Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hey, you are the bugger who has found something to condemn every expert that has been quoted against your dogmas. I look intio the resume of one and I am accused of character assassination. Piss off!
Singer is not on the payroll of Exxon Mobil. He never has been. He has worked for them in the past (quite some tiime ago) as a consultant and must have been paid a fee for his services but you obviously believe he shouldn't have done that.
Can we accept that it's plain as day that both sides have agendas and knock all this ad hominem bitching on the head?
Regarding the graphs that purport to show the link between CO2 and warming, the scale is such that I'm unable to determine what drives what.
What comes first? Again the scale isn't clear enough to distinguish, or maybe it's my eyesight.
Is this lad worthy of respect? Certainly from what I've read from the IPCC report thus far it's a reasonable comment.
I enjoyed the debate under this blog.
Here.
Cut and paste jobby:
A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fluctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation. But what it is not correct, is to say the temperature rose and then 800 years later the CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5000 to 10000 years (the coolings lasted ~100kyrs) so for the majority of that time (~90%) temperature and CO2 rose together. This means that this wonderful archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause while also revealing it can be an effect.
The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight in the northern hemisphere. This is a very small forcing. But it caused ice to retreat in the north which changed the albedo increasing the warmth in a feedback effect. Some ~800 years after this process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise and this also amplified the warming trend even further as another feedback mechanism.
.
One side is supported by reams and reams of hard facts from decades of measurements that are drawn from numerous sources and disciplines, the other side is not. I mean, not even close.Can we accept that it's plain as day that both sides have agendas and knock all this ad hominem bitching on the head?
Well Vincent Gray - pretty much out on his own here, even amongst deniers - believe that the globe isn't even warming, that there is no temperature rise to speak of.Is this lad worthy of respect? Certainly from what I've read from the IPCC report thus far it's a reasonable comment.
Surely if you're going to use spurious claims of bias against the Chairman as a means of discrediting the IPCC process as a whole, you should be aware of and understand his role?
"And for your information, Jimmy Krankie is not a ginger midget, but an auburn individual with height 'issues'".
This is quite a good leaflet on the basic scientific case from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. It contains references to the peer-reviewed studies in scientific journals on which its facts are founded: Link
This is another good website covering all of the main scientific issues at a basic level as well as explaining what the IPCC is and does, and the importance of studies being published in peer-reviewed journals: Link
Anything which says over 5000, 10000 and 100000 years is a bit iffy. How do they know anything about before records began? Educated guesswork is still guesswork.
One side is supported by reams and reams of hard facts from decades of measurements that are drawn from numerous sources and disciplines, the other side is not. I mean, not even close.
To be honest I think this is by far and away the most salient detail
Do you really want to enter this discussion, with that post, after everything that has been posted already? Have you read any of it?
Thats what gets me about this topic, most people will ask the questions but never read the answers, they prefer to believe some polemic article written by an unqualified economist or journalist making soundbite remarks about something they have done very little research in, or believing some incredibly poor pseudo documentary like global warming swindle, without ever looking in to the evidence that resulted in the scientific consensus being reached.
Do you really want to enter this discussion, with that post, after everything that has been posted already? Have you read any of it?
Thats what gets me about this topic, most people will ask the questions but never read the answers, they prefer to believe some polemic article written by an unqualified economist or journalist making soundbite remarks about something they have done very little research in, or believing some incredibly poor pseudo documentary like global warming swindle, without ever looking in to the evidence that resulted in the scientific consensus being reached.
Admittedly I've barely scratched the surface but all that is readily apparent to me so far is that there is convincing evidence that the World undergoes dramatic changes of climate. At this stage in my own personal education the jury is still out regarding our part in the current trend.
I've E mailed Vince and asked for his comments on this thread.
That's a tad harsh Joe, you've had the benefit of a lot of reading around the subject while many of us are in almost complete ignorance.
That's a tad harsh Joe, you've had the benefit of a lot of reading around the subject while many of us are in almost complete ignorance.
Thats my point, if people are prepared to read the responses, great. Too many people ask the same questions over and over without ever reading the answers they are given or taking the time to do their own research. It doesnt apply to you, you seem to want to learn more and i'm more than happy to spend time answering them. i'm applying it to those who come ijn at this stage in the thread, having not read a bit of it, asking the same old tired questions that have already been answered, i'm applying it to the likes of those who ripped in to me saying i was proved wrong on the night that swindle documentary was aired.
