Climate Change Hoax??

[Austrokiwi]

I think most people will agree it is having an effect.
The problem is that some people think it will have a dramatic, life threatening, "the sea will rise by 2 meters next year" effect which is a bit hard to believe.

I will repeat I believe we should be living our lives to ensure that when we exit this existence we leave the place better than when we entered it. The issue for me with people who categorical deny global warming is that if they dictate what happens and are wrong the consequencies are horrific. It seems to me that the global warming point of view if wrong is less damaging.


Put it another was of the people on this thread who believe Global warming is rubbish how many of them would allow a nuclear reactor to be built with in 100 km of where they live. My bet is they would object strongly. the reason being is that although Nuclear reactors are extremely safe (compared to other industrial process's) the consequencies of an accident are such that very few ( in NZ) would tolerate a nuclear reactor in their backyard

[Bob Kane]

I imagine Popular Mechanics must have a view on global warming?

And did I read recently that nuclear power will be one of the solutions to CO2 emissions? Something about zero carbon footprint.
Who would have thought that good ol' nuclear power was going to save the planet?

[Austrokiwi]

I imagine Popular Mechanics must have a view on global warming?

And did I read recently that nuclear power will be one of the solutions to CO2 emissions? Something about zero carbon footprint.
Who would have thought that good ol' nuclear power was going to save the planet?

LOL. I will have to say I support Nuclear power............When you do a search of Nuclear accidents the no nukes and greenie sites are most misleading as they list only power plant related accidents. If they were more logical they would include all nuclear materials accidents. I think the average person would be shocked at how many non reactor related radiological accidents occur each year.

A few years ago There were a few fatal incidents involving orphaned sources in eastern Europe. One involved a couple of hunters who in mid winter came across a cylinder that was radiating heat. They decided to sleep next to it instead of building a fire. They were extremely badly burn't and died within a week. Another involved a eastern European hitchhiker who was discovered at a border check point ( I think it was on the east Slovakian border) The border guards noticed he looked terrible and seem extremely ill. They called a doctor and then discovered to their horror he was carrying a orphaned source in his back pack. He died they luckily were not overly exposed. Don't think it is limited to eastern Europe though.

Now that doesn't even cover the medically related radiological accidents. NZ is not nuclear free! In a number of locations NZ has extremely dangerous radioactive sources all related to cancer treatment. Across the world and I wouldn't mind betting in NZ, there are incidents involving inappropriate disposal or exposure of/to Medical radiological sources.

Now of course the anti nuke lobbists will never attack Medical radiation as they know they will loose.

[Jumpin]

It would be nice to think that there was a magic bullet but the truth is there just isnt enough nuclear fuel in the world to power enough reactors to make a difference.

Re the stolen emails - Healthy debate between scientists is at the heart of the scientific method. Theorising and cross examining. The truth is there is a lot of ongoing research because the answers arent all known. Personally I still sit on the fence, although I am leaning towards anthropogenic influence. Warming is occuring undoubtedly. The only doubt is over the cause.

[flyernzl]

Yeah, right. On the news today:

NIWA is predicting summer will be cooler than usual, with average or below average temperatures across the country

1 December 2009
Hold off on thoughts of a long, hot summer - NIWA is predicting it is likely to be a cooler one than usual.

It has released its climate outlook for the next three months.

Temperatures are likely to be average or below average across the country, with conditions predicted to be cooler in south and drier in the northeast.

[Austrokiwi]

I,m in the same camp as you "Jumpin" I have been in Europe for 9 years. Now that is not long enough to really know if something is happening. But what is noticeable is the following:


Spring appears to becoming earlier and winter is coming later. From 2000-2003 this time of the year saw at least 10 cm of snow permanently on the ground and -10 to -20 degrees (c) The last few years have been remarkable. This year in particular:
The trees in our garden only lost their leaves 2 weeks ago. In the past it was beginning of October. We are have above 10 degree temperatures nearly every other day, and have not had a single frost yet. The good thing about this is our heating bill is going to be substantially less than last year.

The other thing is the local river hasn't frozen yet . Last year we only had two weeks of safe Ice skating instead of the "usual" 6-8 weeks. IMHO for those living in Vienna Global warming does seem more probable than for those living in NZ. The reason for that is as Austria is an Alpine state variations in Climate are much more noticeable, Where as New Zealand climate is buffered by the Pacific Ocean and many changes are moderated considerably. In other words the climatic changes are more obvious to Europeans than those living in NZ.

[One]

The people I know in Europe certainly seem to take climate change more seriously than NZers. Nothing like having the evidence close at hand.

