Storm brews over glacier blunder
Ok so first paragraph of this gem of an article is

A MISTAKE about the timing of melting glaciers has snowballed into an unprecedented assault on the credibility of climate science, after revelations that an author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report knew that one passage was wrong but included it anyway.

Of course it takes until the fourth and fifth article to get to this

Scientists who uncovered the error about the timing of melting glaciers in the Himalayas told the Herald that the conclusions of the report are right, and that fixing such errors are a routine part of the scientific process.

An Australian lead author of the report, Professor Andy Pitman, also said the mistake did not affect the veracity of the UN body's conclusions. He said that scientists were being subjected to ''an orchestrated campaign that's exactly the same as that was used by the smoking lobby to try and discredit science''.

6th & 7th paragraph we learn the nature of the error and the sole author who included it.

After that point on we learn that IPCC report is under constant scrutiny as any important piece of research being used to develop public policy should be.

But really what does any of this matter the average punter reads 3 paragraphs in. This imo is just bad journalism.
I cannot fathom how it is reasonable to say in the first paragraph ".....unprecedented assault on the credibility of climate science" when the rest of the article gives no such indication.

you forgot to close your quote in the link, fixed

If news isn't simply fact then it is not news but propaganda or op-ed.

Truth doesn't get ratings, emotions do

I think Charles from LGF, who's a recent convert from skepticism, covers this issue well:

Here’s a little more perspective on this flawed prediction: it’s quoted exactly once, in one sentence in the second volume of the IPCC’s fourth Assessment Report — and not in any of the technical summaries, which are more widely read, but only on page 493 of Chapter 10 of this very lengthy document on the impacts of climate change (PDF).

So yes, it’s a breakdown in the scientific vetting process for these kinds of claims, but on the other hand it’s been vastly exaggerated and blown up into a huge issue, far beyond what is warranted. If you’re really interested in the subject, I recommend at least glancing through the other 3000 pages of the AR4 documents to see how much information and research is not in question.

FYIs, you have "climate change deniers", and "skeptics". Skeptics seek evidence to back up claims, whereas climate change deniers deny the evidence.

There is no such thing as a "climate change skeptic".

Yes good point Billy, the deniers have even brainwashed me into misusing the word and falsely giving them credit for being sceptics (is it really with a k that looks so wrong?)

noun - skeptic, adjective - sceptical etc

Wait, is the premise of this thread that you believe in global warming? Where is the evidence, then?
I thought it was all a hoax.

I mean I hung on for a few years reading up on this stuff, and the stuff coming from the 'no global warming' camp was far more convincing. Eventually you just have to give up on the politicians and celebrities trying to keep the hysteria going.

Have they made some amazing discovery to prove climate change is happening? I must have missed the news that day.

last edited by thermite at 12:52:03 25/Jan/10

i love it how first the danger was global warming, but then we get all these wild blizzard like -20c winters across the northern hemishpere so it gets upgraded to climate change.

so manmade behaviour is now making the planet both hotter and colder - simultaneously. the weather is changing, and that is inherently bad, because the weather is not supposed to change?

people will believe anything...

Apparently in the 3000 pages of IPCC documents but once I got to that mistake on page 493 I binned the whole thing is farcical

Also wouldn't an organisation with "climate change" in it's title automatically discredit it as a source of any information related to climate change? They obviously decided on the name and the fact that they should be in businesses before they did any research. It's not like they're the "international people for facts and truth", they have one agenda and they're pushing it. That immediately smells like bulls***.

I mean I hung on for a few years reading up on this stuff, and the stuff coming from the 'no global warming' camp was far more convincing. Eventually you just have to give up on the politicians and celebrities trying to keep the hysteria going

What do you mean how was it far more convincing than the IPCC's reports, why are you sceptical of their findings?

so manmade behaviour is now making the planet both hotter and colder - simultaneously. the weather is changing, and that is inherently bad, because the weather is not supposed to change?

Did Bolt simplify it like this for you infi, you're not even trying now are you

IPCC's reports, why are you sceptical of their findings?

Apart from this thread I've never even heard of that, nor have I read it. I stopped caring like two years ago as it seemed pretty clear that Al Gore and his mates were full of s***. 3000 pages? That sounds like a good way to drone on about absolutely nothing and lose people's interest so they just assume you proved your point. If they can't state convincingly exactly why I should be concerned about global warming in a few short sentences, and that it is real, then I would say there is nothing to it.

I don't want to be an ignorant s***, as Billy says, but I can't spent years and years of my life 'seeking' facts about something that I am time and time again convinced is not real. If it can be summarised I'd love to hear it - but I would still be suspicious given that it's coming from a bunch of people who are working for the very purpose to convince people that climate change is happening - plus it's organised by Government, and Governments have been saying global warming is real long before these reports came out - they'd already made their minds up about it.

But basically why I don't believe it is that Al Gore et al. blamed global warming on human beings and specifically carbon emissions. The evidence scientists have found is that temperatures tends to vary first, and that in turn affects carbon levels, not the other way around. They said if there is a change in the climate then it's just a natural part of Earth's lifecycle.


last edited by thermite at 13:39:31 25/Jan/10

Im surprised more people here have not seen through the AGW Hoax.
Its not getting hotter. Its cooling. AGW suggests that as more Co2 enters the atmosphere the Temperature will increase. Well that has not been happening for the last 7 years.
Natural warming has been happening for over 100 years but since 2002 the trend has been cooling slightly. Like the getting to the top of rollercoaster ride we are about to go down the other side of the peak that has been chugging along for a long time.

400 000 years of Temps Vs Co2 ...
Nothing new here.

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg35/ggb777/400000yearslarge.gif

Darwin Airport Weather Station
Its the Adjusted Temps that show warming (as always)

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg35/ggb777/AdjustedDataIPCC.png

This one is a little more complicated but Its Hansens prophecies of Temps from 1988. In 1988, Hansen made the famous presentation to Congress using these projections.
Notice how all of his Predictions are well above what has actually been happening ?

http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg35/ggb777/hansencomparedrecent.jpg

How did the BBC come up with its Pro AGW stance ?
Well they had a meeting and invited a whole bunch of ppl to discuss AGW and after that discussion they decided the Science was correct.
Trouble is they didnt invite any Anti-AGW people.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023145/why-the-bbc-will-always-be-wrong-on-climate-change/

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

And finally...
this little gem.

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/

Thats right 1922 !

