Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > New Zealand
Reload this Page >

Man made global warming...

View Poll Results: Do you think global warming likely?
What is global warming?
1
3.23%
Man made global warming seems likely.
15
48.39%
Naturally occurring global warming seems likely.
7
22.58%
The evidence is not conclusive either way.
2
6.45%
Global warming seems unlikely.
1
3.23%
The effects of man on climate are negligible.
5
16.13%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

Man made global warming...

Old Nov 26th 2009, 8:12 am
  #46  
TeamEmbo
 
TeamEmbo's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Rangiora
Posts: 1,557
TeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

see what I mean? Futile waste of time! I'm just an ordinary gal and the technical content isn't above my understanding. I haven't tried to obscure anything. I'm under no illusion that whatever was posted was going to be shot down. And you know what, that's just fine.

I note you've made no comment on the Japanese or German scientists. You've discounted the 31,000 on one US petition with one sweeping statement.

There's heaps more information out there that proves how flawed the IPCC is and how many of directly involved scientists have expressed serious doubts themselves, there's data to prove, for instance, the air temperatures over Canada have actually decreased over the past 30 years; the opposite of what global warming 'experts' predicted. Worldwide the past 10 years have not seen the continued 'heating' predicted but rather cooling, ie. the total opposite of what their theories predicted if we didn't all stop burning fossil fuels.

When there's so many conflicting facts and the scientists themselves can't agree, how can Joe Public possibly believe as 100% fact that global warming is man-made? So, like I said, it comes down to personal beliefs. You read what you read, hear what you hear and make your own mind up and after doing that I came to the conclusion I don't believe global warming is man-made. What part of that are you not understanding?
TeamEmbo is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 10:32 am
  #47  
you dewty owld maan!
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: is practically perfect in every way
Posts: 5,565
lardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Oh dear - anyone ever heard of "a little knowledge".

I think there are more than 31,000 scientists in most countries and if you polled all those in the relevant countries that there would be at least a 10:1 ratio in support of the theory of A-GW being more likely than not.

Some sections of the press (guess which ones....?) and lobbyists are coming out against it, partly because there is plenty of money being thrown in support of the skeptics, I read recently that the US lobbying/media budgets are some $330 million for skeptics and $16 million for environmentalists. So this backlash against the A-GW "theory" in the press and on the web is to be expected.

There are also plenty of "left-field" scientists out there and plenty who claim to be un-biased that are swayed by a variety of issues, such as their faith, politics and money from their paymasters. And in spite of the suggestion that lots of climate scientists are on a gravy train that requires A-GW to be true, there are plenty who do work for the oil, energy, utility, etc,etc companies with a serious interest in negating the argument. I know I used to work with them in research in the UK universities. I now work in a small technical field with scientists (that is people with science degrees or equivalent qualifications) who could be best described as "rent-an-expert". They are very adept at skirting the issue, putting a gloss on their findings and in some cases massaging or manipulating evidence to favour those who pay them. And it's not just me that complains about this, about half of my peers in NZ have also described this when referring to the "usual suspects".

I'm a christian and I've had to work hard on some friends to get them to understand the issues here and to explain even the basic science involved in atmospheric chemistry. When we can see the skeptics claiming on Fox News to be scientists and then saying that "more CO2 is good for everyone" it is really getting silly.

http://co2isgreen.org/ takes the proverbial biscuit.....
The analogies quoted on that particular webs(h)ite beggar belief as do the adverts that the group (funded by oil and coal producers BTW) have placed on US TV.

Anyway why does anyone have to believe something as "100% fact". Most science is about theory and most of it is open to revision. But it is generally the best way of solving problems and explaining the world. Can't see how you can make these assertions about nothing being factual and then be able to "prove" that the IPCC is "flawed". That's a little more subjective than the science that underpins climate change.......

