- This topic has 67 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I am going to have to say again to you, Mr Murray, that you need to educate yourself more on climate science and free yourself from ennervating propaganda about anything from ‘climate catastrophe’ to ‘Exctinction Rebellion’.
I agree that there needs to be more time for discussions on climate, but it needs to be educating the scientifically illiterate about the games that grant seekers will play to stay on the gravy train. Just as you became disillusioned by diplomats and civil servants, I became disillusioned by scientists, doctors etc. I know from the coalface how science operates and it is far from honorable.
There is an unbelievable ability to tell lies and say that those telling the truth are evil climate deniers. It is entirely akin to the US murdering across the globe and then calling Evo Morales et al enemies of democracy.
The poor of Africa will suffer the most through lack of access to affordable electricity. So all woke climate disciples must tell the world how they will supply Africans with energy, not how they will create billionaire demagogue Africans with Swiss bank accounts through climate shenanigans. You will not tell Venezuelans to return to being dirt poor by banning them from monetising their oil supplies without making similar sacrifices first…..
Let us be absolutely clear on two points of climate science:
1. Carbon Dioxide does NOT control temperature. The evidence is absolutely clear that atmospheric carbon dioxide follows temperature increases with a lag of 700 years as oceanic-atmospheric carbon dioxide equilibria adjust themselves. Temperatures go up: carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. Temperatures go down: it is reabsorbed. There is no serious causation whatever between carbon dioxide increases since 1810 and global temperature. Joe d’Aleo has proven clearly that statistical correlations between temperature and carbon dioxide since 1800 are far weaker than correlation with the oceanic indices PDO and AMO and with solar output. If you cannot accept that data, you are the denier….
2. There is a clear correlation between solar activity and global temperature: when solar cycles are weak, we experience cooling and/or little Ice Ages. When solar cycles are strong, periods of warming occur. The past 200 years have seen solar activity rise to a maximum in the late 1950s and now we are entering a period of lower solar activity (cycle 24, nearly finished, is the weakest for 100 years and cycle 25 is predicted to be similar). All serious climate scientists expect there to be cooling of some degree up to 2030 and possibly beyond.The solar-temperature links are complicated by oceans acting as major heat stores, with oceanic cycles of 50-70 years having clear effects on climate in both the Pacific and Atlantic arenas. In the Pacific this is associated with greater-or lesser propensity for el Nino episodes to occur. I suggest you research Theodor Landscheidt and his decadal el nino index which he drew up to cover several centuries….reading about Landscheidt and his climate work may be an epiphany for you….
I am absolutely contemptuous of Extinction Rebellion and consider their hunger strike to be entirely equivalent to IRA activities in the Maze. They are totalitarian ignorami utterly unworthy of any seat in serious political fora. They make Momentum seem like angels.
Climate hysteria/bedwetting is a planned disruptor aimed at destroying representative democracy through creating a political climate of total disinformation, inquisitions equivalent to those suffered by Galileo and totally destroying any residual serious reputations of academia as centres of cultural learning.
ER have made it clear that hysteria is their aim and scientific facts are to be ignored. Their attitudes are entirely akin to Mike Pompeo vis a vis Julian Assange. The aims are absolute, the means whatever necessary.
Like you, I was an admirer of Charlie Kennedy. Like you, I abhor Jo Swinson.
Unlike you, I am neither taken in by climate disinformation nor will I campaign with climate lies to enforce global socialism on the world. That latter goal may not be your personal aim, but by aligning with those whose aim it undoubtedly is, you cannot be surprised if people like me take firm but hopefully respectful issue with your views on this subject.
NASA and all their technical equipment and satellite might disagree with you there. However I’m sure you know better.
“The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.”
“Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”
” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.”“Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.”
“The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.”
Until particulate pollution is cleaned from the air, contrails will continue to weave a blanket across the sky, which reduces sunlight getting to the Earth, which reduces evaporation, and traps moisture, increasing pollution at ground level, and melting polar ice. Clean energy, clean seas, clean air, and healthy ecosystems on land and in our oceans are an achievable aim, if we clean up after ourselves, recycle plastics cleanly back into carbon, and respect the environment. Australia is burning. The Amazon is burning. Adding to the burden of particulates around the globe. Respect local people and their care for the land, clean water, and safe food, and perhaps put into legislation the duty to cost cleaning up into all industry, and ensure public safety. Good government can deliver standards that will give future generations the chance to thrive. But unless responsibility is hard wired into international law the young are right to fear for their future along with the future of all life on Earth. Extinctions are well underway across the globe
Good grief. Still pumping out a litany of deranged nonsense when the evidence is overwhelming. It takes a particular degree of obtuseness and head-in-the-sand denial to keep that outmoded stance. You wouldn’t know a scientific fact if it buried you neck deep in rising water.