To Austrokiwi's list, I'd add the melting of the Arctic. Not so bad this year as in the last few, but still pretty bad:

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8261953.stm
"Recently, scientists specialising in reconstructing past temperatures released data showing that the current decade is the warmest in the Arctic for at least 2,000 years."

And from April: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041003071.html
"According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the maximum extent of the winter sea ice cover for 2008-09 was the fifth-lowest on record. Underscoring their point, the agencies added, "The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-09)."

That's NASA reporting the situation - we're not talking fringe organisations here.

[Steve Netwriter]

What I find so funny about global warming skeptics is that they always seem to be in total denial or desperately trying to find flaws in whatever publications they can get their hands on, or now even leaking emails - it's just hilarious.
If you had a solid case then you wouldn't have to merely be picking on your opponent would you...?

You typically don't hear a skeptic saying why they believe humans don't contribute to warming - they just blatantly deny any effect without giving a reason, as already demonstrated by several posters in this thread.
So, is it because you guys believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?
Come on, please enlighten us as to how we are able to suddenly release all the carbon from the fossil fuels which were initially slowly deposited over millions of years, without any effect?

No Rolf, on a topic of this importance, the "burden of proof" is on those who theorise that CO2 can affect temperature.

I quote Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Institute of Technology and leading climate scientist:

If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office.

http://climaterealists.com/?id=4504

and

the need for public credibility, and transparency, has dramatically increased in recent years as the policy relevance of climate research has increased

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/

The opposite of skeptic is gullible.

I think it is you who is in denial. This seems appropriate:

Denial (also called abnegation) is a defence mechanism postulated by Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

The evidence for my claim is:

http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421

and

http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2420

and on main stream media (MSM) bias:

http://www.neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2445

At the very minimum, the above shows:

1. The science is not settled, and there are genuine questions.
2. There is clear MSM bias.

On #2 I think everyone should seriously ask themselves why.

[mortgage broker]

Steve if there is no global warming, do you think it is a good idea to keep chopping down forests and burning fossil fuels?

At the end of the day there are a lot of things we are changing in the environment, things which are irreversible. Is it not a good idea to slow this down?

[Steve Netwriter]

Steve if there is no global warming, do you think it is a good idea to keep chopping down forests and burning fossil fuels?

At the end of the day there are a lot of things we are changing in the environment, things which are irreversible. Is it not a good idea to slow this down?

Hi,
To be precise, there will almost always be either "global warming" or "global cooling". On a geological timescale, you can see that the planet is dynamic, and I think one could argue only in a short-term 'non changing state' at the turns between warming/cooling.

I mention this because I think it's an important point. I get the impression that many think we should "stop global warming". The Earth is not a static thing. If it wants to warm, it will warm. We just need to live with that.



We are at the far right at the bottom. In an ice age.
Note the far higher level of CO2 during the first ice age shown on the left.

Personally, I hate seeing a tree chopped down. I am pro caring for our planet. I like to see lots of 'nature'.
I am anti pollution. I am in favour of minimising that.

CO2 is a natural and very important gas. Without it we would all die. There is only 0.036% by volume in the atmosphere. That is actually close to the lowest level on a geological timescale.
If anything I would be more worried about there not being enough.

I do think that peak oil is a serious issue. I think we urgently need to get the true numbers so we can assess the situation. Our economy depends upon oil. If the demand starts to outstrip supply, prices with rocket and our economic system will not be able to grow. This will be an issue for our financial system which only works with growth, and increasing debt/money supply.
I am anti growth because it is fundamentally unsustainable. We have to plan for a no growth system, and the need may be quite urgent.

Listen to David Bellamy. He is a very famous active environmentalist.
I haven't yet heard him say anything I disagree with. I refuse to be labelled, but I guess I am quite close in views to his.

This is the best one IMO:

http://neuralnetwriter.cylo42.com/node/2421?page=9#comment-2357

but there are some others above.

I am concerned that most environmentalists have latched onto CO2, and that CO2 is not the real issue. Probably most other issues they are concerned about I agree with.

I am repeatedly trying to get this point over.
Global warming "skeptics" are not anti-environment. Far from it.
They just have a very slightly different view.

In fact, I have a suspicion that those who are anti CO2, and anti big business, have unknowingly consorted with big business.
Just look at who had funded the CRU research. Shell for example. Where do you think the ETS system comes from?

That makes all the "oh the skeptics are just paid by big oil" claims look very very silly.
I'm still trying to fit the pieces of that part of the puzzle.

