"Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 3 42

[jmw]

At 273 posts I guess the time has come to request the old thread archived and continue in a new thread and it is in this thread that I think the latest news has its proper place.

The world has never seen such freezing heat

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml

Oh dear,
just what do you have to do to lose the last shreds of credibility?

Tell me honestly folks, how many engineers would still have a job with a track record like Hansen?
Actually, perhaps we'd better not answer that because I suspect the answer is that in any profession there are complete f***-ups who will never be brought to book simply because the credibility of the people who have believed them for so long is also at risk and once one goes then the domino effect comes into being.

I guess that it is only when NASA closes that we will see and end to the career of this fine purveyor of temperature data but we can be sure he will turn up in some other role on the IPCC or as an acolyte of Nobel Laureate, Al Gore.

Success, it seems, depends not on getting it right but on notoriety and why else would so many deadly politicians earn so much on the speaking circuit once they have finally left office and while their dark deeds are still fresh in everyone's mind?


You know I can't help wondering, if it weren't for those "Chads" I wonder what sort of a condition the world would be in now? And, if we are in dire financial straits now, what kind of position would we otherwise be in?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Tomfh]

We are not concerned with climate change in itself, because of course the climate has always been changing. What we are concerned with is the rate and extent of current changes to the climate.

As for 1990, it's just a reference point.

 

[TGS4]

Are the "rates and extent of current changes to the climate" abnormal from a geological perspective? No.

Tomfh - I appreciate that you are not concerned with the climate changing, but the vast number of proponents of AGW and the subsequent efforts to "reverse" said change seem to have the opposite view - they are concerned with the change itself. Otherwise, why reference a single point in history?

Anyway - what's the concern about the rate of change? Even if it were an order of magnitude faster than anything that has been experienced in the history of the planet - who cares? Why the alarm?

 

[WhiteyWhitey]

Climate change is such a frustrating, confused, mis informed argument.

I'll have to bow out. but before I do, one last emapssioned plea.

I have a belief that humans in their consumerism have upset a natural balance on earth that is cause rapid changes to the climate, a lot of people dont.

I believe that this changes poses threats to the continuation and diversity on earth, a lot of people dont.

I believe that the continuation and diversity of life on earth is important, a lot of people dont.

Thanks for the new perspective.

Andrew

 

[Unotec]

WW, I am glad you changed a little your point of view and I still agree with part of your "plea". Which I see not really a plea but a call for common sense.

If we try to conserve energy, reduce waste, control and manage logging and do all those little environmentally friendly things, we will not only be preserving the environment but, in the long run, most of those will prove to be saving money too.

Yes, human kind has devastated many ecosystems, but this has mostly been because of poor ethics, major greed and complete mismanagement of resources (Hey!! This rings a bell akin to the stock market!!).

The earth and its resources are there for us to benefit from their use. But this use has to be ethical in an environmental way.

The only value I see in the AGW scam (to me) is that brings to light the environmental consciousness.

The enormous down side is all those wasted financial resources for the enrichment of a few (and sometimes not even this) and the fact that there is so many people that will scream Global Warning and Impending Doom but will littler streets and waste more than needed.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[cranky108]

Seems to me that we are using so few sensors to develop a proof of a theory, and trying to act to fix the wrong problem.
If our estimates of sea ice are dependit on the miscalabration of one sensor, then we really don't know that there is a problem. There is so little data behind either argument, and it seems each side is ignoring some data. So how can we make a conclusion either way of who is really telling us the truth?

Do we believe some one who would profit from this type of hoax, or some one who works for an energy company?

All I know is the implyed and real taxes that hit my wallet, and my loss of fredoms.

 

[jmw]

Aha!
Greenies go nuclear!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/4786835/Greens-see-the-light-on-nuclear-power.html

There is probably a catch somewhere but it appears some greenies have had a change of heart.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Unotec]

About darn frikkin time!!

Electrical power should be nuclear, mobile power should be fossil fuel.

Let's see now how this fares and for how long.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[LCruiser]

Climate is cooling this century. Look at the satellite temps, which are the only ones without subjective adjustments. Also, here's something new from Japan Society of Energy and Resources:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/print.html

Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.

Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:

"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.

Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:

"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "

Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.

"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."

 

[Unotec]

And we are supposed to trust a translation!?! Just kidding. I did read the document before and was amazed.
This guy just confirmed what has been said for the last three or four years. The value I see is that it is in an 'independent' report, meaning, it is not associated to the same sources that have been saying this.
I hope there will be more of these types of studies coming out, before the politicians go full board in taxing for a non-existing problem.