It all depends on their algorithms. Did they get them right or not? The problem is that the actual evidence is very slight, and difficult to distinguish from the background noise. Jaggar maybe is too certain, but he is right about the way the science business works. Careers come before so-called truth.
You are right that it is really pollution that is the issue, not climate change. Pollution is ever present these days, and will kill us long before a 1 or 2 °C temperature rise.
You mean the algorithms are overwhelming. Like RoS, you are just reading the press releases, not the science.
Agree with Mr Jagger !
Planetary climate is complex beyond the wildest imaginings, and anybody who sells certainty with regard to it, of either side of the argument, is undoubtedly a bunco artist 🙂
Good post, Rhys. Science has always been corrupted by the availability and sources of funding. In the early enlightenment the money went into labour-saving stuff like steam engines and machines. That’s where the money was. Most money and research today goes into stupid stuff like weapons development and cosmetic stuff.
Let nobody here try and pretend that by their very nature scientists are intrinsically noble or crusaders or anything like that. You’d have at least as much of a chance of finding noble crusaders cleaning toilets for a living as you would in the scientific community.
Medical science in particular has a history of involvement in genocide, experiments on humans (not to mention animals), body snatching, and other stuff that ought to keep you awake at night. Most of the big developments derived from wartime experiences.
I don’t have the knowledge/brains to make a call on climate change, whether or not it’s real, man-made or not. I see it as a middle class thing, much like the preponderance of healthy eating shows on radio and TV. All they care about is prolonging their miserable lives and money.
When the middle classes start acting responsibly towards the poor and the third world, when they stop turning a blind eye to and voting for murdering bastards like Blair, etc., I’ll consider caring about climate change. In short, if they start acting like responsible human beings, I might give it a try myself. Until then I reserve the right to regard the whole subject as an affront.
“Respect local people and their care for the land”
The local people are cutting the horns off rhino’s in order to sell them to believers in Chinese voodoo-medicine. They don’t even kill them to do it, although the rhino’s do eventually die as a result (usually lying next to bleeding family members who have suffered the same fate).
This isn’t an evil of capitalism, before anyone attempts to argue that it is. It’s an evil of human stupidity and poverty, both of which could be addressed and remedied quite easily within a productive capitalist framework, if only we’d stop meddling and worrying about the price of coffee beans and mangetouts.
It must be great to be so smug, and play the holier-than-thou card. Job done, sit back and do nothing.
really? Amazing what you know/don’t know.
Nobody said it wasn’t complex. So is quantum physics. But decades of research and an abundance of evidence, which is increasing exponentially every day, is pointing in one direction. It is a scientific accomplishment to have achieved such insight into climate change. Making into a pseudo religious mystical complexity is just another avoidance and denial strategy. With that attitude I expect you believe the sun revolves around the earth, such is the complexity of astronomy.
Your trust in the men of science is maybe a little misplaced, especially when one considers that there may be more ‘Scientists’ alive today, than the total of all those who have gone before back to the days of Archimedes and before ? And we can be sure that each will be expecting remuneration that exceeds the minimum wage. I would refer you to the farewell address of President Eisenhower for a prediction of what ‘Science’ seems in large part to have become today.
Also, I have little doubt that when the Sun revolving around the Earth was the official dogma, those who were the proto scientists of their day, fully supported the notion. Obviously in those days, science tended to follow religion, whereas now the roles have been reversed.
Bottom line, Scientists are in no way infallible when it comes to predicting the outcomes of ongoing experiments, and like it or not, climate science falls into just that category. So, and as ever, watching both sides of the argument is probably the best course. 🙂
Okay, those of us who oppose the smugness of others and their holier-than-thou assumptions are to be considered the smug ones. Got it.
Scientists (that is, ordinary human beings who claim to have omniscience in one narrow field or another) get things wrong all the time, btw. Ask any thalidomide or resident of Pripyat.
In my lifetime the scientific community have done a full 180 degree turn on climate change. They told me when I was at school we were heading steadily for another ice-age and the cause was CFCs.
I’ve asked in here more than once what happened to the hole in the ozone layer that would inevitably grow and grow and let all the heat out. Nobody will tell me.
