The scientists are frighted

[CliveH]

John what is it that you do not understand about the data that shows that Sea Ice extent is within two SD's of the norm in the Arctic and so is within normal limits and that Sea Ice extent this year actually exceeds the upper 2 SD limit in the Antarctic?

 

The Guardian article was cited by me because I like a laugh the same as the next person in that the article confirms that Sea Ice is at a high level ( so there is more than your "single scientist" confirming that catastrophic alarmist predictions of ice melt is NOT happening) - so what is it about these graphs that you do not understand?

 

The Guardian Headline sums it up

 

"Antarctica Sea Ice Reaches Record High !!!! - (but) Doesn't Refute Global Warming"

 

Bless em - the Guardianistas are getting worried.

 

Interestingly Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has an interesting take on how the IPCC seems to have fudge the significance of the 17 year "pause" in warming.

 

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

 

Worth a read.

 

For those who do not know McIntyre is the Statistician who proved that Michael Mann corrupted the code of just a few Bristle Cone Pines to produce the now discredited 'hockey stick graph" that gave us all the willies.

 

Other statisticians confirm McIntyres work such that they proved that putting in any data array produced the same hockey stick shape.

 

The graph was pounced on by the alarmists as it conveniently did away with the MWP and "proved" that evil man was increasing CO2 and temperature.

 

When the reality was that Mann spliced two different sets of data together

 

The man is a fraud and is doing all he can to keep his data hidden - very unscientific!!

 

The likes of Judith Curry see such malfeasance and are appalled.

 

Sadly the IPCC as a political organisation loved the Hockey Stick and even had it as its Logo!!

 

How crass is that?

 

 

 

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-10-02 11:16 AMJohn please do try not to expand the discourse into areas that do nothing to address the topic but are merely used by you to justify your argument.

 

The shipping forecast looks at a validity of 12 hour windows and broadcasts as follows:

 

The shipping forecast is issued four times a day at 2300, 0500, 1100, 1700 UTC and covers a period of 24 hours from 0000, 0600, 1200 and 1800 UTC respectively.

 

Therefore it is a short term warning system that is constantly updated from existing weather conditions and those weather systems moving into the area being reported on.  Therefore the probability of greater accuracy is enhanced.

 

 

Earthquakes are 'semi predicted' by seismological sensors linked to a computer which operates on 'historical data'.  It is 'best guess' monitoring until the thing actually goes 'pop'.  It is a 'reactive' not a 'predictive' methodology.

 

Having been involved in aviation for over 30 years (including flying C130 as crew for over 18 years and 7000+ hours flying in my log book) I am well versed in met office predictions.  They are never accepted more than a few hours in advance and crews, like those involved in shipping will always do a met check closer to the 'action' to be as well informed as possible on the 'likely' conditions.

 

So to go back on topic if you honestly believe scientists can 'predict' with any accuracy what effect certain actions by the human race will have on the time based 'life' of planet you really have 'swallowed' the publicity.  The only exception I would make to that is where there is tangible proof, such as grand scale deforestation which 'does' have an immediate detrimental effect on the planet and I would like to see it stopped.  Air pollution from industry should be reduced.  Pollution of the oceans needs to be stopped.  Anything that has a basis in truth and is actually proven to better the conditions we, the human race live under is to be applauded.  (Please do not nit pick this comment down to the finite/minute examples I know you could quote.  I am commenting on things on a realistic global scale...so a few wind farms here and there for example are irrelevant to the argument).

 

Whatever mankind does or does not do the planet will do what it wants in the fullness of time...........and at that time, be it measured in hours/decades/centuries/aeons what it does no one can predict.  It might go bang, it might die as an over heated desert, it might re-enter an ice age but in reality whatever we do or don't do in the fullness of time, and the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. 

 

If the 'scientists' can 'accurately' and 'honestly' tell me that if we don't stop this, that or the other now the human race will die out in 50 years I might be more inclined to listen.  Until then I really can not accept that having my pocket raided by 'the State' to support these wild claims is justified.

What I do agree with is the advance/use of technology in order to promote healthier conditions for the immediate future of the human race.

 

Climate change will happen of that there is no doubt.  However if making my life more austere in order to extend the viability of the human race by a few years/decades in the fullness of time then to be honest I feel it is a pointless exercise and one I would rather not contribute to.  I want to live my life as best I can and not 'invest' in the lifespan of the human race by a few generations some thousands/billions of years down the line.

 

 

Your claims are quite simply ridiculous. To say that because we can't be 100% certain of anything means that we shouldn't bother to attempt to predict is nonsense. What you really mean is that because the predictions are uncomfortable you are going to stick your head in the sand. Oh, and I admire the selfishness you express in your final statement.

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-02 11:33 AM

 

John what is it that you do not understand about the data that shows that Sea Ice extent is within two SD's of the norm in the Arctic and so is within normal limits and that Sea Ice extent this year actually exceeds the upper 2 SD limit in the Antarctic?

 

Well you are right in that one of us doesn't understand what he is reading - but you have picked the wrong one. I will turn your question round on you: what is it you don't understand about the difference between "extent" and "amount"? I thought the analogy I used might help you to understand it but apparently that didn't work. Maybe you could phone up one of the sources you quote and he/she will have better luck explaining it to you.

 

PS no-one who understands anything about climate cycles would use the word "pause" (unless they were trying to scaremonger). The climate doesn't pause, it is constantly mobile. Sometimes one trend will mask the effects of another and sometimes it will accentuate them. But to bang on about "pauses" is to show that you are sucked in by the sensationalism and have not any real idea of how the system works.

 

And I will end on another question to you. Bearing in mind that it is far more comfortable for the political leaders of the free-enterprise world to go along with the deniers, why is it that they don't? (Well, apart from one idiot in the recent past who was, as I said before, regarded as probably the least intelligent occupant of the White House). Since you avoid difficult questions, I will answer it for you: they know that the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the IPCC.

 

 

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-10-02 11:28 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-10-02 10:23 AM

 

pelmetman - 2013-10-02 10:13 AM

 

John 47 - 2013-10-02 10:04 AM

 

 

The planet will survive. We (the human race) do not have the same guarantee.

 

 

 

You really are a hopeless romantic John, if you think the human race can do anything about climate change (lol)

 

If you read what I wrote then you would know that my case is not that we can reverse it but that we can mitigate the effects of it. If that is romantic, then thank goodness most of the scientists are romantic! (lol)

 

Which was entirely my point ;-)..............We are being shafted.......oop's I mean't taxed...... to provide a green levy to save the planet *-) ....................whilst China Russia and every other developing nation are building coal fired power stations by the score, to power polluting industries on a massive scale, making our "industrial revolution" look minuscule by comparison 8-).....................

 

So whats the point of digging a hole when the rest of the world is filling it faster than you can dig? :-S

 

I never claimed that man was sensible but the "two wrongs don't make a right" argument has always been valid. :-D

 

And it is not about saving the planet; it is about making life a little less uncomfortable for our children and grandchildren. I happen to believe that is a worthwhile aim.

 

I also doubt very much whether the generally right-wing governments that dominate the so-called free world would introduce taxes unless they felt it was necessary. Their whole reason for being often seems to be to reduce taxes to zero! :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-10-02 12:24 PM

 

 

And it is not about saving the planet; it is about making life a little less uncomfortable for our children and grandchildren. I happen to believe that is a worthwhile aim.

 

Which is why your a hopeless romantic John ;-).................What are the chances of the whole human race working together to reduce emissions? 8-)........................

 

The nearest its ever managed is 50%.... when one half was trying to kill the other half during a couple of world wars *-)

 

Add into the mix that politicians, big business and academics have spotted climate change as a nice little earner....... then the chances of getting Joe public on side is a non starter >:-)

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-10-02 12:07 PM

RogerC - 2013-10-02 11:16 AMJohn please do try not to expand the discourse into areas that do nothing to address the topic but are merely used by you to justify your argument.

