Climate change discussion thread

johntheexpat

Anyhow, this is a thread about adverse weather, so I am going to ask a mod to remove all the off topic posts into their own thread and take this one back to what it was meant to be.

johntheexpat

I refer you to the post above. Any previous variations are nothing to due with the predicted consequences of MMGW, because the predictions are for change this century and beyond, therefore the graph that (reputedly) shows hurricane numbers show nothing more than a natural variation which adds nothing to future predictions (other than to acknowledge that it will be very hard to "prove" change is happening and happening un-naturally quickly)

sidicks

So the summary is that current "weather" can only be used as evidence to support the man-made climate change / global warming theory.

Any data that opposes that 'theory' can be discounted because the theory does not predict short term effects only long term ones...


Thanks, I'm out!

johntheexpat

There is no data that opposes the theory, because we have not had elevated CO2 levels to provide the evidence.  Basically (once again ) the theory states that in the 21st century and beyond, the elevated levels of CO2 may well produce increased levels of global warming that leads to unsupportably rapid climate change.  

Climate is the average weather over a long time.  One hot day does not indicate climate change.  If you want to discuss this sensibly, you must learn the difference between climate and weather.

yeah, right.

johntheexpat

Not really.  Climate Change/MMGW, if the theory is right, won't particularly affect me as I should be long gone from this veil of tears before it kicks in noticeably.  

What does get up my nose is those who argue against a scientific theory with absolutely no scientific basis to their argument.  If you want to smash the "Global Warming Conspiracy" the only way to do it is to undermine the science.  Which hasn't been done.  Forty years and more of consolidated research, by thousands of research groups across the planet and political spectrums and no-one has been able to come up with a scientific silver bullet.

That's what gets my goat.  People are "against" it because they don't want to trust the science.  It may be vague in places and the models may diverge at times, but no-one has ever shown that the science is fundamnetally flawed.  Our best theory yet is that we will have a noticeable effect on the way the climate of the planet changes.

But to rail against the theory without offering any reasonable explanation as to why you object is, in my book, no different to fundamentalist christians railing against evolution.  In both cases, science has a theory, evolution or MMGW, in both cases the theory was arrived at by good old fashioned hard work and looking at the evidence, fitting it in with what we know to be fact and all the other good scientific methodologies. And in both cases the people who  claim its all tosh do so from a stance of they don't believe it and they have no scientific evidence to back up their beliefs.
If I was here battling against creationism, there would be loads of support.  Why should MMGW be any different?

EarthRod

I think there might be an issue in some peoples' minds that a scientific theory is not necessarily a scientific fact. Basically a theory is a model which can be tweaked and changed to match any new data or evidence that comes to light.

Many seem to be of the opinion that a scientific theory proves a point because it matches the data gathered and the statistical analysis carried out on that data. Therefore it must be correct.

There are those of a more cynical or suspicious mindset who question the current theory. Also, they question the financial and political stance of the scientists who analyse the statistics.

People who question these things are not against science as it stands because they know the science changes as new discoveries are made or as new scientific equipment highlights newer deeper knowledge. It all comes down to people not science, and scientists are people. They are fallible, make mistakes, get the analysis wrong etc etc.

I think it is a good thing that questions are asked, especially by non-scientific people who lack a deep scientific knowledge on this particular subject. A bit of open minded skepticism against a theory does no harm and hones the edge.

johntheexpat

But in this thread, the scientific theory isn't being questioned.  Its been totally and utterly rejected, en masse.

Historical data in this context shows nothing, other than perhaps natural variations in the climate, which nobody disputes happen.  But that is all that is offered, over and over again.

The models and predictions are just that, but the methodology of the models aren't debated, just rejected.

In 50 years of concerted effort in this field, no-one has ever come up with a sucker punch that blows the theory out of the water.  The models all vary, quite wildly at times, but they all show that there is an effect.  No matter how you tweak the inputs, the outputs are not encouraging.

But this is not discussed, its all rejected.  

The only other objection offered is that it is a conspiracy.  Oh, please.  If the $600Bn/pa pharmaceutical industry can't hide its errors for more than a few years, if the defence industry can't bribe people without being found out, if the finance sector can't step out of line without being caught within a couple of dozen months, how can anyone really claim that the Climate scientists could keep a conspiracy going for 50 years?  Utter fantasy.

The rejection of everything to do with climate science and MMGW isn't based on  a logical counter-argument to the science, its based on a belief, or a hope that its wrong.  If you know its wrong, show us how.

And that rejection of the entirity due to a belief, well quite honestly, its comparable to creationists and their total rejection of evolution, due to a belief.

Hit the theory with science, that's all you have to do.

EarthRod

Bit of a ratty post there John - started off OK but lost track. Here is a counter argument:

Anyone who has the audacity to question the science behind MMGW will be subjected to accusations of being religious and discarding all science theory. They will be booed and heckled.

In addition, man-made global warming has attained the status of a religion. A faith in global warming cannot easily be eradicated, just like any other religion, because many of its acolytes will continue to cling to it despite any contrary evidence.

Furthermore, in January the Met Office admitted there is no evidence that global warming is happening and quietly readjusted its temperature projections on its website.

Have a read of this:

Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up – Telegraph Blogs

Up to date news regarding the IPCC, believe it or not, whatever.

johntheexpat

Sorry, I refuse to read anyhting by james delingpole on the basis that he is a professional scaremonger whose job is to be controversial.  Every topic he writes on he skews to an extraordinary extent just for effect.  That is what he does and he has no place in a balanaced debate about anything.  Sorry, but that is how he makes his living, not be being accurate but by being controversial.

back on topic.  So the Met Office admitted there is no evidence of Global warming?  Well you could knock me down with a feather.  What is the point of even bothering with that link after everything I have said about the hurricanes graph?  Of course there is no evidence of MMGW.  None of the theories and models predict any measurable change for decades, so the met Office statement is just a re-assertion of what the scientists believe

This is what they actually said
What has changed?  They still forecast significant warming over the course of this century.  So they tweaked their model.  Nobody has ever claimed that the models are accurate, but the anti's climb all over a change in the predicted rise from about 0.5C to 0.4C as conclusive proof of fraud and charlatinism.

Global warming: has the rise in temperatures 'paused'? | Environment | guardian.co.uk

So the story isn't that the Met office have admitted it is all tosh.  The story is that Met Office have introduced a better model for their predictions.  End of.

EarthRod

I really don't know what to say.

Not getting at you John, but unfortunately your post makes very little sense and seems to contradict itself. I think your strong passion about this subject is possibly clouding your judgement.

Interested to read your thoughts regarding James Delingpole - I did not know he is considered to be a scaremonger. However, recommend you do a search on IPCC, the latest comments and the backtracking that appears to be going on about MMGW. Its upset quite a few people.

Sorry John, I shall now bow out of this discussion.