Originally Posted by Charismatic View Post
Discredit the hypothesis, not the author .
Sometimes stupid people come up with great ideas, sometimes clever people have stupid ideas.
True to a degree, as some discoveries come out of field or from people who can work in more than one area. But you would have to accept that the background of these "experts" needs to be considered as they are the ones making claims that they can interpret what experts in the climate change field mean and how those experts are wrong/incompetent/lying, etc.
As a scientist you should know that if you put a hypothesis before rational and qualified people they are more likely to take the correct view as to it's validity than the irrational and/or unqualified....
Ever refereed another group/person's submitted paper? Or had your work peer-reviewed? Then you'd know that the expertise of the person doing that job is pretty important. The external examiner for my PhD viva was not from quite the same field of chemistry and he spent lots of time dealing with stuff that was not important and asking me questions about stuff that I would not be expected to know, as he was happy with the work and just wanted to pass the time - well that's what my supervisor said afterwards......and he was a chemist with a PhD working in a similar area.
lardyl is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 10:55 am
  #48  
you dewty owld maan!
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: is practically perfect in every way
Posts: 5,565
lardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Originally Posted by Charismatic View Post
I through the theory of global warming centred around the absorbance of solar radiation at wavelengths that would not normally absorb causing a ΔT?

However this has always got me thinking because the oxygen molecules used to create also absorb solar radiation. However in true blue peter style here is a comparison of major atmospheric radiation absorption I made earlier:
http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/absorbspec.gif

There are three things to consider here:
1. Is the absorbance area greater under the carbon dioxide of oxygen graph?
2. Since shorter wavelengths of electromagnetic (solar) radiation carry more energy is carbon dioxide or oxygen at a lower wavelength?
3. Does the stoichiometric reaction favour a greater volume in the direction of carbon dioxide or oxygen molecules?

IMO the answers for 1 and 2 would suggest gasses would cool under these conditions and in 3 it wouldn’t have any effect either direction. So it would seem far more likely to me that if we apply some basic chemistry knowledge that we should actually be thinking about global cooling rather than warming.
........Does the above make sense or is there something I’ve overlooked?
not a great deal to me......as
(i) UV does not heat the substrate like IR does (UV radiation is going to shift electrons not make the molecules vibrate or rotate). So the area under the broad spectrum graph you quote does not have the same "heating" effect, UV may damage the skin but doesn't heat as efficiently as longer wavelengths (IR and microwaves) - this effects the environment as the main target for heating from re-radiated IR is water and other molecules in the air/environment that contain water/CO2/other heatable molecules is it not? there's a lot of that stuff about water vapour/liquid.....and the former is often acting as a greenhouse gas too.....
(ii) not sure what (2) means......?? oxygen is not going to behave as an effective IR absorber (and hence emitter) as IR acts to vibrate the molecule with a dipole in it (one with a charge difference), CO2 is the classic and the one that undergraduate chemical engineering students (as I once was) had to deal with in a project, and it is used for the infra-red examples in many books. Nitrogen and Oxygen and Argon are all going to be essentailly inert to IR radiation. I'd suggest that Ozone (O3 for you guys following the thread) is what accounts for the IR and microwave absorbances on your plots not O2. Unless the Raman effect is coming into play - need to check my old chemistry books on that....

(iii) WRT to (3) - again I am unsure where you are leading here......
I think that the problem with CO2 (along with methane) is that they do not have a similar cycle to water vapour (a more "active" greenhouse gas than CO2) due to the sinks being different and more long winded. Water comes back down on us as precipitation but CO2 needs to be abstracted by the sinks in the oceans and by vegetation.

Perhaps you are thinking that because the O2 does not absorb IR then it will not be heated - it will as it is in physical contact with the other gases in the atmosphere.....

The key to understanding the greenhouse effect is to realise that there is a balance between energy emitted and absorbed due to these interactions between the molecules in the atmosphere and the solar radiation, be it original solar radiation or that which has been reflected from the earth's surface or absorbed and re-emitted by these greenhouse gases. The balance is completed by the solar gain to the atmosphere of the radiation that cannot be lost back into space and this relates to the concentration of CO2 and the other greenhouse gases that serve to keep us warm and make life on earth possible.
lardyl is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 11:07 am
  #49  
you dewty owld maan!
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: is practically perfect in every way
Posts: 5,565
lardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

For an explanation of the greenhouse effect then Wikipedia seems to help....

