Climate Camp 2008 - Will You Be Going?

e19896 · Jul 28, 2008

The New Consensus

On March 4th 2007 Channel 4 aired The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The programme was a lone voice. Whether or not you agree with its conclusions, the documentary was a little bit of free speech, arguing against a consensus. Surely free speech means that even people who are wrong are allowed to have their say.

One documentary that stands against a tide of opposing opinion leads to Channel 4 being taken to court. Surely this only reinforces the contents of the offending documentary. We are not allowed to question the new consensus on global warming.

When it comes to global warming, people are divided into two groups: believers and deniers!

Belief and denial have very little to do with science, and far more to do with religion. Looks like we got a new religion on our hands: Global Warming.

smokedout · Jul 28, 2008

Signal 11 said:
He is associated with right wing think tanks. (see: http://www.desmogblog.com/node/3228).

no, apart from being an ad hominem thats also a smear, he's published one article for a neo-liberal group, previously he was associated with what could be described as a left wing think tank

if you read through the comments in the linked debunking it seems thats its not as cut and dried as you make out either

Signal 11 · Jul 28, 2008

None of the experts in climate science think he's right. Do you think he's so clever that his views outweigh those of the experts in a field in which he is not qualified? Or do you think they secretly agree with him, but are all in on a massive conspiracy to cover it up?

If you think he is right, I challenge you to submit his claims to a relevant peer-reviewed journal, which he himself has not done, doubtless because he knows they are false.

Signal 11 · Jul 28, 2008

e19896 said:
Surely free speech means that even people who are wrong are allowed to have their say.

They are wrong and they were allowed to have their say.

e19896 said:
One documentary that stands against a tide of opposing opinion leads to Channel 4 being taken to court.

They were not taken to court. Complaints were submitted to OFCOM by scientists whose views had been misrepresented by the program. Those complaints were upheld.

e19896 said:
Surely this only reinforces the contents of the offending documentary.

Of course it doesn't -- it shows how dishonest it was.

e19896 said:
When it comes to global warming, people are divided into two groups: believers and deniers!

No, on one side there are the climate scientists and those of us who accept their expert opinion, and on the other side are the big business leaders who find the science inconvenient, along with assorted far-right ideologues, conspiraloons etc, and the people who have been taken in by their propaganda.

ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Signal 11 · Jul 28, 2008

smokedout said:
he's published one article for a neo-liberal group, previously he was associated with what could be described as a left wing think tank

Which one is the "left wing" one? is it the Ludwig von Mises Institute?

The Mises Institute "works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."

Or is it the Lavoisier Group?

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society ("a small but well-connected organisation dedicated to reducing the power of unions and promoting industrial relations changes that benefit employers.") and the Bennelong Society ("a small organisation formed to promote a conservative view of 'Aboriginal policy' in Australia.")

smokedout said:
if you read through the comments in the linked debunking it seems thats its not as cut and dried as you make out either

I don't see any comments addressing the substance of the article. The only denialist comments I see there are people posting up the same ignorant misconceptions about the temperature record that you posted earlier on this thread.

smokedout · Jul 28, 2008

no, the left one is the Australian Greenhouse Office

its no real surprise that he wrote a report for the Lavoisier Group given that they are an organisation sceptical towards climate change, he doesnt appear to be a member of the group - its a bit like saying if a pro-climate change scientist wrote a study for friends of the earth then their science is somewho corrupted by it

No, on one side there are the climate scientists and those of us who accept their expert opinion, and on the other side are the big business leaders who find the science inconvenient, along with assorted far-right ideologues, conspiraloons etc, and the people who have been taken in by their propaganda.

no on one side there are the various Green Partys, the nuclear power industry, the carbon offset companies and a whole loads of middle class types attempting to launch a political fear on the back of alarmism about climate change alongside the groups you mention

on the other side are also the groups you mentioned as well as a few climate scientists, a whole load of other scientists and those of us who question the accuracy of climate scientists who in 1998 wouldn't have been able to predict that global warming over the next ten years would stop and possibly slightly drop and in the 70s were telling us to prepare for a new ice age

they cant even tell us what the weather is going to be tomorrow with any real degree of accuracy ffs

smokedout · Jul 28, 2008

Continued safe, effective use of nuclear electricity and further development of advanced nuclear power plant technology are an integral part of the international effort to manage risk from global warming. We encourage you to support policies that give every country engaged in greenhouse gas control programs the right to access all technologies as needed, including nuclear electricity.