 

The shipping forecast looks at a validity of 12 hour windows and broadcasts as follows:

 

The shipping forecast is issued four times a day at 2300, 0500, 1100, 1700 UTC and covers a period of 24 hours from 0000, 0600, 1200 and 1800 UTC respectively.

 

Therefore it is a short term warning system that is constantly updated from existing weather conditions and those weather systems moving into the area being reported on.  Therefore the probability of greater accuracy is enhanced.

 

 

Earthquakes are 'semi predicted' by seismological sensors linked to a computer which operates on 'historical data'.  It is 'best guess' monitoring until the thing actually goes 'pop'.  It is a 'reactive' not a 'predictive' methodology.

 

Having been involved in aviation for over 30 years (including flying C130 as crew for over 18 years and 7000+ hours flying in my log book) I am well versed in met office predictions.  They are never accepted more than a few hours in advance and crews, like those involved in shipping will always do a met check closer to the 'action' to be as well informed as possible on the 'likely' conditions.

 

So to go back on topic if you honestly believe scientists can 'predict' with any accuracy what effect certain actions by the human race will have on the time based 'life' of planet you really have 'swallowed' the publicity.  The only exception I would make to that is where there is tangible proof, such as grand scale deforestation which 'does' have an immediate detrimental effect on the planet and I would like to see it stopped.  Air pollution from industry should be reduced.  Pollution of the oceans needs to be stopped.  Anything that has a basis in truth and is actually proven to better the conditions we, the human race live under is to be applauded.  (Please do not nit pick this comment down to the finite/minute examples I know you could quote.  I am commenting on things on a realistic global scale...so a few wind farms here and there for example are irrelevant to the argument).

 

Whatever mankind does or does not do the planet will do what it wants in the fullness of time...........and at that time, be it measured in hours/decades/centuries/aeons what it does no one can predict.  It might go bang, it might die as an over heated desert, it might re-enter an ice age but in reality whatever we do or don't do in the fullness of time, and the grand scheme of things is irrelevant. 

 

If the 'scientists' can 'accurately' and 'honestly' tell me that if we don't stop this, that or the other now the human race will die out in 50 years I might be more inclined to listen.  Until then I really can not accept that having my pocket raided by 'the State' to support these wild claims is justified.

What I do agree with is the advance/use of technology in order to promote healthier conditions for the immediate future of the human race.

 

Climate change will happen of that there is no doubt.  However if making my life more austere in order to extend the viability of the human race by a few years/decades in the fullness of time then to be honest I feel it is a pointless exercise and one I would rather not contribute to.  I want to live my life as best I can and not 'invest' in the lifespan of the human race by a few generations some thousands/billions of years down the line.

 

 

Your claims are quite simply ridiculous. To say that because we can't be 100% certain of anything means that we shouldn't bother to attempt to predict is nonsense. What you really mean is that because the predictions are uncomfortable you are going to stick your head in the sand. Oh, and I admire the selfishness you express in your final statement.

 

John,

 

I'm claiming that the scientists can not state with any degree of certainty what 'the planet' will do in, for example 50 years time let alone in centuries or millennia.

 

To reinforce my beliefs.......I accept predictions for what they are......guesstimates not fact.  Tangible 'guesstimates' such as the deforestation etc need to be acted upon.  I never said anything about ignoring 'all' predictions.  I simply prefer to ignore the hype and scaremongering that is proffered by those 'in power' who wish to rob us blind in the name of securing the planet for future generations..........and by that I mean generations hundreds if not millions/billions of years hence.

 

To financially penalise individuals, for example the 'green tax' on already huge fuel bills is nothing more than political posturing by those with an eye on their own financial interests and possible future lucrative employment prospects.   How many years ago were we told that fossil fuels (oil/gas) would be exhausted by now?  That simply proves the scientists either don't know or were lying.............could it be that big big money was involved?  Similarly it looks like 'the big money merry go round' has taken a new rider on board in the shape of 'Climate change' because there is big big money to be made by interested parties from a public that has no option but to roll over and be robbed.

 

John you really should wake up to the fact that we minnows are always going to be at the bottom of the 'food chain' and will therefore always be gobbled up (financially)by whatever means the 'predators' can think of.........and presently it is 'climate change' which is a brilliant idea because the 'predators' can keep this one going potentially for decades because it is such a 'variable' concept.

 

I assume your closing 'admiration' comment to be sarcastic?

I would admire you're compassion for generations that might be around in thousands or millions or billions of years because you supported 'Canutes Climate Control Agenda' to the financial detriment of millions of people living now..........but as you have expressed little by way of sense of humour in your posts I must assume you're serious and I'm too busy doubling up with laughter. 

 

Fits of laughter under control now so I'll continue...........

 

I will close by reiterating something I mentioned a few posts back:

 

If the political elite/scientists are so concerned with the health of the planet then why, why, why is deforestation, to name but one 'global' action known to be of massive detriment to the planet going ahead at such a pace?  Why are governments of the world not stopping it?  I'll tell you why........ it's because there is no money in doing so. 

 

 

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-10-02 12:39 PM

Which is why your a hopeless romantic John ;-).................What are the chances of the whole human race working together to reduce emissions? 8-)........................

 

The nearest its ever managed is 50%.... when one half was trying to kill the other half during a couple of world wars *-)

 

Add into the mix that politicians, big business and academics have spotted climate change as a nice little earner....... then the chances of getting Joe public on side is a non starter >:-)

 

In answer to your first question - NONE but, unlike you, I don't think that is any reason not to behave responsibly.

 

And if it is a "nice little earner" then it can only happen with the support of governments and I repeat the point at the end of my last post about that being unbelievable unless they actually do believe the scientists!

 

 

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-10-02 12:48 PMJohn,

 

I'm claiming that the scientists can not state with any degree of certainty what 'the planet' will do in, for example 50 years time let alone in centuries or millennia.

 

To reinforce my beliefs.......I accept predictions for what they are......guesstimates not fact.  Tangible 'guesstimates' such as the deforestation etc need to be acted upon.  I never said anything about ignoring 'all' predictions.  I simply prefer to ignore the hype and scaremongering that is proffered by those 'in power' who wish to rob us blind in the name of securing the planet for future generations..........and by that I mean generations hundreds if not millions/billions of years hence.

 

To financially penalise individuals, for example the 'green tax' on already huge fuel bills is nothing more than political posturing by those with an eye on their own financial interests and possible future lucrative employment prospects.   How many years ago were we told that fossil fuels (oil/gas) would be exhausted by now?  That simply proves the scientists either don't know or were lying.............could it be that big big money was involved?  Similarly it looks like 'the big money merry go round' has taken a new rider on board in the shape of 'Climate change' because there is big big money to be made by interested parties from a public that has no option but to roll over and be robbed.

 

John you really should wake up to the fact that we minnows are always going to be at the bottom of the 'food chain' and will therefore always be gobbled up (financially)by whatever means the 'predators' can think of.........and presently it is 'climate change' which is a brilliant idea because the 'predators' can keep this one going potentially for decades because it is such a 'variable' concept.

 

I assume your closing 'admiration' comment to be sarcastic?

I would admire you're compassion for generations that might be around in thousands or millions or billions of years because you supported 'Canutes Climate Control Agenda' to the financial detriment of millions of people living now..........but as you have expressed little by way of sense of humour in your posts I must assume you're serious and I'm too busy doubling up with laughter. 

 

Fits of laughter under control now so I'll continue...........

 

I will close by reiterating something I mentioned a few posts back:

 

If the political elite/scientists are so concerned with the health of the planet then why, why, why is deforestation, to name but one 'global' action known to be of massive detriment to the planet going ahead at such a pace?  Why are governments of the world not stopping it?  I'll tell you why........ it's because there is no money in doing so. 