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

this deals with the water vapour issue from that old old article quoted earlier:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ck-or-forcing/

and there is a kids version of the Wiki

http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/g/Greenhouse_effect.htm

Of course climate change could be the great weapon of the New World Order that will be used to suppress economic activity and justify a population cull by the Illuminati and their agents in anticipation of the coming of the anti-christ. Or some idea cooked up by governments, hell-bent on extracting tax dolalrs, whilst supressing the economy (and reducing their tax take) and p!ssing off their electorates by instituting unpopular legislation and making life that bit harder........
Or then again........
lardyl is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 11:55 am
  #50  
you dewty owld maan!
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: is practically perfect in every way
Posts: 5,565
lardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

There is no scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming, because CO2 absorbs the limited radiation available to it in about ten meters (Heinz Hug). An increase in CO2 only shortens the distance, which is not an increase in temperature. Since scientists know this, a fake mechanism is contrived for the top of the troposphere based on thin spectrum shoulders. But again, an increase in CO2 only shortens the distance radiation travels, which does nothing significant to increase the temperature. And there is no explanation of how the supposed temperature increase at the top of the troposphere, which is very cold, can produce heat at ground level.
Oh dear it is the word of Novak - this guy can't be trusted. He is not a scientist, he's a nutter........

Most people are clueless on laws of physics. They often say that improved engineering and technology can increase gas mileage. Engineers cannot change the amount of energy it takes to move mass and oppose the force of wind. It's not in the engineering; it's in the laws of physics.
this is so wrong or at least so badly phrased that he is going to have to do a lot to convince me that he understands engineering or physics........

Relativity contradicts logic in ways which are not allowed anyplace else.
http://www.crank.net/relativity.html

describes Novak's site as "CRANKIEST" being the crazy of the crazy.....

So beware and don't just swallow what he states as "fact" on climate change.....
lardyl is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 6:25 pm
  #51  
TeamEmbo
 
TeamEmbo's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Rangiora
Posts: 1,557
TeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Gees L, thanks for that total slating! What do you mean 'oh dear, a little knowledge...'? Seems like you are saying I'm too dumb or too easily led to see the real picture? and that because I cited Gary Novak's comments I'm just so gullible I only have a crank's word for it? I am perfectly capable of making an informed decision and I don't need to be spoken to like I need the fluffy thing taken off me least I cut myself

As far as I was aware a fact is something true, proven and indisputable.

I think there are more than 31,000 scientists in most countries and if you polled all those in the relevant countries that there would be at least a 10:1 ratio in support of the theory of A-GW being more likely than not.
And that's a fact is it? Or just you're guess?

The petition I quoted was just in the USA, as I clearly pointed out and was signed by 31,000 US scientists.

Cape Blue has discounted this not on numbers but he doesn't believe many of those are climatologists, I guess that being the only experts he considers to be worthy of listening to, along with NASA.

The IPCC claim the work of “2,500+ scientific expert reviewers, 800+ contributing authors, 450+ lead authors from 130+ countries” culminating in one report. The common conclusion being that 3,750+ experts and authors stood behind the IPCC’s views of impending doom. The media, as they do, rounds that up to 4,000.

So, even if those numbers were correct, still not as many as the 31,000 petition against man-made GW from just 1 country. I'd also used the Japanese panel of experts - they don't believe in MMGW either and believe IPCC methology is flawed. And I cited one letter from 60+ German scientists petitioning their Government, also against MMGW, as examples - I really don't see that I need to trawl through and post up here the numbers of scientists for each country in the world against MMGW just to satisfy others egos.

