Food for Thought From a Meteorologist!

[Tony]

Fuck me, Tony where did you drag this crap from?

I took (wasted) the time to read the article, but not the replies, and there is nothing there. I trust you have been castigated for this. It is absolute rubbish.

Besides, any 'scientific' article that has a typo in the second sentence loses all credibility.

It's warming up. It's going off the charts. Don't have the facts at hand but it's something like 7 of the hottest years on record in the last 10 years. Glaciers retreating at an alarming rate. What is happening cannot be compared to any previous cycle. And I studied meteorology, too.

I will not waste my time reading anything else you post.

You work for an oil company, don't you?

What crap?

No I don't work for an oil company but I do have a financial interest in Exon-Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, Amoco and probably many others.

And a correction. Fred ( you know who Fred is don't you?) is not paid by Exxon-Mobil. In fact his web site ( I'll give you a link if you like) is always begging for contributions.

However Rajendra (let's all get on first name terms, eh!) is employed in a business (his own) that gives advice on matters that pertain to environmentalism. He is also qualified in Industrial Engineering (work study) which makes him emminently qualified to be Chairman of the IPCC and to receive a Nobel Prize for his Climate Change work.

 

[Idlewild Mackem]

What crap?

No I don't work for an oil company but I do have a financial interest in Exon-Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, Amoco and probably many others.

And a correction. Fred ( you know who Fred is don't you?) is not paid by Exxon-Mobil. In fact his web site ( I'll give you a link if you like) is always begging for contributions.

However Rajendra (let's all get on first name terms, eh!) is employed in a business (his own) that gives advice on matters that pertain to environmentalism. He is also qualified in Industrial Engineering (work study) which makes him emminently qualified to be Chairman of the IPCC and to receive a Nobel Prize for his Climate Change work.

Singer's links to Exxon and the george marshall institute are undeniable, and have influenced his work for years man...why are you trying to deny that?

 

[Joe Public]

What crap?

No I don't work for an oil company but I do have a financial interest in Exon-Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, Amoco and probably many others.

And a correction. Fred ( you know who Fred is don't you?) is not paid by Exxon-Mobil. In fact his web site ( I'll give you a link if you like) is always begging for contributions.

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.

 

[Idlewild Mackem]

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.

But apart from that he's fuckin sound.

 

[Medulla]

What crap?

No I don't work for an oil company but I do have a financial interest in Exon-Mobil, BP, Shell, Chevron, Amoco and probably many others.

And a correction. Fred ( you know who Fred is don't you?) is not paid by Exxon-Mobil. In fact his web site ( I'll give you a link if you like) is always begging for contributions.

The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) is an organization run by S. Fred Singer. As an organization they are skeptical about ozone depletion and global warming.

"...Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO.

In 2000 SEPP wrote on their web site: "SEPP does not solicit financial support from either industry or governmental sources."....ExxonMobil donated $10,000 to SEPP both in 1998 and 2000.

However Rajendra (let's all get on first name terms, eh!) is employed in a business (his own) that gives advice on matters that pertain to environmentalism. He is also qualified in Industrial Engineering (work study) which makes him emminently qualified to be Chairman of the IPCC and to receive a Nobel Prize for his Climate Change work.

What do you think the chairman's role in the IPCC is?

 

[youmademerealise]

Agreed. But, I don't only mean this particular argument (i.e. this thread), I mean the argument overall. Already too much time has been wasted to try and prevent further problems, but people continue to argue over this subject... that's the most harmful thing now. Delaying action because of slight doubts. Ridiculous, and shows up just how selfish humanity is at it's core.

Ultimately I don't think anyone will take the serious action needed to make any difference as they will perceive it will cost too much money. The West will use the East as an excuse not to bother and vice versa, as people do on here. It will be drivers like oil running out that force change, not climate change itself.

We will be left with firefighting. Likely to be more expensive, but hey, we're spreading the payments over a longer period of time. Just be glad you don't live in Africa, Bangladesh, the Arctic, the Pacific Islands etc. Their won't be any budget left for them.