 

Of course we cannot accurately say what things will be like in 50 years time - no-one has ever claimed that we could. That is why they are called predictions and not facts. And they are not just guesses; they are based on serious science. And if the politicians really have an eye on their futures then they would impress more people, gain more votes and secure more of their futures by refusing to introduce green taxes. But they don't - and if you think that is because there are jobs waiting for all of them then you really are living on another planet. A few might make money but how do you account for all the others going along with it? Your view doesn't make sense - which means it is probably flawed.And you ought to get your information from sources other than the sensationalist media. The "them" you claim were telling us we would have run out of oil etc were not the scientists; they were the sensationalists. Please do not confuse reporters with climatologists; theyare very different beings!By the way, Canute did not try to stop the waves. Contrary to popular opinion, he was trying to demonstrate to a load of sycophants that he was not all-powerful. It is about time the human race woke up to that fact! We cannot go on doing what we like without consequences. I do, however, agree with your point about the rainforests - I never claimed we were a sensible race!

[Mrs T]

Its just like I said all this waffle creates a lot of industry, great and none of us will ever know the result.

[CliveH]

Well we certainly are not sensible - that we can agree on.

 

What I find so damned awful tho is the fact that so called Catastrophic Anthropomorphic Climate Change seemed to be the only environmental game in town! Now at least we have sensible people questioning the dogma. Under the likes of Ed Milliband he signed us up to the Climate Act. Now thank goodness they seem to be looking at ways of mitigating that nonsense. Even Ed Millibean himself now says that he will freeze energy prices when it is his very Climate Change Act that is increasing energy bills by circa 30% - so unless he repeals his own Act - how the hell does he expect to be seen as a credible leader. The man is a fool.

 

One of the reasons WHY the rain forests are being destroyed is because some idiots think that CO2 is a poison rather than a vital constituent within Krebs cycle and so places a limit on its emissions in Europe so that we have to import Palm Oil and similar from countries that grow it solely to meet our demand for bio diesel.

 

The Alarmists say that fossil fuels must stay in the earth - no more drilling no more fracking - so instead we destroy the habitats of magnificent beasts such as the Orang-utan and all that goes with it - just so we can make a meaningless and totally bloody pointless target!

 

And it is all very well John for you to say forget the likes of Lucas - and frankly I wish I could ! :-S but sadly she is but one example of many who despite their ignorance and vindictive bias have actually managed to convince those that make the rules that quotas for carbon is a good idea despite the fact that we are losing thousands of square miles of pristine rain forest all because we here in Europe and other parts of the West have created an artificial market for vegetable oil.

 

Like I say - when it all hits the fan and the world collectively realises what the angry ignorant and vindictive people have done to the environment in the name of their bastardised form of "Environmentalism" that has only one message "CO2 bad" , I suspect that the fall out will not be pretty.

 

You never answered my questions of some time back John and I think it would be worthwhile looking at those two questions again now

 

What is the percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere? Answer - circa 0.0389%

 

i.e. it is a trace gas - a vitally important trace gas - but still a trace gas.

 

What relationship is assumed in all the current Alarmist models that predict Catastrophic AGW?

 

Answer - Positive feedback loop between CO2 and Water vapour. The models assume this and it has been labeled "sensitivity" - i.e. for a small rise in CO2 the models predict a far larger warming effect due to increased Water Vapour which is a significantly greater greenhouse gas than CO2.

 

But actual observational data now tells us that if anything the feed back loop between CO2 and Water Vapour is a negative feedback - NOT a positive one.

 

It is postulated that one of the simple mechanisms is that as we get more cloud we get more shade.

 

A bit too simplistic to my mind and more work need to be done.

 

But the fact that the feedback is mildly negative could well explain why the alarmist models are running hot.

 

If you want to see the reality of just how hot they are running - have a look at the graphs from McIntyres website where he graphs the predictions and overlays the actual observed data.

 

Sadly the IPCC is up to its usual tricks it seems and messing with the parameters in a classic damage limitation exercise - but even so - it is clear that the actual data is now falling outside of the error bars on many of the predictions.

 

Time will tell of course

 

But when the cost to us all and the planet in general is so high if we allow the alarmists a free reign - I say we have to make sure the Alarmist predictions are correct.

 

So far it would see, that Climate scientists of old could not and cannot be trusted - As such a new breed of more pragmatic and science driven researchers is coming to the fore.

 

Like I say - I applaud this - because Consensus science is the stuff of politics - not real Science.

 

 

[CliveH]

"Well you are right in that one of us doesn't understand what he is reading - but you have picked the wrong one. I will turn your question round on you: what is it you don't understand about the difference between "extent" and "amount"? I thought the analogy I used might help you to understand it but apparently that didn't work. Maybe you could phone up one of the sources you quote and he/she will have better luck explaining it to you. "

.........

John please read the paper that goes with the data - the asumptions re extent and amount rate dealt with there - you are displaying a typical red herring of an argument - The Extent is used as a measurement - the thickness of the ice sheet is also measured - it does vary but within a fairly stable set of parameters.

 

Are you really saying that the data most researchers use re the extent of the ice sheets is invalid because the thickness is not known?

 

Sorry but you are clutching at straws here - Are you really saying that the likes of

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

 

Are wrong to use Ice Extent Data to monitor the Arctic and an arctic? _ if so you better tell them quick because according to you they are doing it wrong!

 

 

"PS no-one who understands anything about climate cycles would use the word "pause" (unless they were trying to scaremonger). The climate doesn't pause, it is constantly mobile. Sometimes one trend will mask the effects of another and sometimes it will accentuate them. But to bang on about "pauses" is to show that you are sucked in by the sensationalism and have not any real idea of how the system works."

 

..............

How ridiculously arrogant you are !

 

The "pause' is descriptive term used by the likes of Lindzen, Curry etc as a descriptive term to describe the lack of warming over the past 17 years.

 

Nobody on the sceptical side is scaremongering - quite the opposite - we sceptics look at the pause and say - "Great - warming is lower than predicted!" What on earth is scaremongering about that?

 

It is the Alarmists that do the scaremongering - are you sure you have a handle on the issues here John?

 

 

"And I will end on another question to you. Bearing in mind that it is far more comfortable for the political leaders of the free-enterprise world to go along with the deniers, why is it that they don't? (Well, apart from one idiot in the recent past who was, as I said before, regarded as probably the least intelligent occupant of the White House). Since you avoid difficult questions, I will answer it for you: they know that the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the IPCC. "

..........

Arh! - your true colours showing though John - you use the term "Denier".

 

And I try not to avoid difficult questions - In fact i would suggest that it is you that so far as soon as a difficult question looms at you you defer to authority - namely the IPCC.

 

So much so that as soon as you get into difficulty - you use the offensive term "denier" - coined by that idiot Monbigot at the Guardian as a way of utilising an offensive reference to holocaust deniers as being akin to "Climate Change Deniers".

 

It is a typical ploy by some.

 

I am disappointed that you seem top be one of them John.

 

But back to your "difficult" question - which it is not of course

 

Governments were concerned when the initial data was released - Mann then produced his Hockey Stick and the scene was set for a global panic. hence the IPCC.

 

May i refer you to Judith Curry's analysis as to the relative expertise of those within the IPCC.

 

Over the years the dire predictions failed to come true.

 

Gore tried and failed to make $Billions out of carbon Trading.

 

China India and the rest of the BRICs never bought into the AGW hype anyway Europe and the US did as did Australia.

 

Australia has just rejected the Alarmist

 

We here in the UK have a government that likens the Alarmists to the "Green Taliban"

 

The CRU at the UoEA will never recover from the Climategate leaks

 

High energy bills are driving people to question the dogma.

