I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming

2009-12-08 22:40 UTC. Comments: 40.

Comments

1. 

   JonR

   Wrote at 2009-12-08 23:05 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Mac OS X:

   ace.
2. 

   Tom

   Wrote at 2009-12-09 04:57 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Linux:

   :-) I like.
3. 

   artesian

   Wrote at 2009-12-09 12:55 UTC using Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows Vista:

   I don’t believe an increase of 2% of CO2 can cause all the disasters that are claimed because CO2 was higher many times in the past and it resulted in NOTHING!
4. 

   Tim

   Wrote at 2009-12-09 17:27 UTC using Chrome 3.0.195.33 on Windows XP:

   I don’t believe in satire because I’m a humorless, impotent, oil billionaire.
5. 

   Joe Boggs

   Wrote at 2009-12-09 18:30 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP:

   I don’t believe in this blog post because…it’s quite clear proper research hasn’t been done and there’s no background understanding of the forces at play (both political and scientific) regarding what is natural and what is anthropogenic.
6. 

   nickb

   Wrote at 2009-12-10 00:06 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP:

   I am surprised and disappointed, Paul!! This blog posts shows an alarming lack of knowledge about the issues, IMHO.
   
   You state (albeit ironically):
   “I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming because, anyway, I read this article by this one guy who didn’t believe in it. And he was a scientist! So, you see, there’s no consensus: the jury’s still out.”
   
   “One guy”?. Oh, please! Do you see just one name here:?
   
   http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/
   
   I expect you’ll say next that they’re all in the pay of Big Oil. Pull the other one!
   
   http://www.prisonplanet.com/big-oil-behind-copenhagen-climate-scam.html
   
   But surely the great UN IPCC must know the facts? I mean, they would never get the CO2 atmospheric residence time wrong, would they?:
   
   http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5f07875970c-pi
   
   Oh, and finally:
   
   “I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming because fuck you, I’ll be dead by the time Bangladesh is under water, and I won’t have to live in the desertified planet my selfish and blinkered choices leave behind.”
   
   Quote from Dr. Nils-Axel Morner (6 Dec 2009):
   “I recently visited Bangladesh, a country cursed by floods. In the Sundarban delta, I documented very strong coastal erosion despite zero changes in sea level. So, even here, there is no global sea level rise going on today — just as in the Maldives, in Tuvalu and in Vanuatu, to mention a few famous sites claimed already to be in the process of becoming flooded.
   
   By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively.”
   
   Dr Mörner is the head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. He is past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project. Dr. Mörner has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years.
   
   Your closing comments are sociopolitical points which, of course, can be debated. However, to make sociopolitical calls on the basis of suspect science can never be justified and the science of AGW is most certainly NOT settled.
7. 

   Paul Battley

   Wrote at 2009-12-10 00:56 UTC using Chrome 4.0.265.0 on Linux:

   Nick, whilst I suspect that some of the signatories to Copenhagen Climate Challenge may indeed be in the pay of energy producers—coal is more likely than oil, though—I don’t think they all are. I think that most of them, just like you, desperately wish not to believe in what the clear majority of climate researchers believe.
   
   But just who are these people? A mathematician/astrophysicist; an organic chemist; a physicist; a civil engineer; a former agricultural research director; a physicist; an environmental consultant; a meteorologist; an organic chemist; … and that’s just the first few. Notably, very few of the signatories are climatologists; fewer still are current, active climatologists.
   
   This matters! They may be scientists, but they aren’t the kind of scientist we need to answer this question. You might as well say that there is no consensus on evolution by natural selection because some intelligent but hopelessly misguided people have expended great efforts in arguing against it. Their arguments may be clever. They may want to believe their conclusions. They’re still not right.
   
   Alex Jones? Please. He’s a radio presenter with a notorious fondness for paranoid conspiracy theories. He’s not a reliable source of information on this—or, indeed, any—topic. Prison Planet is currently running as a headline, without any hint of irony, Rock Icon Dave Mustaine Talks With Alex Jones About The New World Order Endgame. I hope you’ll forgive me if I don’t take that site seriously.
   
   As for that graph, well, I don’t have any context in which to evaluate it. However, a close look at the vertical axis reveals that most of the studies to which the 2007 number is being compared are from the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, there’s only one other study listed from any later than 1983. As I say, I don’t have any context, but that certainly looks like prima facie evidence of cherry picking.
   
   Nils-Axel Mörner seems to have a credible and relevant CV, even though he also appears to believe in the decidedly pseudoscientific practice of dowsing. However, his views appear to be at odds with his peers. INQUA dissociated itself from his views. Maybe he’s a maverick. Or maybe he’s just wrong. The latter is more likely.
   