Whatever you believe, like anything else, always look at both sides of the argument.

I don't want to be an ignorant s***, as Billy says, but I can't spent years and years of my life 'seeking' facts about something that I am time and time again convinced is not real. If it can be summarised I'd love to hear it - but I would still be suspicious given that it's coming from a bunch of people who are working for the very purpose to convince people that climate change is happening - plus it's organised by Government, and Governments have been saying global warming is real long before these reports came out - they'd already made their minds up about it.

You are coming across as very ignorant. To suggest that governments stated global warming was a real concern before the scientific community did is just nuts. governments would LOVE the idea of global warming to f*** off forever.

http://green.thefuntimesguide.com/images/blogs/Copenhagen Cartoon-thumb-480x320-11849.jpg

What is the Human contributions to overall carbon in the Atmosphere ?

We've been being lied to by adertisers to promote needing to have material things to make us happy for decades, I don't give too s***s if the we get lied to so we can be convinced that a clean environment and sustainability will make us happy.

It's called a trend infi. Spikes can occur in both directions it's the underlying trend that matters.

ps. See that the Australian (your sort of Newspaper) listed Kevin Rudd and co as Australians of the Year for limiting the impact of the GFC ? (yes off track... but it'll make infi angry)

hahaha deserves its own thread Obes, but I think this might be just Murdoch slipping in a positive KRudd piece so he can run some wank op-ed next time there's a rates rise (in the interest of fair and balanced media of course...)

The problem is that AGW advocates purport to come from a position of moral superiority. So anyone that doubts the science is automatically branded pro-pollution which is total bulls***. if you dare question the merit of a carbon-tax or the climategate emails you are ridiculed as a denier, akin to a holocaust denier.

Obes: just like Obama's stimulus staved off the GFC in the US. Hint: stimulus had nothing to do with.

You are coming across as very ignorant. To suggest that governments stated global warming was a real concern before the scientific community did is just nuts. governments would LOVE the idea of global warming to f*** off forever.

First off you fail at comprehension with your first comment, secondly...
Are you serious? Have you heard of Kevin Rudd? Have you heard of the bald guy from midnight oil? Pretty sure they f***ing LOVE the idea of global warming scares, it is giving them something to do and something to collect money for and gives them something to make election campaigns about.
They have these big global tea parties about it and everything.
This was all happening before this report was written. People were talking about global warming for a long time before any 'scientists' were hired by the government to fudge up some facts about it and draw it out into a 3000 page fairy tale.

Still keeping an open mind though - just nobody has anything convincing to say. I ask for proof, and I get called ignorant. Lovely.

Well the the 4th report they released was 2007, the panel was established 1988, the first assessment report 1990, followed by a 2nd (1995) and a 3rd in 2002. Are you disputing the science contained with in the reports or are you denying the reports methodology. Or are you just rah-rah-rahing?

I ask for proof

Can you prove to me that the Sun will come up tomorrow?

Antarctic ice is increasing, so is the warming only in the north or what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_ice_sheet

Quite redhat! The climate is changing! It's getting colder in the south because it's getting warmer in the north.

Me? I like the warmer weather, bring it on Climate Change!

Then I misunderstood. I was under the impression this was some brand spanking new discovery. No new information? Business as usual then. People will continue to debate it because "we just don't know" meanwhile enough people are suffering from green guilt to shell out cash for things they don't need, and accept pointless taxes.

The general trend shows that a warming climate in the southern hemisphere would transport more moisture to Antarctica, causing the interior ice sheets to grow, while calving events along the coast will increase, causing these areas to shrink. However more recent satellite data, which measures changes in the gravity of the ice mass, suggests that the total amount of ice in Antarctica has begun decreasing in the past few years.

From the wiki page you linked to.

The past few summers have been fail in sydney. This one is looking up bring on the record heats. Water at manly on saturday was still too cold. WTB northern currents.

I'm sitting on the fence about this climate change stuff, but have found this site to be the least bias. http://www.realclimate.org

Then I misunderstood. I was under the impression this was some brand spanking new discovery. No new information? Business as usual then. People will continue to debate it because "we just don't know" meanwhile enough people are suffering from green guilt to shell out cash for things they don't need, and accept pointless taxes.

Explain what you mean, the IPCC has been revising their advice with the most recent evidence & research at hand and for some time it has continued to point to AGW. But you say you're unconvinced, why if of all their 3000 page most recent report what is being attacked is a non-point that was not even provided to policy makers in their technical summary?

I'm sitting on the fence about this climate change stuff, but have found this site to be the least bias. http://www.realclimate.org

redhat that looks like a really good site, admittedly there are only 6 contributors link to bios but their stories seem to check out

Because if it was true, or even important, it would be a big deal. It would be the smoking gun people pull out in every global warming debate. Not something mentioned once on QGL 2 years later.

Meanwhile skeptics like James Randi still think it's nonsense. Sure it's controversial, but I can't help notice my bulls*** detector is sensing a lot of hype and hysteria from climate change supporters when they respond to skepticism.

Pretty much any random concept I know about science, I can explain clearly in a few brief sentences. The arguments against the facts in Inconvenient Truth have done exactly that.

Some people saw Twilight and now they believe in vampires, some people saw Al Gore's movie and now they believe in global warming. That is pretty much what I see happening.

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/322.jpg

This sums up the problem. Within the scientific community, there is no debate. Climate change is real and it's happening now. As with any issue that becomes political, a lot of s*** has been flung around by a very vocal minority. For some reason, journalists still think that they should give equal weight to improbably stories (or they just like to stir s*** for ratings), so it seems like climate change deniers represent a large portion of the scientific community, which they don't.

Be informed and make up your own mind, but don't use popular news sources, political arguments, conspiracy websites, or coal mining brochures to make up your mind on this overstated debate - use scientific ones for more clarity. Just flip through any recent issue of Science or Nature and you won't find any skepticism about the topic.

Yeh I bet when the surgeon general said smoking was harmful and there was a lot of arm waving they just let it go...I mean all those sceptics must have been right about something :/

The arguments against the facts in Inconvenient Truth have done exactly that.

You're misunderstanding, Inconvenient Truth was the catalyst to put the converstation at the forefront, you seem to have made a decision that what science it covered is the only evidence and you I'm sure you aren't that stupid.

Meanwhile skeptics like James Randi still think it's nonsense. Sure it's controversial, but I can't help notice my bulls*** detector is sensing a lot of hype and hysteria from climate change supporters when they respond to skepticism.