Anyway back to the IPCC report. As just one example (again, why do I need to bother finding a zillion other examples all saying the same thing just to prove what I already believe to be true)

Of the 3,750+ experts from 130+ countries not all are backers of its conclusions. Given the amount of experts and scientists in the world 3,750 seems a ridiculously small amount of people anyway, even if they did all back the conclusions.

From National Post

John McLean, an Australian analyst scrutinized the lists that the IPCC used to arrive at its figures and found them to be riddled with duplications, such as the 383 authors who also acted as reviewers for the same sections in which their work appeared, and the authors and reviewers who were listed twice or thrice. Remove the duplications and the total number of authors plus reviewers drops from 3,750 to 2,890.

The reviewers, as might be expected, made suggestions. In about 25% of the cases, the editors rejected the suggestions – another indication that the verdict on the IPCC’s report was far from unanimous.

Most importantly, the great majority of the reviewers commented on chapters that dealt with historical or technical issues — matters that didn’t support the IPCC’s conclusions on man-made climate change. The exception was Chapter 9 — Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. An endorsement here would clearly be a bona fide endorsement of the IPCC’s conclusion.

Chapter 9 had 53 authors and it received comments from 55 individual reviewers. Of the 55 individuals, four commented favourably on the entire chapter and three on a portion of the chapter. (To give you the flavour of these endorsements, reviewer David Sexton stated that “section # 9.6 I think reads pretty well for the bits I understand” and reviewer Fons Baede’s endorsement was “Chapter 9 SOD has improved considerably and is very readable and informative.”)

The 53 authors and seven favourable reviewers represent a total of 60 people, leading McLean to conclude: “There is only evidence that about 60 people explicitly supported the claim” made by the IPCC that global warming represents a threat to the planet. Sixty scientists among the 130-plus countries that the IPCC cites amounts to one scientist for every two countries.


US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: from 2007 (abridged)

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand, the Philippines and France, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile."

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.


US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: from 2009 (abridged)

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

A hint of what the upcoming report contains:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

In addition, the report will feature new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a heavy dose of inconvenient climate developments.


So are all these scientists cranks too? I think not.
TeamEmbo is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 8:31 pm
  #52  
you dewty owld maan!
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: is practically perfect in every way
Posts: 5,565
lardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

T-E: Why shouldn't I slate Novak? He puts his opinions out there online and asks for it does he not. He is a non-conformist, as far as I know he does not publish work in peer-reviewed journals and snipes away at what he doesn't agree with or can't understand. Look out there on the net and there is plenty to find on his views on everything from prions to aerodynamics.

If you want to take criticism of him personally then that is fine. Lots of people have quoted him and lots of others have laughed at what he says and wondered how folks can believe it. Slating the IPCC is a rather different kettle of fish. But if you feel qualified to do so then slate away but if you want to use Novak to do it then be prepared to justify that.

You ask for facts and quote exageration, innuendo and plain old rot. Show us how Novak is anything other than a crank and I might start to take his diatribes on climate change more seriously.

Anyway, as the gloves are off:

Have you provided anything here that is not a cut and paste?
Or your own view based on your technical knowledge/understanding?
Or a view of the work that has been done by the commentators you quote verbatim?
Or any answers to the critiques of the sources you regurgitate?

Nope, then I think there is nothing further to discuss as far as the "evidence" for or against A-GW goes.

As you say there is no point having a reasoned debate as you clearly think you understand the technical issues......I've a grasp of some of the chemistry but I could not claim that I understand enough to do anything other than debunk the most obvious rubbish being quoted online. But then I may not be as clever or as good a scientist as Mr Novak, et al.

Believe on and let the planet go to hell in a handcart.

"Scientific fact" is not always "true, proven and indisputable" that is the whole point of the A-GW debate, there are facts (well in some people's view there are facts that do not have to be debated) BUT their meaning is open to debate and interpretation.