   You’ll always find people who disagree with the prevailing view. The fact that you can identify them by name gives a clue as to just how unconventional their beliefs are. There’s a tendency to favour the underdog, but that’s misleading: this really isn’t some kind of romantic Galilean struggle against hidebound orthodoxy. It’s a spatter of anecdotes against an ocean of data.
8. 

   nickb

   Wrote at 2009-12-10 23:31 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP:

   Sorry, Paul, but much of your response is peppered with illogical statements and reasoning.
   
   Of the scientists that wrote the open letter, you say:
   
   “Notably, very few of the signatories are climatologists; fewer still are current, active climatologists.
   
   This matters! They may be scientists, but they aren’t the kind of scientist we need to answer this question. You might as well say that there is no consensus on evolution by natural selection because some intelligent but hopelessly misguided people have expended great efforts in arguing against it. Their arguments may be clever. They may want to believe their conclusions. They’re still not right.”
   
   Huh? This “appeal to authority” is bizarre! First of all, climatology is in its infancy as a stand-alone discipline. Indeed, it is only in the last decade or so that any meaningful number of scientists have achieved the nomenclature of “climatologist”. Most of the work on climate has been achieved by those with complementary disciplines, such as geology, meteorology, paleontology, astrophysiscs, biology, mathematics, engineeering and so on. Climatology can only be an amalgam of these disciplines and, thus, one should listen to the views of those who are qualified in such complementary sciences.
   
   Please read and digest this:
   “On the whole, climate science remained “a scientific backwater,” as one of its leading figures recalled decades later. “There is little question,” he claimed, “that the best science students traditionally went into physics, math and, more recently, computer science.”(38*) The study of climate was not a field where you could win a Nobel Prize or a million-dollar patent. You were not likely to win great public fame, nor great respect from scientists in fields where discoveries were more fundamental and more certain. In the mid 1970s, it would have been hard to find a hundred scientists with high ability and consistent dedication to solving the puzzles of climate change. Now as before, many of the most important new findings on climate came from people whose main work lay in other fields, from air pollution to space science, as temporary detours from their main concerns.
   By the end of the century the issue of climate change had become important and prestigious enough to stand on its own. Certain scientists who once might have called themselves, say, meteorologists or oceanographers, were now designated “climate scientists.
   
   Link:
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm
   
   You then go on to say: “Alex Jones? Please. He’s a radio presenter with a notorious fondness for paranoid conspiracy theories.”
   
   Ah, yes, the old “if-it’s-in-the-Daily-Mail-it-can’t-be-true” form of attack. Discredit the messenger and it’s job done. Unfortunately, you seem to miss the point. Is what he reports true or not? Are the quotes he uses to support the views genuinely attributable or not? For example: “Tillerson firmly expressed Exxon’s support for climate change alarmists in stating, “I firmly believe it is not too late for Congress to consider a carbon tax as the better policy approach for addressing the risks of climate change.”
   True or not? The Alex Jones jibes are a sideshow.
   
   You later say: “As for that graph, well, I don’t have any context in which to evaluate it. However, a close look at the vertical axis reveals that most of the studies to which the 2007 number is being compared are from the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, there’s only one other study listed from any later than 1983. As I say, I don’t have any context, but that certainly looks like prima facie evidence of cherry picking.”
   
   Maybe you’re right. CO2’s a bit sneaky and it may have changed its residence time in the last couple of decades [/sarc off]. Try reading this for the science behind the table.
   
   http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.htm
   
   You say:
   “You’ll always find people who disagree with the prevailing view. The fact that you can identify them by name gives a clue as to just how unconventional their beliefs are.”
   
   Since when does “unconventional” ascribe invalidity? That is an extremely illogical statement. Science is not progressed by “prevailing view”, but rather by scrutiny and falsification. Consensus is the stuff of politics, not science.
   
   You say:
   “It’s a spatter of anecdotes against an ocean of data.”
   
   LOL! If you read The Guardian, then I will overlook that statement, but I thought you were connected to the internet!
   
   You say:
   “I think that most of them, just like you, desperately wish not to believe in what the clear majority of climate researchers believe.”
   
   Like I said, it’s not any apparent consensus, but the real science that matters. I am not the desperate one. I would be more than happy to accept the AGW “science” if it was open, falsifiable, transparent and honest.
   
   I won’t hold my breath.
   (Though it would save CO2!!!)
9. 

   nickb

   Wrote at 2009-12-10 23:48 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP:

   A good link for your more discerning readers, Paul!
   
   http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/12/follow-moneya-lot-of-money.html
10. 

