Climate Camp 2008 - Will You Be Going?

[Signal 11]

but that paper is an IPCC paper

No it isn't. Here are the details:

REVIEWS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 42, RG3001, doi:10.1029/2003RG000139, 2004

Present-day sea level change: Observations and causes

A. Cazenave

Laboratoire d'Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, GRGS, CNES, Toulouse, France

R. S. Nerem

Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research and Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA

That paper reviews all the other papers on the satellite altimetry data. They are not IPCC papers. The IPCC does not do the research, it summarises the research done by the relevant experts. You can see the data for youself at the University of Colorado. And if you look at the Wikipedia article about Morner that you posted, it tells the same story. I quoted it at the end of this post.

there is a consensus amongst the articles which have received peer review that is not the same as there being a consensus amongst scientists in general is it?

You're right it isn't. There is indeed a difference between "scientists in general" and experts in the field publishing peer-reviewed papers. Guess which is actually relevant.

and if the models really are flawed

Which I have already shown that they are not.

then all those peer reviewed articles dont mean jack

State how many of those articles depend on the models, with supporting evidence.

 

[smokedout]

That paper reviews all the other papers on the satellite altimetry data. They are not IPCC papers. The IPCC does not do the research, it summarises the research done by the relevant experts. You can see the data for youself at the University of Colorado. And if you look at the Wikipedia article about Morner that you posted, it tells the same story. I quoted it at the end of this post.

yes it does, and it was published in 2004, Morner made the claims that the falsification occurred from 2003 onwards so we can assume that that was around the time the above paper was being written given the time it takes for the peer review process

we're talking about Morner's allegation of falsification specifically arent we. Im not qualified to comment on Morner's disagreement with sea levels changes in general, although it does seem to me that given the sea levels vary by up to 20 feet depending on where on the planet you are then a millimetre here or there (which is an average based on inexact measuring techniques) doesnt strike me as particularly significant

Which I have already shown that they are not.

no you havent, Ive already explained why those graphs are in alignment, because the models are tweaked based on data from the past in order to attempt future predictions

the rest of that piece is based on Hansen, a man who has made a tidy sum from climate change

Hansen has continually revised his figures, this is the guy who was forced to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest years of the 20th century were not in the 1990s, as he had claimed, but in the 1930s - more

you might be interested to read Tennekes' view on the clmate models

 

[Signal 11]

yes it does, and it was published in 2004, Morner made the claims that the falsification occurred from 2003 onwards so we can assume that that was around the time the above paper was being written given the time it takes for the peer review process

That paper simply reviews the findings of all the other papers. The IPCC's figure takes them all into account. Your conspiracy theory, if you want to continue with it, would have to include all of them. Morner's CT is busted already -- he claimed the IPCC falsified the figures.

Ive already explained why those graphs are in alignment

If you are claiming to have expertise in climate modeling, provide evidence of it. Otherwise provide proper sources for your claims.

Hansen has continually revised his figures

List all the other times he has "revised his figures", with supporting evidence.

this is the guy who was forced to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures

The flaw did have a noticeable effect on mean U.S. temperature anomalies, as much as 0.15°C
[...]
The effect on global temperature (the left side of the figure; see larger GIF) was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

telegraph.co.uk/opinion/

That article is all the usual denialist shite that has been debunked here many times.

you might be interested to read Tennekes' view on the clmate models

Summarize his argument in your own words, so I can see if it will be worth the effort.

 

[smokedout]

That paper simply reviews the findings of all the other papers. The IPCC's figure takes them all into account. Your conspiracy theory, if you want to continue with it, would have to include all of them. Morner's CT is busted already -- he claimed the IPCC falsified the figures.

ffs, thats the paper you pointed me too, which was based on data collected before Morner alleges the figures were falsified, so is entirely irrelevent

the other paper you pointed me to (the IPCC one) only contains one reference to a paper published after 2004

youve accused me of not reading your links, are you sure youve read them?

