32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[Johnny Canuck3]

it's what studying this at university, then spending 9 years looking at the data and reading the reports does for you '

I appreciate that you have studied at university. However, as I've previously pointed out above, had you gone to university, then medical school, at any time before the 90s, as a doctor, you would have advised your patients that their ulcers were caused or contributed to by stress, and you would have provided medications etc, on that basis. You would have scoffed at the idea that ulcers were caused by bacteria.

As we now know they are.

My point is simply this: your education is a worthy thing, but it is not an inoculation against all and any error.

You, too, can be mistaken, even with your education.

 

[bigfish]

How many more times are you going to post up this myth?
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

For CO2 to be considered a greenhouse gas, it must precede all temperature rises.

The raw data obtainable from the following sites:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt

produces this plot:

As you cant see, rising CO2 levels follow rises in temperature.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

btw - this will only become a calamity if we continue to sit here going 'nananananana I can't hear you' and doing fuck all about it like we have for the last 20 years. It's entirely possible for us to avoid the worst excesses if we take some decisive action, we've just run out of time for dithering.

When did this stop being a scientific debate, and turn into a Crusade for you?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

btw, when I say I've looked at the data, I mean I've looked at both sides - I've checked out every single link bigfish has ever posted on here about climate change, and as far as I can remember he's never once actually managed to stand his ground and back his point up when I or others have either refuted it entirely, or shown why it's not at all inconsistent with anthropogenic climate change theory. There are 2 reasons for this - 1 he doesn't know what he's talking bout, and 2 he's wrong.

I want to make sure I have this straight: when you say you've looked at data on both sides, by the 'other side', you mean the links that bigfish has provided?

May I suggest that there is a larger body of evidence on 'the other side', than what has been presented here by bigfish.

As an addendum: discount the factual links that I have provided throughout this thread.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is, it's possible to cut and paste crap from random Exxon PR / fruitcake sites faster than it's possible to explain why they are misinterpreting / lying about the science, or why what they are saying isn't the whole story.

It's like a denial of service attack where you send broken packets to a server and the server always takes more time to figure out what to do about them than it takes to generate another broken packet.

To be fair, WouldBe is a bit different and seems to make up his own broken packets rather than getting them from Exxon / Spiked Online PR outlets, so I think his stuff is maybe a bit more worth responding to if you have the patience which I personally don't at the moment.

 

[bigfish]

... These look like a reverse of 'CO2 driver theory' - a one-way model that temperature drives CO2 (no scientist uses a one-way model because even though there is a correlation between CO2 rising and temperature rising, this doesn't mean that one causes the other)...

Please provide a graph for us here of the correlation you claim exists between CO2 and temperature. Thanks

 

[Signal 11]

For CO2 to be considered a greenhouse gas, it must precede all temperature rises.

Only if it were the only thing affecting the temperature. If anyone has claimed that it is, provide a citation. Otherwise address the arguments that have been made, not your pathetic straw men.

those graphs also show the temp start to drop while CO2 is still rising?

Likewise, if you think anyone said that CO2 is the only factor, provide a citation.

 

[tangentlama]

For CO2 to be considered a greenhouse gas, it must precede all temperature rises.

That's bullshit. CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas' because it it's atmospheric form, it can absorb and emit infrared radiation from the sun as it bounces off the earth.

The raw data obtainable from the following sites:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt[/url]

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-co2.txt[/url]

produces this plot:

http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w239/climatedata/y1pvFeNPmlE615Kpnvhc9oVoV4W20vX0dwc.gif[/IMG]

As you cant see, rising CO2 levels follow rises in temperature.

Are you still trying to refute the 'CO2 driver theory' that no-one here or elsewhere in the scientific community subscribes to?

 

[Signal 11]

I'm happy to provide citations for any factual assertions

Do so then.

 

[bigfish]

e2a: sceptic myth number 363: CO2 rises as temperatures fall (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11640)

Tim Yeo, Esq., MP.,
Environment Audit Committee,
House of Commons, LONDON, SW1A 0AA.

8 July 2008

Dear Mr Yeo,

RE: CORRELATION BETWEEN CARBON DIOXIDE AND TEMPERATURES

Following on from your Committee’s warning to the British Government regarding the need to show greater commitment to tackling Climate Change, please inform me what evidence your Committee has for carbon dioxide increases raising temperatures.

The graph above which is based on official data shows that while CO2 has risen dramatically over the last ten years world temperatures have decreased. Since there is no Global Warming arising from increased CO2 then there can be no Climate Change consequent on that supposed Global Warming.

Please explain on what evidence you base your recommendations.

Yours sincerely,

Piers Corbyn
Astrophysicist and Long-range weather forecaster, Director
WeatherAction. The Long Range Forecasters

Information on the graph showing world Temperatures falling while CO2 keeps rising over the last ten years.

The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the
NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the MaunaLoa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4].

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade and may now even be falling.

1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html
2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist, Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us The graph is also contained in a letter sent to the UN’s Climate Change Committee (the IPCC) and available on the UNCAPSA site: http://www.uncapsa.org/Topics/IPCC_letter_14April08-1.pdf

 

[Signal 11]

Please provide a graph for us here of the correlation you claim exists between CO2 and temperature. Thanks

Nobody here is obliged to prove anything to you. No experts in the field dispute the greenhouse effect. If you wish to dispute it, you have the burden of proof.

 

[Signal 11]

RE: CORRELATION BETWEEN CARBON DIOXIDE AND TEMPERATURES

And again

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Do so then.