    Arrhenius

    Wrote at 2009-12-11 09:41 UTC using Firefox 3.0.15 on Windows XP:

    I do believe in athropogenic global warming. I also believe that hypotheses should be compared with the observed data. We do that and we see that the world is indeed warming, but not at nearly the rate predicted (although they don’t use that word, they prefer ‘scenarios’) by the IPCC.
    
    I also fail to see why a mild warming is so catastrophic. In the past 150 years of warming, the World population has become healthier and wealthier than ever before in the history of human civilisation.
    
    I also question the ethics of the lead authors of the IPCC chapters on paleoclimatology, when they wilfully ignore data that “dilutes the message”.
    
    http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/#comments
    
    It makes me wonder what else is being excised to avoid diluting the message.
    
    Professor Hans von Storch regularly conducts a survey of climatologists which provides a more nuanced canvas of opinion than “overwhelming majority…say it’s real”. See here:
    
    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/
    
    (BTW, I’d say all climate scientists agree that AGW is real. )
    
    Having said all that, I enjoyed your post :-)
11. 

    JonR

    Wrote at 2009-12-12 15:25 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Mac OS X:

    if we renamed man-made climate change to “Intelligent Defrosting” would all you teach-the-controversy nutsacks start believing in it?
12. 

    Arrhenius

    Wrote at 2009-12-12 15:46 UTC using Firefox 3.0.15 on Windows XP:

    JonR
    
    The bloggers on…
    
    http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/
    
    ...are highly-respected climate scientists. They believe in man-made global warming. Why don’t you read their opinions before labelling people ‘nutsacks’.
    In your simple world there are only those who believe and those who don’t. Somewhat redolent of a religion, no?
13. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2009-12-13 00:23 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP:

    Listen to Clive James on the subject:
    
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qng8
    
    Very good.
14. 

    Gnome

    Wrote at 2009-12-13 12:57 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP:

    Not being a fundamentalist follower of any religion, I try not to argue directly with those who see the world in black or white. For similar reasons, I am not readily persuaded by arguments which rely upon either the number or status of their supporters. Most of the population once believed in witchcraft. President Thomas Jefferson refused to believe in meteorites.
    
    No amount of data on observed conditions can ever fully “prove” that mankind is responsible for climate change. Even if the world becomes super-warm or super cool, it could be an unfortunate coincidence and/or part of a natural cycle.
    
    Similarly it is impossible to “prove” the impact of the massive and rapid release over 2 centuries of gases which have been locked out of the atmosphere over millions of years.
    
    However, absence of proof is not proof of absence.
    
    Since even aircraft contrails have a local effect on climate, common sense and the laws of physics strongly suggest that releasing massive quantities of gas over two centuries will have had some impact.
    
    It is largely irrelevant whether this may lead to a hotter, colder, wetter or dryer climate. The key issue is that since all living creatures are adapted to the “as-is” environment, any significant change occurring over a geologically short time-frame is likely to be harmful to large numbers of man and most other species (with the possible exception of cockroaches).
    
    Since I am not a cockroach it seems to me to be sensible insurance to take all possible steps to reduce mankind’s impact upon the environment as soon as possible. Cutting CO2 emissions is a good start, even if achieving this without causing economic disruption will be a challenge.
15. 

    Jay

    Wrote at 2009-12-13 13:59 UTC using Chrome 3.0.195.33 on Windows XP:

    Nearly all of the messages in the posts are about arguments from authority. We can summarise the arguments-from-authority in one sentence: “The overwhelming majority of working professional climate researchers who are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature agree that adding CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and certain other trace gases to the atmosphere, will lead to global warming, with the temperature response delayed by the thermal inertia of the oceans.” If all you have is the argument from authority, then on a balance-of-probabilities basis, it is overwhelmingly more plausible that AGW is real than that it is some kind of vast mistake. If you are inclined to believe it’s a hoax or conspiracy, then you don’t understand the scientific peer review process.
    