 

When those same people see that the models are wrong and that the Alarmist Scaremongering that is Green taxation was a crock - then as I say - the results are not likely to be pretty.

 

One more question for you John

 

.

 

.

 

Are you pleased or upset that the Global Temperatures have NOT matched the Alarmist Predictions?

 

Serious question - please do not duck it.

 

 

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-10-02 1:13 PM

RogerC - 2013-10-02 12:48 PMJohn,

 

I'm claiming that the scientists can not state with any degree of certainty what 'the planet' will do in, for example 50 years time let alone in centuries or millennia.

 

To reinforce my beliefs.......I accept predictions for what they are......guesstimates not fact.  Tangible 'guesstimates' such as the deforestation etc need to be acted upon.  I never said anything about ignoring 'all' predictions.  I simply prefer to ignore the hype and scaremongering that is proffered by those 'in power' who wish to rob us blind in the name of securing the planet for future generations..........and by that I mean generations hundreds if not millions/billions of years hence.

 

To financially penalise individuals, for example the 'green tax' on already huge fuel bills is nothing more than political posturing by those with an eye on their own financial interests and possible future lucrative employment prospects.   How many years ago were we told that fossil fuels (oil/gas) would be exhausted by now?  That simply proves the scientists either don't know or were lying.............could it be that big big money was involved?  Similarly it looks like 'the big money merry go round' has taken a new rider on board in the shape of 'Climate change' because there is big big money to be made by interested parties from a public that has no option but to roll over and be robbed.

 

John you really should wake up to the fact that we minnows are always going to be at the bottom of the 'food chain' and will therefore always be gobbled up (financially)by whatever means the 'predators' can think of.........and presently it is 'climate change' which is a brilliant idea because the 'predators' can keep this one going potentially for decades because it is such a 'variable' concept.

 

I assume your closing 'admiration' comment to be sarcastic?

I would admire you're compassion for generations that might be around in thousands or millions or billions of years because you supported 'Canutes Climate Control Agenda' to the financial detriment of millions of people living now..........but as you have expressed little by way of sense of humour in your posts I must assume you're serious and I'm too busy doubling up with laughter. 

 

Fits of laughter under control now so I'll continue...........

 

I will close by reiterating something I mentioned a few posts back:

 

If the political elite/scientists are so concerned with the health of the planet then why, why, why is deforestation, to name but one 'global' action known to be of massive detriment to the planet going ahead at such a pace?  Why are governments of the world not stopping it?  I'll tell you why........ it's because there is no money in doing so. 

 

Of course we cannot accurately say what things will be like in 50 years time - no-one has ever claimed that we could. That is why they are called predictions and not facts. And they are not just guesses; they are based on serious science. And if the politicians really have an eye on their futures then they would impress more people, gain more votes and secure more of their futures by refusing to introduce green taxes. But they don't - and if you think that is because there are jobs waiting for all of them then you really are living on another planet. A few might make money but how do you account for all the others going along with it? Your view doesn't make sense - which means it is probably flawed.And you ought to get your information from sources other than the sensationalist media. The "them" you claim were telling us we would have run out of oil etc were not the scientists; they were the sensationalists. Please do not confuse reporters with climatologists; theyare very different beings!By the way, Canute did not try to stop the waves. Contrary to popular opinion, he was trying to demonstrate to a load of sycophants that he was not all-powerful. It is about time the human race woke up to that fact! We cannot go on doing what we like without consequences. I do, however, agree with your point about the rainforests - I never claimed we were a sensible race!

 

John 'predictions' are merely best guess for future events based on historical data and are therefore just guesses.  Scientific research or not predictions of what nature will/might do are still guesses.  In the case of global scale predictions I take their alarmist predictions with a pinch of salt.  Show me something tangible, as in the case of the deforestation and I am prepared to believe.  Until then I will remain healthily skeptical and say to hell with the planet in thousands/millions of years.  I rally don't give a stuff about it that far into the future and would much prefer to see my hard earned staying in my pocket a bit longer rather than being stolen in the name of 'saving the planet'.

 

In respect of 'climate change' the data has been, and as I'm not wearing rose coloured glasses I believe it is still being manipulated to put forward the 'scenario' that the establishment want's us to see.  This justifies their raid on our wallets.

 

Regarding the 'sensationalists' shouting about running out of gas/oil why then did not the governments speak out with the support of 'scientists' to dispel these claims?  Possibly because it was convenient and allows BIG business to hike prices which is good for governmental revenue.

 

Please do not come the 'Mr superior' with comments such as "Please do not confuse reporters with climatologists; theyare very different beings!" it does you no credit.  Also the 'lesson' regarding Canute falls into the same vein.  I used it merely as an accepted analogy relative to futility and not to illustrate historical fact.

 

I agree we, the human race can not continue as we 'are' doing.  However have you noticed that action taken to 'combat climate change' (bloody stupid phrase but used extensively by those who wish to scare us) always costs us money.  Acting to stop the rain forest destruction would cost us nothing and would benefit the whole planet.............but there is, as I have said before no profit in that so it won't happen.

 

In reality John it all comes down to money money money,  who can get the most of it from our pockets and to hell with the planet.

 

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-02 4:34 PM

 

"Well you are right in that one of us doesn't understand what he is reading - but you have picked the wrong one. I will turn your question round on you: what is it you don't understand about the difference between "extent" and "amount"? I thought the analogy I used might help you to understand it but apparently that didn't work. Maybe you could phone up one of the sources you quote and he/she will have better luck explaining it to you. "

.........

John please read the paper that goes with the data - the asumptions re extent and amount rate dealt with there - you are displaying a typical red herring of an argument - The Extent is used as a measurement - the thickness of the ice sheet is also measured - it does vary but within a fairly stable set of parameters.

 

Are you really saying that the data most researchers use re the extent of the ice sheets is invalid because the thickness is not known?

 

Sorry but you are clutching at straws here - Are you really saying that the likes of

 

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

 

Are wrong to use Ice Extent Data to monitor the Arctic and an arctic? _ if so you better tell them quick because according to you they are doing it wrong!

 

 

"PS no-one who understands anything about climate cycles would use the word "pause" (unless they were trying to scaremonger). The climate doesn't pause, it is constantly mobile. Sometimes one trend will mask the effects of another and sometimes it will accentuate them. But to bang on about "pauses" is to show that you are sucked in by the sensationalism and have not any real idea of how the system works."

 

..............

How ridiculously arrogant you are !

 

The "pause' is descriptive term used by the likes of Lindzen, Curry etc as a descriptive term to describe the lack of warming over the past 17 years.

 

Nobody on the sceptical side is scaremongering - quite the opposite - we sceptics look at the pause and say - "Great - warming is lower than predicted!" What on earth is scaremongering about that?

 

It is the Alarmists that do the scaremongering - are you sure you have a handle on the issues here John?

 

 

"And I will end on another question to you. Bearing in mind that it is far more comfortable for the political leaders of the free-enterprise world to go along with the deniers, why is it that they don't? (Well, apart from one idiot in the recent past who was, as I said before, regarded as probably the least intelligent occupant of the White House). Since you avoid difficult questions, I will answer it for you: they know that the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of the IPCC. "

..........

Arh! - your true colours showing though John - you use the term "Denier".

 

And I try not to avoid difficult questions - In fact i would suggest that it is you that so far as soon as a difficult question looms at you you defer to authority - namely the IPCC.

 

So much so that as soon as you get into difficulty - you use the offensive term "denier" - coined by that idiot Monbigot at the Guardian as a way of utilising an offensive reference to holocaust deniers as being akin to "Climate Change Deniers".

 

It is a typical ploy by some.

 

I am disappointed that you seem top be one of them John.