For example forensic science can be investigative or interprative. Doesn't stop it being science and these uses of it are to establish facts and use facts to test hypotheses. The former can tell you, say, what type of glass was found as trace evidence at a scene and help an investigator find the person(s) who have the right glass in their hair or on their clothing. The latter then uses the data to test the hypothesis that they, rather than someone else, were at the locus at the material time. Both are science and both use different levels of "proof" and "fact" to reach scientifically testable conclusions. But the latter science is not "true, proven and indisputable" - neither is the former TBH but it is closer to being fact as it is based on measurements which most people see as being "fact".

I'd recommend reading something on the philosophy of science. When I did my science degree in the 80s I took philosophy in the final year but I am so rusty now and the notes from it are no longer to hand - can't even find the reading list....

As I said before scientific opinion is not a blanket thing. I am a scientist, I have had more papers published than Novak and does that make me more of an expert on everything scientific? Nope. But I know plenty of scientists who have differing views on matters that are open to debate, not so much on core science (Newtonian physics, the basic maths, etc) but on areas that are being developed and discussed - and many of those areas are out of their field of expertise or only overlap partly. Some of these people are right and some wrong but quoting the numbers of them does not make the science they are questioning any more right or wrong. Although I do tend to agree with the consensus view on most science and from what I have seen there is still a consensus on A-GW and that consensus seems to be based on good science as opposed to much of what the skeptics publish which is often "bad" science.
lardyl is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 9:16 pm
  #53  
TeamEmbo
 
TeamEmbo's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Rangiora
Posts: 1,557
TeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond reputeTeamEmbo has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Why are you still banging on about Novak like I'm some dedicated follower of his?

I posted up a mere smidgen of all the other evidence out there freely available from published experts in the matter who openly dispute the MMGW/CO2 as unscientific, unproven and totally biased to other agendas. And yet you chose not to debate over their points of view but continue on about Novak.

I'm not in the least bit concerned if you slate Novak or not. What concerned me was the way you worded your reply as a personal slate of me.

Like Cape Blue kept banging on about smoking (for some reason) but you don't need to be a thoracic surgeon or respiratory physician or oncologist to know that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer.

In the same vein, just because you're a forensic scientist doesn't make you any more qualified than me or anyone else to decide where on the MMGW debate I should be.

I said at the outset this is a futile debate. People get acquited of murder on grounds of reasonable doubt (unless their posting against what you think in which case we're hung, drawn and quartered before even hitting the new reply button). I feel comfortable with my choice having read all kinds of takes on MMGW and considered it and there most certainly is reasonable doubt and I'm comfortable with my choice of not believing that global warming is man-made. I don't need to post up a crap load of my own personal calculations, theories or test data to prove my decision or justify myself to you or anyone else, even if I was capable to doing so.

Slate Novak till the cows come home if you makes you feel better.

Care to comment on what these guys are saying as you clearly think they've no scientific basis, no published works, no brain of their own to see 'the real picture'

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

So don't start with the 'as the gloves are off' when you started it by making a personal assault on me like I'm some poor wee deluded thing that only believes in cranks.
TeamEmbo is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 9:23 pm
  #54  
BE Enthusiast
 
Perry Groves's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2005
Location: Bay Of Plenty
Posts: 796
Perry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond reputePerry Groves has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/8379690.stm
Perry Groves is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 9:55 pm
  #55  
Democracy advocate
 
Cape Blue's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,880
Cape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Originally Posted by TeamEmbo View Post
see what I mean? Futile waste of time! I'm just an ordinary gal and the technical content isn't above my understanding. I haven't tried to obscure anything. I'm under no illusion that whatever was posted was going to be shot down. And you know what, that's just fine.
I think that's one of the problems, the whole range and magnitude of the varius feedback loops and other non-greenhouse impacts like the dimming from Chinese coal emissions is WAY beyond the ability of "an ordinary gal" to comprehend.