    But the argument from authority isn’t all you have. You also have physics and chemistry textbooks – easy to find in a library. If you spend some time studying, you will understand that the gases people call “greenhouse gases” absorb and re-radiate infrared radiation, whereas the main constituents of the atmosphere – oxygen and nitrogen – do not. That’s why AGW is real. AGW is not a matter of some kind of debating-society contest between rhetoricians debating the ethics of long skirts versus short skirts. AGW theory is not some kind of idle speculation based on a perception that global temperatures may be rising, so let’s hunt around for a likely-sounding story explaining why. Scientists knew that CO2 interacts differently with infrared than do oxygen and nitrogen long before they were able to measure global warming. Rising global temperatures are secondary evidence, not primary evidence, in this matter. The primary evidence can be (and has been) gained in the laboratory, by measuring the interaction of different gases with different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. The laws of nature are what they are. So, would all the denialists please quietly drop their obsessive quest to develop alternate arguments from authority by recruiting clueless people from other disciplines and making lists of fellow denialists, and sit down with a physics textbook instead. With a few weeks of study, unless you are truly too stupid or willfully self-deluded to distinguish evidence from the rhetorician’s tricks, you will find yourself quietly dropping your denialist stance.
16. 

    Arrhenius

    Wrote at 2009-12-13 20:47 UTC using Firefox 3.0.15 on Windows XP:

    Jay, you’ve grossly simplified the science.
    
    A consequence of global warming is greater water vapour flux into the atmosphere from the oceans. This means increased cloud cover and so a lower net solar radiation flux to the earth. This is a negative (i.e. cooling) feedback, BUT the emissivity of clouds is greater than that of clean air which is a positive (warming) feedback. The relative magnitudes of these feedbacks depends on where the clouds are: the infrared emmissivity of the lower troposphere is larger than that of the upper.
    
    You can’t reasonably perform a laboratory experiment to measure that, so all you can do is try to model the earth’s atmosphere and see what happens. This is what the GCMs are for and it’s here where the uncertainty lies (and is often understated). They’re pretty good at predicting the past, but not so good at predicting the future. As Von Neumann said, “With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” (In a GCM you can replace “four” with “several thousand”)
    
    Myself, I prefer empirical, observed evidence like polar ice extent, global mean temperature anomalies, and the like. They all seem to indicate a mild warming, but nothing much to worry about. But who knows, hey?
17. 

    David

    Wrote at 2009-12-15 17:13 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP:

    You’ve also got to take into account that if you’re an established climatologist, the money must be huge for you to find even the slightest thing ‘wrong’ with anthropogenic global warming; courtesy of Mr. Oil.
18. 

    Marina M

    Wrote at 2009-12-19 23:26 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows Vista:

    “I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming because I like driving my car between my suburban home and the out-of-town supermarket. It reinforces my sense of manly purpose. I also enjoy taking cheap flights to southern Europe on holiday. I can’t believe in any future in which these things aren’t God-given rights.
    
    I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming because fuck you, I’ll be dead by the time Bangladesh is under water, and I won’t have to live in thedesertified planet my selfish and blinkered choices leave behind. ”
    
    For all the intelligent people who deny climate change, I would say this is their reasoning in a nut shell.
    
    Unfortunately, there are a lot of ‘sheeple’ who are easily led (who also share the motivations above). There was an excellent programme on SBS here in Aussie about ‘intelligent design’ and apparently 1/4 to 1/2 of Americans do not accept Darwins theory of evolution!
    
    When I heard this is was utterly gobsmacked and a little bit freaked out. No wonder they put up with Bush for so long.
    
    If we continue down this path, with our so called ‘leaders’ pandering to the denialists (and their own selfish interests) generations to come will detest our generation – climate change will undoubtably exacerbate problems like food shortage and land shortage.
    
    I am perplexed how anyone with children could not be concerned – we won’t be here for the worst of it, but our children and grandchildren will.
    
    We could well end up being more despised by future generations than the Nazi’s.
19. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2009-12-20 00:47 UTC using Firefox 3.5.6 on Windows XP:

    Marina M. wrote:
    “If we continue down this path, with our so called ‘leaders’ pandering to the denialists (and their own selfish interests) generations to come will detest our generation – climate change will undoubtably exacerbate problems like food shortage and land shortage.
    
    I am perplexed how anyone with children could not be concerned – we won’t be here for the worst of it, but our children and grandchildren will.
    
    We could well end up being more despised by future generations than the Nazi’s. ”
    
    Your use of the term “denialists” is most unpleasant. Furthermore, I happen to be the father of two young children, for whom I want a future of openness, democracy and integrity in science. It is quite clear to anyone with an open and investigative mind that climate science has been deeply corrupted by politics.It is also quite clear, that the the AGW protagonists have quite happily stooped to traumatising kids with their scare tactics.
    
    I call that child abuse.
20. 

    Marina M

    Wrote at 2009-12-20 02:46 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows Vista:

    Yes Nick, you have made it perfectly clear where you stand, I don’t intend to argue with you.
    
    BUT a parent should know better. What if you are wrong? If I am wrong and we do act, at least the environment will be better off. And even if climate change weren’t an issue we are still using resources at a frightening rate, and our children (again) will be left to deal with the consequences.
    