 

[Joe Public]

Ultimately I don't think anyone will take the serious action needed to make any difference as they will perceive it will cost too much money. The West will use the East as an excuse not to bother and vice versa, as people do on here. It will be drivers like oil running out that force change, not climate change itself.

We will be left with firefighting. Likely to be more expensive, but hey, we're spreading the payments over a longer period of time. Just be glad you don't live in Africa, Bangladesh, the Arctic, the Pacific Islands etc. Their won't be any budget left for them.

Or the 1100+ low lying islands of the Maldives, which are likely to disappear all together.

 

[Stokesy]

I'm going to have to go and get a cuppa to read this thread...

 

[---Nemo---]

Or the 1100+ low lying islands of the Maldives, which are likely to disappear all together.

Complicated stuff this.

The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”

 

[Medulla]

Ultimately I don't think anyone will take the serious action needed to make any difference as they will perceive it will cost too much money. The West will use the East as an excuse not to bother and vice versa, as people do on here. It will be drivers like oil running out that force change, not climate change itself.

Most people do already, regurgitating a lot of right-wing propaganda that implies that our contributions are a drop in the ocean "when India and China are doing fuck all".

As Nicolas Stern (the author of the government's Stern review on climate change) has said recently: "US emissions are currently more than 20 tonnes of CO2-equivalent per annum, Europe's are 10-15 tonnes, China's five or more tonnes, India's around one tonne, and most of Africa much less than one." Link

Also, per capita, the USA emits 8.2 tonnes of CO2 (Australia lead the way), the UK 3.2 tonnes, whilst China and India lag behind on 1.8 tonnes and 0.5 tonnes, respectively. Link

 

[Tony]

Singer, an electrical engineer and physicist and leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

When did Fred's last letter appear in the WSJ? What other publications? Links please. I have had letters published in the WSJ. Can you quote them?

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.

Fred said he did consulting work for for Exxon 20 years ago. He is reputed to have received funds fronm Exxon some eight and ten years ago. OK. Exactly how much did he get and waht was the nature of the work that he performed. Fred worked as a consultant, so did I once upon a time. Who do you work for? Do you have any qualifications that would enable you to make a living as a self-employed consultant? Or mebbes selling newspapers is about your limit!

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

In 1996 what was the consensus on Global Warming? Who wrote Ozone Action? Does he come from Australia and is he destined for the slammer? Or is he already there?

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]

The Newsweek article you quote from was declared at the time to be the biggest load of journalistic cods-wallop that had been published in a decade. If that is the trash on which you are to rely for your information then give up now. You provide a reference [24]. Where's that from?

In 1960, Singer proposed that the Martian Moon, Phobes, was a space station built by martians. So what?

Singer, hired by tabacco and oil companies to muddy the waters of science. I take it you can prove that statement.

Why is it that you and your ilk continue to believe that the way to argue against any person or any theory that that person may espouse that is in opposition to your fondly held and blinkered beliefs, is to assault the character of the person concerned and pay no attention whatsoever to the validity of the opposing argument? I suppose that's what yuo think of as the advancement of science. In my view it has a home in a public bar around closing time when brains as addled as yours espouse the certainties of their own confused conclusions.

Are you ever wrong?

Singer's links to Exxon and the george marshall institute are undeniable, and have influenced his work for years man...why are you trying to deny that?

I thought you'd decided not to talk to me? Glad you changed your mind otherwise I would have been hurt.

Accept the fact that part of Fred Singer's living was earned by consulting. In doing waht he did he was no different to every other college professor the world over. To accuse a professional of being influenced by the very people who are paying him for his investigative work is stupid and cannot be proved.

If consultants are so easily bought it is indeed surprising that their word counts for so much in legal, engineering, financial and scientific circles. You obviously will not agree with that. care to explain why?