Actually, James Randi is about the ONLY skeptic who is UNSURE - he doesn't think it's "nonsense". Btw, he was almost disowned by the skeptical community for posting that blog.

less glaciers, more water, hotter temps... the future is looking good :D

Also, "sceptic" is the English spelling, "skeptic" is the US spelling. I use the US one, because I'm more involved with that community.

That was just an example. I haven't even seen the film. But this topic got boring 2 years ago when the reports came out showing Al Gore was full of s***. And I haven't seen anything to disprove what THOSE people said.

Within the scientific community, there is no debate. Climate change is real and it's happening now. As with any issue that becomes political, a lot of s*** has been flung around by a very vocal minority. For some reason, journalists still think that they should give equal weight to improbably stories (or they just like to stir s*** for ratings), so it seems like climate change deniers represent a large portion of the scientific community, which they don't.

That's all well and good you saying that - but how do I know it's true? What you're saying is "you know that majority of scientists who say global warming isn't true? well actually they are a minority and they're wrong" - how do I know that is a true statement??
It's a bit difficult to "be informed and make up your own mind" when there is so much controversy and disagreement out there.

Show me a video where they perform THE experiment that proves global warming? And then show me that the OTHER scientists are stumped at how to disprove it...

Actually, James Randi is about the ONLY skeptic who is UNSURE - he doesn't think it's "nonsense". Btw, he was almost disowned by the skeptical community for posting that blog.

Which is my point about hysteria and hype, doesn't mean a thing. Randi's whole point was about people being fallible and wanting to fit in, which sounds applicable to the sort of response where one 'disowns' someone.

sorry I'm being so brief I am actually working

last edited by thermite at 15:35:19 25/Jan/10

It's a bit difficult to "be informed and make up your own mind" when there is so much controversy and disagreement out there.

That's the point there isn't between scientist who publish material of a peer-reviewed quality. Your decision rests on a false premise.

Show me a video where they perform THE experiment that proves global warming? And then show me that the OTHER scientists are stumped at how to disprove it...

Show me the video where they proove the sun is coming up tomorrow

Show me the video where they proove the sun is coming up tomorrow

I don't understand why you keep saying that. There aren't debates and massive taxes coming in regarding the rising of the sun. Plus the real related question would be "prove the sun came up yesterday" which I am sure you could make a video of.

If you mean that there is no scientific evidence to speak of, then what are we even talking about this for?

No you're asking for proof of a forward projecting model & with regards to the sun coming up, crops are sown, holidays to the beach planned, sunscreen bought all on the projection that the sun will come up tomorrow.

That's the point there isn't between scientist who publish material of a peer-reviewed quality.

Peer reviewed by the University of East Anglica perhaps? What happens if the peer is equally alarmist?

Climate Change is, properly constructed, a religion.

I thought it was 'already happening'. People that believe in climate change say stuff like "God it's hot - global warming - I bet today was originally meant to be cold". Really puts me off, they may as well be arguing about jesus' real birth date.
Anyways, I obviously need a link to some of this credible information - where can I read the peer-reviewed material, and is there any other than from the IPCC?

Because if it was true, or even important, it would be a big deal. It would be the smoking gun people pull out in every global warming debate. Not something mentioned once on QGL 2 years later.

uh, it's a pretty big deal dude. to go from just being some cautious concern from a small group of scientists in the 70's to their being a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and all global governments talking about how to tackle it (at the cost of trillions) is a pretty f***ing big deal.

First of all, there are no (well, very few) PROOFS in science. Science is experimental in nature. Gravity is a theory, not a proof, do you believe in it?

The truth of the matter is there is a very large and building amount of work demonstrating that the theory of global warming is correct, and a much smaller but still growing body of work showing that the consequences are going to be extremely unpalatable in a lot of the world (Australia included). There's a lot of scientific debate over how severe and what the nature of impacts will be. There's very little debate over whether the issue is real or not.

A small percentage of scientists are sceptics; an even smaller percentage acutally have experimental evidence that appears to disprove part of the theory. This stuff should be always encouraged, but let's face it, you're a fool if you go against an accepted theory unless you have done the research to convince yourself that there are major issues with a theory - it really would be like rejecting the theory of general relativity or even gravity.

Journals at the library or instead of google.com try scholar.google.com, go through all the Radio National Science Show archives, etc.

Also as Billy noted (and you can find these at the library)

Just flip through any recent issue of Science or Nature

thought it was 'already happening'.

The earth as we know it will end one day and that means by the semantic nature of language the world is ending every day. It doesn't mean I can do you an earth ending experiment I can just show you a model of how it will happen (except if we work out some way to manipulate stars or something).

Where'd the lighter fluid come from?

My problem with all of this.

AGW is not new. We have had models and prediction about AGW - in particular atmospheric carbon - for 20(?) years at least. I was still a child when public awareness rose about 'the greenhouse effect' as it was called back then.

I'm approaching middle age now. I've had beers at the pub with people who have never lived in a world without the threat of global warming hanging over them.

To date as a species we haven't really done a damn thing to date to save the planet from the threat carbon. At the same time we've had clever bastards studying it, some of them dedicating their lives to it, and we've never recorded more data on our world's climate.

Surely by now have some good data on what all this atmospheric carbon has done to the planet rather than always warning about what its going to do. You know, that empirical evidence stuff...

yes it was such an universally accepted global challenge that the copenhagen conference managed to achieve... nothing

their being a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and all global governments talking about how to tackle it (at the cost of trillions) is a pretty f***ing big deal.

I don't think that is a big deal. Governments talk and talk about a lot of s***. They really are just headless chickens running around. Important would be - that is all we would talk about, and we would stop and change our lives. There would be quotes being published here from the report. I see no quotes - I don't even see a damn link to the report!

First of all, there are no (well, very few) PROOFS in science. Science is experimental in nature.

Yes that doesn't mean you can't have reproducable evidence, or even a reasonable explanation for something.

Gravity is a theory, not a proof, do you believe in it?

No, I don't believe in it.

The truth of the matter is ...

How did you decide on the truth?

In a planet that is several billion years old even a century of data.
100/4000000000 = 0.0000025 %

ie. not statistical very important.
It would be like news poll basing their polls off one random drunk dude they met at the pub (actually its more like they spoke to half a dude but that's kind of impossible).