    I don’t want may children or grandchildren to curse me when they are forced to have to deal with the mess we leave them – at least some will be able to say, ‘My parents fought against this, but most were too selfish to change’.
    
    Alot of western countries can’t bear the thought of losing their luxuries, while people all over the world manage with a lot less.
21. 

    Gnome

    Wrote at 2009-12-20 09:58 UTC using Firefox 3.5.6 on Windows XP:

    Perhaps the debate is being sustained through the use of the label “global warming”. For anyone in living in northern Europe the possiblity of a little “warming” might seem quite appealing (especially if spread over several decades and in particular given the cold of the last week).
    
    However, a small change in end-state temperature is the least of our immediate worries. Any increase in the energy absorbed by the atmosphere will result in local fluctuations in wind and rainfall long before then.
    
    I personally do not need to consult a climatologist, scientist or soothsayer to be aware of the increased incidence of “unusual”, “once in a generation” floodings, gales, droughts, etc. I only need to watch the news!
22. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2009-12-20 22:52 UTC using Firefox 3.5.6 on Windows XP:

    Gnome wrote:
    ”...the increased incidence of “unusual”, “once in a generation” floodings, gales, droughts, etc. I only need to watch the news!”
    
    What increased incidence? There isn’t any!
    
    Hurricane activity is at a 30-year low:
    
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/
    
    ...and droughts have been around since biblical times. More recently, a study of the droughts during the latter half of the 20th century showed that “the mid-1950s showed the highest drought activity and the mid-1970s to mid-1980s the lowest activity.”
    
    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N30/C1.php
    
    If you’re talking about flooding, you may well be thinking of the recent events in Cumbria. Nothing to do with global warming, but a rare weather event known as a “standing wave”:
    
    http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/11/22_The_Near_Perfect_Storm%2C_Not_Global_Warming.html
    
    The problem is that the mainstream media, infected by all this hype, has turned to “weather porn”.
    
    In days gone by, previous generations would rightly just accept weather extremes as natural and get on with life. Not now. Even a nasty shower of drizzle is met with much wailing and gnashing of teeth!!
23. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2009-12-20 23:41 UTC using Firefox 3.5.6 on Windows XP:

    Marin M wrote:
    
    “BUT a parent should know better….”
    
    Meaning what? I’m not a good parent? Bah!
    
    On with your quote: “I don’t want may children or grandchildren to curse me when they are forced to have to deal with the mess we leave them – at least some will be able to say, ‘My parents fought against this, but most were too selfish to change’.
    
    Alot of western countries can’t bear the thought of losing their luxuries, while people all over the world manage with a lot less.”
    
    What mess? The western industrialised countries (vis-à-vis the Less Developed Countries, or LDCs) enjoy:
    
    1. A cleaner environment.
    2. Longer life expectancy
    3. LOWER birth rates
    
    A good parent would want those living in the LDCs the same. I hate to see children painfully dying through lack of access to safe drinking water.
    
    http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/media/video/data/000259
    
    $20bn will save the lives of 2 million children per year. Carbon trading worldwide reached $126 billion in 2008. Banks are calling for more carbon-trading. And experts are predicting the carbon market will reach $2 – $10 trillion making carbon the largest single commodity traded.
    
    Still the kids die. Justice? I don’t think so.
    
    Oh, and as for using up resources, remember that the world uses just 1 cubic mile of oil a year. Next time you’re flying at 37,000ft (no, I don’t suppose you do) look down and see how tiny that amount is. Never mind. Listen to the peak oil doom-mongers and worry.
    
    We WILL change our dependence on fossil fuels in the next 50 years, probably to personal nuclear generation units, but that will only happen if the western industrialised economies are allowed to flourish and the LDC economies allowed to play catch-up.
    
    I would be happy to tell future generations that I resisted the Leftist drivel about surrendering our standard of living and instead gave them a future of health, wealth and happiness…
    
    ...not mud huts.
24. 

    Xiangdian

    Wrote at 2009-12-21 11:37 UTC using Firefox 3.5.6 on Windows Vista:

    Global warming or climate change both are too much out of my ability of understanding. What I don’t understand is why the smart people not just simply pointed out the anthropogenic environment pollution, instead, they brought a very big word of “global” and a very complex word “climate” into argument?
    
    The facts I have seen is terrible pollution is everywhere, people get richer but many of them are not happy in living. It’s lack of love with each other in our society, which is too commercialized. There are too many people lie for benefits, and think it normal.
    