Lardyl appears to be a chemist but does not profess to have all the required knowledge, when I studied my engineering degree in the late 80's I specialized in emissions from engines (primarily NOx, SOx, CO & HC - CO2 was not heavily in the picture then), I also studied a masters degree in environmental pollution (again, CO2 was not a big factor at the time, more land and water pollution and emissions from incinerators etc) and have worked for nearly 20 years in the industrial pollution field - and I am very sure that I do not understand the full range and ramifcations of the science behind MMCC - to do that I would need to work full-time in this subject for the next 5-10 years.

For the three other people reading this thread, try this as an exercise - draw a circle of the earth and then draw a scale-version of the atmosphere around it - if it looks like this then you are pretty normal in your understanding, if it looks like this then you are one mm further forward than the average person when it comes to understanding CC.

I note you've made no comment on the Japanese or German scientists. You've discounted the 31,000 on one US petition with one sweeping statement.

There's heaps more information out there that proves how flawed the IPCC is and how many of directly involved scientists have expressed serious doubts themselves, there's data to prove, for instance, the air temperatures over Canada have actually decreased over the past 30 years; the opposite of what global warming 'experts' predicted. Worldwide the past 10 years have not seen the continued 'heating' predicted but rather cooling, ie. the total opposite of what their theories predicted if we didn't all stop burning fossil fuels.

When there's so many conflicting facts and the scientists themselves can't agree, how can Joe Public possibly believe as 100% fact that global warming is man-made? So, like I said, it comes down to personal beliefs. You read what you read, hear what you hear and make your own mind up and after doing that I came to the conclusion I don't believe global warming is man-made. What part of that are you not understanding?
I haven't had the time to do more debunking of the 31,000 although the Sierra Club seemed to indicate that some were fooled into signing and that the vast majority were "scientists" who had no clue about climatology or any related discipline. I am not even sure that anyone with just a B.Sc. could really call themselves a "scientist", just because I have an M.Sc. and am Chartered (C.Env.) I would not class myself as a scientist capable of having a valid opinion on the full technical side of MMCC. As I say, to have a fully valid opinion I would need to have been working in the CC sector for many years, not just having a professional interest from the side.

The issue around the IPCC is quite key - they have a multi-national, multi-disciplinary approach and publish all their data which then gets peer-reviewed by all and sundry who can point out any flaws and they can be debated - you keep pasting snippets from a few odd-bods websites. I mention NASA as I often hear that organizations that are involved in MMCC are liberal self-haters, NASA under George Bush was not denying MMCC, even if it did not help the career of those involved. I started to read the Stern Report but to be honest, it can be pretty heavy going after a long day at work.

I don't know about the temps above Canada, it could easily be to do with the many feedback loops that you appear unaware of (and that I also am not fully conversant with) - I seem to remember that the atlantic conveyor was weakening due to Arctic icemelt affecting the salinity, this brings up less warm water from the equator and would actually make the UK colder in a warming world - perhaps the Canadian air temp change (if there is one) is related to this, or perhaps one of the million other feedbacks that are beyond the time and understanding of lay people such as the reflectance of sulphur emissions from industrializing China - who knows? - well certainly no one who has not got advanced degrees in the subject and who has not spent the last 10 years working and researching the subject, thats for sure.
Cape Blue is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 9:58 pm
  #56  
Democracy advocate
 
Cape Blue's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,880
Cape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Originally Posted by Perry Groves View Post
This proves the world is getting colder! They even have icebergs in NZ now.
Cape Blue is offline  
Old Nov 26th 2009, 10:18 pm
  #57  
Busy Again
 
bdclayton's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Location: Tauranga
Posts: 248
bdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of lightbdclayton is a glorious beacon of light
Default Re: Man made global warming...

very interesting debate
i am not a scientist. But i think you should look at who put the money up for the research, into what theory. It cost lots of cash to research and publish the research have a look at who is paying for all of it all.
bdclayton is offline  
Old Nov 27th 2009, 1:49 am
  #58  
BE Enthusiast
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 405
Black Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of lightBlack Sheep is a glorious beacon of light
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Originally Posted by bdclayton View Post
very interesting debate
i am not a scientist. But i think you should look at who put the money up for the research, into what theory. It cost lots of cash to research and publish the research have a look at who is paying for all of it all.
And TeamEmbo said:
Like Cape Blue kept banging on about smoking (for some reason) but you don't need to be a thoracic surgeon or respiratory physician or oncologist to know that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer.