 

But back to your "difficult" question - which it is not of course

 

Governments were concerned when the initial data was released - Mann then produced his Hockey Stick and the scene was set for a global panic. hence the IPCC.

 

May i refer you to Judith Curry's analysis as to the relative expertise of those within the IPCC.

 

Over the years the dire predictions failed to come true.

 

Gore tried and failed to make $Billions out of carbon Trading.

 

China India and the rest of the BRICs never bought into the AGW hype anyway Europe and the US did as did Australia.

 

Australia has just rejected the Alarmist

 

We here in the UK have a government that likens the Alarmists to the "Green Taliban"

 

The CRU at the UoEA will never recover from the Climategate leaks

 

High energy bills are driving people to question the dogma.

 

When those same people see that the models are wrong and that the Alarmist Scaremongering that is Green taxation was a crock - then as I say - the results are not likely to be pretty.

 

One more question for you John

 

.

 

.

 

Are you pleased or upset that the Global Temperatures have NOT matched the Alarmist Predictions?

 

Serious question - please do not duck it.

 

 

My goodness, where do I start with all this nonsense? Perhaps with your final silly question. The "Alarmists" that you keep homing in on are not the mainstream, any more than the fringe scientists you keep referring to in order to support your denial (and, yes, I use the word deliberately because those who think as you do are potentially very dangerous). The fact is that global temperatures ARE getting higher at present and the serious scientists (as on the IPCC) do not make absolute predictions, they give ranges of likely outcome - and we are well within those.

 

Am I really saying that conclusions about ice extent are invalid because thickness is not known? Are you serious? When did I ever make such a ridiculous claim. And show me a scientist who does not agree with my statement that sea ice is growing in extent but that the thickness of the land ice is seriously declining. Because you can't answer the question, you pretend I said something else - not worthy.

 

And once again, there has been NO absence of warming over the past 17 years. 9 out of the 10 warmest years on RECORD have occurred during that time. The mean temperature of the oceans reached its highest ever RECORDED level in 2012. You dig up alarmist deniers; I rely on actual RECORDED figures (like the vast majority of the scientific community).

 

You cannot get away with pretending that because the most extreme figures in the range of predictions have not been achieved then the whole idea is invalid. Show me ONE reputable scientist (even the ones you quote) who claims that climate change is not happening. You are a denier for the simple reason that climate change is happening. As I said earlier, the only real dispute is about rates and levels and the precise percentage that can be attributed to man.

 

And a few points in relation to your previous post: first it shows your true colours when you come up with ridiculous statements that link serious scientists to some mythical belief that CO2 is a poison. No serious player thinks anything of the kind but it suits your blinkered view to pretend that some do. And your lack of knowledge on this subject comes through when you try to say that the habitat of the Orang Utan is being destroyed by the world demand for biodiesel when the vast majority of palm oil is and always was used in foodstuffs. The Orang has been endangered for years by the demand for food and by gold miners (as well as others). Bio-diesel is a new and relatively small player and, much as I hate what is happening to the rainforest, the process would not change if we abandoned bio-diesel overnight. But your argument as a whole is based on half-truths, so I shouldn't be surprised at that one.

 

Finally, you once again home in on Lucas when in difficulty. I make no comment about her views but if you think she outranks the IPCC when it comes to influence then you really have lost the plot. And when are you going to address the point I have made twice about it being much more convenient for western governments to be on the side of the deniers - but they are not. Why do you suppose they take the difficult path?

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-10-02 6:07 PMJohn 'predictions' are merely best guess for future events based on historical data and are therefore just guesses.  Scientific research or not predictions of what nature will/might do are still guesses.  In the case of global scale predictions I take their alarmist predictions with a pinch of salt.  Show me something tangible, as in the case of the deforestation and I am prepared to believe.  Until then I will remain healthily skeptical and say to hell with the planet in thousands/millions of years.  I rally don't give a stuff about it that far into the future and would much prefer to see my hard earned staying in my pocket a bit longer rather than being stolen in the name of 'saving the planet'.

 

In respect of 'climate change' the data has been, and as I'm not wearing rose coloured glasses I believe it is still being manipulated to put forward the 'scenario' that the establishment want's us to see.  This justifies their raid on our wallets.

 

Regarding the 'sensationalists' shouting about running out of gas/oil why then did not the governments speak out with the support of 'scientists' to dispel these claims?  Possibly because it was convenient and allows BIG business to hike prices which is good for governmental revenue.

 

Please do not come the 'Mr superior' with comments such as "Please do not confuse reporters with climatologists; theyare very different beings!" it does you no credit.  Also the 'lesson' regarding Canute falls into the same vein.  I used it merely as an accepted analogy relative to futility and not to illustrate historical fact.

 

I agree we, the human race can not continue as we 'are' doing.  However have you noticed that action taken to 'combat climate change' (bloody stupid phrase but used extensively by those who wish to scare us) always costs us money.  Acting to stop the rain forest destruction would cost us nothing and would benefit the whole planet.............but there is, as I have said before no profit in that so it won't happen.

 

In reality John it all comes down to money money money,  who can get the most of it from our pockets and to hell with the planet.

Your first sentence contradicts itself. If predictions are based on historical data they cannot be just guesses. They are the best tools available for looking into the future and no-one ever claims precise figures for the future; rather they allow ranges of possibilities. Quite simply, if you see a precise prediction rather than a range then it has not been provided by a scientist; it has been provided in all probability by the media. As for the oil figures, you clearly have not been reading the right stuff. Scientists have continuously rubbished extreme and sensationalist claims but you don't seriously expect the sensationalist media to print that do you?But you have inadvertently stumbled across a very significant point (even if you have got it the wrong way round). Yes, it does cost money and it does entail us being more responsible to help to mitigate against the negative effects of climatic change - which is why so many people are anxious to cling at any straws which might show that it isn't happening. But the flat-earthers lost in the end, as did the creationists, so eventually there will come a time when only a few extremists deny reality. I only hope that we will still be in a position to do something about it when that happens.

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-10-02 7:21 PM

 

But the flat-earthers lost in the end, as did the creationists, so eventually there will come a time when only a few extremists deny reality. I only hope that we will still be in a position to do something about it when that happens.

 

See.............. I said you were a romantic :D .................you still think we can do something about changing the human race and our climate (lol) (lol)........

[CliveH]

John

 

So as someone who asks questions about the assumptions of a government department known for making political decisions and stating nonsense like the Himilayan Glaciers melting by 2035 – I am “dangerous”! my my – what power I hold!

 

And you say we are well within the predictions?

 

And yet the IPCC report states in the Final Draft SPM summed it up correctly as:

 

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10?–15 years.”

The IPCC draws the following conclusion:

“In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.”

 

So you say we are well within the range of the predictions but the IPCC AR5 says different – as I say John are you sure you are up to speed with all this?

 

And when did I say that the ice thickness is not known – you made that up tried to infer that was what I did and then I pointed out that Ice Thickness is something that they take into account but that the extent of Ice is still a valid measurement because the thickness can be assessed and validated as within “normal” range – thus the graphs I linked to are valid – and the fact that the experts confirm this leaves you a bit out on a limb.

 

Not surprising then that you bend the facts yet again to make out I said something that I did not as you cannot deal with the reality!

 

Because you try to make out “there has been no absence of warming over the last 17 years” – and yet even the IPCC AR5 states

 

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10?–15 years.”

Which when you add the latest circa 24 months data gives the 17 years. PLEASE JOHN LOOK AT THE HADCUT DATA! – there is a link to it via Steve McIntyres site.

 

The graph shows that real data is now within the error bars of the lower extremes of the predictions – do you understand what this means John?

 

As for validity – you say just because the extreme ranges have not been reached I cannot say the idea is not valid – again look at the graphs John – even the IPCC admits there is a “Pause” – they say it.