I don't think that is a big deal. Governments talk and talk about a lot of s***. They really are just headless chickens running around. Important would be - that is all we would talk about, and we would stop and change our lives. There would be quotes being published here from the report. I see no quotes - I don't even see a damn link to the report!

You could find it in 10 seconds and you know that

yes it was such an universally accepted global challenge that the copenhagen conference managed to achieve... nothing

Yeh there are no kids starving in Africa, I guess if there's no solution to a problem then we can sarcastically dismiss it as not existing at all

As if on cue, the latest issue of Nature has an article titled, "Climate of suspicion", which is an editorial piece about this topic, and how scientists can communicate more effectively the research so people are less suspicious. Here: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/full/463269a.html

No matter how evident climate change becomes, however, other factors will ultimately determine whether the public accepts the facts. Empirical evidence shows that people tend to react to reports on issues such as climate change according to their personal values (see page 296). Those who favour individualism over egalitarianism are more likely to reject evidence of climate change and calls to restrict emissions. And the messenger matters perhaps just as much as the message. People have more trust in experts — and scientists — when they sense that the speaker shares their values. The climate-research community would thus do well to use a diverse set of voices, from different backgrounds, when communicating with policy-makers and the public. And scientists should be careful not to disparage those on the other side of a debate: a respectful tone makes it easier for people to change their minds if they share something in common with that other side.

As comforting as it may be to think that the best evidence will eventually convince the public on its own, climate scientists can no longer afford to make that naive assumption: people consider many factors beyond facts when making decisions. Even as climate science advances, it will be just as important to invest in research on how best to communicate environmental risks. Otherwise scientific knowledge will not have the role that it should in the shaping of public policy.

Keep in mind this is an editorial piece, not a research report, but it reflects the discontinuity between climate change science and public opinion.

A typical climate change sceptic

this bothers me a bit, why the negative connotation associated with skepticism?
why not associate climate change advocates/in-your-face types with the negatives?

there's not enough proof either way if you ask me, but I don't blame people for being skeptical

market the s*** out of that truth!

this bothers me a bit, why the negative connotation associated with skepticism?

You actually make a good point, well presented scepticism is really important to a functioning society. I do not think this article does justice to the sceptical method.

I think the problem is because you are dealing with such large time period, combined with relatively small changes in temperature and an extremely complex system to model, the result is limited predictability of the future that scientists can be near certain of. Scientists might be saying that the earth will warm up, but by how much? how fast? what areas will be affected? and a bunch of other questions. It's like saying you're going to die in 50 years time, most people will not be so worried. But if you be more specific, specifying where, how and when, people will be more proactive to change the future.

Billy - stating the scientific community is largely in agreement over the topic does not ensure the theory more credibility, a bandwagon effect could be happening. The overwhelming majority could be ostracising scientists who are in disagreement - something that should not be happening.

P.S: Don't rage at me, I'm not saying that the theory is incorrect.

re: Trog's article

Talks about ice melting. That isn't global warming. Global Warming is the idea that humans are responsible for destroying the world with carbon emissions, not that there currently happens to be a trend for ice to melt, which could very well be normal. Where is the research that carbon causes the problem, and that kevin rudd's tax fixes said problem?

re: Billy's article

Discusses strategies on how to psychologically trick the population into accepting the climate change ideas. Pretty damn blatant that they only care about making people see things the way they want them to see it, rather than about making evidence available. I wonder if it's because there is none?

You're absolutely right, but why are people questioning climate change out of everything else going on in the world (the beauty of the cartoon I posted before)? And if I can amend my earlier comments, I am referring to the scientific community and overwhelming body of evidence on the topic.

thermite, not sure what article you read, but the article I posted isn't about "tricking" anyone, it's about communicating facts to help the public understand the issue better. Also, did you see my comic earlier?

uh, it's a pretty big deal dude. to go from just being some cautious concern from a small group of scientists in the 70's to their being a UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and all global governments talking about how to tackle it (at the cost of trillions) is a pretty f***ing big deal.

Yes but back then they claimed it was Global Cooling !



As for Tuvalu, you know those Islands that are getting swamped by sea level rise, well thats a big con too.
Check out this article sorry bout the PDF.
http://fgc.math.ist.utl.pt/varia/jrs2/morner.pdf

actually, the only Weather Stations on Tuvalu that actually showed Sea Level rise were the new ones Australia installed a few years ago. How 'bout that ?

...just more of that Adjusted Data.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

Its not getting any warmer than was already incrementally happening since the the cold spell in the 1850s. In fact its leveling out and starting to cool.
The sea Level is not rising at all.
The North Pole has not had Sea Ice many times before.
Incidentally the North Pole is not all that cold.
You have to be on land for temps to really bottom out.

last edited by FaceMan at 17:23:12 25/Jan/10

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

He said the sea is not rising, and then said that it's going to rise 10cm :O Question mark?

heh only 10cm of sea.. what is that like a litre? that's nothing

AR4 is here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html

You could just read the summary for policy makers, which will give you an overview of what the science is currently (well, it's a couple of years out of date now) saying.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/december2009/041209top4.jpg

Sea Level measurements from San-francisco Bay USA


“The map, which demonstrates the devastating effects of global warming in just a century, shows how San Francisco Airport would be completely underwater if sea levels were to rise by 150cm (60in).”

“Within a century, Treasure Island, this place where we are right now, could be totally under water,” the governor said. “It is technology in the end that will save us.”

http://www.prisonplanet.com/schwarzenegger-attempts-to-rescue-collapsing-global-warming-fraud-with-alarmist-pr-stunt.html


The Sea isnt rising in Tuvalu nor is it in San Francisco bay.

I find almost all "climate change deniers" fall into one or both of the following camps:

1. Those that resist any threat of change to their current lifestyle, AND/OR
2. Those who wish to be part of a minority, playing the oppressed "victim".

Only a small number are actually concerned with facts and look at things with an analytical mind (rather than cherry-picking graphs to make themselves feel better).

I'd bet most deniers used to be climate change supporters back in 2000-2002 when people didn't take the matter seriously - as denying it was too popular and "mainstream" back then (which leads to camp #2). Too bad Faceman wasn't around these forums then, would have loved to see the "TELL THE TRUTH" threads about how no-one is taking climate change seriously and how we're all going to die in 2012.

Hey I always thought it was rock solid.
Last year i had a friend that was sending me emails with bits and pieces of evidence that it was a hoax and i didnt pay much attention to them.

Then when the government started sprouting some pretty wild claims i decided to look into it a bit more because i just dont trust the government.