Hansens only revised his figures twice in fairness, and ill find a source later if i can be bothered because frankly this is getting boring, you repeatedly fail to address any of the claims ive made, instead just posting up link after link to some shonky site with no scientific crenditials

That article is all the usual denialist shite that has been debunked here many times.

so are you now denying that the position was changed and that its now generally accepted that the 90s did not contain the hottest years on record - im not endorsing the rest of the piece, can you try and stay on the point please

Summarize his argument in your own words, so I can see if it will be worth the effort.

why the fuck should i, read it and see you what think, its not very long, or dont, i dont fucking care

i dont think i can be bothered anymore

 

[Signal 11]

ffs, thats the paper you pointed me too, which was based on data collected before Morner alleges the figures were falsified, so is entirely irrelevent

That paper reviews the other papers from which the IPCC actually got the value that is in their report, so it is absolutely relevant. If you want to look up the other papers, that is the place to look. That is why I linked to it.

you repeatedly fail to address any of the claims ive made, instead just posting up link after link

I've posted up links when you have used claims that are common misconceptions that have been debunked many times before.

to some shonky site with no scientific crenditials

Which references all its claims to expert sources.

so are you now denying that the position was changed

I'm not denying there was a change, I'm denying it was significant, as the link I posted showed:

The effect on global temperature was of order one-thousandth of a degree, so the corrected and uncorrected curves are indistinguishable.

and that its now generally accepted that the 90s did not contain the hottest years on record

Again, from the link I posted:

Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature.

Most of the warmest years have been in the current decade, not the 90s. The Met Office shows 1998 as the warmest single year and NASA shows 2005 as the warmest single year. Both show the 8 warmest years from 1998 onwards.

 

[smokedout]

Originally Posted by smokedout
and that its now generally accepted that the 90s did not contain the hottest years on record

ok, i should have said in the US as i had in the previous post given your tendency to being disengenuous - the point was that Hansen got the figures wrong, the warmest years in the US of the last century were in the 30s, not the 90s as Hansen had previously claimed, as NASA themselves will confirm

That paper reviews the other papers from which the IPCC actually got the value that is in their report, so it is absolutely relevant. If you want to look up the other papers, that is the place to look. That is why I linked to it.

no it isnt, Morner claims that the falsification happened after any of the studies referenced in those papers were published

is that so difficult for you to understand?

 

[smokedout]

i notice that you have failed to address my main contention which is that the models themselves are flawed

to answer your earlier question about how many papers used computer models - well all of them that predict a definable global temperature rise are presumably using computer models

or guessing

not that theres much difference

 

[soam]

Internet blogger, and coppers hero Inspector Gadget will be there!!!!...

http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/

 

[Signal 11]

ok, i should have said in the US as i had in the previous post

Again, you still haven't read the article I linked to:

Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures. However, as we note in that paper, the 1934 and 1998 temperature are practically the same, the difference being much smaller than the uncertainty.

given your tendency to being disengenuous

You are the one being disingenuous. I've already shown that it made no difference, but even if it had made the difference you claimed, it would have no bearing on the case for climate change.

Morner claims that the falsification happened after any of the studies referenced in those papers were published

For at least the fifth time now, Morner claims that the IPCC falsified the figures. I have showed that they quoted them from the peer-reviewed papers to which I linked.

i notice that you have failed to address my main contention which is that the models themselves are flawed

I've addressed it several times already, despite the fact that your ignorant opinion of climate modeling is worth nothing. Here it is again: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

to answer your earlier question about how many papers used computer models - well all of them that predict a definable global temperature rise are presumably using computer models

Circular argument. If you are claiming any of them are invalid, state precisely which ones and provide specific reasons for each, backed by expert sources.

 

[smokedout]

You are the one being disingenuous. I've already shown that it made no difference, but even if it had made the difference you claimed, it would have no bearing on the case for climate change.

thats not what we were discussing, again. We were discussing Hansen and whether he got it wrong, he did, end of.

For at least the fifth time now, Morner claims that the IPCC falsified the figures. I have showed that they quoted them from the peer-reviewed papers to which I linked.

are you thick?

Morner claims the figures were falsified from 2003 onwards. The figures in those reports do not cover that time period.

It's like if Morner claimed figures were falsified in the 50's and you point me to a set of figures from the 90's to disprove. That report is irrelevent to Morner's claims.

I've addressed it several times already, despite the fact that your ignorant opinion of climate modeling is worth nothing. Here it is again: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

you havent addressed, youve just kept on posting up the same link without presumably even reading the piece I suggested you read from an expert in climate modelling.