 

The real data is not missing the highest extreme of the models – IT IS DAMN NEAR FALLING OUT THE BOTTOM YOU MUPPET!!

 

Sorry John but you cannot be looking at the actual IPCC data and have any real knowledge in this area if you make the comments that you do.

 

Please John – look at the data – look at “the pause” – even the IPCC AR5 mentions this.

 

As for your ridiculous stawman argument “show me anyone that says the climate does not change” – this is a ploy that is not worthy of you John – you should be ashamed.

 

I and all sceptics never say that the Climate does not change – what we question is the Alarmist Predictions.

 

And so far our skepticism is entirely justified.

 

As for CO2 and how Government agencies treat it – in 2009 the American EPA stated that CO2 was a dangerous pollutant and CO2 was then treated as a potential poison. The scientific community at the time objected and were treated to a lecture by some within the EPA all about Carbon MONOXIDE! – but the legislation was for CO2.

 

I can only conclude that as you find this so staggering that you question my saying it that you are not aware of what actually went on.

 

The US EPA still classifies CO2 as a poison and dangerous pollutant.

 

We in Europe have not been that stupid but we do treat CO2 as a substance that has to be limited – a substance that even today constitutes just 0.0389% of our atmosphere.

 

As for Palm Oil and Biodiesel – I am disappointed that you dismiss the problems of the orangutang as being a previous one so a bit of Palm Oil production is not going to make much difference.

 

How can you say such crap John? Your ignorance and arrogance appalls me.

 

This from Friends of the Earth:-

 

“This study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) for Friends of the Earth Europe finds that Europe’s drivers are being forced to fill their tanks with increasing amounts of palm oil, with reliance on the controversial biofuel set to rise even further.

According to the data, palm oil use has increased much more than predicted and now stands at 20% of the biodiesel mix. The EU consumes 40% more palm oil (for food, fuel and cosmetics) today compared to 6 years ago, despite continual warnings about the unsustainability of palm oil expansion.

Palm oil associated with deforestation, wildlife loss and community conflicts, and is accelerating climate change. The findings put more pressure on the EU to put a halt to increasing biofuels.”

 

The link is here :-

 

https://www.foeeurope.org/IISD-EU-biofuel-policy-palm-oil-090913

 

And whilst I would clearly disagree with FOE’s emphasis on Climate Change as an issue – I find a delicious irony in the fact that it is Alarmist anti CO2 legislation in Europe that is causing more catastrophic climate change elsewhere in the world.

 

But for all that irony – the plight of the Rain Forests destroyed on the say so of muppets that believe as you do is truly awful.

 

When are you going to wake up to the facts?

 

Hoepfully before it is to late.

 

But if you really feel that your view point is more valid than that of Friends of the Earth – I will put you on touch with them – I am sure they will be pleased to learn that they are all wrong and that the evil of CO2 is so great that anything is justifies and because we currently eat a bit more palm oil than we convert to bio diesel then we can ignore plight of the Rain Forests and all the indigenous flora and fauna.

 

And you ducked my question by trying to make out that warming had not paused. Well now I have actually cited the IPCC AR5 where it refers to the hiatus in warming – and Climate Scientists on all sides refer to it.

 

I repeat it :-

 

Are you pleased or upset that the Global Temperatures have NOT matched the Alarmist Predictions?

 

Serious question - please do not duck it.

 

[RogerC]

John 47 - 2013-10-02 7:21 PM

RogerC - 2013-10-02 6:07 PMJohn 'predictions' are merely best guess for future events based on historical data and are therefore just guesses.  Scientific research or not predictions of what nature will/might do are still guesses.  In the case of global scale predictions I take their alarmist predictions with a pinch of salt.  Show me something tangible, as in the case of the deforestation and I am prepared to believe.  Until then I will remain healthily skeptical and say to hell with the planet in thousands/millions of years.  I really don't give a stuff about it that far into the future and would much prefer to see my hard earned staying in my pocket a bit longer rather than being stolen in the name of 'saving the planet'.

 

In respect of 'climate change' the data has been, and as I'm not wearing rose coloured glasses I believe it is still being manipulated to put forward the 'scenario' that the establishment want's us to see.  This justifies their raid on our wallets.

 

Regarding the 'sensationalists' shouting about running out of gas/oil why then did not the governments speak out with the support of 'scientists' to dispel these claims?  Possibly because it was convenient and allows BIG business to hike prices which is good for governmental revenue.

 

Please do not come the 'Mr superior' with comments such as "Please do not confuse reporters with climatologists; they are very different beings!" it does you no credit.  Also the 'lesson' regarding Canute falls into the same vein.  I used it merely as an accepted analogy relative to futility and not to illustrate historical fact.

 

I agree we, the human race can not continue as we 'are' doing.  However have you noticed that action taken to 'combat climate change' (bloody stupid phrase but used extensively by those who wish to scare us) always costs us money.  Acting to stop the rain forest destruction would cost us nothing and would benefit the whole planet.............but there is, as I have said before no profit in that so it won't happen.

 

In reality John it all comes down to money money money,  who can get the most of it from our pockets and to hell with the planet.

Your first sentence contradicts itself. If predictions are based on historical data they cannot be just guesses. They are the best tools available for looking into the future and no-one ever claims precise figures for the future; rather they allow ranges of possibilities. Quite simply, if you see a precise prediction rather than a range then it has not been provided by a scientist; it has been provided in all probability by the media. As for the oil figures, you clearly have not been reading the right stuff. Scientists have continuously rubbished extreme and sensationalist claims but you don't seriously expect the sensationalist media to print that do you?But you have inadvertently stumbled across a very significant point (even if you have got it the wrong way round). Yes, it does cost money and it does entail us being more responsible to help to mitigate against the negative effects of climatic change - which is why so many people are anxious to cling at any straws which might show that it isn't happening. But the flat-earthers lost in the end, as did the creationists, so eventually there will come a time when only a few extremists deny reality. I only hope that we will still be in a position to do something about it when that happens.

 

John,

How is my statement contradictory? Basing predictions, (in this case relative to global circumstances) on what has happened in the past is nothing more than saying that because something has happened before it will occur again.  It is still 'guessing', extrapolation, projection call it what you will but there is still a degree of uncertainty as far as the planet and nature is concerned.  I will concede that it is an 'informed guesstimate' but it is still a guesstimate not fact or accurate.

 

As far as the UK is concerned the reality is that whatever 'we' do in this country, and it does seem to be the UK government that is hell bent on hammering us in our pockets in the name of 'combating climate change' more so than any other country, the effect will be so small as to make a 'quark' look gigantic. 

 

As I have said before and to support my comments the following is from the WWF:

Human activity –  cutting down the forests that naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the air.

........ the speed of industrial change has been faster than any natural process, and faster than most natural systems can adapt.

 

That being the case why has deforestation continued apace when it was/is known to be a huge contributor to reducing the ecosystem's ability to 'filter out' carbon gases which only exacerbates the problem?

 

All we hear is reduce this, reduce that, pay for this, pay for that..in fact all we hear is IT IS GOING TO COST US.........AND COST US BIG. Until the deforestation, which is presently consuming vast tracts of land, is halted I really couldn't care less.  When the 'movers and shakers' of global industries and governments care enough I might be inclined to care a little less about being robbed in the name of 'combating climate change'.  Until that time I will remain healthily skeptical about the real intent of governments and industry and those who want to 'raid my wallet'.

 

Up to a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions come from deforestation and forest degradation.

 

Unfortunately, it often makes more economic sense - at least in the short term - to manage forests unsustainably or clear forests for agriculture, roads and infrastructure than to conserve them or manage them responsibly.

 

(Economic sense?......... for that read more profitable than being concerned with combating climate change)

 

From National Geographic:

Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.

The world’s rain forests could completely vanish in a hundred years at the current rate of deforestation.