I didnt know the Earth had been warming naturally.
I didnt know The polar bears were not dying out.
I didnt know the Sea Level was Not rising
I didnt know what had happened over the last 400 000 years
I didnt know how small the amount of Carbon was and our contribution to it
I didnt know Water Vapour is the major GreenHouse Gas
I didnt know that without the GreenHouse effect Earth temp would be -18 degrees.

When the Facts, as i knew them changed, My opinion changed.

When you say some ppl may be riding it for trolling or other agendas im sure your right. Because many people are riding AGW for their own Political and commercial reasons.

AGW = man-made warming, has become an Industry.
The IPCC isnt a science agency. Its a tax payer funded lobby group designed to influence policy on AGW.
When was the last time you saw any information from the IPCC that threw doubt on AGW ? They ignore contradictory evidence and isolate any groups that propose that evidence.

They ignore contradictory evidence and isolate any groups that propose that evidence.

I ignore evidence that contradicts my knowledge that the earth is round. I ignore evidence that demonstrates perpetual motion machines. I ignore evidence that suggests the LHC will destroy the planet.

Faceman: that you don't accept AGW on its evidence, but believe all the other s*** you do is just absolutely mind-boggling.

I accept the greenhouse gas CO2 emmissions are causing warming, I believe the science behind that, but the models are a bit of a stretch I think.

Weather can't be predicted even 1 month in advance let alone 1-10 years.

There needs to be a f***load more research money dumped into this.

Billy - stating the scientific community is largely in agreement over the topic does not ensure the theory more credibility, a bandwagon effect could be happening. The overwhelming majority could be ostracising scientists who are in disagreement - something that should not be happening.

science is not immune. it even happened in physics. have a look at milikans oil drop experiment

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of - this history - because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong - and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.

and i suspect it more likely to happen with climate change because knowing that emmitting CO2 doesn't cause harm is fundamentally 'bad knowledge'. only bad people would want to know that pollution is not as bad. same deal with nuclear winter which was way overhyped (burning of sadams oil fields showed that it was way out) but no-one could really come out against it because you were effectively coming out in support of nuclear weapons and only a bad person would do that.

last edited by hast at 18:56:04 25/Jan/10

Whether global warming is undeniable fact or simply a hair-brained theory is irrelevant when it comes to the action taken. If Governments and corporations are going to continue to use global warming as a tool to push their agendas and products then how can people take it as a serious threat?

You get told to buy a Prius, to use compact fluorescents, to install pink batts in your ceiling, to support schemes like carbon trading without question because if you do question it then you are a paedophile. Oh wait, that's the internet filter, no you are a Climate Change Denier bent on killing baby seals and eating dolphins.

But if you really cared about CO2 emissions you'd know that buying any new car is worse for the environment then maintaining an existing car even if the new car farted rainbows. You'd know that a carbon trading scheme would be a massive waste of money and would have little to no effect on carbon emissions, not to mention the idea of making air a taxable asset is pretty f***ing horrendous. You'd question what research the Government did to prove that fibreglass batts will offset more CO2 by reducing aircon usage than they created to make and when you realise that they did no such research before sinking millions of tax dollars into the scheme, you'd wonder why you should have to take global warming seriously when apparently the ones who are meant to care the most don't seemed all that interested in making any real inroads toward a solution to the problem.

We need to stop worrying about whether or not global warming is real and start caring about whether or not the people who are selling products and pushing agendas based on global warming are doing the right thing. You'd think this would be something that both sceptics and greenies could get behind.

Because of the Metonic cycle you really need to take a tidal measurement over 19 years if you want to get a completely correct measurement of Sea levels. Though measuring one half of the cycle (9.5 years) against the other half would give adequate results.
Taking measurements in a Bay near a river outlet/city is also fail because heaps of other external pressures that are stupidly annoying to measure/correct for so sadly many dont (Haven't seen any raw data/calculations/meta data) for all these sea level measurements.

I think the climate is changing. What i'm personally sceptical about is the specific level of impact that we, as Humans (re: Carbon emissions etc,) actually have influenced on that. It seems to me reading most of what I can, that our (Human race) specific contribution is rather small in global Co2 emission levels. The way some climate advocates talk is as if out polluting ways are going to kill us all in 20-30 years. That we will have a biblical level flood event (Sea rising) or end of days cleansing of fire from the heat of the sun.

I would like to reduce pollution, not because some random scientists/hippy tell me we must or die but because I like cleaner air.

I'm a skeptic, but a fairly recent one.

I don't dispute the warming, I dispute the direct relationship between CO2 and the current level of warming. I think the science in regards to this is a bit flaky. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in dispute, but for it to be as big a player as its claimed to be there needs to be feedbacks (which amplify its effects). These are nowhere near as well studied, because its an impossibly complex system.

A lot of it comes down to observed correlations, and its easy for causation and correlation to be confused in a complex system.

A couple of things stand out as a bit odd, the 1930s were nearly as hot as now, nobody knows why. The next 3 or so decades were noticeably cooler. The 40s and 50s coincided with a huge post-war boom in CO2 emissions, and were preceded by a depression. It's a negative correlation. And I'll concede that perhaps its not significant, but it does point out there are observable multi-decadal trends in climate which we have no explanation for.

The 2000s have been a largely flat trend, depending on which data you look at. CO2 emissions are growing faster than ever, so that's raised a few flags for some people. A lot of predictions have been adjusted towards because the observed trends haven't kept pace with the models.

Other things like sea levels met with predictions either, they are rising, but aren't accelerating like they should (aka are predicted to) be. And the Antarctic hasn't shown the levels of warming the Artic has. Depending on the study you look at, its either slightly cooler or slightly warmer.

And don't get me started on the link between grobal walming and extreme weather events, cause that's so ridiculously subjective. The weather is wacky, always has been. Last year's weather was certainly no exception. Long term trends for rainfall haven't really shifted in Australia (I believe it is slightly up). No alarm bells should be ringing, at least at this stage.

El Nino also hasn't done much in 10 years, we've had weaker cyclones than usual (probably not significant), and the US hasn't had much in the way of a hurricane season since 2005 (which was a big one, though).

The link between extreme weather and CO2 is definately the weakest part of the whole theory, but the biggest political card to play. I wouldn't be selling my summer beach house just yet.

"adjusted towards" should say "adjusted downwards"

I can't log in to edit the post, so lame.