Nuclear is a necessary and uniquely effective part of the solution. Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change should acknowledge nuclear electricity as an acceptable energy and environmental resource that successfully avoids greenhouse gas emissions. This will ensure that global emission control programs are flexible and preserve the right of individual countries to make their own energy and development choices.

This letter has been signed by 100 CEOs and
leaders of the nuclear industry world-wide.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/reference/pdf/sigdoc.pdf

Signal 11 · Jul 28, 2008

smokedout said:
no, the left one is the Australian Greenhouse Office

That is not a think tank. Neither is it left wing. Evans was employed by it as a contractor to write software to account for carbon emissions in order to monitor compliance with the Kyoto Treaty.

smokedout said:
its a bit like saying if a pro-climate change scientist wrote a study for friends of the earth then their science is somewho corrupted by it

Scientists submit their papers to peer reviewed journals. Have you submitted your paper yet? Please keep us informed of its progress. I want to be the first to congratulate you when you get your Nobel Prize.

smokedout said:
climate scientists who in 1998 wouldn't have been able to predict that global warming over the next ten years would stop and possibly slightly drop

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

smokedout said:
and in the 70s were telling us to prepare for a new ice age

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643

smokedout said:
they cant even tell us what the weather is going to be tomorrow with any real degree of accuracy ffs

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/221636/43

You don't seem to have taken any notice of what Bernie said to you last time:

Bernie Gunther said:
Yep. I don't propose to take smokedout seriously until he comes up with some sort of substantive argument. I've always thought he was an inoffensive sort, but I'm beginning to think he's indulging in some sort of humourous wind-up here.

If you're going to argue stuff like this, at least have the basic fucking respect for the people who have made an effort to inform themselves to do likewise yourself.

Signal 11 · Jul 28, 2008

BTW, smokedout, last time you raised the 1998 issue I asked you a question. This time I want you to answer it.

Signal 11 said:
You seem to have looked at the graph and thought what you saw proved the scientists wrong. As far as I can see there are three possibilities in this case:

1) The scientists are all too stupid to notice what you noticed.
2) They did notice, but are all conspiring to cover it up. By publishing it on the internet.
3) They did notice, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Which one are you claiming, or what alternative do you propose?

e2a: You didn't answer this one about Evans either. Please do so.

Signal 11 said:
None of the experts in climate science think he's right. Do you think he's so clever that his views outweigh those of the experts in a field in which he is not qualified? Or do you think they secretly agree with him, but are all in on a massive conspiracy to cover it up?

smokedout · Jul 28, 2008

signal, firstly thanks for pointing me to such an obviously unbiased site like gristmill :rolleyes:

your first link doesn't address my point which was that climatologists in 1998 did not predict that warming would stop, it will be another 10-20 years before we know whether it is likely to have stopped completely, reversed or increased

the second link confirms in the first sentence that in the 70s several climatologists were warning of a new ice age

and the third conatins this statement: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.

Climate and weather are different, but up until climatologists predictions have proved to e as inaccurate as the average weather forecast, because there isnt yet a model created which comes even close to being an effective tool to measure all the variables

and theres the rub and leads me to my answer to your first question;

climatologists use climate models to study the climate. the most damning criticism of global warming is that these models are completely ineffective and are seen by some scientists as a bit of a joke

therefore its no surprise that they speak with one voice, they are not just defending global warming but their entire dicipline

man made climate change remains just a theory and one most climatologists have signed up to , but it wouldnt be the first time that scientific consensus has been wrong

and its very difficult now theyve told us were all doomed for them to back down from that position, but they may yet be forced to

i dont know how clever evans is, i just found it interesting that he was someone who used to support the global warming hypothesis but now appears to have changed his mind

myself, ive got an open mind, the scientists have failed to convince me, but im open to being convinced - i read all the links bernie posted on the other thread and remained unconvinced

youre claim that anyone who remains unconvinced is far-right or a conspiarcy theory further adds weight to that, the fact its now deemed heresy to even question some of the conclusions reached

you ask me to write a peer reviewed study, unfortunately as you know im not qualified to do so - but the onus of proof is not on the sceptics, theyre not the ones saying the sky is falling down

can you point me to a peer reviewed study that proves beyond doubt that man made climate change was responsible for the global warming between 1980 and 1998?