    Anyway, no matter the climate is becoming warmer or colder, no matter it’s caused by human being or the sun, I believe energy-saving, recycle, simple living, share, open-source..are the answers for a better life in harmony, not only better for us, but the environment.
    
    As for driving a car, few in the street enjoy the smell of the offgas emission, nor the driver, maybe one day, the car can be replaced with a cleaner one with very little or no gas emission. isn’t it better to make everyone happy?
    
    Most of things are not right and wrong, but how much advantage and how much disavantage they could cause. So far, people I’ve known who believe in climate change seem more active to protect our environment, more generous, i prefer standing with them.
25. 

    Arfa

    Wrote at 2010-01-08 02:20 UTC using Firefox 3.5.7 on Windows XP:

    Hi all,
    First thanks Paul for the iplayer downloader, last and current job have led to miising programmes which I would love to see and hear ( TV and Radio ). However back to this topic and I though that I would send you and all a link to speeches made by the late Micheal Crichton. Most remember him for Jurassic Park but few will know that he was more than just a writer of fiction – have a look :)
    http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches.html
    
    Regards
    Arfa
26. 

    xiangdian

    Wrote at 2010-01-12 14:21 UTC using Firefox 3.5.7 on Windows Vista:

    Thanks Arfa for sharing! Talking of sharing, recently I’m reading a book called “from cradle to cradle design”, some contents in it are inpiring, some are debatable for sure. Here is the link to the author William McDonough’s video: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html.
    
    Another video is interesting by a monk from Himalayas who shares his happiness inside the heart: http://www.ted.com/talks/matthieu_ricard_on_the_habits_of_happiness.html
    
    Cheers,
    Xiangdian
27. 

    Archway

    Wrote at 2010-01-12 19:32 UTC using Internet Explorer 8.0 on Windows Vista:

    Hi, the answer is easy, we should all use as much fossil fuel as possible as quickly as possible.
    Reason 1
    When it’s gone it’s gone
    Reason Two
    With no fossil fuels no more global warming and we’ll revert back to the days when there were no CO2 emissions, i.e. late ice age.
    Reason Three
    The future population will not be able to make the same mistake as us of polluting the atmosphere with CO2 (they’ll still be active volcanos spewing out all kinds of pollutants of course, but not as many as when man first appeared), so they can make their own mistakes.
28. 

    Rob Taylor

    Wrote at 2010-01-12 19:58 UTC using Firefox 3.5.7 on Windows XP:

    I don’t believe it matters whether I believe in anthropogenic global warming any more than it matters whether or not I believe in God.
    
    In either case, if you believe and I don’t, you’re going to try and convince me it’s true and get angry if I still choose not to hold the same view as you. Any outcome of the argument will be self-fulfilling, and will serve only to solidify your point of view.
    
    If all the polar bears drown, you may say that anthropogenic global warming is to blame. Or you might say that it is God’s will; a warning, perhaps, of our pollutive transgressions.
    
    If the polar bears don’t drown, their doom will have been narrowly averted owing to the great foresight of climate change scientists. Or you could argue that God chose to save them.
    
    The polar bears have not currently drowned, so you say that anthropogenic global warming is yet to kill them off. Or perhaps you might say that God is gracefully providing us time to mend our ways, but he’ll still take them from us if we don’t.
    
    Science: It’s the new Religion.
    
    In whatever state the global climate finds itself in 100 years’ time, we will never be able to empirically prove or disprove that mankind is responsible for it. (And I don’t doubt that whatever the condition of the planet and its inhabitants then, the rather pointless argument will have escalated to a ridiculous level and still be raging back and forth.)
    
    Undeniably, our planet’s climate is changing. But as you’ll be aware it has been doing so – and to far greater extremes – for many more millennia that humans have lived on it. It is as naiive and arrogant for us to assume that the earth should remain comfortably habitable for mankind’s whole tenure as it is to believe that one God created the entire universe for the sole purpose of housing us on one tiny planet.
    
    To date, control of the weather is something which has eluded mankind. Even if we did create the condition which we and the planet find ourselves in, we are near powerless to put it into reverse. If the global temperature was falling rather than rising at an alarming rate, it would be absurd to think that the situation could be reversed by burning more fossil fuels.
    
    Conversely, we can’t un-burn what we have already burnt, and if carbon is indeed the runaway greatest contributor to climate change it is foolish to think we stand any chance of reversing the warming effect simply by creating less of it.
    
    If we are to successfully deal with our rapidly changing environment, a pragmatic approach is vital. We must recognise that the global climate is indeed changing – for whatever reason – and take appropriate action to confront those changes, rather than feebly attempting to backpedal out of a situation which we find uncomfortable.
    