<<A good friend will bail you out of jail, but a true friend
will be sitting beside you saying ” Damn that was fun!” - Unknown>>

 

[jmw]

Remember Saddam's supergun?
A cap pistol by comparison with this one, intended to shoot reflecting sheets into space to shield us from the sun and "fix" global warming.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...arming-with-100000-square-mile-sun-shade.html

I don't know what worries me most about this. The fact that it needs to be reversible... else we'll be shielded from the sun during an ice age.
Someone, on the video, does talk about unintended consequences but with a "we know what we are doing" kind of condescension as if, having remembered the law of unintended consequences that are immune..

I thought Prof. Creutzen was bad enough shooting sulphur up there but .....

This is just the sort of investment the crazies trying to dig us out of recession will invest in.
On the other hand, the time scale is such that we'll probably be freezing our butts off before it gets finished (but someone will still be saying that this is just a temporary cooling cycle and global warming is getting set to bite even harder when it ends and we're gonna need this then.

By the way, how come cooling cycles are temporary but warming is not?


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

Browsing around I also found the picture that tells a serious story here:

http://surfacestations.org/

The picture is a map of the US showing the surface stations already surveyed with colour coded symbols representing the potential temperature errors.
In the presentation (follow the link on this page) it describes how the surface station project began with the 1979 decision to change from whitewash to latex paint on the Stevenson screens to see if there was a possible bias in the temperature readings.
Yes, it appears there is: comparative tests showed "several" degrees difference. I do hope that computer model knew about what paint was used, where and how the station was installed and which ones had light bulbs installed.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[LCruiser]

Here's something new about the source of "Global Warming" hype:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/carbon_regulation_one_scientis.html

 

[jmw]

And from there, via a search for Dr Robert Watson (now apparently a director both with the World Bank and the Tyndal Centre), we arrive at another interesting site:

http://www.sovereignty.net

but I'm not sure what to make of them.


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[Tomfh]

SI believe that Global warming is part of a UN conspiracy to establish Global Governmant. They appear to be in the "there is no warming, period" camp

 

[TPL]

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ruths-dont-believe-the-greenwash-1635867.html

 

[LCruiser]

Tomfh - who is "SI"?

 

[ivymike]

sovereignty international

http://www.sovereignty.net

apparently not affiliated with diamonds international nor tanzanite international.

 

[owg]

Thanks TPL, that is a great article on the greenwash.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[jmw]

TPL,
The author(s) of that article seemed to be comfortable enough on his/her/their fence.
AGW? no opinion.
CO2 increase good or bad? no opinion.

Actually, that isn't a bad position.
Too often journos like to present us with their opinions as if their opinions meant a whole lot to anyone but themselves. Tell me the facts but don't, please, tell me how to think.
I like to make my own (often wrong) choices.

And then there are celebrity "causes".
So Leo Di Cap owns a prius.
Big deal. Well, actually, they seem not so impressed themselves.
The celebrity cult is quite worrying. Why, because some one is a celebrity, does their opinion on climate or any other damn thing, except perhaps whatever it is made them a celebrity, supposed to be so much better than anyone else's opinion.
In fact, people like Ted Danson may be good or entertaining actors but their views on climate are no better or worse than anyone else's views.
Yet Danson can, through his celebrity and through his creation (

http://www.Oceana.org),

do an inordinate amount of good or bad because celebrity to mean credibility.
It doesn't equate. But there he is on his home page telling congress to stop offshore drilling. He may or may not be right; but his status as a celebrity should not allow his opinions more weight than anyone else. that isn't democratic... but what is?

So maybe I like the idea of a reporter simply presenting information and letting me make up my own mind. (though there are ways to present information... balance is what is called for).

On the other hand, may it is dangerous to let people make up their own minds.... about joining the EU, about adopting the new constitution, about joining the single currency, about wind farms, about climate change, about choosing politicians... come to that.

Old banger Vs hybrid? well now, perhaps we should look for more responsible car manufacture... maybe we should design cars that last far longer and are capable of many many more miles before they go to the scrap heap.

Can we extend life expectancy and charge more for the car? What is the average lifetime mileage for a car? how do we extend it and what is the practical environmental limit and how can we encourage that?
Taxes, of course, the politicians opium. Maybe we should and could encourage more expensive but longer lasting cars. And, come to that, more expensive but longer lasting everything.
You know, not just a bag (supermarket) for life but everything (even spouses...?)
You want a new car? swap with someone else.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[jmw]

While on the sie I thought I browse around a bit and found this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-climate-wakeup-call--experts-1606105.htmlbit

Hmm. Yet I thought, from the case of one home owner (

http://www.scoop.co.nz/multimedia/tv/world/18417.html)

who was fined for creating fire breaks around his home, the only one to survive in his community, that the problem was bit more than simply climate change. Unless, of course, climate change impels governments to pass stupid laws that do more harm than good.... oh, yes, of course. It does, but then so does pretty well anything, not just climate change.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com