Signal 11 · Jul 28, 2008

smokedout said:
signal, firstly thanks for pointing me to such an obviously unbiased site like gristmill

Poisoning the well.

smokedout said:
your first link doesn't address my point which was that climatologists in 1998 did not predict that warming would stop

It did not stop, as the article explained.

smokedout said:
the second link confirms in the first sentence that in the 70s several climatologists were warning of a new ice age

A small minority considered it a possibility. There was nothing like the massive consensus there is on climate change now, as the article explained.

smokedout said:
but up until climatologists predictions have proved to e as inaccurate as the average weather forecast, because there isnt yet a model created which comes even close to being an effective tool to measure all the variables

Actually the models predict very well the observed changes over the past 150 years (source).

smokedout said:
the most damning criticism of global warming is that these models are completely ineffective and are seen by some scientists as a bit of a joke

By which scientists?

smokedout said:
therefore its no surprise that they speak with one voice, they are not just defending global warming but their entire dicipline

Appeal to conspiracy.

smokedout said:
man made climate change remains just a theory

You might want to find out what a theory is.

smokedout said:
it wouldnt be the first time that scientific consensus has been wrong

What other times has the scientific consensus been wrong and what is the connection to this issue?

smokedout said:
and its very difficult now theyve told us were all doomed for them to back down from that position

Appeal to conspiracy.

smokedout said:
[Evans] was someone who used to support the global warming hypothesis

I've not seen any evidence that he was. However, that is irrelevant since the article I linked above showed that his claims were false.

smokedout said:
youre claim that anyone who remains unconvinced is far-right or a conspiarcy theory

Provide a citation where I said that.

smokedout said:
you ask me to write a peer reviewed study, unfortunately as you know im not qualified to do so

AIUI, Anyone can submit a paper. All you need to do is copy the claims from the article you linked if you think they are correct. Let us know how you get on.

smokedout said:
the onus of proof is not on the sceptics

If you wish to challenge mainstream science, you have the burden of proof.

smokedout said:
can you point me to a peer reviewed study that proves beyond doubt that man made climate change was responsible for the global warming between 1980 and 1998?

Jones & Mann, 2004 (PDF!)

Assessment of the empirical evidence provided by proxies of climate change over the past two millennia, combined with climate modeling efforts to explain the changes that have occurred during the period, indicates that solar and volcanic forcing have likely played the dominant roles among the potential natural causes of climate variability. Neither can explain, however, the dramatic warming of the late 20th century; indeed, natural factors would favor a slight cooling over this period. Only anthropogenic influences (principally, the increases in greenhouse gas concentrations) are able to explain, from a causal point of view, the recent record high level of global temperatures during the late 20th century.

smokedout · Jul 28, 2008

It did not stop, as the article explained.

well no it did. the long term trend may still indicate a warming but the simple fact is that the planet hasnt got any warmer in the last ten years, even the IPCC ackowledge that

A small minority considered it a possibility. There was nothing like the massive consensus there is on climate change now, as the article explained.

where does it say a small minority? don't forget that climatology was an emergent science back then so it could well have been a majority

Actually the models predict very well the observed changes over the past 150 years (source).

sorry youve got to give me more than that. all that shows is that in retrospect the scientific models hold up, very convenient - does that graph represent all the different models, some of them or or just the one that fits best

something that we havent discussed is also that what the earths current temperature actually is now is open to some speculation, prior to satelllite records even more so - no-one really knows what the planets temperature was 150 years ago

By which scientists?

heres one

#
# Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."

link

Appeal to conspiracy.

no, appeal to common sense

You might want to find out what a theory is.

thanks i know, but from your link

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

the only real theory is that the planet is getting warmer, CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas, and is undoubtly rising due to human activity

whether this has any meaningful impact on the the planets temperature could be open to question

What other times has the scientific consensus been wrong and what is the connection to this issue?

eugenics, and its connection to this issue is that scientific consensus has been wrong before, are you being deliberately obtuse?

