caused CO₂. The only thing that "proved" that were the computer climate models, and they've been shown to have been manipulated, and don't predict current climate, which is what the der Spiegel link I posted is talking about.

 

Another area of debate is whether ice in other places is increasing or decreasing. Until recently it's been thought Antartica is increasing, now may be it's decreasing in some places but not in others, and I think those results are preliminary anyway. I think this thing needs to get a lot less political before the scientific evidence is credible again.

[Pidesco]

Instead of arguing about whether global warming is a scam or not perhaps people should be discussing the consequences in the next few decades of melting polar ice caps. Regardless of the causes, the polar caps are melting, and if the trend continues over the next 50 years, it will be a huge problem for coastal populations. Like Katrina times a billion.

[213374U]

Because discussing consequences without understanding causes is pointless.

[Zoraptor]

To clarify, floating ice doesn't matter much, from a water level perspective at least, though there are potential effects on things like currents- it's already displacing water so the arctic ice itself shrinking has little effect. The big problem is when the melting starts over land- such as the gigantic glacier which is Greenland- because that has an exponential type rate of increase, the more ice melts the quicker the remainder melts.

 

 

 

The really big problem with climate change is a fundamental one of when the Philosophy of Science clashes with PR and public. The problem being that it is impossible to prove positives with science, even something as simple as a DNA test doesn't 'prove' identity (testimony in court tends to say things like 'one billion times more likely to be from X than a random person', and it can prove it wasn't someone). Unlike in court however, these limitations tend to be used to say things like "climate change is just a theory" or "there's no conclusive proof smoking causes cancer" in order to justify doing nothing. In some cases it's getting to the level of saying that there shouldn't be safety railings on high structures because it's the theory of gravity and it hasn't been conclusively proven that every time someone 'falls' off a height they inevitably drop- which, scientifically speaking, is actually true.

 

That isn't the case with climate change, it's far more complex than basic physics because the earth is far more complex, though the basic science for the theory is 'proven' and there are plenty of examples of significant environmental change on a more local level that have been effected by man. And it's eminently sensible to be precautionary about such things when the consequences are so potentially huge.

 

I really wish those in charge of the answers didn't appear to be showing such an obsession with naked tax grubbing and stupidities like Emission Trading Schemes, which will try to smash the square peg of 'capitalism'- and not even proper capitalism- into the round hole of environmentalism, though.

[Pidesco]

Understanding why the ice caps are melting isn't really germane to the issue of minimizing the damage caused by rising sea levels. Unless you're proposing a solution that stops the rise of sea levels worldwide, altogether, which isn't very likely to be found, to say the least.

[alanschu]

To clarify, floating ice doesn't matter much, from a water level perspective at least, though there are potential effects on things like currents- it's already displacing water so the arctic ice itself shrinking has little effect. The big problem is when the melting starts over land- such as the gigantic glacier which is Greenland- because that has an exponential type rate of increase, the more ice melts the quicker the remainder melts.

 

 

 

The really big problem with climate change is a fundamental one of when the Philosophy of Science clashes with PR and public. The problem being that it is impossible to prove positives with science, even something as simple as a DNA test doesn't 'prove' identity (testimony in court tends to say things like 'one billion times more likely to be from X than a random person', and it can prove it wasn't someone). Unlike in court however, these limitations tend to be used to say things like "climate change is just a theory" or "there's no conclusive proof smoking causes cancer" in order to justify doing nothing. In some cases it's getting to the level of saying that there shouldn't be safety railings on high structures because it's the theory of gravity and it hasn't been conclusively proven that every time someone 'falls' off a height they inevitably drop- which, scientifically speaking, is actually true.

 

This is true, though a scientific theory isn't just a guess (pissed me off when people seem to equate it), so anyone that falls on the scapegoat of something being "just a theory" when discussing scientific theories doesn't know what they're talking about. Theories are predictive means that have ample evidence supporting them to make those predictions much more than random guesses, or even hypotheses. Why exactly two masses "gravitate" between each other isn't known, and there's plenty of examples of things that seem to disagree with our current predictive models. Though that doesn't really apply to the certainty with which we see and feel gravity's effect on us.

 

Though you bring an interesting point because people always fall onto the crutch of "correlation does not equal causation" to dismiss stuff, which is a bit of a copout a lot of the time. Having said that, my own ignorance (and arrogance) hasn't led me to believe theories of climate change are as solid as the theory of gravity. The unfortunate thing about your smoking example is that there are examples contrary to many people that have people smoke a lot, that do not get lung cancer. Though I'll definitely agree with the notion that smoking greatly increases the likelihood of getting lung cancer sufficiently to lend the idea of there being a causative effect, when controlling for certain things. In this regard, the theories behind it just aren't refined enough. Gravity is the same way, but nobody cares about the fact that various orbits and whatnot aren't accurately predicted by various models.