    But whether or not you choose to believe in anthropogenic global warming (or, for that matter, God) continually reapportioning blame, while burying your head in the Antarctic desert sand, will achieve nothing.
29. 

    Rachel Virago

    Wrote at 2010-01-15 14:31 UTC using Firefox 3.5.5 on Windows XP:

    I don’t believe in global warming because I am state funded hippy conspiracy theorist and anything endorsed by government must be a conspiracy theory designed to increase control and taxation.
    
    Except of course for the welfare state which allows me my human right of constructive unemployment and networking with others looneys on social nutworking sites all day, being a plastic activist and a highly respected “cut and paste journalist” disseminating last weeks “news” to all my pals who get up about 13:00
30. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2010-01-16 23:38 UTC using Firefox 3.5.7 on Windows XP:

    World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown.
    
    “A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.”
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
    
    Taxpayers’ millions paid to Indian institute run by UN climate chief.
    “Millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money is being paid to an organisation in India run by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the controversial chairman of the UN climate change panel, despite growing concern over its accounts.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7005963/Taxpayers-mil…
    
    The mystery of the vanishing weather stations.
    “GISS and NOAA took their temperature data from 6,000 weather stations around the world. By 1990, though, this figure had mysteriously dropped to 1500. Even more mysteriously this 75 per cent reduction in the number of stations used had a clear bias against those at higher latitudes and elevations.”
    
    For example:
    
    “There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.
    None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.
    So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?
    Easy. GIStemp “makes it up” from “nearby” thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.”
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100022474/climategate-goes-ame…
    
    Something is beginning to smell. Pity so many are olfactorily challenged…
31. 

    Rob

    Wrote at 2010-01-26 12:25 UTC using Safari 531.21.10 on Mac OS X:

    Paul, you are obviously an intelligent guy but equally obviously you are not a climatologist. You have only given your amateur and rather emotive take on climate change in order to bring notoriety to your web site. By the way, I’m not trying to deny your conclusions, just challenge your cocky attitude and question your ulterior motive.
32. 

    Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2010-01-26 12:33 UTC using Chrome 4.0.299.0 on Mac OS X:

    Rob, you couldn’t be more wrong. I don’t crave notoriety. I think I have plenty of that already. I simply want to provoke people who deny the reality climate change to look inside themselves and question why they cling to the fringes of science in an attempt to justify their own preconceptions and behaviour.
33. 

    Rob

    Wrote at 2010-01-26 12:50 UTC using Safari 531.21.10 on Mac OS X:

    Paul, again, not that I disagree with your sentiment, but your style is facetious and your arguments exclusively negative. You present not one positive point in favour of your opinion. And that’s what it is – an opinion. I know it’s witty, but It would be far more impressive if you did not deride other opinions but championed your own. If you are passionate about this then you should present the science. But that doesn’t fit into a sound bite, does it?
34. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2010-01-26 22:52 UTC using Firefox 3.5.7 on Windows XP:

    “I simply want to provoke people who deny the reality climate change to look inside themselves and question why they cling to the fringes of science in an attempt to justify their own preconceptions and behaviour.”
    
    This is a truly bizarre statement.
    
    First of all, what exactly is this climate change of which you speak? Being a dynamic, the climate is never truly stable. But what exactly do you see as “the reality” of climate change? If it’s temperature, alone, recent revelations have shown that there is no “reality” here, merely conjecture. For example, please enlighten me as to which of the following statements are untrue:
    
    1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
    2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
    3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
    4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
    5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
    6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
    7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
    
    Secondly, since I am presumably one of those “who deny”, you think I – and the countless others who share my views – should be “provoked” into looking “inside themselves to question why they cling to the fringes of science in an attempt to justify their own preconceptions and behaviour”.
    
    Fringes of science? There are many, many, eminent scientists who question the AGW theory. And what exactly makes you think that I, or anyone else who doubts the theory, should either a) have preconceptions or b) should justify their behaviour.
    
    Truly this statement reflects an almost religious “anyone who doubts is a sinner” zealotry, which I find hard to comprehend – since it is devoid of any scientific or logical basis…
35. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2010-01-26 23:42 UTC using Firefox 3.5.7 on Windows XP:

    Saw your side header drawing attention to James Hansen’s latest piece.
    
    Definitely good for a laugh. I got a as far as Johann Hari’s comment:
    “After studying the evidence, in 1981 he made a number of predictions for what a warmer world would look like by the early 21st century. He said that the Arctic ice would be retreating dramatically and the fabled “North-West Passage” would open up, making it possible to sail through the Arctic. It has happened. I have seen it. ”
    
    ROFL!
    