I don't agree with the conclusions of that link, which even itself admits that the climate models are not 100%

you might want to read the comment by Poptech (no 21). Now I'm not a computer scientist and its entirely possible that neither is he, but if what he says is even remotely true then its pretty fucking damning.

Though I doubt youll bother to read it as you only appear to be prepared to read things that support your position

Failing that how about this peer reviewed article:

On the credibility of climate predictions

from the abstract:

"Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported."

 

[Signal 11]

thats not what we were discussing, again. We were discussing Hansen and whether he got it wrong, he did, end of.

State precisely what you are claiming he got wrong and precisely how you think it affects the case for climate change.

are you thick?

No, you are.

Morner claims the figures were falsified from 2003 onwards. The figures in those reports do not cover that time period.

I quoted the sea level rise figures from the IPCC's 2007 report. You quoted Morner's claim to dispute those figures. He said that the IPCC had falsified them. I showed that they had quoted them from peer-reviewed papers, which you can see do indeed contain the same figures that the IPCC quotes:

Numerous papers on the altimetry results (see Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, for a review) show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr*1 over 1993 to 2003

If you are now claiming that someone else's figures were falsified, that does not have any bearing on the IPCC figures that I quoted, which are correct. However, if you are claiming that, state precisely who falsified which figures and provide supporting evidence.

without presumably even reading the piece I suggested you read from an expert in climate modelling.

I have read his article and it was nothing but handwaving. If he actually had a case he would be providing examples with real world data and/or code, and he would be addressing it to scientists, not to the public in order to muddy the waters. His target audience is people like you who are desperate to believe that there is an "expert" who disagrees with the consensus, and do not have the ability to evaluate whether his claims have any merit, or the inclination to do any research.

I don't agree with the conclusions of that link

Your ignorant opinion is worth nothing.

which even itself admits that the climate models are not 100%

And explains why they do not need to be, and that the case for climate change does not depend on the models anyway:

There is a clear empirical evidence that CO2 is rising, CO2 causes warming and the expected warming is observed. This poses two problems for those who deny anthropogenic warming:

1. What is causing the warming if not CO2?
2. Why isn't rising CO2 causing the warming?

you might want to read the comment by Poptech

Summarise his argument in your own words, so that I can see if it will be worth the effort.

The results show that models perform poorly

Handwaving. State precisely what you mean by "poorly" and provide the data to support your claim. I have already shown that the models perform adequately for the purpose to which they are put. That is the consensus opinion among the relevant experts.

e2a, having looked at the paper: Again, these are not experts in climate modeling. "Department of Water Resources, Faculty of Civil Engineering". They are trying to match values from the models to a small number of specific geographical locations, not at all what climate modeling is about. Again, this is the same "weather vs climate" fallacy as before.

 

[smokedout]

State precisely what you are claiming he got wrong and precisely how you think it affects the case for climate change.

again?

ok, he got it wrong that 1998 was the hottest recorded US temperature and that the 90's recorded 8 of the hottest years on record in the last century

it affects the case for climate change by showing that even one of the most famous climitologist in the world has made mistakes

Originally Posted by IPCC, 2007
Numerous papers on the altimetry results (see Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, for a review) show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr*1 over 1993 to 2003
If you are now claiming that someone else's figures were falsified, that does not have any bearing on the IPCC figures that I quoted, which are correct. However, if you are claiming that, state precisely who falsified which figures and provide supporting evidence.

you're too funny. Morner doesn't say which report or paper he is referring to, he just says a graph on the IPCC website as part of an anecdote, so I've no idea how you seem to know which set of figures he's referring to

and then after I point out that Morner says the figures from 2003 showed a strong uplift

and once again you point me to a set of figures that end in 2003 to disprove him

i bet the IPCC are really glad they have such a keen intellect as yourself promoting their cause

I have read his article and it was nothing but handwaving. If he actually had a case he would be providing examples with real world data and/or code, and he would be addressing it to scientists, not to the public in order to muddy the waters. His target audience is people like you who are desperate to believe that there is an "expert" who disagrees with the consensus, and do not have the ability to evaluate whether his claims have any merit, or the inclination to do any research.

of course, the former Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute is targetting people like me as part of some mysterious plot the motive of which can only be guessed at

and youve accused me of conspiracy theory

Summarise his argument in your own words, so that I can see if it will be worth the effort.