I'll hop to it as quickly as possible, but due to present circumstances, it won't be till later this evening.

To repeat my question: why do you want citations?

What difference will it make to you?

 

[tangentlama]

Funny that but climatologists keep stating that warming oceans will release more CO2. This is a fundamental part of the positive feedback that climatologists are so worried about.

Source please.

 

[888]

You, too, can be mistaken, even with your education.

Whereas you can only be mistaken on the basis of stupidly chipping in on topics you know nothing about.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Whereas you can only be mistaken on the basis of stupidly chipping in on topics you know nothing about.

I've no problem admitting I can be wrong.

On this topic: disprove the factual citations I've made.

 

[Signal 11]

On this topic: disprove

If you want to claim that mainstream science is wrong, you have the burden of proof. How many more times do I need to explain it to you?

the factual citations I've made.

I'm still waiting for those.

 

[tangentlama]

The oceans of the world are a connected dynamic system and so their ph level will naturally fluctuate within certain limits.

The colour scaled chart above of ocean ph suggests a range from 7.9 to 8.2. Low pH occurs, apparently, in areas of upwelling whereas high pH occurs in the centres of ocean gyres. From this extensive mix it is difficult to state with much confidence what the 'average' pH level is for the oceans, let alone whether ph level in the worlds oceans has measurably changed... but don't let that stop you.

This is utterly bizarre. The text above, highlighted in red, is plagiarised from http://www. seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm and their image is copied to a photobucket account called 'climate data' http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w239/climatedata/
This appears to be initially taken from the blog comments of right-wing OZ think tanker http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cach...ifficult+to+state+what+...&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1
Moer on Marohasy here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23657735-11949,00.html

Jennifer Marohasey works for an energy sector funded think tank - IPA - funded by Monsanto, Exxon, Philip Morris (Tobacco). Under Marahosey's watch, the IPA advocated against Aboriginal self-determination, and played an enormous part in combating Murray River campaginers whilst receiving funding from the Murray River Irrigation company.

Under the guidance of Dr. Carter, the Australian-based IPA has been running a long-time disinformation campaign in an attempt to discredit the science behind climate change. With the backing of companies like the Western Mining Corp., Mosanto, Caltex, Esso Australia and Woodside Petroleum, the IPA has put out numerous reports that have every appearance of being authoritative in the area of climate change science, but are just another slick PR front group bringing into question the science backing man-made global warming.

http://www.desmogblog.com/another-questionable-friend-of-the-friends-of-science

Why would bigfish attempt to conceal his sources? Is it because he doesn't want it to be obvious that he's drawing his refutations from energy-sector funded think tanks?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

If you want to claim that mainstream science is wrong, you have the burden of proof. How many more times do I need to explain it to you?

I'm still waiting for those.

I've already pointed out a number of equivocations, etc.

You'll have to wait till I get home.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

And to be precise, I haven't specifically said that mainstream science is wrong. I've pointed out that when you look at the pronouncements that attempt to follow mainstream science, you find inaccuracy.

Such as the idea of mean temperature increase. Most people think it means hotter summer days, but as we know, it really means higher nighttime and winter temperatures, for the most part.

It's not quite so scary when you set out the real facts.

 

[Signal 11]

Most people think

This isn't about what "most people think". It's about what the experts think.

but as we know, it really means higher nighttime and winter temperatures, for the most part.

I've already asked you for a source for that. Are you now claiming that everything you've been told about the consequences is false, other than the increase in temperature? If so, provide sources for that too.

It's not quite so scary when you set out the real facts.

Not as "scary" as what?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

Are you now claiming that everything you've been told about the consequences is false, other than the increase in temperature?

Everything: no.

Not as "scary" as what?[/

As burning rainforests, and boiling seas. As New York, London, under water. All things which have been said.

 

[Signal 11]

As burning rainforests, and boiling seas. As New York, London, under water. All things which have been said.

Said by whom?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

This isn't about what "most people think". It's about what the experts think.

Of course what most people think, matters. If you don't get 'most people' agreeing with you, you will be unable to get any ameliorative action started.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Said by whom?

Commentators in the media and elsewhere.

Or comments like "Katrina was caused by global warming".

 

[Signal 11]

Commentators in the media and elsewhere.

Nobody here needs to defend anything said by unidentified "commentators in the media".

Or comments like "Katrina was caused by global warming".

Who said that?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Who said that?

Ted Kennedy. Haven't you been reading my posts? It's all there.


As for what you must or mustn't defend, the climate change debate encompasses more than just what you bring up here.

The 'boiling seas' comment was pointed out by me as an example of the sense of impending catastrophe being whipped up by the media.

When most, uninformed, people, side with you in the climate change debate, it is that scaremongering they are responding to, not the hard science, of which the vast majority hasn't a clue.

 

[Signal 11]

Of course what most people think, matters.

I didn't say it doesn't matter. You claimed* that what most people think is mistaken. I was pointing out that even if that were true, it would not be an argument against the IPCC's case.

*Naturally without providing a shred of evidence that most people actually have the view you ascribed to them, or that it actually was mistaken.

 

[Signal 11]

Ted Kennedy.

Nobody here needs to defend anything Ted Kennedy said.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nobody here needs to defend anything Ted Kennedy said.

Defend it or not, matters not to me. I'm posting to more than just you.

The thrust of my argument, is that for reasons that admittedly at least started out well intentioned, we are buying into a bill of goods. In showing such to be the case, I've pointed out the hyperbolic things being said by people like Kennedy and Al Gore.