I've not seen any evidence that he was. However, that is irrelevant since the article I linked above showed that his claims were false.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming.

Provide a citation where I said that.

youve said it repeatedly on this thread

as for the paper ill read it when ive got time and comment

durruti02 · Jul 28, 2008

smokedout said:
man made climate change remains just a theory and one most climatologists have signed up to , but it wouldnt be the first time that scientific consensus has been wrong

you show your total lack of understanding of this subject by this sentance

ALL science is simply theory and consensus .. and yes, always, of course, it MAY be wrong .. only a fool would disagree would that possibility

BUT, equally, only a fool would ignore a consensus like that we have now, and remember this consensus was created in opposition to the most powerful state and most powerful corporations in the world who pumped millions of dollars into anti CC lies and disinfo and deliberaterly covered up facts about aspects of CC

and btw it is CC not GW that is important

there is one other possibility .. that the whole thing is a nuclear industry hype .. but why then do virtually all CC activists rejct the nuclear option? and tell me this .. is james lovelock who DOES support nuclear, a dupe for the nuclear industry?

Signal 11 · Jul 28, 2008

smokedout said:
the long term trend may still indicate a warming

The long term trend is precisely what this issue is about.

smokedout said:
where does it say a small minority?

a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future
[...]
The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny

smokedout said:
all that shows is that in retrospect the scientific models hold up

Therefore your claim that they are "completely ineffective" was false.

smokedout said:
something that we havent discussed is also that what the earths current temperature actually is now is open to some speculation, prior to satelllite records even more so - no-one really knows what the planets temperature was 150 years ago

Maybe you could add that to your paper too. You might even get two Nobel Prizes.

smokedout said:
Hendrik Tennekes

So, now the opinion of a retired meteorologist / aerospace engineer outweighs the consensus of climate scientists in their own field, and the evidence already presented that the models do in fact work?

smokedout said:
the only real theory is that the planet is getting warmer, CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas, and is undoubtly rising due to human activity

whether this has any meaningful impact on the the planets temperature could be open to question

What mechanism do you propose to prevent it having the expected, and observed, effect?

smokedout said:
eugenics, and its connection to this issue is that scientific consensus has been wrong before, are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, I'm trying to get you to understand that that is a fallacious argument.

smokedout said:
youve said it repeatedly on this thread

Either cite it or stop putting words in my mouth.

smokedout said:
as for the paper ill read it when ive got time and comment

If you're claiming to have sufficient expertise to judge it, provide evidence of that expertise.

smokedout · Jul 28, 2008

The long term trend is precisely what this issue is about.

yes but if the line on the graph keeps going down then what will you be saying in ten years, climate fluctutions are normal, it may be that it peaked in 1998 and is now set to fall again, we'll have to wait and see

Therefore your claim that they are "completely ineffective" was false.

i notice you completely ignore my requests for more information about what exactly that graph represents

So, now the opinion of a retired meteorologist / aerospace engineer outweighs the consensus of climate scientists in their own field, and the evidence already presented that the models do in fact work?

oh look heres another climate scientist who agree the models are flawed

Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.

link

What mechanism do you propose to prevent it having the expected, and observed, effect?

theres many reasons it may not and if you read up on it with an open mind youll find them out soon enough. more importantly it seems to me unlikely that given all the other factors, methane, water vapour etc that the tiny contribution human activity makes to the tiny conecntration of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to make any real difference at all

If you're claiming to have sufficient expertise to judge it, provide evidence of that expertise.

tell you what, ill pass it on to the the bloke i do some work for, hes a mathematician who spent nearly 20 years studying climate models with a team at one of the most prestigious academic organisations in the country. hes published several peer reveiwed papers in his career and now peer reviews himself - will his comments do for you (it might take him some time but i just spoke to him and hes up for it)

he thinks man made climate change is a load of bollocks btw, as do the people who worked on the project with him