no, read it, why the fuck should i

Handwaving. State precisely what you mean by "poorly" and provide the data to support your claim. I have already shown that the models perform adequately for the purpose to which they are put. That is the consensus opinion among the relevant experts.

why thanks you for linking to the same page on an amateur scientists website for possibly the fifth time

and a peer reviewed study can be dismissed as handwaving now can it

e2a, having looked at the paper: Again, these are not experts in climate modeling. "Department of Water Resources, Faculty of Civil Engineering". They are trying to match values from the models to a small number of specific geographical locations, not at all what climate modeling is about. Again, this is the same "weather vs climate" fallacy as before.

well its good to know that lil old signal 11 is more qualified and competent to review a paper after a quick skim read than the peer review process which up until now you've held as sacrosant

i think you should stop now because i for one cant be bothered with your nonsense and hypocrisy anymore

 

[Signal 11]

he got it wrong that 1998 was the hottest recorded US temperature

Liar.

Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

and that the 90's recorded 8 of the hottest years on record in the last century

Liar.

Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

it affects the case for climate change by showing that even one of the most famous climitologist in the world has made mistakes

You've already used this fallacy several times before.

Morner doesn't say which report or paper he is referring to

State precisely which report you are referring to, or withdraw your claim. You were the one who linked his comments to this report by quoting them to challenge the figures I quoted from the report.

I've no idea how you seem to know which set of figures he's referring to

Because, as I've already explained, he says he is talking about the satellite altimetry data, which is precisely what the IPCC and the papers I linked to are talking about.

and once again you point me to a set of figures that end in 2003 to disprove him

I quoted the IPCC's sea level rise figures in response to your lie that they were not rising. You used Morner's CT to dispute those figures. I have demonstrated several times that those figures are quoted from the peer reviewed papers, so your use of Morner to challenge them is entirely without merit.

no, read it, why the fuck should i

Because it's clear that you keep asking me to read things that you either have not read or have not understood. So far every one of them has been worthless.

why thanks you for linking to the same page on an amateur scientists website for possibly the fifth time

Which, as I've already explained, references all its claims to expert sources.

well its good to know that lil old signal 11 is more qualified and competent to review a paper after a quick skim read than the peer review process which up until now you've held as sacrosant

It was not peer-reviewed in a relevant journal, but in the "Hydrological Sciences Journal". Besides which, the peer-review process does not guarantee that a paper is correct -- merely that it doesn't contain obvious errors. It certainly does not guarantee that the conclusions people draw from the paper are correct. In this case, the paper was correct in what it said -- climate models do not predict the weather. But that is entirely irrelevant to the case you are trying to make from it.

 

[smokedout]

Liar.
Quote:
Contrary to some statements flying around the internet, there is no effect on the rankings of global temperature.

the key word there being global, when ive pointed out several times that I was referring to US temperatures

you just love calling people liars dont you

You've already used this fallacy several times before.

i wasnt saying that science has been wrong, I was pointing out that climatologists have been wrong before (without even mentioning the impending ice age reported in the 70s)

State precisely which report you are referring to, or withdraw your claim. You were the one who linked his comments to this report by quoting them to challenge the figures I quoted from the report.

I.don't. know. which. report. Morner. is. referring. to.

as Ive repeatedly pointed out, you made an assumption, I pointed out that it was unlikely to be the one you quoted because that wasnt even in the same time scale as the period during which Morner made his allegations and you 5 times persisted to tell me that your report refuted Morners claims

I quoted the IPCC's sea level rise figures in response to your lie that they were not rising. You used Morner's CT to dispute those figures. I have demonstrated several times that those figures are quoted from the peer reviewed papers, so your use of Morner to challenge them is entirely without merit.

yes of cousre because a former President of INQUA is a crank and a liar

just like the former director of research at the Netherlands Meteorogical Centre is involved in some shadowy conspiracy to discredit global warming

It was not peer-reviewed in a relevant journal, but in the "Hydrological Sciences Journal".

oh dear, now youre really reaching

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability.

Id say that was pretty relevent wouldn't you

its entirely proper for other diciplines to criticise models that are not used exclusively for climatology - youve said with much bluster that no peer reviewed paper has appeared which disputes man made climate change

now one has, coincidentally published two days ago on the exact same point of attack I was proposing

which I understand must have narked you off a bit and now you seems to be saying they are wrong

why not write a paper then and prove it

 

[Signal 11]

the key word there being global, when ive pointed out several times that I was referring to US temperatures

It didn't make any difference to the US temperature rankings either, as I've already shown. Not that it would have had the slightest relevance to the question of climate change anyway, as I've already explained.