So how about two birds with one stone:

Frederick Seitz....

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

Seitz was president of the United States National Academy of Sciences 1962-1969.
Seitz questioned whether global warming is anthropogenic.[8] He supported the position of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) on global warming [clarification needed] and in an open letter invited scientists to sign the OISM's global warming petition. Seitz also signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration. Critics say he used the same "uncertainty" tactic to challenge global warning that he had used effectively at R.J. Reynolds to confuse the cancer/smoking link debate.
Seitz was a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute and was chairman of its board. In 1994, the Institute published a paper by Seitz titled Global warming and ozone hole controversies: A challenge to scientific judgment. He questioned the view that CFCs "are the greatest threat to the ozone layer"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Former National Academy of Sciences president Dr. Frederick Seitz earned "approximately US$ 585,000" in the 70s and 80s as a consultant to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company while continuing "to draw a salary as 'president emeritus' at Rockefeller University". R.J. Reynolds contributed $45 million to the medical research co-ordinated by Seitz and others. Although the research did not touch upon the health effects of tobacco smoking, "the industry frequently ran ads in newspapers and magazines citing its multi-million-dollar research program as proof of its commitment to science—and arguing that the evidence on the health effects of smoking was mixed."
Plus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change

Scientists who participate in the IPCC assessment process do so without any compensation other than the normal salaries they receive from their home institutions. The process is labor intensive, diverting time and resources from participating scientists' research programs
Black Sheep is offline  
Old Nov 27th 2009, 1:56 am
  #59  
you dewty owld maan!
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: is practically perfect in every way
Posts: 5,565
lardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond reputelardyl has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Originally Posted by TeamEmbo View Post
Why are you still banging on about Novak like I'm some dedicated follower of his?

I posted up a mere smidgen of all the other evidence out there freely available from published experts in the matter who openly dispute the MMGW/CO2 as unscientific, unproven and totally biased to other agendas. And yet you chose not to debate over their points of view but continue on about Novak.

I'm not in the least bit concerned if you slate Novak or not. What concerned me was the way you worded your reply as a personal slate of me.

Like Cape Blue kept banging on about smoking (for some reason) but you don't need to be a thoracic surgeon or respiratory physician or oncologist to know that smoking is bad for you and causes cancer.

In the same vein, just because you're a forensic scientist doesn't make you any more qualified than me or anyone else to decide where on the MMGW debate I should be.

I said at the outset this is a futile debate. People get acquited of murder on grounds of reasonable doubt (unless their posting against what you think in which case we're hung, drawn and quartered before even hitting the new reply button). I feel comfortable with my choice having read all kinds of takes on MMGW and considered it and there most certainly is reasonable doubt and I'm comfortable with my choice of not believing that global warming is man-made. I don't need to post up a crap load of my own personal calculations, theories or test data to prove my decision or justify myself to you or anyone else, even if I was capable to doing so.
Slate Novak till the cows come home if you makes you feel better.

Care to comment on what these guys are saying as you clearly think they've no scientific basis, no published works, no brain of their own to see 'the real picture'

Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

So don't start with the 'as the gloves are off' when you started it by making a personal assault on me like I'm some poor wee deluded thing that only believes in cranks.
Who made it a personal assault on you? You took it as one, but as you haven't really put forward any techincal views other than quoting Novak (who cites a technical view on CO2 as a greenhouse gas) and repeating it as your "view" - the rest are just sound bytes and summaries - so then how can we make it personal? And how can what we say be construed as attacking the other learned and eminent scientists?

This is turning into a "My dad is bigger than your dad" argument with some "no he started it" thrown in for good measure. I know climate change brings out the worst in some of us but there's no need for that sort of argument.