I think deadlyf wins an internets

Because of the Metonic cycle you really need to take a tidal measurement over 19 years if you want to get a completely correct measurement of Sea levels. Though measuring one half of the cycle (9.5 years) against the other half would give adequate results.

Yes, I found out about this after Penny WRong made her claims that Australia was going to be flooded by a 6m Sea Level rise. She only took data from one 8 year period as opposed to a full cycle then projected that same result over many years.

Climate is always changing.
Using the term 'Climate change' is as silly as 'Falling Rain.'

i like how everyone heaps scorn on the risk models used by central banks and the modern finance community but climate change models are above reproach.

climate change models make financial models look like an infalliable greek oracle.

i love watching the climate change debate, for no other reason than climate scientists are in a very similar boat to economists when people debate the economy. climate scientists can't really run experiments, they get their data from the constant natural experiment of the functioning of planet earth. they have to tease out relationships between variables using past data where they don't have nearly as much data, nor as accurate data, as they'd like. and even if they did, we might not even currently have sufficient computing power to use the data effectively. this makes things really, really f***ing difficult.

not only that, but the science they are trying to model is really f***ing complex. probably, even vastly more complex than the attempt to model the trillions of interactions between economic agents each day in the economy - which economists are 'expected' to be able to do on demand and without error.

but anyway, i don't want to get sucked into this timesink of a thread. i'll let faceman make sceptics look like retards and the rabid-left to make themselves look like retards and i'll just have a chuckle and hope none of the MANY vested interest groups in this debate have their way and subvert public policy for their own ends. because that seems to be happening from every single direction as far as i can see.

edit: deadlyf and nf make a lot of sense.

last edited by taggs at 19:31:22 25/Jan/10

Im quite happy to defend what I believe.
If you have a problem with what Ive said lets hear it but insulting me just makes you look angry at me for not sharing your view.

Look into my eye...

but insulting me just makes you look angry at me for not sharing your view.

But dropping in a "Penny WRong" is perfectly ok though? Love the double standards in this thread.

Last year i had a friend that was sending me emails with bits and pieces of evidence

"Evidence" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Then when the government started sprouting some pretty wild claims i decided to look into it a bit more because i just dont trust the government.

So just a knee-jerk reaction against the government hey? So prior to this when Howard and Bush were in power and downplaying climate change, you believed the minority counter-view was "rock solid".

Like I said, you are always playing the oppressed victim card. Whichever view becomes popular is the view you start opposing.

I am satisfied by the evidence for AGW, that aside trying to sell the electorate on the geopolitical benefits of sustainable energy are significantly more difficult than just selling them some alarmist line. I think we're about as intelligent as the Easter Islanders and we'll probably cut down our last metaphorical tree before we realise there are none left.

But dropping in a "Penny WRong" is perfectly ok though? Love the double standards in this thread.

Didnt know Penny was posting here but thanks for the tip.
So apart from your wine and cheese about me you dont have anything to add ?

So apart from your wine and cheese about me you dont have anything to add ?

Why would I have anything to add other than mere opinion? I'm not a climatologist and don't have a background in the field. Reading emails and crawling on the internet collecting graphs and keywords won't get me any closer to knowing what I'm talking about. Arm-chair climatology is amusing, but useless at the end of the day.

This applies not just to me, but you as well. Pasting a bunch of random quotes and graphs and name-calling politicians (disclaimer: I don't like politicians either) doesn't really help your case.

Everyone has a favorite decade, and for Climate deniers, that decade has got to be, the 70s.

“The map, which demonstrates the devastating effects of global warming in just a century, shows how San Francisco Airport would be completely underwater if sea levels were to rise by 150cm (60in).”

Netherlands anyone? Parts of that joint are 6m under-water. But they just build walls and deal with it.

lol at the end of that video.
I havent seen that presentation before.

cheers.

Also in the last week, it was revealed that U.S. researchers working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are excluding temperature data from cold regions for a database used by the U.N. in its global warming scare campaign.

Canwest News Service, a Canadian agency that also owns a chain of newspapers, reported Friday, "In the 1970s, nearly 600 Canadian weather stations fed surface temperature readings into a global database assembled by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Today, NOAA only collects data from 35 stations across Canada.

"Worse, only one station -- at Eureka on Ellesmere Island -- is now used by NOAA as a temperature gauge for all Canadian territory above the Arctic Circle.

"The Canadian government, meanwhile, operates 1,400 surface weather stations across the country, and more than 100 above the Arctic Circle, according to Environment Canada."

Canwest also reports that Americans Joseph D'Aleo, a meteorologist, and E. Michael Smith, a computer programmer, say that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies has "reduced the total number of Canadian weather stations in the database" and has "cherry-picked" the stations.

The NASA agency uses data from "sites in relatively warmer places, including more southerly locations, or sites closer to airports, cities or the sea -- which has a warming effect on winter weather."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20100125/bs_ibd_ibd/20100125issues01

www.realclimate.org is an advocacy website setup purely to counter papers/articles/blogs/news stories that weakend the AGW case. (See for yourself in the leaked emails from UEA). It is the very definition of biased.

www.climateaudit.org is Steve McIntyre's blog. This is the guy that The Team constantly try to discredit/ridicule/demean etc. It is a highly technical site that is focused on auditing the claims made by so called climate scientists and does an excellent job at uncovering and demonstrating the seemingly endless errors, obfuscations, lack of transparency, and FUD that gets passed off as science. Mostly concentrating on the paleo stuff done for the IPCC reports.

Billy your cartoon is stupid. It could just as well be rephrased "Would you seek investment advice from an astrologer?". So many of these climate scientists aren't practicing science at all. You cite so called respected journals like Nature. Maybe you shouldn't be so trusting.

By far the largest sceptic blog, wattsupwiththat.com is website that is probably about as biased as realclimate.org but in the other direction. Definitely I would suggest reading both if you are ever going to read one.

Large swathes of "climate science" are hopelessly broken. Devolved madhouses of endemic confirmation bias.

BUT.

Here's the thing. You whinge that this issue has been politicised and are upset that people are forming political opinions on this issue. I say this is exactly what SHOULD be happening. Kyoto, Copenhagen. These are policy decisions. If *every* country in the world had signed up to Kyoto (as opposed to the few that did) and of those if every one of them had adhered to the restrictions lined out (which almost none of did) then the effect on temperature change ASSUMING THE IPCC'S OWN WORST CASE PROJECTIONS (which are at the extreme end) would have been so small so as to not even be measurable after 50 years, and at the limits of our observation error range after a century.