Also our prior analysis had 1934 as the warmest year in the U.S. (see the 2001 paper above), and it continues to be the warmest year, both before and after the correction to post 2000 temperatures

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

i wasnt saying that science has been wrong, I was pointing out that climatologists have been wrong before

The fact that they had to make an insignificant correction to some of the US temperature figures does not have any bearing on the case for climate change.

(without even mentioning the impending ice age reported in the 70s)

Which has already been debunked.

I.don't. know. which. report. Morner. is. referring. to.

You used his quote to dispute the sea level rise figures from the IPCC's 2007 report. If he was not referring to that report, then his comments were irrelevant. If he was referring to that report, then he is wrong, as I have repeatedly shown, because the IPCC sourced those figures from the peer-reviewed papers.

Id say that was pretty relevent wouldn't you

No, it says that climate models do not predict the weather. That is irrelevant, since climate scientists do not use them to predict the weather.

why not write a paper then and prove it

I don't see any need to. My assessment of it is that it won't make any difference to the scientific consensus. However, if it does I will be happy to accept it.

youve said with much bluster that no peer reviewed paper has appeared which disputes man made climate change

I quoted a paper which stated that none of the papers on global climate change in its review period of 1993-2003 rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. This latest paper you have linked to does not dispute that either.

As I've already said, the case for climate change does not depend on the models anyway:
There is a clear empirical evidence that CO2 is rising, CO2 causes warming and the expected warming is observed. This poses two problems for those who deny anthropogenic warming:

1. What is causing the warming if not CO2?
2. Why isn't rising CO2 causing the warming?

 

[smokedout]

You used his quote to dispute the sea level rise figures from the IPCC's 2007 report. If he was not referring to that report, then his comments were irrelevant. If he was referring to that report, then he is wrong, as I have repeatedly shown, because the IPCC sourced those figures from the peer-reviewed papers.

that report contains data up until 2003 - he claims the data was falsified from 2003 onwards - which makes it pretty clear hes not referring to that report and why that report is irrelevent

this is my last statement on this topic because if you cant grasp that very simple fact then i see no real point in debating with you

just to clarify, he didnt claim the data was falsified in that report, he claimed the data was falsified after that report was published

i really dont know how to explain it to you any simpler than that, perhaps you could ask a trusted friend to read it out loud for you and maybe then it will make more sense

The fact that they had to make an insignificant correction to some of the US temperature figures does not have any bearing on the case for climate change.

when did i say it did, it does however have some bearing on the case for the models being flawed

Which has already been debunked.

no it hasnt, several of the handful of climatologists who were around in the 70's predicted a new ice age as that link makes clear

No, it says that climate models do not predict the weather. That is irrelevant, since climate scientists do not use them to predict the weather.

from the abstract:

The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale.

ill address your two later points tomorrow because im bored of this and tired

interesting though that you now say the models which you have previously defended are no longer important

 

[smokedout]

1. What is causing the warming if not CO2?

i will answer that though, prefectly normal climatic variations as have been observed since records began and prior to that as best as we can tell from ice core samples for millions of years

 

[Signal 11]

that report contains data up until 2003 - he claims the data was falsified from 2003 onwards - which makes it pretty clear hes not referring to that report

You quoted Morner as saying:

Now, back to satellite altimetry. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in [the IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed

That appears to be the same data the IPCC report is talking about:

Numerous papers on the altimetry results (see Cazenave and Nerem, 2004, for a review) show a current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr*1 over 1993 to 2003

and why that report is irrelevent

The report was relevant because I quoted the figures from it in response to your claim that the sea levels are not rising. You quoted Morner after that to dispute those figures. If you are now saying that Morner was not referring to that report, then you no longer have anything to dispute those figures. State unambiguously whether you now accept the sea level rise figures from that report, or alternatively, whether you still maintain that Morner's quote disputes them -- and if so state precisely how it disputes them, including precisely whom you are accusing of falsifying the data and precisely which data.

just to clarify, he didnt claim the data was falsified in that report, he claimed the data was falsified after that report was published

That report was published in 2007. And if anyone had falsified the data after the report was published, then the data would no longer agree with the report, but in fact it does agree, as you can see.

when did i say it did, it does however have some bearing on the case for the models being flawed

It didn't have anything to do with the models, it was about the temperature readings. Maybe you'd like to actually read it this time:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html

no it hasnt, several of the handful of climatologists who were around in the 70's predicted a new ice age as that link makes clear

The point being that they were in the minority. So there is no analogy to the current consensus on climate change.

from the abstract: The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale.