I know people who are scientists who work at similar institutions who could sign a declaration along the lines you describe (and I think I know at least one of them who is at London as I used to work with them and they are on several "lists") and they are not truly qualified to make the wide-ranging decision that you want them to make and to rely upon. I've read/heard science from some of the skeptics where their background is clearly not in climate science and they are overstretching their expertise - the two in the US who supported Bush's stance on climate change who were physicists spring to mind, but that was four or so years ago and I can't recall their names but I do recall them being discussed and quoted on the radio and thinking they had made the classic mistake of going "out of field". Forensic science leads you to understand that problem as it is a classic technique of the opposing barrister to get expert to start making "out of field" comments so as to damage their credibility. And it works.

As far as smoking goes, as others have said, there are still people out there that do not believe the causal link between smoking and many diseases and you'll find if you dig a bit that these groups/blogs/people/research institutions that you are quoting or giving tacit support to, they include some of the very people that argued very strongly against the scientific and medical mainstream on that very issue. Its a pretty good analogy as the evidence was not cut and dried on that issue and some people could say that governments, etc used and use that issue to control their populations and it damages employment, economic growth, etc - just as many claim in the case of MMGW.

In the 90s I used to provide technical advice to claimants on occupational exposure and chemical exposure claims where there were experts who would be rolled out by the companies supplying asbestos products, by those who implimented very poor occupational health practices, etc who claimed that the exposures to these substances were not damagaing to the health of a person. They were "scientists" or "technicians" and claimed to be experts (in court) and didn't know what they were talking about or chose to ignore the evidence. If they can do that for the coin they received from the large corporations then its not very surprising that some people write off some of these anti A-GW experts and their comments. These experts were more common in the US and you could if you wanted to estimate the number of them in the US. I'll not do that as I'll be accused of guesswork but you should see the point.....

If you want to get to the technical grist of all this there are some blogs and web pages where the real stuff is debated and discussed. Looked at these places a few times and the real people involved in the real research post there sometimes but they are clearly on a different page to me as far as the core science goes. That is what brought home to me that I would be out of my depth doing anything other than seeing through clear contradictions in the secondary or tertiary sources of information on this issue or the blogs/news sites posted by one side or the other - the primary work is just too specialised for most of us mere mortals. That leaves my view as what I said early on in the thread:

myself I am a "precautionary principle" person
ie I favour the A-GW argument on the basis of the evidence at the moment and am prepared to act accordingly because of the precautionary principle. And my take on that is that it is a good thing that we minimise our emissions as long as this ties in with minimising waste and the use of finite global resources such as oil/gas, minerals, food stocks, etc. Doesn't mean that I will slate all those scientists, involved in the IPCC for example, who have genuine concerns over the interpretation and politics of A-GW.

Your characterisation of that was rather uncalled for, but then if that's how you want to behave and believe.......

As I alluded to above - how is it possible to make meaningful comment on what you have quoted as most of the quotes from these eminent scientists are "sound bytes" not substantive comments on specific claims/issues. It's likely to be as constructive as suggesting that the 31,000 are more than those in the IPCC so they must be more valid. mmm.....apples and pears comes to mind..

I like some of the scientists you quote also worry about how reporters pass on this research, pass on their views of its impact on climate change and can agree with those scientists who worry about how it is being reported or their results are being used by journalists - I know all about that as well - having had work mis-attributed by well-meaning scientific journos is not a great experience.

And TBH I'd take issue with your argument that 31,000 scientists are an important force to reckon with (on the one hand) and then you who professes to be a non-scientist suggest that you are equally able to make up your mind and give an equally valueable view as I or others on this thread, with a scientific training, ......?????

Back OT - I think we should be able to vote twice in the poll as well - options 2 and 4 are not mutually exclusive.
lardyl is offline  
Old Nov 27th 2009, 1:59 am
  #60  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,784
kporte is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Man made global warming...

Cull all the cows, replace with kangaroos. Problemo solved ( if there is one)
kporte is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.