View Poll Results: Which statement do you agree with
Global warming is caused by humans
27
19.01%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is substantial
44
30.99%
Global warming is a natural process, contribution of human activity is negligible
65
45.77%
Global warming seems unlikely
6
4.23%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll
Global warming
Dec 2nd 2009, 8:01 am
#151
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 906
Re: Global warming
And that affects the creditability of their claims to a huge number of people.
Dec 2nd 2009, 8:02 am
#152
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,460
Re: Global warming
Let me clarify:
The original text of the IPCC's 1995 Second Assessment Report emphasized that no studies had found clear evidence that observed climate changes could be attributed to greenhouse gases or other manmade causes.
(this was later altered (without the authors' and reviewers' knowledge or approval) by Dr. Ben Santer and his colleagues to say "a discernable human influence" on Earth's climate – which the Report didn’t say…)
The IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report used the “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations” paper known as MBH98, to “prove” that the effects were manmade.
This IPCC report contained the now infamous (and discredited) hockey stick graph, which showed no Middle age warming period, and massive temperature growth past 1980.
I know of no scientific report prior to MBH98 which claimed to show man made effects upon global warming. Can you provide references?
The original text of the IPCC's 1995 Second Assessment Report emphasized that no studies had found clear evidence that observed climate changes could be attributed to greenhouse gases or other manmade causes.
(this was later altered (without the authors' and reviewers' knowledge or approval) by Dr. Ben Santer and his colleagues to say "a discernable human influence" on Earth's climate – which the Report didn’t say…)
The IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report used the “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations” paper known as MBH98, to “prove” that the effects were manmade.
This IPCC report contained the now infamous (and discredited) hockey stick graph, which showed no Middle age warming period, and massive temperature growth past 1980.
I know of no scientific report prior to MBH98 which claimed to show man made effects upon global warming. Can you provide references?
In Naomi Oreskes's talk The American Denial of Global Warming,[32] Oreskes recounted the following incident:
“ In 1995, the IPCC concluded that the human effect on climate is now discernible. The lead author of the key chapter on detection and attribution...was a scientist of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory named Benjamin J. Santer.
When the IPCC report came out, Seitz, Nierenberg, and now a 4th physicist—a man by the name of S. Fred Singer—launched a highly personal attack on Santer. In an open letter to the IPCC, which they sent to numerous members of the US Congress, Singer, Seitz, and Nierenberg accused Santer of making "unauthorized" changes to the IPCC report [...]
They followed this with an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "A Major Deception on Global Warming". This piece was written by Seitz, in which he claimed that the effect of the alleged changes was "to deceive policy makers and the public".
Now Santer replied, in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, and in the response he explained that he had made changes, but those changes were in response to the peer review process. In other words, totally normal scientific practice...This account was corroborated by the Chairman of the IPCC and by all of the other authors of the chapters. In fact, over 40 scientists were co-authors of this chapter. This letter was signed by Santer and 40 others and published in the Wall Street Journal in June 1996. And Santer was also formally defended by the American Meteorological Society.
But neither Seitz nor Singer ever retracted the charges, which was then repeated—many times, over and over again—by industry groups and think-tanks. And in fact, if you google "Ben Santer", these same charges are still in the Internet today. In fact, one site said that it was proven in 1996 that Santer had fraudulently altered the IPCC report.
“ In 1995, the IPCC concluded that the human effect on climate is now discernible. The lead author of the key chapter on detection and attribution...was a scientist of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory named Benjamin J. Santer.
When the IPCC report came out, Seitz, Nierenberg, and now a 4th physicist—a man by the name of S. Fred Singer—launched a highly personal attack on Santer. In an open letter to the IPCC, which they sent to numerous members of the US Congress, Singer, Seitz, and Nierenberg accused Santer of making "unauthorized" changes to the IPCC report [...]
They followed this with an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "A Major Deception on Global Warming". This piece was written by Seitz, in which he claimed that the effect of the alleged changes was "to deceive policy makers and the public".
Now Santer replied, in a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal, and in the response he explained that he had made changes, but those changes were in response to the peer review process. In other words, totally normal scientific practice...This account was corroborated by the Chairman of the IPCC and by all of the other authors of the chapters. In fact, over 40 scientists were co-authors of this chapter. This letter was signed by Santer and 40 others and published in the Wall Street Journal in June 1996. And Santer was also formally defended by the American Meteorological Society.