That last statement is the scary one.  If that is allowed to happen then you might as well, according to informed opinion,kiss your backside goodbye because the planet will no longer be able to 'breathe' and the planets ability to 'recycle' water would be greatly diminished.

 

John the bottom line is it all comes down to money, money, money.  It's about who can make the most out of the current 'scare' and to hell with the planet.  If 'they', those who are in positions of power and influence don't care enough to act in areas where the effect on the ecosystem of the planet would put it into immediate recovery why the hell should I?

 

[John 47]

pelmetman - 2013-10-02 8:04 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-10-02 7:21 PM

 

But the flat-earthers lost in the end, as did the creationists, so eventually there will come a time when only a few extremists deny reality. I only hope that we will still be in a position to do something about it when that happens.

 

See.............. I said you were a romantic :D .................you still think we can do something about changing the human race and our climate (lol) (lol)........

 

Maybe so, but I don't think the chances of success are very great! So I suppose that makes me a cynical romantic (lol)

[Guest pelmetman]

John 47 - 2013-10-02 8:50 PM

 

pelmetman - 2013-10-02 8:04 PM

 

John 47 - 2013-10-02 7:21 PM

 

But the flat-earthers lost in the end, as did the creationists, so eventually there will come a time when only a few extremists deny reality. I only hope that we will still be in a position to do something about it when that happens.

 

See.............. I said you were a romantic :D .................you still think we can do something about changing the human race and our climate (lol) (lol)........

 

Maybe so, but I don't think the chances of success are very great! So I suppose that makes me a cynical romantic (lol)

 

Naaah........ we're all no hope'rs..............but at least time is on our side :D.............

 

 

 

 

 

I hope 8-)

[John 47]

CliveH - 2013-10-02 8:40 PM

 

1. “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10?–15 years.”

 

2. And when did I say that the ice thickness is not known – you made that up tried to infer that was what I did and then I pointed out that Ice Thickness is something that they take into account but that the extent of Ice is still a valid measurement because the thickness can be assessed and validated as within “normal” range – thus the graphs I linked to are valid – and the fact that the experts confirm this leaves you a bit out on a limb.

 

3. Because you try to make out “there has been no absence of warming over the last 17 years” – and yet even the IPCC AR5 states “Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10?–15 years.”

 

4. I and all sceptics never say that the Climate does not change – what we question is the Alarmist Predictions.

 

5. As for CO2 and how Government agencies treat it – in 2009 the American EPA stated that CO2 was a dangerous pollutant

 

6. As for Palm Oil and Biodiesel – I am disappointed that you dismiss the problems of the orangutang as being a previous one so a bit of Palm Oil production is not going to make much difference.

 

7. Are you pleased or upset that the Global Temperatures have NOT matched the Alarmist Predictions?

 

Serious question - please do not duck it.

 

My goodness, you know how to dig a hole, don't you?

 

Points 1 and 3 - I know you had difficulty understanding the difference between "extent" and "volume" and now you demonstrate that you cannot understand the difference between a slowing of the rate of increase and a decrease. The links you provide show NOT that there has been an absence of warming but that the RATE of warming has decreased. I repeat, the ACTUAL FIGURES (not speculation of the kind you indulge in) show that 9 out of the 10 highest mean global temperatures have been recorded in the past 17 years. THAT IS RECORDED FACT.

 

Point 2 - You DID refer to the thickness of the ice not being known in a vain attempt to belittle what I was saying - this is not the first time you have tried to dispute what you have stated in black and white for all to see. I have never disputed the figures relating to ice extent (unlike you, I prefer not to reject actual measurements). However, you do not seem to realise that this greater extent has gone hand in hand with a severe reduction in thickness - and that is something that even your links will confirm. The overall result is a major loss of ice and a raising of the sea level by an average of 0.5mm per year. As I said earlier, the rate of melting is now 3 times what it was in the 1990s. That is something you have avoided (like all the other inconvenient facts) and you still haven't given me the name of a single scientist who would disagree with what I have said on this.

 

Point 4 - I question alarmist predictions too - and it does your case no good at all to pretend that all predictions are invalid because of extreme predictions. I repeat, responsible scientists - such as the IPCC - NEVER refer to absolutes.

 

Point 5 - You seem to have a thing about confusing terms, don't you? Yes CO2 can be a pollutant. This is beyond dispute by anyone except you, it seems. If anyone points this out it does not mean that they regard CO2 as a poison. Many things that are essential to life can also destroy life in the wrong balance.

 

Point 6 - I dismissed nothing other than your attempt to blame the loss of habitat for the Orang Utan on so-called climate change alarmists. My point in this - as in all other things - is that you CANNOT take the simplistic approach that you appear to favour. Life is much more complicated than this and your inability to acknowledge that simple fact more than anything else shows that you just do not understand the problem.

 

Point 7 - This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question but in order to put it to bed, yes I am pleased that global temperatures have not reached the levels that your alarmists claimed. But I have to add that your alarmists (whoever they might be) are not the IPCC who have NEVER made absolute predictions.

 

And now, perhaps you'll answer the question I have posed you on several occasions - you know, the one about why a free-market government would not take the easy way out.

[John 47]

RogerC - 2013-10-02 8:47 PM

How is my statement contradictory? Basing predictions, (in this case relative to global circumstances) on what has happened in the past is nothing more than saying that because something has happened before it will occur again.  It is still 'guessing', extrapolation, projection call it what you will but there is still a degree of uncertainty as far as the planet and nature is concerned.  I will concede that it is an 'informed guesstimate' but it is still a guesstimate not fact or accurate.

 

I do not dispute what you say about the rainforest. In fact I agree very strongly with most of it. However, your argument about climate change seems to be the equivalent of saying that if other people are able to get away with murder then I don't see why I shouldn't kill people too. I cannot support that.

 

As for the quote above, it is a red herring. ALL attempts to predict the future (of anything) have an in-built inaccuracy but that doesn't make them invalid. Nobody is saying that predictions can be 100%, so what is your point? Your statement is contradictory because you say, on the one hand, that predictions are based on past patterns and known behaviour and then you say that it is all guesswork (which is 100% random).

 

 

[CliveH]

Points 1 and 3 - I know you had difficulty understanding the difference between "extent" and "volume" and now you demonstrate that you cannot understand the difference between a slowing of the rate of increase and a decrease. The links you provide show NOT that there has been an absence of warming but that the RATE of warming has decreased. I repeat, the ACTUAL FIGURES (not speculation of the kind you indulge in) show that 9 out of the 10 highest mean global temperatures have been recorded in the past 17 years. THAT IS RECORDED FACT.

............................

Actually I don't - you just like to infer that I do as it is the only way you can justify your assumptions

 

I don't think you have referred to the IPCC AR5 references I cited because the data does not confirm what you say - could you please supply a reference - I have provided several links to referenced sources - but you have not. I am sure that is a simple oversight on your part.

 

Point 2 - You DID refer to the thickness of the ice not being known in a vain attempt to belittle what I was saying - this is not the first time you have tried to dispute what you have stated in black and white for all to see. I have never disputed the figures relating to ice extent (unlike you, I prefer not to reject actual measurements). However, you do not seem to realise that this greater extent has gone hand in hand with a severe reduction in thickness - and that is something that even your links will confirm. The overall result is a major loss of ice and a raising of the sea level by an average of 0.5mm per year. As I said earlier, the rate of melting is now 3 times what it was in the 1990s. That is something you have avoided (like all the other inconvenient facts) and you still haven't given me the name of a single scientist who would disagree with what I have said on this.

 

Again I do not remember statting that Ice thickness was not known - what I did refer to was that thickness was assessed to ensure it was within a normal range such that extent can be used as a useful parameter.