What does this tell you?

People form opinions on this for all sorts of reasons. At the end of the day, who cares who's right and who's wrong about what the actual climate sensitivity for C02 is, or whether it's the only climate driver worth caring about or any of that stuff? (Assuming you aren't a complete raving Hansenite worried about so called tipping points every few months).

It is *precisely* the policy response that matters. At the moment these e-wars we have on the blogs always seem to languish at square 1, namely is man-made C02 actually making it warmer to the degree where it poses a problem? We can have that debate because, contrary to what you assert, it most definitely *is* debatable. But by far the much better debate is everything after that.

What are the effects? We're seeing now that the IPCC report now has several lies (yes they are lies.. the himalayas glacier thing was known to be wrong and was raised as such by the IPCC workers before AR4 was published.. but they ran it anyway). Along with other gems like the amazon nonsense and others.

But that's *STILL* not the best part. After that is What are we going to do about it? We seem to have just assumed that reducing CO2 emissions is the only response.

Anyway I'm getting bored. Whether you think CO2 climate sensitivity very high (the alarmist view) or much lower (the Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's view) AGW is political from top to bottom and to deny that does nothing more than put your cognitive dissonance on display.

IMO arguing about climate change is a bit of a non sequitur, because the horse has already left the barn.
climatologists _overwhelming_ agree that the earth is warming because of man made co2 / nox / sox / ch4 emissions.
There are a couple of very vocal australian geologists who say it is bogus, one of which is nuts.
If I go to 100 doctors and 99 say my kid is sick and needs anti-biotics to get better, and 1 says nah don't worry. Who do I go with?
Billions are being spent on low-carbon, re-newable or less-environmentally benign energy options worldwide and this is only set to increase.

imo when you get down to it, it's getting hotter because theres six billion of us++ raping the planet. How about a nuclear holocaust instead? Chinese, Indians, or Arabs?


last edited by dranged at 06:22:02 27/Jan/10

www.realclimate.org is an advocacy website setup purely to counter papers/articles/blogs/news stories that weakend the AGW case. (See for yourself in the leaked emails from UEA). It is the very definition of biased

Show the specific emails or don't just repost from facemen esque blogs (yes I found this same statement littered around the internet when I tried to do my own research into realclimate.org and there is nothing conclusive to back up this statement....but hey if you say you believe I do believe in fairies enough times you might fly)

You need better search fu.

www.eastangliaemails.com is a searchable site containing all of the hacked UEA emails... hours of quality reading. Offers a great insight into some of the top IPCC climate "scientists".

dranged: Although it's true it completely misses the point of the AGW debate. No one credible denies that certain gasses can exhibit the misnamed "Greenhouse Effect" CO2 among them.

But that does *not* mean that all of the recent warming is a result from CO2 emissions, and many scientists that would say Yes to has there been some warming as a result of CO2 emissions also say NO to is all or the majority of the observed warming a result of that? Or, Is this is the only, or only significant climate forcing? Or, are there positive feedbacks leading to tipping points?

As for your consensus, I'm sorry you're wrong about that. There is no consensus, nor was there ever one. Nor is it relevant if one is practicing science.

If I go to 100 doctors and 99 say my kid is sick and needs anti-biotics to get better, and 1 says nah don't worry. Who do I go with?

It only takes one Scientific paper to discredit a Theory.
There are hundreds that discredit AGW.

The money is leaving now...

Banks and investors are pulling out of the carbon market after the failure to make progress at Copenhagen on reaching new emissions targets after 2012.

Carbon financiers have already begun leaving banks in London because of the lack of activity and the drop-off in investment demand. The Guardian has been told that backers have this month pulled out of a large planned clean-energy project in the developing world because of the expected fall in emissions credits after 2012.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/24/carbon-emissions-green-copenhagen-banks

Game Over.

In this thread I've pretty much seen the same as I've seen in real life. People who believe in climate change say they don't need to give any evidence because 'everyone already knows' and they say "overwhelmingly" a lot and use heaps of buzz words and acronyms but never actually give any convincing reasoning, and the people who do not believe in the hype give links, information, supporting evidence...
There is really nothing to argue about, I've said time and again in this thread, just show this evidence. If it exists, you should be able to post it and end the thread instantly - if the evidence exists people would be stupid to try and argue against it. I'll tell you why they don't show it - because they've never seen that evidence, they say it exists because it sounds good to say it exists, but the real reason they believe it is because it's popular to believe it.
I'm still not saying climate change isn't real, but none of the people who believe it know for sure it is.

wtf?

read AR4, which I've already linked to, and then you can freely access any of the few thousand journal articles that went into the research presented in it. Once you've done that you can decide whether you accept the science in those articles or not.

People who don't believe in climate change often cite 'evidence' like 'This summer was mild, therefore there is no AGW' or 'LOL IT WAS GLOBAL COOLING IN THE 70's' or 'I found a blog that claims there's a problem with one of the AGW measurements!'.

Or in the case of the evidence from the IPCC, unreasonable sceptics will probably just say 'IPCC is in the business of fudging science to prove AGW so those big fat research grant cheques keep rolling in!' And therefore discredit anything the thousands of contributing scientists do.

You seem to be looking for some sort of proof that can be stated in a few words, like 1+1=2 QED!

but guess what, you aren't gonna find that with any complex modern theory.

last edited by orbitor at 12:18:22 27/Jan/10

last edited by orbitor at 12:20:13 27/Jan/10

Obama makes the annual State of The Union address in a few days.
If he doesnt mention Climate Change that will be the bell ringing for last drinks.

Tony Abbot = Roadkill of Genius ?
Its looking like he is a Genius.

In this thread I've pretty much seen the same as I've seen in real life. People who believe in climate change say they don't need to give any evidence because 'everyone already knows' and they say "overwhelmingly" a lot and use heaps of buzz words and acronyms but never actually give any convincing reasoning, and the people who do not believe in the hype give links, information, supporting evidence...
There is really nothing to argue about, I've said time and again in this thread, just show this evidence. If it exists, you should be able to post it and end the thread instantly - if the evidence exists people would be stupid to try and argue against it. I'll tell you why they don't show it - because they've never seen that evidence, they say it exists because it sounds good to say it exists, but the real reason they believe it is because it's popular to believe it.
I'm still not saying climate change isn't real, but none of the people who believe it know for sure it is.