But neither Seitz nor Singer ever retracted the charges, which was then repeated—many times, over and over again—by industry groups and think-tanks. And in fact, if you google "Ben Santer", these same charges are still in the Internet today. In fact, one site said that it was proven in 1996 that Santer had fraudulently altered the IPCC report.
Dec 2nd 2009, 8:03 am
#153
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 8,378
Re: Global warming
I don’t think anyone has attacked me. I enjoy a spirited debate as much as anyone, however sometimes climate change debate descends into name calling – people shout “denialist” like it was David Irving. I didn’t want that to happen – so I ended my post with a plea to keep this above board.
To be honest I am on the fence on Climate Change.
What I am not on the fence about is the lack of robust and transparent scientific procedures that have been used so far in the argument for climate change.
I agree the data needs to be “adjusted” – I prefer to call it weighted. The problem is CRU “adjusted” it, then threw away the unadjusted data, meaning no one can check their accuracy. They have consistently refused to provide the data to anyone outside their close knit group of believers.
When the pro climate change group start being honest, transparent and robust with their scientific research I will start listening to them. Until then they sit in the bucket under the bench along with paranormal researches, UFOlogysts, ley-line proponents and a host of other people who manipulate evidence to suit their theory.
To be honest I am on the fence on Climate Change.
What I am not on the fence about is the lack of robust and transparent scientific procedures that have been used so far in the argument for climate change.
I agree the data needs to be “adjusted” – I prefer to call it weighted. The problem is CRU “adjusted” it, then threw away the unadjusted data, meaning no one can check their accuracy. They have consistently refused to provide the data to anyone outside their close knit group of believers.
When the pro climate change group start being honest, transparent and robust with their scientific research I will start listening to them. Until then they sit in the bucket under the bench along with paranormal researches, UFOlogysts, ley-line proponents and a host of other people who manipulate evidence to suit their theory.
Dec 2nd 2009, 8:34 am
#154
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Global warming
The altering of Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report involved deleting phrases that suggested scientific doubts about human influences on climate to make the report conform to the IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
Im not sure if you fully understand “peer review process”.
In almost all other forms, peers review the evidence, and discuss it with the author. Note the use of the word “peer”, and note the use of the word “discuss”.
Now note this:
1. In this case IPCC procedural rules were followed, not standard academic peer review rules. Under IPCC rules the changes were made without any consultation or approval from all of the authors. That stinks. Sorry mate. It just stinks…. A researcher puts his name on a report, then someone alters it, leaves the original name on it, and publishes it. If you think that is acceptable then you have bigger problems than Global Warming (if indeed it exists). If this paper had been published by a University it would not have been accepted.
2. IPCC procedures required changes to the draft in response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations (note – NGOs aren’t peers, not are governments. One lot are elected wankers, the other are unelected wankers. Qualifications aren’t required for either….). That stinks even more. Government organisations (quangos) are stacked for political purposes, and NGO s are full of crackpots. So these people with vested interests were allowed to force the alteration of what was purported to be a scientific report.
If you accept the above as fair, honest, open and acceptable, then you have to accept similar behaviour from everyone else. And THAT opens a can of worms.
So tell me, why do you think there is global warming?
Im not sure if you fully understand “peer review process”.
In almost all other forms, peers review the evidence, and discuss it with the author. Note the use of the word “peer”, and note the use of the word “discuss”.
Now note this:
1. In this case IPCC procedural rules were followed, not standard academic peer review rules. Under IPCC rules the changes were made without any consultation or approval from all of the authors. That stinks. Sorry mate. It just stinks…. A researcher puts his name on a report, then someone alters it, leaves the original name on it, and publishes it. If you think that is acceptable then you have bigger problems than Global Warming (if indeed it exists). If this paper had been published by a University it would not have been accepted.
2. IPCC procedures required changes to the draft in response to comments from governments, individual scientists, and non-governmental organizations (note – NGOs aren’t peers, not are governments. One lot are elected wankers, the other are unelected wankers. Qualifications aren’t required for either….). That stinks even more. Government organisations (quangos) are stacked for political purposes, and NGO s are full of crackpots. So these people with vested interests were allowed to force the alteration of what was purported to be a scientific report.