    1903-06 – Roald Amundsen, in the Gjoa, makes the first full transit of the Northwest Passage from east to west.
    
    1944 – The St. Roch, an RCMP schooner, makes the first west-to-east passage. It returns west and becomes the first to make the return journey in one season .
    
    1969 – The Manhattan, the largest ship to navigate the Northwest Passage, leads a special experiment to see if the transport of bulk oil from Alaska would be feasible through the Passage.
    
    1975 – R. Dickinson and K. Maro, in the Pandora II and the Theta, make a west-to-east transit.
    
    1976-78 – R. Bouvier, in the J. E. Bernier II, a ketch, makes an east-to-west transit.
    
    1977 – W. De Roos, in the Williwaw, a Dutch 42-foot (13-m) ketch, makes the first single handed passage from east to west.
    
    1980 – Pandora II, a hydrographic research vessel, makes a transit from west to east.
    
    1981-83 – Japanese sloop Mermaid, makes an east-to-west transit.
    
    There have been plenty of others.
    
    Hansen himself? Couldn’t do better than Delingpole’s description:
    
    “Would you buy a used temperature data set from THIS man?”
    
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100023339/james-hansen-would-you-buy-a-used-temperature-data-set-from-this-man/
    
    His unsolicited support on Amazon for Keith Farnish’s book “A Matter of Scale” sheds light on the Hansen’s state of mind.
    
    “Keith Farnish has it right: time has practically run out, and the ’system’ is the problem.”
    
    Farnish wrote in the book: “The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization.”
    
    Yeah right, I can just see that idea gaining traction. Sorry, must dash, about to burst into uncontrollable laughter again…
36. 

    Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2010-01-26 23:53 UTC using Chrome 4.0.286.0 on Linux:

    Nick, the point about the Northwest Passage is not that strengthened ships can get through at certain times – that has long been the case – but that it becomes a viable and safe route for commercial freight shipping, without the need of icebreakers.
    
    As for the rest, well, I can see that you have spent a lot of time convincing yourself.
    
    Keep on laughing.
37. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2010-01-31 00:37 UTC using Firefox 3.5.7 on Windows XP:

    From the website of Professor Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of biogeography at the University of London.
    
    http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times …
38. 

    Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2010-01-31 00:58 UTC using Chrome 5.0.310.0 on Linux:

    Emeritus Professor of biogeography
    
    Argumentum ad verecundiam. Yet again. You pick individuals who disagree. There are many people who disagree. Some of them have scientific backgrounds. Far fewer of them have relevant scientific backgrounds. Listing malcontents does not form a coherent argument, nor is it an adequate rebuttal to the fact that people who actually study climate have a rather more pessimistic view.
    
    Professor Scott, in any case, attacks straw men: the success or failure of Copenhagen is orthogonal to anthropogenic warming as a theory. The observation (if true) that Bangladesh hasn’t flooded any more in the past few years is as irrelevant to long term sea levels as the weather last week in Arbroath is to overall average temperatures.
39. 

    nickb

    Wrote at 2010-01-31 22:51 UTC using Firefox 3.5.7 on Windows XP:

    “There are many people who disagree. Some of them have scientific backgrounds. Far fewer of them have relevant scientific backgrounds.”
    
    That’s a fanciful statement. You cannot provide any numbers to back up such a claim. Thus, it carries no legitimacy.
    
    “Professor Scott, in any case, attacks straw men: the success or failure of Copenhagen is orthogonal to anthropogenic warming as a theory.”
    
    It’s not a straw man at all (why do so many alarmists love that expression?). He observes that Copenhagen was far from a “success” for the alarmists, and goes on to say – quite rightly – that the exposure of fraudulent scientific practices, both before and since, has brought about a situation in which the discipline of science as a whole risks being tarnished. An eminently reasonable assessment, in my view.
    
    Your quip about Arbroath falls flat. Bangladesh, being so low-lying (along with the Pacific atolls), is frequently touted by the alarmists as being a bellweather location for the impact of higher sea levels. To the best of my knowledge, Arbroath does not have the status of being a bellweather for anything. Unless you know differently, of course.
40. 

    Paul Battley

    Wrote at 2010-01-31 22:58 UTC using Chrome 5.0.310.0 on Linux:

    You cannot provide any numbers to back up such a claim. Thus, it carries no legitimacy.
    
    I refer to all the oddball dissenters you’ve cited.
    
    It’s not a straw man at all (why do so many alarmists love that expression?)
    
    Because it’s one of the many logical fallacies so dear to denialists.
    
    Anyway, this discussion is now closed.