You haven't even tried to be objective about the evidence that is available, did you even visit the IPCC website or are you just singing the same tune you walked into the thread with?

If you have a spare hour (like who does!) this is a pretty good watch.

http://fora.tv/2009/06/15/Peter_C_Doherty_The_Science_of_Climate_Change#chapter_05

skip all the introductory crap tho!

and this guy is an excellent phd materials engineer, aussie, lives in SF. From an energy perspective, really, really good watch:

http://fora.tv/2009/01/16/Saul_Griffith_Climate_Change_Recalculated#chapter_02

He's working on kites as energy generators in the jetstream. crazy man! reckons there is up to 500,000W/square metre up there.

Being a complex system plok I would definitely think there are other causes other than co2/nox/sox/etc. Absolutely. Some of these phenomena are nonlinear, and some have positive feedback loops. (tundra, permafrost, artic shelf, etc) But Co2 is the easiest to go after.
nox and methane are 'nastier' GH gases in that they hang around much longer, but proportionately the emissions are tiny, besides, if you go after co2 you should be able to get the other gases / flues / particulates at the same time.
Doing really deliberate geo-engineering feats like planton seeding or sulphur clouds seem really shortsighted and foolish to me and these kinds of options should be last options, right? I mean how complex is climate science. We can't even agree on a simple element let alone an international agreement on climate change.

my 2c

Or in the case of the evidence from the IPCC, unreasonable sceptics will probably just say 'IPCC is in the business of fudging science to prove AGW so those big fat research grant cheques keep rolling in!' And therefore discredit anything the thousands of contributing scientists do.

i don't think it's unreasonable to assume, or at least suspect, that anyone with a vested interest in agw (the ipcc) may introduce a bias to the science. if a scientist works for an oil company & produces a report that is against agw.. then wouldn't the ipcc call financial bias?

Go ahead drive your V8 big block. Might as well enjoy it because you won't be able to fill it up in 10 yrs time.

You haven't even tried to be objective about the evidence that is available, did you even visit the IPCC website or are you just singing the same tune you walked into the thread with?

No, see I've addressed all that already. It's not up to me to prove why I am not convinced, it's up to people to convince me. I don't have time to read the reports myself. I have already spent enough time just reading news articles and posting in this thread - I am not being ignorant, there is just a limit to how much useless information I can tolerate that doesn't tell me anything before I stop caring. There have been plenty of opportunities to get a message across to me, and I simply haven't heard the magic words I need to hear to believe something. If I had time to read science reports I would read about something a lot more relevant, important, and interesting than this. And like I said, I think that anything that is true and understood by science can be explained succinctly and would be easy to reiterate and hard to argue with. For example, if you wanted to know about electricity, I could explain it in a short paragraph with some diagrams - I would not send you to some boring-arse Intergovernmental new world order website that doesn't have any answers clearly written anywhere and just craps on about working groups, meetings, and has pointless pictures of clouds and camels in the desert.

No, see I've addressed all that already. It's not up to me to prove why I am not convinced, it's up to people to convince me. I don't have time to read the reports myself. I have already spent enough time just reading news articles and posting in this thread - I am not being ignorant, there is just a limit to how much useless information I can tolerate that doesn't tell me anything before I stop caring. There have been plenty of opportunities to get a message across to me, and I simply haven't heard the magic words I need to hear to believe something. If I had time to read science reports I would read about something a lot more relevant, important, and interesting than this. And like I said, I think that anything that is true and understood by science can be explained succinctly and would be easy to reiterate and hard to argue with. For example, if you wanted to know about electricity, I could explain it in a short paragraph with some diagrams - I would not send you to some boring-arse Intergovernmental new world order website that doesn't have any answers clearly written anywhere and just craps on about working groups, meetings, and has pointless pictures of clouds and camels in the desert.

Yeh I love how Stephen Hawkings always summarises his stuff in to one paragraph instead of writing books to explain it.

For example, if you wanted to know about electricity, I could explain it in a short paragraph with some diagrams

yeah ok you could explain what electricity is in a few sentences, but how could you prove in a few sentences that it exists? You can't, you need to demonstrate scientific evidence of its existence and further explain (with evidence) why this evidence categorically could not be caused by anything EXCEPT electricity.

If you just want to know what AGW is, it's atmospheric warming on a global scale caused by human activity. Carbon dioxide IS without any argument from sceptics at all, a greenhouse gas. We're putting more of it into the atmosphere at a faster rate than ever before via burning fossil fuels and by land clearing (which takes away plants that consumed CO2). This means higher concentrations in the atmosphere, enhancing the greenhouse effect (which is what traps the sun's heat and makes the planet livable). So it's highly likely what we're doing is going to make the Earth hotter.

If you really want to get a simple grasp of the underlying, and empirical science then you should have a read of this article. I'll admit it's clearly been written by a sceptic, but most of the science isn't in dispute.

It is a fantastic and thorough read though.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

It's more than a paragraph sorry, but its very easy to follow.

read AR4, which I've already linked to, and then you can freely access any of the few thousand journal articles that went into the research presented in it. Once you've done that you can decide whether you accept the science in those articles or not.

Some of the "science". They aren't all peer-reviewed. It think its misleading to describe the IPCC report as a scientific, as quite a lot of it isn't particularly well peer-reviewed.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/

Well just because non-peer-reviewed articles/papers/etc. are used in a supposedly scientific report doesn't necessarily mean the report itself is unscientific. It depends how they were used wouldn't you agree? If claimed as evidence then that is bad, if claimed as opinion it's fine.

Let's also be clear about the distinction of AGW and projected AGW effects. The latter is undoubtedly very sketchy.

last edited by orbitor at 14:34:56 28/Jan/10

Yeah, but the purpose of the report is to discuss not just the evidence for climate change, but the potential future effects of climate change, the environmental and financial costs and processes that we can put in place now to mitigate them.

In fact, I'd say the vast majority of the report deals with future effects, certainly more so than the previous reports.

If those projections are coming from non-scientific sources, and governments are making decisions based on those projections then I think its very important that the accuracy and objectivity of them is known. It's not to say that the work WWF or IUCN or whoever is automatically incorrect, but it raises some serious questions about the information presented. The same questions should be raised if there is information from BP or OPEC in there.

It undermines the authority of the report because it has always been presented as the peer-reviewed work of scientists. It seems to be me like they have had to pad out large sections of it with statements from questionable sources because there simply aren't any studies available. Surely accuracy is more important than completeness.