Signal 11 · Jul 29, 2008

smokedout said:
yes but if the line on the graph keeps going down then what will you be saying in ten years, climate fluctutions are normal

Yes, they are but the current long term warming trend is not normal, as the paper I cited in the last post said.

smokedout said:
it may be that it peaked in 1998 and is now set to fall again, we'll have to wait and see

I've already explained that the spike in 1998 was due to the strong El Nino at that time, and that there are other factors involved. If you look at the graph it's clear that you could have made this same argument several other times over the years, and you would have been equally wrong.

smokedout said:
i notice you completely ignore my requests for more information about what exactly that graph represents

Sorry I missed that earlier. It shows a range of simulations. That's why the simulations are represented as a band rather than a line. (e2a: I could be wrong about that, it may be one model showing a margin of error. There's a bit more information about it here.) If you want more than that you'll have to ask the IPCC.

oh look heres another climate scientist who agree the models are flawed [...] Dr. Roy Spencer

The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with him. He has also been exposed as being dishonest with the data. That might be due to his political bias, being associated with the Heartland Institute and Marshall Institute. He is also on record as stating that creationism is "scientific".

smokedout said:
more importantly it seems to me

So, you're an expert again for this paragraph.

smokedout said:
unlikely that given all the other factors, methane, water vapour etc

http://www.skepticalscience.com/methane-and-global-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

smokedout said:
that the tiny contribution human activity makes to the tiny conecntration of CO2 in the atmosphere is going to make any real difference at all

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11638

If you're just going to keep posting up these common misconceptions I've got better things to do with my time than continue this.

smokedout said:
tell you what, ill pass it on to the the bloke i do some work for, hes a mathematician who spent nearly 20 years studying climate models with a team at one of the most prestigious academic organisations in the country. hes published several peer reveiwed papers in his career and now peer reviews himself - will his comments do for you

If he thinks he has anything to challenge the scientific consensus, the appropriate thing to do is write up a paper and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

888 · Jul 29, 2008

Somkedout, go to the science forum to be completely destroyed.

smokedout · Jul 29, 2008

Sorry I missed that earlier. It shows a range of simulations. That's why the simulations are represented as a band rather than a line. (e2a: I could be wrong about that, it may be one model showing a margin of error. There's a bit more information about it here.) If you want more than that you'll have to ask the IPCC.

i asked because the pre-1980 temeratures on that graph dont appear to match those on the one you posted earler in the thread - also you are aware that the models are tweaked to match the temperatures of the past so its hardly unexpected

The vast majority of climate scientists disagree with him. He has also been exposed as being dishonest with the data. That might be due to his political bias, being associated with the Heartland Institute and Marshall Institute.

something he himself denies

why the constant stream of ad hominems against anyone who questions the supposed consensus - its not very scientific

bit like your suggestion that anyone who disagrees is far right or a conspiarcist (or has been taken in by them)

heres another left wing commentator backed by a scientist who is sceptical of the party line

http://www.skepticalscience.com/meth...al-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...nhouse-gas.htm

all those links do is further emphasise the complexities of climate modelling, in the second it says

When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C

problem with that statement is that globally the ice isnt melting

If he thinks he has anything to challenge the scientific consensus, the appropriate thing to do is write up a paper and submit it to a relevant peer-reviewed journal.

perhaps he cont be bothered because he realises that anything challenging the alleged consensus is verboten

American physicists warned not to debate global warming

october_lost · Jul 29, 2008

Not too pleased this thread as been hijacked for some partisan bit of science...

Bakunin · Jul 29, 2008

october_lost said:
Not too pleased this thread as been hijacked for some partisan bit of science...

Nor am I, to be honest. All the science stuff belongs in the relevent forum and this isn't it.

biff curtains · Jul 29, 2008

Bakunin said:
Nor am I, to be honest. All the science stuff belongs in the relevent forum and this isn't it.

Er yeah science has no bearing on political action at all.

As it happens I think it does belong on here.