"Are you seriously still arguing the case for global warming after that?" was one question. The documentary has since been shot down in flames and torn apart piece by piece, but that didnt make many headlines. It can be a bit frustrating, when the debate should have moved forward a long time ago, but we still fiddle while Rome burns. We are the modern day Hamlet, we know we have to act, but havent got the balls to do it until its too late.
I'm not denying global warming or owt like that, just saying that even if it's educated, it's still guesswork. Something may be suspected to have lasted 5000 years but it's suspicion rather than fact as studies haven't been conducted for that long.
People need to chill out.
"Are you seriously still arguing the case for global warming after that?" was one question. The documentary has since been shot down in flames and torn apart piece by piece, but that didnt make many headlines. It can be a bit frustrating, when the debate should have moved forward a long time ago, but we still fiddle while Rome burns. We are the modern day Hamlet, we know we have to act, but havent got the balls to do it until its too late.
Fair comment, but in mitigation if it's the lad's first appearance there's an awful lot of stuff to take in. My poor owld heed's battered and I'm accustomed to wading through crap. :-D
I honestly don't know where Joe and Medulla, to give just two examples, get their patience from. I've stopped responding to Tony because basically it's a waste of time. He counters masses of entirely credible peer-reviewed articles with random sound bites seemingly written by characters even more batty than himself.
Can anyone recall any significant situation in recent times where virtually the whole of the global scientific community demonstrated similar mass delusion, or decended into loss-of-funding-fuelled mendacity, or were just plain wrong?
Some random sound bites:
I've run over my 10,000 characters
.
And some of your soundbites may be construed as random.
Even if it can't be prevented, isn't it worth doing everything possible to contain it?Better brains than mine or yours claim that if Global Warming is taking place then none of the really puny efforts by mankind can do a blind bloody thing to prevent it.
Isn't it called climate change (not global warming) for a reason, in that some bits of the planet will warm, while others will cool (eg. in response to redirected or disappearing ocean currents like the gulf stream), and there will be increasingly extreme weather all over the place?A degree warmer in hot climates will be accompanied by a degree warmer in all climates even the most frigid. Is this going to be a disaster?
See above. It's climate change - record coldness counts. I can't remember another period in my life where every passing season or even month sets a new climatic record in some respect in some major part of the world. And I'm living in the middle of one of them here in Australia, as are those in the UK, as I posted (which was just passing on a fact reported by the BBC).For HBT: February this year has been devastatingly cold in China in case you haven't heard. But if you are referring only to UK temperatures then what was the point in the post? And since we have another 14.5 days to go till the end of February your post seems utterly irrelevant to me.
Not sure what you are saying or why any of that is relevant.BTW the original ":snigger: " was posted by you in response to piece of garbage humour by our resident "Sexual Intellectual" that was directed at me. [GK please note!]
Singer, an electrical engineer and physicist and leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.
In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior.SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have received generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis.
Singer wrote the Leipzig Declaration in 1996, arguing that there was no scientific consensus on global warming and therefore no grounds for an international agreement regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Singer claimed the Declaration was signed by "more than 100 European and American climate scientists". In fact, most of the signers were not climate experts, and many were not scientists.
Source: "A Fred of All Trades," Ozone Action, 1999
A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine — including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon — met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.[24]
In 1960, Singer proposed that the Martian Moon, Phobes, was a space station built by martians.
Singer, hired by tabacco and oil companies to muddy the waters of science.
once again, when the climate change campaign is more about real action than simply gimmicks via tax then i will take it seriously.
- Off setting carbon with cash, easy jet have a drop down option now ffs
- taxing flights but extending airports and runways
- watching china, india etc spewing much more shite in the air than us yet telling us that not using carrier bags will make all the difference
three issues just for starters
I'm not denying global warming or owt like that, just saying that even if it's educated, it's still guesswork. Something may be suspected to have lasted 5000 years but it's suspicion rather than fact as studies haven't been conducted for that long.
People need to chill out.
I stopped reading when i saw the name.....