If you accept the above as fair, honest, open and acceptable, then you have to accept similar behaviour from everyone else. And THAT opens a can of worms.
So tell me, why do you think there is global warming?
Dec 2nd 2009, 9:05 am
#157
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Global warming
Its back to Transparency, Openness and Robustness Cape Blue.
I could accept the Climate Change proponents doing it once, but EVERY TIME I look they are altering data or bending scientific rules. Now bear in mind I have worked for a University and have quite a few qualifications under my belt, and I have fallen foul of academic procedure in the past, so I am well aware of what I am talking about.
What we are dealing with right now ranks alongside the push to discredit Darwin for religious grounds. During that battle all sorts of fudged arguments were espoused. Darwin simply couldn’t be right. A bunch of Church leaders, fearful about the future of the Church, almost stopped publication of The Origin of the Species.
In just the same way a bunch of people with (admirable) social desires to spread wealth across the world are misusing science to further their aims. It is despicable, and every researcher and scientist should stand up to stop it.
I could accept the Climate Change proponents doing it once, but EVERY TIME I look they are altering data or bending scientific rules. Now bear in mind I have worked for a University and have quite a few qualifications under my belt, and I have fallen foul of academic procedure in the past, so I am well aware of what I am talking about.
What we are dealing with right now ranks alongside the push to discredit Darwin for religious grounds. During that battle all sorts of fudged arguments were espoused. Darwin simply couldn’t be right. A bunch of Church leaders, fearful about the future of the Church, almost stopped publication of The Origin of the Species.
In just the same way a bunch of people with (admirable) social desires to spread wealth across the world are misusing science to further their aims. It is despicable, and every researcher and scientist should stand up to stop it.
Dec 2nd 2009, 11:13 am
#158
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: Global warming
>>In just the same way a bunch of people with (admirable) social desires to spread wealth across the world are misusing science to further their aims. It is despicable, and every researcher and scientist should stand up to stop it.<<
Your points are very persuasive though the basic problem remains: 99% of us are not equipped to understand the conclusions or references of either "side", nor to be able to follow them up. Let alone understand the raw or adjusted data.
For every IPCC presentation of data there's someone with apparently opposite data, and vice versa. One lot says the sea ice is decreasing - the others say it's actually *increasing*. But none of us, even if shown the data, would be in a position to make a judgement on that - we can merely say that one "side" looks more competent than the other.
And the politicians - bless 'em - are in no better position than we to judge the scientific evidence. Except perhaps Steve Fielding, who did a complete about-turn after a couple of days at the Heartland Institute, which is partly funded by Exxon, I understand.
Your points are very persuasive though the basic problem remains: 99% of us are not equipped to understand the conclusions or references of either "side", nor to be able to follow them up. Let alone understand the raw or adjusted data.
For every IPCC presentation of data there's someone with apparently opposite data, and vice versa. One lot says the sea ice is decreasing - the others say it's actually *increasing*. But none of us, even if shown the data, would be in a position to make a judgement on that - we can merely say that one "side" looks more competent than the other.
And the politicians - bless 'em - are in no better position than we to judge the scientific evidence. Except perhaps Steve Fielding, who did a complete about-turn after a couple of days at the Heartland Institute, which is partly funded by Exxon, I understand.
Dec 2nd 2009, 11:55 am
#159
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Global warming
I agree Wol, and what we are both agreeing on is lack of conclusive evidence. Even the Climate Doomsayers accept that now.
CRU is now saying “just trust us”, and the activists are saying “even if there isn’t conclusive proof, we cant afford the risk”.
The problem is it’s no longer an academic discussion in a University debating halls. It is a plan to neuter the Australian economy. It’s a plan that has me sitting in the dark with a flat laptop and no power. It’s a plan that has my parents freezing to death in the UK. It’s a plan that takes us back to the Dark Ages.
If we cannot produce conclusive evidence that the climate is warming, and that warming is cause by man made factors, and ALL of us agree to strength of that evidence, then we should hold off on any change to the way we live. It is the only fair and sensible way forward.
But I repeat my view – I am currently undecided on Global Warming, but I am definitely against the current use of shame science being used in an attempt to fake it. If it is real, it is provable without any tricks.
CRU is now saying “just trust us”, and the activists are saying “even if there isn’t conclusive proof, we cant afford the risk”.