 

I have cited the data and provided the references for the INCREASE in Antarctic ice sheet and also a silly Guardian article that infers that this increase does not mean that Global Warming has stopped, The references in the article and the references I cite allow you to link to those individuals that post the research. may I suggest you look at the research and see for youreslf the individuals concerned.

 

..................

 

 

Point 4 - I question alarmist predictions too - and it does your case no good at all to pretend that all predictions are invalid because of extreme predictions. I repeat, responsible scientists - such as the IPCC - NEVER refer to absolutes.

 

The problem is with the IPCC is that it is more of a Political organisation rather than a scientific one. AGAIN may I refer you to the criticisms of Judith Curry in particular who as a reputable Climate Scientist is someone who fits the bill I would suggest for someone who is both sceptical of the IPCC as well as being expert in the field.

 

...................

 

Point 5 - You seem to have a thing about confusing terms, don't you? Yes CO2 can be a pollutant. This is beyond dispute by anyone except you, it seems. If anyone points this out it does not mean that they regard CO2 as a poison. Many things that are essential to life can also destroy life in the wrong balance.

 

CO2 is NOT a pollutant - yes a surfeit of it will kill you - but more by asphyxiation - the same could be said for water - too much water is bad for you - even in its purest form - but no one starts labelling H20 as a pollutant or poison.

 

Me thinks you are out of your depth by some margin here John!

 

......................

 

Point 6 - I dismissed nothing other than your attempt to blame the loss of habitat for the Orang Utan on so-called climate change alarmists. My point in this - as in all other things - is that you CANNOT take the simplistic approach that you appear to favour. Life is much more complicated than this and your inability to acknowledge that simple fact more than anything else shows that you just do not understand the problem.

 

You have not read the Friends of the Earth report then......................

 

Point 7 - This is a "when did you stop beating your wife" question but in order to put it to bed, yes I am pleased that global temperatures have not reached the levels that your alarmists claimed. But I have to add that your alarmists (whoever they might be) are not the IPCC who have NEVER made absolute predictions.

 

Really - - - -

 

And there was me reading in AR4 that Himalayan Glaciers would be gone by 2035!

 

..................

 

And now, perhaps you'll answer the question I have posed you on several occasions - you know, the one about why a free-market government would not take the easy way out.

 

I have answered that - but briefly again - the initial reports gave us the willies (I remember saying that) we were all scared - then we looked at the data and only the gullible such as you still believed it.

 

However, governments liked to have a methodology and reason to collect more taxes and green taxes to protect the planet were an acceptable burden the population took on its shoulders due to the scare tactics of the Alarmists.

 

I even mentioned that Australia has ejected the notion of Catastrophic Climate Change at its recent election. There is much rejoicing in Oz at the dismantling of the ridiculous "Climate Change Commission" and removal of the Carbon Tax that made Australia so uncompetitive. Common sense prevails Down-under!!

 

As for other Free Market Governments - well yes - China may call itself Communist but in reality it is a single party capitalist State now. And it never bought into the AGW nonsense. Neither did India - the biggest democracy in the world.

 

So the concept of Catastrophic Climate Change or AGW - call it what you will is primarily a luxury of an effete middle class with more angst than common sense or knowledge. Certain sections of society - especially those of a Socialist persuasion in the West want to feel guilty about "having it so good" and so want to pay for their "sins".

 

Climate Change is a religion to some - and the cost of bearing the sins of a Western Society is the modern day "Indulgence" for that religion.

 

That is one reason why the anti-capitalists jumped on the Climate Change bandwagon - CO2 is something a modern society does produce - no doubt about it - one way to halt a successful economy is to place limits on something it produces.

 

Now if a TRUE pollutant were identified then fine................

 

My problem is that having a Microbiology Degree and knowing a bit about Photosynthesis and Krebbs cycle - I KNEW that the demonisation of CO2 was total and utter bullshirt.

 

The truth is slowly coming out - but come out it will.

 

All we sceptics have to do is wait.

 

We said that some years ago and the past 17 years have proved us right.

 

If we are still right in another 13 years then there will be no doubt about it.

 

Meanwhile - the Alarmist predictions/models are running hot

 

The real data is almost outside the error bars at the lower extremity of the predictions.

 

All we have to do is wait.

 

Questions are being asked as to why such a discrepancy exists.

 

AR5 seems at first glance to be far more reticent in its alarmist predictions.

 

Hopefully lessons have been learned.

 

 

[CliveH]

Forgive another post on this but I have tried and failed to post the research that shows the current real temperature data set against the "predictions"

 

A version of this data appears in Steve McIntyres link I posted earlier but it is not as good as the one that flately refuses to be posted - presumably for the same reason I am unable to post pics - it is not file size but my anti viral software it seems

 

Anyway I have just remembered it appears in this link at Dr Norman Pages site -

 

http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.co.uk

 

It is Fig4

 

John - please look at the article and in particular Fig 4 - it shows the ballon and satellite temp data and compares them to the various model predictions.

 

You can see why there is such disquiet over the predictive abilities of the models.

 

I personally think the ocean heat sink notion is the IPCC in desperation mode. I think the simpler, more elegant answer is that the the feedback assumption for CO2/WaterVapour was way to high.

 

Crank that down to about a third and then run the models again and they predict almost exactly what has happened.

 

The authors could have done that of course.

 

But no fame or glory down THAT road.

 

Just like a disaster sells Newspapers - so to can predicting a disaster sell careers.

 

Edit

 

One other point John - you stated that no scientist would use the Term "Pause" as this did not happen in your view so no one of any note would use the term - apparently.

 

Sadly for you you are wrong once again

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF

 

Here we have the UK Met Office Scientists referring in a publication to "The Recent Pause in Global Warming."

 

But perhaps you do not see Slingo et al as true Scientists. (and I have to say I would have enormous sympathy with that view.) 8-)

 

 

(lol)

[John 47]

Clive, you keep misquoting, misunderstanding and mis-using the same old stuff (including denying that you said something that is in black and white!). You ask for proof that the last 17 years contain 9 out of 10 of the warmest years on record. I produce the following just for starters:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16366078 - this refers just to Britain but see later

 

http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2010/12/climate_change - this one states the top 12 have all been within the last 17 years!

 

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_906_en.html

 

I could have produced lots more but much of the work has been done by the US Meterological Service and all USA non-essential Government websites are down at the moment because of the fiscal crisis.

 

Once again, you misunderstand terminology. This is probably not helped by the fact that the Met Office reference you give mistakenly talks of pauses when they really mean change in rates. The report repeatedly uses phrases like "little further warming". Nothing has paused, despite their misuse of terms (the Met Office clearly wouldn't pass too many English exams, for all their other expertise!). Let me put it in terms that you might understand:

 

If the rate of inflation decreases it does not mean that prices have gone down. A declining rate of inflation can still coincide with record price levels. If you can understand that in the world of finance, why can't you understand it in the world of Climatology?

 

Thus a declining rate of warming (perfectly consistent with short-term natural fluctuations) has resulted in record high temperatures - AS RECORDED BY THE FIGURES.

 

 

I assume that unless we stop this you will go on printing the same old misunderstandings so, having supplied the actual figures, I will wipe the slate clean and limit it to the following three simple questions that I'd like you to answer:

 

1. Give me the name of one reputable climate scientist who denies that climate change occurs

 

2. Give me the name of one reputable climate scientist who denies that the actions of man affect the climate

 

3. Give me the name of one reputable climate scientist who has ever predicted that something WILL happen (the basis of that silly question about whether I was pleased or not and which I allowed myself to be suckered into answering).

 

 

[Archiesgrandad]

As with all these things I really don't know, but 2 questions keep buzzing around my mind,

1 -If it has taken 300 years to get to this state, even if we stop using fossil fuels today, how long before we reverse man made global warming.

2 - If the ocean levels are set to rise so much so quickly, why is no one building flood defences?

AGD