 

Though that's my mindless preamble since I'm not disagreeing with what you say

[Zoraptor]

.. theories of climate change are [not] as solid as the theory of gravity.

I doubt anyone, even the most extreme climate change advocates would dispute that.

 

The unfortunate thing about your smoking example is that there are examples contrary to many people that have people smoke a lot, that do not get lung cancer. Though I'll definitely agree with the notion that smoking greatly increases the likelihood of getting lung cancer sufficiently to lend the idea of there being a causative effect, when controlling for certain things. In this regard, the theories behind it just aren't refined enough. Gravity is the same way, but nobody cares about the fact that various orbits and whatnot aren't accurately predicted by various models.

I like the smoking analogy for a couple of reasons- you can isolate compounds from tobacco and show that they are toxic/ carcinogenic, and you can isolate chemicals in the atmosphere and show that they do have an insulating effect, so the basic science is sound in each case. At the same time there will always be some smokers who never seem to get effected and live to a ripe old age, and some places on earth seem to get different effects (ie cooler, wetter) to what is thought of as standard (hotter, drier) in the 'accepted' climate change model. The difference being that most people now accept that smoking will significantly increase (layman: cause) cancer even if there are exceptions, but people tend to jump on any exception to the global warming effect as 'proof' that it's unfounded as a whole.

 

And that is largely because PR monkeys and scientifically ignorant or naive pundits tend to control the debate. I don't agree with attempts to silence dissent or massage data at all, but I do understand why it is done in a climate (haha) where every single exception or variation is jumped on as proof that climate change as a whole is bunk.

[213374U]

That isn't the case with climate change, it's far more complex than basic physics because the earth is far more complex, though the basic science for the theory is 'proven' and there are plenty of examples of significant environmental change on a more local level that have been effected by man. And it's eminently sensible to be precautionary about such things when the consequences are so potentially huge.

The "basic science" has been proven? What, you mean at the Laws of Thermodynamics level, right? Because other than that, all we have are incomplete theories and computer models that require constant fine-tuning to match observed data. Normally, you are supposed to get your model working before you call it a "theory", and certainly before said theory starts being a basis for policy. Simply because from an epistemological standpoint science can't prove things in the sense a theorem does, it is no excuse to start lowering the rigour standards for science.

 

What ARE the consequences, at any rate? And how have those been extrapolated?

 

 

Understanding why the ice caps are melting isn't really germane to the issue of minimizing the damage caused by rising sea levels. Unless you're proposing a solution that stops the rise of sea levels worldwide, altogether, which isn't very likely to be found, to say the least.

Understanding why the ice caps are melting is essential to make adequate contingency plans and evaluating the worth and feasibility of permanent solutions. Without any kind of reliable predictions, what, exactly, are we to prepare against? Or do we just assume a worst case scenario, and start evacuating all coastal cities?

 

Because, you know, this costs money.

Edited November 26, 2009 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

I agree with zoraptor and fail to grasp what Alan's saying.

 

I suggest that what we are witnessing is the difference between scientific truth, and real life decision making. We had a LOT of this helping my mum choose cancer treatments. Test data was almost invariably patchy at best. usually we weighed up the costs of folowing a course against the probability of it being false. In this case we're talking about reorienting the entire human race on a specific and expensive goal.

 

Having said that I think it would be pretty awesome if we were able to heat up the planet. Because then the next ice-age can f*** off.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Some people do say warming is good and more CO₂ will increase food production. Apparently in the past the warm periods coincided with advance of civilization while the cold ones led to decline. Supposedly during the time of the Romans the temps were a full 4^oC higher without any of the predicted disasters befalling them.

 

Edit: Also a valid scientific theory is supposed to predict observed data, right now the anthropomorphic global warming theories don't.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Zoraptor]

The "basic science" has been proven? What, you mean at the Laws of Thermodynamics level, right?

Actually, yes I do. IR absorbtion and reradiation is a well understood phenomenon.

 

Because other than that, all we have are incomplete theories and computer models that require constant fine-tuning to match observed data. Normally, you are supposed to get your model working before you call it a "theory", and certainly before said theory starts being a basis for policy. Simply because from an epistemological standpoint science can't prove things in the sense a theorem does, it is no excuse to start lowering the rigour standards for science.

It is literally impossible to accurately model the earth's climate- it's a fundamentally Chaotic system. Hundreds of years of weather forecasting and they still regularly get it wrong, and that's a relatively simple system with truly gigantic amounts of available data and the ability to monitor in real time. All you can do is make approximations and adjust as and when more data arrives. For long term climate prediction there is basically a century worth of hard data with a few points being able to be extrapolated from other stuff (ice cores, tree ring systems etc) in a system in which changes are measured, one hopes, in the minimum of decades. If you wait for 'proof' you will never, ever, ever, ever.. ever stop waiting.