The problem is it’s no longer an academic discussion in a University debating halls. It is a plan to neuter the Australian economy. It’s a plan that has me sitting in the dark with a flat laptop and no power. It’s a plan that has my parents freezing to death in the UK. It’s a plan that takes us back to the Dark Ages.
If we cannot produce conclusive evidence that the climate is warming, and that warming is cause by man made factors, and ALL of us agree to strength of that evidence, then we should hold off on any change to the way we live. It is the only fair and sensible way forward.
But I repeat my view – I am currently undecided on Global Warming, but I am definitely against the current use of shame science being used in an attempt to fake it. If it is real, it is provable without any tricks.
Dec 2nd 2009, 8:27 pm
#160
The Stars are Underground
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 423
Re: Global warming
It looks like our biggest expense in our lives will be this human global warming notion. Who thought it was going to cost just to exhale!
Those big wig government people who backed this to begin with will never back down now, what dummies they would look, so continue to rob us of more money guys!
Those big wig government people who backed this to begin with will never back down now, what dummies they would look, so continue to rob us of more money guys!
Dec 2nd 2009, 8:50 pm
#161
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,460
Re: Global warming
Its back to Transparency, Openness and Robustness Cape Blue.
I could accept the Climate Change proponents doing it once, but EVERY TIME I look they are altering data or bending scientific rules. Now bear in mind I have worked for a University and have quite a few qualifications under my belt, and I have fallen foul of academic procedure in the past, so I am well aware of what I am talking about.
What we are dealing with right now ranks alongside the push to discredit Darwin for religious grounds. During that battle all sorts of fudged arguments were espoused. Darwin simply couldn’t be right. A bunch of Church leaders, fearful about the future of the Church, almost stopped publication of The Origin of the Species.
In just the same way a bunch of people with (admirable) social desires to spread wealth across the world are misusing science to further their aims. It is despicable, and every researcher and scientist should stand up to stop it.
I could accept the Climate Change proponents doing it once, but EVERY TIME I look they are altering data or bending scientific rules. Now bear in mind I have worked for a University and have quite a few qualifications under my belt, and I have fallen foul of academic procedure in the past, so I am well aware of what I am talking about.
What we are dealing with right now ranks alongside the push to discredit Darwin for religious grounds. During that battle all sorts of fudged arguments were espoused. Darwin simply couldn’t be right. A bunch of Church leaders, fearful about the future of the Church, almost stopped publication of The Origin of the Species.
In just the same way a bunch of people with (admirable) social desires to spread wealth across the world are misusing science to further their aims. It is despicable, and every researcher and scientist should stand up to stop it.
Dec 2nd 2009, 8:59 pm
#162
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,460
Re: Global warming
I agree Wol, and what we are both agreeing on is lack of conclusive evidence. Even the Climate Doomsayers accept that now.
CRU is now saying “just trust us”, and the activists are saying “even if there isn’t conclusive proof, we cant afford the risk”.
The problem is it’s no longer an academic discussion in a University debating halls. It is a plan to neuter the Australian economy. It’s a plan that has me sitting in the dark with a flat laptop and no power. It’s a plan that has my parents freezing to death in the UK. It’s a plan that takes us back to the Dark Ages.
If we cannot produce conclusive evidence that the climate is warming, and that warming is cause by man made factors, and ALL of us agree to strength of that evidence, then we should hold off on any change to the way we live. It is the only fair and sensible way forward.
But I repeat my view – I am currently undecided on Global Warming, but I am definitely against the current use of shame science being used in an attempt to fake it. If it is real, it is provable without any tricks.
CRU is now saying “just trust us”, and the activists are saying “even if there isn’t conclusive proof, we cant afford the risk”.
The problem is it’s no longer an academic discussion in a University debating halls. It is a plan to neuter the Australian economy. It’s a plan that has me sitting in the dark with a flat laptop and no power. It’s a plan that has my parents freezing to death in the UK. It’s a plan that takes us back to the Dark Ages.
If we cannot produce conclusive evidence that the climate is warming, and that warming is cause by man made factors, and ALL of us agree to strength of that evidence, then we should hold off on any change to the way we live. It is the only fair and sensible way forward.
But I repeat my view – I am currently undecided on Global Warming, but I am definitely against the current use of shame science being used in an attempt to fake it. If it is real, it is provable without any tricks.