[Austrokiwi]

The ostrich is at it again: Oxygen is a very important gas too but too much of it will kill. CO2 is a poison. What is important is the carbon cycle. Look at Stevenet swriters graph. Look at the periods of High CO2 that is at an early development of life on Earth plants locked the CO2 up died and through time were converted to the oil we are now harvesting today. We are now returning that Co2 back nto the atmosphere. Whats a reasonable assumption if we return the CO2 back to the levels of millenia ago isn't it reasonable to expect that the climate will return to the same conditions of those times.

Therefore This would involve higher average global temperatures and higher sea levels ...and antartica and Greenland would be free of ice again. Stevenet writers graph suggests global warming will happen................It seems to me a ridiculous position to state that we return the environment back to the paleozoic era and the climate will remain the same as the cenozoic.

[cube]

Stevenet writers graph suggests global warming will happen................It seems to me a ridiculous position to state that we return the environment back to the paleozoic era and the climate will remain the same as the cenozoic.

Your assumption is that anything mankind can do will ultimately have any effect on what the planet will do of it's own accord.

[Austrokiwi]

Your assumption is that anything mankind can do will ultimately have any effect on what the planet will do of it's own accord.

Are you saying youer assumption is that man has no effect on the environment. I suggest you look at James Loveridges theories. Not I am not saying that Global warming is happening. I am not that arrogant! My last post was trying to point out the faults in Stevenet writers view. Stevenet appears to be arrogant enough to say "I am right they are wrong" and That degree of arrogance in my mind is dangerous.

Taking this point further in Stevenet writers blog ( he posted a link to it) He makes it clear that he does not believe the dead sea is drying up. Given that It is a proved fact ( and has nothing to do with Global warming) and the countries in the region are actively trying to find a solution to this man made problem I am astounded Stevenetwriter is denying it.

The reason the dead sea is drying up is due to the diversion of water from the Jordan River and other streams to support settlements and Agriculture. This has reduced the inflow of water into the dead sea( its more of a lake). to the point that the inflow of water no longer supports the current water level. Natural evaporation and industrial chemical production ( using dead sea water) combined with the substantively reduced inflows is removing water that seas the seas level dropping at a rate of .5 metre per year.

Every time I return to the dead sea I can see the drop from the previous times I have been there. ( by the way this factual example shows how mans activities effect the environment). There are other adverse effects that are occuring as a result of this. As the seas level drops the soil surrounding the lake drys out, the salt left erodes the structure of the soil and huge sink holes develop this have enveloped small villages roads with loss of life

[Rolf]

I asked a simple question, and I still wonder if this mud slinging and nagging is the best you sceptics can come up with. Steve, you even seem to have an entire blog devoted to this, but with no real hard arguments as far as I can see.

No Rolf, on a topic of this importance, the "burden of proof" is on those who theorise that CO2 can affect temperature.

You are just avoiding the real question here. It's completely illogical to claim it would not have any effect, and as such the burden of proof certainly lies with the ones making such a claim.
As Austro has pointed out repeatedly and as I also asked earlier, why do you believe we should be able to suddenly release all the carbon from the fossil fuels which were initially slowly deposited over millions of years, without any effect?
I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know exactly what effect it will have, but those who think it doesn't are the ones in denial. And they need to answer this question, rather than point fingers just because some scientists argue.

It's a simple question, so please just answer it if you are able to.

[Steve Netwriter]

I asked a simple question, and I still wonder if this mud slinging and nagging is the best you sceptics can come up with. Steve, you even seem to have an entire blog devoted to this, but with no real hard arguments as far as I can see.


You are just avoiding the real question here. It's completely illogical to claim it would not have any effect, and as such the burden of proof certainly lies with the ones making such a claim.
As Austro has pointed out repeatedly and as I also asked earlier, why do you believe we should be able to suddenly release all the carbon from the fossil fuels which were initially slowly deposited over millions of years, without any effect?
I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know exactly what effect it will have, but those who think it doesn't are the ones in denial. And they need to answer this question, rather than point fingers just because some scientists argue.

It's a simple question, so please just answer it if you are able to.

No Rolf, on a topic of this importance, the "burden of proof" is on those who theorise that CO2 can affect temperature....to any significant degree.

Your characterisation of the situation is very biased. There are many scientists who are skeptical of the claims made by the "alarmists".

The burden of proof is on the "alarmists".

Just because you "feel" that "all that CO2" should cause a big effect doesn't mean it does. Science does not operate on "gut feel".

Public opinion is turning against the "alarmist" stance. But opinion is not science either.

What I ask for is good science. My thread exposes very questionable science.
If you are in denial of that, I can't help you.