 

What ARE the consequences, at any rate? And how have those been extrapolated?

Sea level rises, desertification, more extreme short term climatic events, increased competition for water resources etc are the most likely. Some things like sea level changes are very easy to calculate; if a given volume of non-floating ice melts it will generate around 90% of its volume in water, while other things are inherently more questionable (if permafrost melts will it release huge amounts of methane and CO2 and have an 'exponential' heating effect? Theoretically the gas release is extremely likely, at least). No doubt there will be increases in rainfall and productivity in some places but they are unlikely to balance out- if for no other reason than the earth having a lot less earth at higher latitudes.

 

I personally doubt most of the apocalyptic scenarios, we've had far greater levels of CO2 previously and the planet hasn't gone Venus and the seas haven't died off permanently, but that isn't really the point. It only takes a few small changes, or changes in a few important places, and suddenly you have a lot of people with no food and or water and or sitting up to their necks in sea water- and potentially little cheap and easy energy sources either- and that will make the planet a very unfriendly place.

 

As it happens I think most of the preventative measures are silly insofar as they are meant to prevent changes, if the theories are sound it's far too late to do much. It is eminently sensible to move away from oil though, as the easily extractable reserves will run out and that will cause enormous problems if something isn't done to mitigate it- not least because it will mean bye bye to cheap plastics as well as cheap, convenient power. And the facts have to be faced that even if climate change is bunk we cannot continue to grow indefinitely in population and energy use as if the earth has unlimited resources when it obviously doesn't.

[Oblarg]

It's sickening that the only form of environmental damage that gets any news coverage whatsoever is global warming.

 

The environment is in a pretty sad state, and really, global warming isn't the biggest problem. Africa's population will double in thirty years - the continent can't support that many people. Most of the global fisheries are currently in danger of collapsing (bluefin tuna, for example). There's a whole host of problems that no one pays any attention to whatsoever.

 

The next century is going to be...interesting, to say the least. It's a pity most of the people causing the problems won't be here to see what happens when the **** hits the fan, though.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Oblarg

[Tigranes]

The next century is going to be...interesting, to say the least. It's a pity most of the people causing the problems won't be here to see what happens when the **** hits the fan, though.

 

That's probably what Cortez was thinking...

[213374U]

Actually, yes I do. IR absorbtion and reradiation is a well understood phenomenon.

And that's exactly what I meant - it's impossible to reasonably extrapolate that to a global scale, because we lack an understanding of cloud dynamics. And, as you no doubt know, water vapour accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect.

 

 

It is literally impossible to accurately model the earth's climate- it's a fundamentally Chaotic system.

Good! Then what is the validity of these models? It's not just that chaos governs how the climate works, it's that we don't know all the variables there are and in some cases (such as could and solar dynamics), we just don't understand them. So instead, placeholder "parameters" are introduced in the model.

 

But on the other hand, we are *obviously* to assume that this temperature increase trend will continue for the foreseeable future, and any number of other effects and problems are theoretically derived from that. Pretty much because we choose to believe so. Again, I have to disagree that "but it's chaos" is good enough an excuse to pass shoddy science as sound evidence for policy-making. Substitute "Chaos" with "God", for effect.

 

 

I personally doubt most of the apocalyptic scenarios, we've had far greater levels of CO2 previously and the planet hasn't gone Venus and the seas haven't died off permanently, but that isn't really the point. It only takes a few small changes, or changes in a few important places, and suddenly you have a lot of people with no food and or water and or sitting up to their necks in sea water- and potentially little cheap and easy energy sources either- and that will make the planet a very unfriendly place.

 

As it happens I think most of the preventative measures are silly insofar as they are meant to prevent changes, if the theories are sound it's far too late to do much. It is eminently sensible to move away from oil though, as the easily extractable reserves will run out and that will cause enormous problems if something isn't done to mitigate it- not least because it will mean bye bye to cheap plastics as well as cheap, convenient power. And the facts have to be faced that even if climate change is bunk we cannot continue to grow indefinitely in population and energy use as if the earth has unlimited resources when it obviously doesn't.

I couldn't say it better myself.

[Walsingham]

I'm temperamentally against anyone who claims the environment can't be modelled. Maybe we can't do it perfectly, but can and should bloody well try. I call it lazy.

 

Only being partly flippant, I reckon a lot of the problem has come about because of the last twenty years when business kept harassing academics. Now every academic is obliged to write mission statements and project plans, and attend HR meetings. It's no wonder they're trying to hit business one in the balls as payback.

[Wrath of Dagon]

An interesting interview on the subject: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/pielke-sr-cli...-pjm-exclusive/

[Gfted1]

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

 

Dec 1, 6:29 PM (ET)

 

By RAPHAEL G. SATTER

 

LONDON (AP) - The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of East Anglia said Tuesday.