You seemed quite sensible in your posts up until that - "a plan to take us back into the dark ages" - yes of course every government and environmentalist want us to live in caves, that just what they want
"parents freezing to death" - now you sound as whacky as those that believe its a one world government conspiracy. That said, if the atlantic conveyor shuts down maybe they will
We couldn't ALL agree on smoking or asbestos, some people still think smoking doesn't cause cancer. The precautionary principle allows us to take a view on the downsides. I think that is what the Stern Report did and decided that the potential costs of doing nothing were more than doing something.
Dec 2nd 2009, 9:05 pm
#163
Democracy advocate
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 12,460
Re: Global warming
Its back to Transparency, Openness and Robustness Cape Blue.
I could accept the Climate Change proponents doing it once, but EVERY TIME I look they are altering data or bending scientific rules. Now bear in mind I have worked for a University and have quite a few qualifications under my belt, and I have fallen foul of academic procedure in the past, so I am well aware of what I am talking about.
What we are dealing with right now ranks alongside the push to discredit Darwin for religious grounds. During that battle all sorts of fudged arguments were espoused. Darwin simply couldn’t be right. A bunch of Church leaders, fearful about the future of the Church, almost stopped publication of The Origin of the Species.
In just the same way a bunch of people with (admirable) social desires to spread wealth across the world are misusing science to further their aims. It is despicable, and every researcher and scientist should stand up to stop it.
I could accept the Climate Change proponents doing it once, but EVERY TIME I look they are altering data or bending scientific rules. Now bear in mind I have worked for a University and have quite a few qualifications under my belt, and I have fallen foul of academic procedure in the past, so I am well aware of what I am talking about.
What we are dealing with right now ranks alongside the push to discredit Darwin for religious grounds. During that battle all sorts of fudged arguments were espoused. Darwin simply couldn’t be right. A bunch of Church leaders, fearful about the future of the Church, almost stopped publication of The Origin of the Species.
In just the same way a bunch of people with (admirable) social desires to spread wealth across the world are misusing science to further their aims. It is despicable, and every researcher and scientist should stand up to stop it.
Why are companies like Shell with all of their scientists and researchers now also colluding with them? http://www.shell.com/home/content/re...al_threat.html
Why are BP accepting it?
On May 19, 1997 John Browne, British Petroleum's Group Chief Executive, broke with the oil industry's position on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change with these words.
"There's a lot of noise in the data. It is hard to isolate cause and effect. But there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point."
In this speech at Stanford University Browne acknowledged BP's role in contributing to greenhouse gases and announced a strategy for reducing such emissions across the worldwide operations of the company.
"There's a lot of noise in the data. It is hard to isolate cause and effect. But there is now an effective consensus among the world's leading scientists and serious and well informed people outside the scientific community that there is a discernible human influence on the climate, and a link between the concentration of carbon dioxide and the increase in temperature. The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point."
In this speech at Stanford University Browne acknowledged BP's role in contributing to greenhouse gases and announced a strategy for reducing such emissions across the worldwide operations of the company.
Dec 2nd 2009, 9:54 pm
#164
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Global warming
That smacks of two things:
1. Keeping the undeveloped in their present state by paying them not to develop.
2. Paying Western money to third world countries using carbon trading as an excuse.
I admit that I am concerned that currently there are 750 cars per 1000 Australians compared to 20 cars per 1000 Chinese. If the Chinese ever rise to that level of car ownership (and believe me, they aspire to), then we will have problems with supply of oil and emissions.
But slapping an ETS on me isn’t going to fix that problem is it?
Dec 2nd 2009, 10:05 pm
#165
Not allowed opinions.
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 4,565
Re: Global warming
No one decided upon it. Instead, a series of events and seemingly innocuous decisions led it upon Europe.
They only recognised it as a Dark Age afterwards.
In just the same way, decisions are being taken on the basis of an unproved theory, that will have massive ramifications for the world. We are changing the entire way our known world functions – the very thing that is driving it. I honestly think you haven’t considered the consequences sufficiently. We are destroying the very thing that gave us the world we live in – CHEAP ENERGY.
Parents freezing to death? What is the cost per Kw in the UK now? What will it be under a Global Warming regime?
You may think my comments were not “sensible”. But I made them very deliberately.