That is still talking about predicting the temperatures of specific locations, not a global average.

interesting though that you now say the models which you have previously defended are no longer important

They are an important tool for climate scientists and they've been quite successful, but they are not important to the case for climate change.

 

[Signal 11]

i will answer that though, prefectly normal climatic variations as have been observed since records began and prior to that as best as we can tell from ice core samples for millions of years

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.

And again, I didn't ask you to just wave your hands, I asked for the specific cause(s). And I want to see proper sources, not just your opinion unless you've suddenly become an expert again.

Here is the solar data -- Max Planck Institute reconstruction and direct satellite measurements -- which does not show anything that could explain the recent warming trend.

 

[durruti02]

smoked you ignored my last post to you .. what about this .. why do you think there is there a consensus of scientists in favour of a human cause of climate change?

 

[smokedout]

im not convinced there is a consensus

 

[moon23]

I decided a long time ago I wasn't going to goto the climate camp. In part becuase I spend a lot of my time campaigning against ID cards and I like to stay focused one campaign. Now though i'm watching it unfold I have a strong desire to hop on a train after work tomorrow and head on down. Who else who has stayed at home feels a simlair pull!

 

[free spirit]

I decided a long time ago I wasn't going to goto the climate camp. In part becuase I spend a lot of my time campaigning against ID cards and I like to stay focused one campaign. Now though i'm watching it unfold I have a strong desire to hop on a train after work tomorrow and head on down. Who else who has stayed at home feels a simlair pull!

yep... seriously considering hitching down, got a fucked back though so probably not sensible.

I'd got totally mixed up and thought it was my mates wedding this weekend, so had given up on the idea... was only last week I realised the wedding was the weekend after, but was a bit late by then - plus to be honest I seriously disagree with their line on carbon capture and storage, but maybe I should have been there to argue the case.

 

[durruti02]

I decided a long time ago I wasn't going to goto the climate camp. In part becuase I spend a lot of my time campaigning against ID cards and I like to stay focused one campaign. Now though i'm watching it unfold I have a strong desire to hop on a train after work tomorrow and head on down. Who else who has stayed at home feels a simlair pull!

me very much so .. cept i've had a bug so off work so couldn't have gone

 

[durruti02]

yep... seriously considering hitching down, got a fucked back though so probably not sensible.

I'd got totally mixed up and thought it was my mates wedding this weekend, so had given up on the idea... was only last week I realised the wedding was the weekend after, but was a bit late by then - plus to be honest I seriously disagree with their line on carbon capture and storage, but maybe I should have been there to argue the case.

fair play .. but i do not think we have to agree on all the bits to accept that a new generation on CONVENTIONAL stations is nuts .. i agree with scargill on using some coal as part of a transition .. the new station at kingsnorth is just wrong

 

[durruti02]

im not convinced there is a consensus

there is a consensus whether you agree with it or like it or not .. royal society IPCC etc etc etc THAT is a consensus

so i ask again why???

 

[moon23]

Well i'm anti new coal but with Lovelock in the pro-nuclear green camp. I think i'd have a hard time arguing that! Looked at train times and I couldn't get there untill 21:30 tomorrow so walking to the camp in the dark and getting stoped and searched whilst on my own doesn't sound too appealling. Maybe I could go stuff some leaflets about ID cards through some letter boxes so I felt I was doing something usefull lol

 

[schmoo]