And it's good to know the shameless self publicist smokedout won't be at Climate Camp
:cool:

Random · Jul 29, 2008

i won't be attending, but climate change does matter. Was this poll designed by youGov?

Bakunin · Jul 29, 2008

Random said:
i won't be attending, but climate change does matter. Was this poll designed by youGov?

No, this poll wasn't designed by YouGov.

smokedout · Jul 29, 2008

biff curtains said:
And it's good to know the shameless self publicist smokedout won't be at Climate Camp

yeah absolutely shameless, thats why ive never once in my life appeared on tv, radio or any other form of media other than online and i use a pseodonym

Signal 11 · Jul 29, 2008

smokedout said:
you are aware that the models are tweaked to match the temperatures of the past so its hardly unexpected

State precisely what you mean by "the models are tweaked to match the temperatures of the past" and provide evidence.

If you'd bothered to read the article you would have seen that the models also predicted correctly from 1988 onwards:

Way back in 1988, James Hansen projected future temperature trends (Hansen 1988). Those initial projections show remarkable agreement with observation right to present day (Hansen 2006).
[...]
Hansen's Scenario B (described as the most likely option and in hindsight, the one that most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.
[...]
Other results successfully predicted and reconstructed by models

* Cooling of the stratosphere
* Warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere
* Warming of ocean surface waters (Cane 1997)
* Trends in ocean heat content (Hansen 2005)
* An energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation (Hansen 2005)
* Amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region (NASA observations)

smokedout said:
[Re: Spencers association with Marshall and Heartland Institutes] something he himself denies

I pointed out that the vast majority of climate scientists disagree with him, and that he has been shown to be dishonest with the data.

It is not an Ad Hominem to then suggest that this may be due to his demonstrated political bias, such as his association with the Heartland Institute and his association with the Marshall Institute, both of which are funded by Exxon, or his loony views on creationism:

Roy Spencer said:
intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism

You're always going to find the odd crank who disputes the consensus, whether for political reasons or otherwise, just as you can for AIDS, evolution, cosmology or any other subject. If any of them turn out to be correct, their view will become the consensus. Until then it's absurd to ask people to ignore the consensus and instead follow the cranks.

smokedout said:
heres another left wing commentator backed by a scientist who is sceptical of the party line

Neither Cockburn nor Hertzberg are climate scientists.

smokedout said:
problem with that statement is that globally the ice isnt melting

Straw man. The article didn't claim that it is melting globally.

smokedout said:
perhaps he cont be bothered because he realises that anything challenging the alleged consensus is verboten

Appeal to conspiracy.

smokedout said:
American physicists warned not to debate global warming

Lord Monckton is not a climate scientist, nor any kind of scientist. He "is a British politician and business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher's policy unit" (source). His article was published in a non peer-reviewed newsletter of the APS and was then touted on all the usual far-right blogs as being the view of the APS, which it most certainly is not. It is debunked by a real climate scientist here.

BTW, have you submitted your paper yet?

smokedout · Jul 29, 2008

State precisely what you mean by "the models are tweaked to match the temperatures of the past" and provide evidence.

its getting late ill provide evidence tomorrow. but i'm not alleging dishonesty, part of the way the models work is to look at the past and the conditions of the past and then make predictions about the future - so they are constantly tweaked in an attempt to ensure greater accuracy

It is not an Ad Hominem to then suggest that this may be due to his demonstrated political bias, such as his association with the Heartland Institute and his association with the Marshall Institute, both of which are funded by Exxon

err, yes it is, play the ball, not the man

Neither Cockburn nor Hertzberg are climate scientists.

no and neither is monckton - but as ive already pointed out, climatology, even now could be regarded as an emergent science, you only need to look at both psychiatry and psychology in its infancy to see how dramatic mistakes can be made

mathematicians, computer scientists, meteorologists, physicists and more all have diciplines which qualify them to challenge the conclusions of a new science based on computerised models which many, many scientists outside of the field believe to be inadequate

its not about the sciences of climatology but the science of computer modelling, ill look tomorrow for a quote from a computer scientistist who flays the climatlogists, not on their interpretation of the data but how they got the data, the programming language used and the flaws in it