What do I know…
Algorithms are irrelevant to whether the problem is real or happening. Here is the eighteen year Arctic ice loss, and here is the rising CO2 level; these are simply observation and measurement, respectively.
Algorithms are needed to predict the future effects, obviously. But in that case worry that they may be too optimistic, as most recent projections have been, eg. the Arctic has warmed twice as fast as predicted.
But we are not looking at “a 1 or 2 °C temperature rise”. The current rate of emissions increase puts us on course for a 4°C rise by 2100, not levelling off until 2300 at 6 to 8°C.
To put that into the planetary context, the last ice age was only 4°C colder, but it put Boston under a mile of ice:
Feeling lucky, punk?
1°C temperature rise is less than what we already have, which is 1.1°C. 2°C is what we might have got if everyone had stuck to the Paris Accord and emissions had fallen, but in fact emissions are rising faster than ever.
Grief, Ian. If you’re going to bother to post, please look up the evidence and link to it.
The best test of a scientific theory is whether it makes accurate predictions.
In 1988, James Hansen testified to congress that global warming due to emissions had begun. It has been case closed for a couple of decades now; just ask the airline pilots, who cross the Arctic week in week out, and have watched the ice retreat as their careers progressed.
– “I’ve asked in here more than once what happened to the hole in the ozone layer”
The Montreal Protocol.
Rhys Jaggar, November 21, 14:44:
– “I am absolutely contemptuous of Extinction Rebellion […] They are totalitarian ignorami utterly unworthy of any seat in serious political fora. They make Momentum seem like angels.”
We are calling for Citizen’s Assemblies chosen by sortition ie. random selection from among the entire population, a truly representative sample, rather than the usual crop of politicians who each personally chose to seek power and are mostly very wealthy.
– “Climate hysteria/bedwetting is a planned disruptor”
Really? The ongoing disappearance of the Arctic icecap is a “planned disruptor”? You think HAARP is responsible maybe?
On a summer day the ice cubes keep your drink cool; what do you think will happen when the Arctic sea ice has all gone? Hint: the same amount of energy that will melt a given mass of ice will raise the temperature of the resulting water through 80 centigrade, see here.
– “ER have made it clear that hysteria is their aim and scientific facts are to be ignored”
Yes, we want to raise alarm, as is appropriate in an emergency. No, we want the more pessimistic scientific predictions to get the recognition they deserve; you wouldn’t send your kids on an aircraft that had a 10% chance of crashing.
You think these 1500 scientists including 282 professors want “scientific facts to be ignored”?
And we go by XR, thanks.
– “…to enforce global socialism on the world”
We don’t call for any enforcement. We call for Citizens Assemblies to make the decisions; are you afraid of your equals?
‘Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius will not prevent destructive and deadly climate impacts, as once hoped, dozens of experts concluded in a score of scientific studies released Monday.
A world that heats up by 2C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit)—long regarded as the temperature ceiling for a climate-safe planet—could see mass displacement due to rising seas, a drop in per capita income, regional shortages of food and fresh water, and the loss of animal and plant species at an accelerated speed.
Poor and emerging countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America will get hit hardest, according to the studies in the British Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions A.
“We are detecting large changes in climate impacts for a 2C world, and so should take steps to avoid this,” said lead editor Dann Mitchell, an assistant professor at the University of Bristol.
The 197-nation Paris climate treaty, inked in 2015, vows to halt warming at “well under” 2C compared to mid-19th century levels, and “pursue efforts” to cap the rise at 1.5C.’https://phys.org/news/2018-04-degrees-longer-global-guardrail.html#jCp
Will there be change?
“Today’s global consumption of fossil fuels now stands at roughly five times what it was in the 1950s, and one-and-half times that of the 1980s when the science of global warming had already been confirmed and accepted by governments with the implication that there was an urgent need to act. Tomes of scientific studies have been logged in the last several decades documenting the deteriorating biospheric health, yet nothing substantive has been done to curtail it. More CO2 has been emitted since the inception of the UN Climate Change Convention in 1992 than in all of human history. CO2 emissions are 55% higher today than in 1990. Despite 20 international conferences on fossil fuel use reduction and an international treaty that entered into force in 1994, manmade greenhouse gases have risen inexorably.”
https://medium.com/@xraymike79/the-inconvenient-truth-of-modern-civilizations-inevitable-collapse-8e83df6f3a57“CO2 didn’t initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.”
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm“The vast majority of climate papers in the 1970s predicted warming.”
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