I went last year and will not be wasting my time again. If the 'climate camp' is meant to be an example of a sustainable future then humanity is doomed for sure. More seriously the main thing that is wrong is they are selling the idea that climate change can be stopped which is a bit like believing in reincarnation when you have terminal cancer. Why can't we concentrate on stuff that is actually possible like stopping toxic pollution, promoting recycling, ending poverty, cutting meat consumption and growing our own food? This climate change bandwaggoning is a total red herring, mostly hysteria and a waste of everyone's energy. In a few years time we will look back and say 'How could so many intelligent people, especially self proclaimed 'green' nature lovers, believe that humanity is more powerful than nature? The answer is that they are mostly urban dwellers who have a highly sentimental and romantic view of nature. In other words they have no idea of how nature actually functions. Even if climate change is just caused by human activity, which is very unlikely, the idea that we can halt the melting of the ice caps etc is laughable (if it was not so serious). We can hardly tell what the weather is going to be like tomorrow much less change it. We should be preparing for the inevitable disasters to come, not kidding ourselves we can stop it. So far every 'green' solution has been a total con (ie bio fuels, carbon offsetting) and now George Mombidiot recons nuclear power is the solution!!!! The only people to profit from all this phoney but toxic 'green' baloney are the big corporations - so if you go to support the climate change camp, just remember you are helping the likes of Shell Oil company make millions from carbon trading while they go on polluting the planet unchallenged.

 

[free spirit]

fair play .. but i do not think we have to agree on all the bits to accept that a new generation on CONVENTIONAL stations is nuts .. i agree with scargill on using some coal as part of a transition .. the new station at kingsnorth is just wrong

no arguement from me about building new coal fired power stations without CCS being wrong, I just spent an afternoon last week reading the paper put together to support climate camp, and as far as I'm concerned their stance on carbon capture and storage is at least as wrongheaded.

I've done my time being harrassed by police in fields in support of groups of well meaning, but not very well researched protestors who's naive PR tactics mean that the wrong message get's out, and consensus decision making means that the views of those who've just gone along for the ride are as important as someone who's studied the subject closely for over a decade, when it comes to deciding policy / banner messages etc.

hope it goes well and all that, and it's good that you're all raising a decent level of awareness about the new build coal programme, but you're doing yourselves and the cause generally no favours by taking an anti technology stance in regards to CCS.

as I've previously pointed out, if the climate camp was to be pushing the message of no new coal without CCS, then you'd have the support of pretty much every serious energy analyst, fuel policy researcher, climate scientist etc. in the country behind you, and public opinion would also be easy to swing fully behind this cause to the point where the government would be forced to fund a pilot commercial scale CCS plant, and place a moratorium on any new coal fired plants until the success or otherwise of the pilot CCS plant could be established.

as things stand though you have a whole series of serious people lining up to agree with you on the insanity of building new conventional coal plants, but then going on to disagree with you seriously, and quite frankly make you all look like naive idiots, for your stance on CCS.

never mind getting the miners offside, which was a serious tactical error IMO.

 

[moon23]

I went last year and will not be wasting my time again. If the 'climate camp' is meant to be an example of a sustainable future then humanity is doomed for sure. More seriously the main thing that is wrong is they are selling the idea that climate change can be stopped which is a bit like believing in reincarnation when you have terminal cancer. Why can't we concentrate on stuff that is actually possible like stopping toxic pollution, promoting recycling, ending poverty, cutting meat consumption and growing our own food? This climate change bandwaggoning is a total red herring, mostly hysteria and a waste of everyone's energy. In a few years time we will look back and say 'How could so many intelligent people, especially self proclaimed 'green' nature lovers, believe that humanity is more powerful than nature? The answer is that they are mostly urban dwellers who have a highly sentimental and romantic view of nature. In other words they have no idea of how nature actually functions. Even if climate change is just caused by human activity, which is very unlikely, the idea that we can halt the melting of the ice caps etc is laughable (if it was not so serious). We can hardly tell what the weather is going to be like tomorrow much less change it. We should be preparing for the inevitable disasters to come, not kidding ourselves we can stop it. So far every 'green' solution has been a total con (ie bio fuels, carbon offsetting) and now George Mombidiot recons nuclear power is the solution!!!! The only people to profit from all this phoney but toxic 'green' baloney are the big corporations - so if you go to support the climate change camp, just remember you are helping the likes of Shell Oil company make millions from carbon trading while they go on polluting the planet unchallenged.

Total muddled thinking here. How can you accuse the Climate Camp for helping Shell make money from carbon trading?

Sorry but Humans are part of nature too, why wouldn't we have an infulence on it/us?

I'm sorry but it's hard to swallow and advice from someone who equates our scientific abilitly to predict short term weather patterns with our abililty to detact long terms trends.