 

The university said in a statement that Phil Jones, whose e-mails were among the thousands of pieces of correspondence leaked to the Internet late last month, would relinquish his position as director of Climatic Research Unit until the completion of an independent review.

 

The university's Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Research Trevor Davies said the investigation would cover data security, whether the university responded properly to Freedom of Information requests, "and any other relevant issues." The statement said the specific terms of the review will be announced later in the week.

 

Jones has been accused by skeptics of man-made climate change of manipulating data to support his research. In particular, many have pointed to a leaked e-mail in which Jones writes that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in a chart detailing recent global temperatures. Jones has denied manipulating evidence and insisted his comment had been misunderstood, explaining that he'd used the word trick "as in a clever thing to do."

 

Davies said there was nothing in the stolen material to suggest the peer-reviewed publications by the unit "are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

 

But the correspondence from Jones and others - which appears to include discussions of how to keep critical work out of peer-reviewed journals and efforts to shield scientists' data and methodology from outside scrutiny - have been seized upon by those who are fighting efforts to impose caps on emissions of carbon dioxide as evidence of a scientific conspiracy.

 

Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican and a vocal skeptic of global warming, called Tuesday for Senate hearings on the e-mails. In a letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the environment committee, Inhofe said the e-mails could have far-reaching policy implications for the United States. Both Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency are taking action to curb global warming based on a report that uses data produced by the Climate Research Unit.

 

A House committee has scheduled a hearing Wednesday on the status of climate science. Two prominent Obama administration scientists - White House science adviser John Holdren and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator Jane Lubchenco - are expected to be questioned about the e-mails.

 

Davies defended Jones and his colleagues, saying the publication of their e-mails "is the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign" to undermine climate science. The sentiment was echoed by Nicholas Stern, a leading climate change economist, who said the person or people who posted the leaked e-mails had muddled the debate at a critical moment.

 

"It has created confusion and confusion never helps scientific discussions," Stern told reporters in London Tuesday. "The degree of skepticism among real scientists is very small."

 

Governments are in the final days of preparations for Copenhagen conference, which is due to outline a new climate change agreement. Stern said the stakes were very high, explaining that if countries did not manage to reach agreement, world temperatures could rise by five degrees Celsius (nine degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, making much of the world uninhabitable.

 

"We have a moment now when we could get a strategy agreed," Stern said. "If it were to dissolve in disarray it would not be easy to put this momentum back together again."

 

A group of scientists who run the RealClimate Web site - including Gavin Schmidt at the NASA space agency and Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University - have now begun posting links to their data sources online in the stated interest of making the science "as open and transparent as possible."

[Mikhailian]

Well, in US we could actually do a lot and benefit economically by building nuclear power plants, but of course the environmentalists won't agree to that either.

The problem with nuclear isn't the risk of another 3 Mile (they're pretty well tamed atm), it's the game of radioactive hot-potato that comes later. There just isn't a good solution for what to do with the waste. Even if the halflife was significantly reduced, there's still the issue of reliable containment. On top of that, being paid to receive the waste from other regions is political suicide, and so whenever it's discovered that a shipment of nuclear waste is coming to a place like New Mexico, the uproar is so intense that the trucks just winde up driving in circles around the country. Sure there's some interesting research in thorium reactors, but passive forms of that, that use other nuclear waste in the reaction are still in the feasibility stage. And they're expensive. On top of all that, nuclear plant tech in the U.S. is in the same boat as cell phones and internet connections, ie: artificially inferior.

[Wrath of Dagon]

They had a perfectly fine nuclear disposal site in Yucca Mountain, which Obama cancelled due to parochial Nevada interests. If France can get 70% of their electricity from nuclear, why can't we?

[lord of flies]

I think people's allegiance on climate change has far less to do with climate change evidence and far more to do with them either being raging anti-governmenters or being secret anti-capitalists.

There aren't any secret anti-capitalists in my country. There are very few anti-capitalists, as well. Edited December 2, 2009 by Fionavar

[Morgoth]

They had a perfectly fine nuclear disposal site in Yucca Mountain, which Obama cancelled due to parochial Nevada interests. If France can get 70% of their electricity from nuclear, why can't we?

Because the French need the nuclear waste to make their cheese.

[Killian Kalthorne]

It doesn't matter if man is the cause or not. What matters is the fact the polar ice caps are melting which will have adverse effects on the environment. Global warming is real. What is causing it is up to conjecture.

[Gfted1]

It doesn't matter if man is the cause or not. What matters is the fact the polar ice caps are melting which will have adverse effects on the environment. Global warming is real. What is causing it is up to conjecture.

 

Of course it matters. If its not man made then there isnt anything we can do about it.