 

[Joe Public]

Why is it that you and your ilk continue to believe that the way to argue against any person or any theory that that person may espouse that is in opposition to your fondly held and blinkered beliefs, is to assault the character of the person concerned and pay no attention whatsoever to the validity of the opposing argument?

You have just done the very thing, against the head of the IPCC, who stands up to close scrutiny, while denying singer is on the exxon payroll, which he is. There are valid points to be made, but you fail to make any, it is childs play discussing this topic with you, you are not well enough informed to hold a credible discussion with.

I suppose that's what yuo think of as the advancement of science. In my view it has a home in a public bar around closing time when brains as addled as yours espouse the certainties of their own confused conclusions.

I believe that the advancement of science is to meet face to face the problems which we are now aware of, i believe in the power of the human mind to resolve problems of our own creation, i believe in the development of new technologies to overcome the energy problems which are undeniably ahead of us if we continue to fail to recognise the finite nature of our current energy sources.

Are you ever wrong?

To enter any discussion, it would be rather silly of me to believe I was incorrect, that would tend to weaken my argument from the outset. Do you enter a discussion believing you are wrong? Strange that.

I would love to be wrong on this one, wishing for any other outcome would be madness. However, in the light of research and overwhelming scientific evidence, I do not believe I am wrong, or that the 2700 scientists who have come together to form the scientific consensus are wrong. Does that answer your question?

 

[Tony]

Posted by Medulah. Qote: What do you think the chairman's role in the IPCC is? Quote.

I can't imagine! Please enlighten me.

 

[Annie Dapp Who?]

Aaaarrrgh we're all going to DIE!


In a bit

 

[stephen cartwright]

hot air from this thread has just melted three quarters of the the artic circle

 

[Tony]

You have just done the very thing, against the head of the IPCC, who stands up to close scrutiny, while denying singer is on the exxon payroll, which he is. There are valid points to be made, but you fail to make any, it is childs play discussing this topic with you, you are not well enough informed to hold a credible discussion with.



I believe that the advancement of science is to meet face to face the problems which we are now aware of, i believe in the power of the human mind to resolve problems of our own creation, i believe in the development of new technologies to overcome the energy problems which are undeniably ahead of us if we continue to fail to recognise the finite nature of our current energy sources.



To enter any discussion, it would be rather silly of me to believe I was incorrect, that would tend to weaken my argument from the outset. Do you enter a discussion believing you are wrong? Strange that.

I would love to be wrong on this one, wishing for any other outcome would be madness. However, in the light of research and overwhelming scientific evidence, I do not believe I am wrong, or that the 2700 scientists who have come together to form the scientific consensus are wrong. Does that answer your question?

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.

 

[Medulla]

Complicated stuff this.

You quoted: "The IPCC notes that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”

Section 5 of the latest IPCC report from 2007 states:

"Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century. The instrumental record of modern sea level change shows evidence for onset of sea level rise during the 19th century. Estimates for the 20th century show that global average sea level rose at a rate of about 1.7 mm/yr.

Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm/yr, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades." http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

This peer-reviewed paper from 2006 might also be informative: Link

 

[stephen cartwright]

is there an easy to read leaflet on all this? both sides

 

[Medulla]

I can't imagine! Please enlighten me.

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?

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...

"And for your information, Jimmy Krankie is not a ginger midget, but an auburn individual with height 'issues'".

is there an easy to read leaflet on all this? both sides

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

 

[---Nemo---]

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.

IPCC Report slammed as “dangerous nonsense…lacking in scientific rigour”
Dr Vincent Gray, of Wellington, is the only person in New Zealand who has been an expert reviewer on every draft of the many IPCC Reports. He recalls” “My greatest achievement was the second report where the draft had a chapter ‘Validation of Climate Models’. I commented that since no climate model has ever been ‘validated’ that the word was inappropriate. They changed the word to ‘evaluate’ 50 times, and since then they have never ‘predicted’ anything. All they do is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’.
“No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates'. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous

I enjoyed the debate under this blog.

Here.