Straw man. The article didn't claim that it is melting globally.

no, its not, but according the models it should be

(disclaimer, need to check that, but certainly according to the most shrill commentators it not only should be but it is, when in fact its not)

neither are the sea levels rising

Signal 11 · Jul 30, 2008

smokedout said:
i'm not alleging dishonesty

Fair enough then.

smokedout said:
you only need to look at both psychiatry and psychology in its infancy to see how dramatic mistakes can be made

Same "wrong before" fallacy you used earlier.

smokedout said:
no, its not, but according the models it should be [melting globally]

Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.

IPCC 2007

smokedout said:
neither are the sea levels rising

Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003.

Source as above.

Signal 11 · Jul 30, 2008

Signal 11 said:
If any of them turn out to be correct, their view will become the consensus. Until then it's absurd to ask people to ignore the consensus and instead follow the cranks.

Do you have any comment on what might be the best strategy for the left on this issue? I think it would be best to go with the scientific consensus, even if we were not sure about the science.

Like I said earlier, if this is just your personal view and reason not to support the climate camp, I don't have a problem with that and I can stop derailing this thread. But if you're advocating it as a strategy I think it needs to be challenged.

Bakunin · Jul 30, 2008

Well, I'll definitely be going. Almost all my kit is ready and transport is all but arranged, so it's a definite goer for me.

I'll be doing a daily report from the camp on my blog which I've started specially for this year's event.

smokedout · Jul 30, 2008

Signal 11 said:
Do you have any comment on what might be the best strategy for the left on this issue? I think it would be best to go with the scientific consensus, even if we were not sure about the science.

Like I said earlier, if this is just your personal view and reason not to support the climate camp, I don't have a problem with that and I can stop derailing this thread. But if you're advocating it as a strategy I think it needs to be challenged.

its obvious to me that the current dependence on oil is unsustainable and has also got us into the financial fucking mess were in, but for 2 years out of 3 the climate camp has chosen to highlight coal

given the history of the coal industry in this country i think that is a costly mistake and is already creating a fracture within the left to the point where we now have different sections of the left marching against each other

i also think we should make the point that any tinkering around the edges will not make a blind jot of difference whilst the world maintains a capitalist economic system and that the people who will suffer the most from global warming if it does exist or from the reformist measures being put in place to deal with it are the people who already have least

compost toilets and grey water systems are all well and good, but theyre a middle class indulgence that just isnt relevent to the majority of people in this country

if the effort that had gone into the climate camp had gone into class struggle then we might actually be moving forward instead of being further driven into the political ghetto

im not saying we should ignore the science, although i do think it should be challenged constantly because of the implications and the fact that its now become big business - the electricity firms are already making billions from trading in carbon credits, the nuclear power industry is set to make billions more

so on one hand we have exxon, on the other a different bunch of global corporations, capitalists competing, its what they do and until the science is absolutely unequivocal then we should at least remain open minded

and recognise that hassling the working class to turn the heating down will only entrench class divisions and not make any difference to the environment

a sustained attack on the oil companies who are responsible for global misery in so many different ways would imo be a far better strategy

winding up miners in a field in the middle of nowehere wont get us anywhere

(by the way the ice may be melting at the north pole, in the southern hemisphere its thickening

)

Climate Camp 2008 - Will You Be Going?

Will you be visiting or supporting this year's Climate Camp?

Yes, climate change matters.

No, because it doesn't

Maybe

kill all ANARCHIST

criminal

also programmed for conversational english

also programmed for conversational english

also programmed for conversational english

criminal

criminal

also programmed for conversational english

also programmed for conversational english

criminal

also programmed for conversational english

criminal

love and rage!

also programmed for conversational english

criminal

also programmed for conversational english

seasol.net

criminal

It's not hip any more...

I am Noodle's bitch.

Fred West or Fred Housego

Ethnic nalgocrat

I am Noodle's bitch.

criminal

also programmed for conversational english

criminal

also programmed for conversational english

also programmed for conversational english

I am Noodle's bitch.

criminal

Similar threads