An Inconvenient Truth Al Gore

[Grumble]

I have a theory, and my theory is this. It is my theory and nobody else's:

 

Look at the temp spike around the middle of the last century. Could that coincide with A-bombs in Japan and later H-bomb testing? Could the rise since then be down to nuclear power plants?

 

Woollen jumpers CAN stop global warming. Refuse nuclear electricity and the world will cool down again.

 

There - my theory. We need to start breeding more woolly sheep NOW!

[LoneWolf]

Who's programming you?

 

I dont know who if anyone is programming Albert but the lobbyists are driven by simple economics.

The benefit of moving away from fossil fuels is essentially incremental and invisible.

The costs are a different story. If you happen to own a power station, coal mine, an oil well or a 4 * 4 assembly line there is every reason to fight against those who want you to be taxed for carbon emissions.

So there we have it in a nutshell. Benefits are dissipated and largely invisible. Costs are concentrated.

[LoneWolf]

Without Kyoto etc there would be no carbon trading, you need the agreements first, the market will then fill the space they create.

 

The problem with carbon trading is that it proves my belief that States cant create markets. It just isnt working.

If it was working carbon markets would be liquid ..they arent ..and carbon prices would be climbing ..they arent they are tumbling.

[Albert Tatlock]

I have a theory, and my theory is this. It is my theory and nobody else's:

 

Look at the temp spike around the middle of the last century. Could that coincide with A-bombs in Japan and later H-bomb testing? Could the rise since then be down to nuclear power plants?

 

Woollen jumpers CAN stop global warming. Refuse nuclear electricity and the world will cool down again.

 

There - my theory. We need to start breeding more woolly sheep NOW!

 

It also fits in with the invention and distribution of coca cola....hmmm perhaps we're on to something here!

 

 

Sound mathmatics and apolitical science are my drivers.

[LoneWolf]

Sound mathmatics and apolitical science are my drivers.

Money drives change. Maths and science facilitate it.

[SugarBee]

Another view:

 

CLICK HERE

[LoneWolf]

Another view:

CLICK HERE

 

Yes but you can find opinions such as that one all over the internet, published in right wing newspapers such as the Mail and published as genuine scientific papers for peer review. Here is another one Click

The motivation for publications of this sort is quite simply that of money. See my last two posts. Its a consequence of heavy handed State intervention where a big stick is wielded in the shape of taxes [never works]

The market will follow the money and IMHO we will sooner rather than later see the money going towards viable large scale alternative energy solutions. That is where the solution lies

[SugarBee]

True true Lone Wolf - was just posting another alternative view. I agree with both sides on certain issues.

[Albert Tatlock]

Sound mathmatics and apolitical science are my drivers.

Money drives change. Maths and science facilitate it.

 

 

Actually I think it's the other way around.

 

Mathematicians and scientists create things and sell them for small amounts of money (we used to do it in exchange for something useful like food).

 

Then the middlemen and spongers (salesmen, accountants, banks and the like) up the price, take a big cut, and pretend that it is their money that drives the system - and put themselves in charge of the mathematicians and engineers. Because they are not clever enough to do the maths or the science (can't do anything constructive) they have to make out they are good at something - so they create complex, uninteresting and boring money systems to bamboozle busy mathematicians, scientists and everyone else - systems designed to 'bet money' on what the mathematicians and scientists will do next (and of which only finance types are ever told about so they can make even more money). Periodically these financial systems fail (recession), and all of the mathematicians and scientists get chucked out of the lab for a few months. Just before the mathematicians and scientists start to work out why they are unemployed, the the financial system mysteriously starts up again and the mathematicians and scientists return to what they are really interested in.

 

Meanwhile, the estate agents pursuade everyone to sell their own soil and bricks to each other at exorbitant prices taking out money which could best be used in the lab by the mathematicians and scientists, the arts people take the money off the middlemen and spongers who have no sense and loads of money, and the politicians simply slow everyone down with loads of red tape whilst trying to take full ownership of everyones lives (and as much money out of the system as they can while doing so).

 

In the meantime, the human race is at least 5000 years behind where it could be by now.

 

 

_

[Albert Tatlock]

Solar Activity

[LoneWolf]

Solar Activity

 

Oh no not the Telegraph ! Please use this one Albert. At least its from a credible source

 

Click

[ponderer]

What has become clearer over the past few years is that the scientific community (which by definition operates according to the rigorous procedures of the scientific method and is hence disinterested/apolitical), through its debates and carefully monitored journals has reached a stage where it is signalling very loudly to decision makers that human activities are creating an average increase in temperature through global warming and that urgent action needs to be taken. To all intents and purposes the scientific community has now reached a consensus.

 

To represent the conclusions of the scientific community in any other way is to deny the outcomes of the scientific method and hence to be profoundly 'anti-science' - to attempt to misuse and distort scientific endeavour for vested interest or other motives. Sceptics have to face the truth that they can only maintain their denial by being anti-science and representing all scientists and the work of the scientific community as part of some conspiracy. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change is a serious global threat and demands an urgent global response by responsible people everywhere and across the political spectrum.

The scientific uncetainty is now narrowing down to how quickly the earth is warming and what the impacts have been and (more seriously) will be in the future.

 

Now the Stern Report http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/999/7...ive_summary.pdf

has undertaken a rigorous economic analysis of the impact of climate change from a range of sources and has come up with conclusions on probable risks and costs which are a huge challenge to the international community.

 

It makes sobering reading and is a wake up call to many complacent decision makers. The risk is of economic disruption later this century on a scale associated with the great wars and economic depression of the 1920s. To dismiss this serious and rigorous research by a distinguished World Bank economist as some kind of silly conspiracy to try and force green taxes on people is frankly ridiculous. This is not moral high ground preaching by environmentalist but hard headed economic analysis of the risks, informed by the most detailed scientific evidence.

 

I have no doubt that history will treat the climate sceptics of the early 21st century very harshly. Future generations will demand to know why, when the scientific evidence is so overwhelming, we failed to act...

[Albert Tatlock]

What has become clearer over the past few years is that the scientific community (which by definition operates according to the rigorous procedures of the scientific method and is hence disinterested/apolitical), through its debates and carefully monitored journals has reached a stage where it is signalling very loudly to decision makers that human activities are creating an average increase in temperature through global warming and that urgent action needs to be taken. To all intents and purposes the scientific community has now reached a consensus.

 

To represent the conclusions of the scientific community in any other way is to deny the outcomes of the scientific method and hence to be profoundly 'anti-science' - to attempt to misuse and distort scientific endeavour for vested interest or other motives. Sceptics have to face the truth that they can only maintain their denial by being anti-science and representing all scientists and the work of the scientific community as part of some conspiracy. The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change is a serious global threat and demands an urgent global response by responsible people everywhere and across the political spectrum.

The scientific uncetainty is now narrowing down to how quickly the earth is warming and what the impacts have been and (more seriously) will be in the future.

 

Now the Stern Report http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk./media/999/7...ive_summary.pdf

has undertaken a rigorous economic analysis of the impact of climate change from a range of sources and has come up with conclusions on probable risks and costs which are a huge challenge to the international community.

 

It makes sobering reading and is a wake up call to many complacent decision makers. The risk is of economic disruption later this century on a scale associated with the great wars and economic depression of the 1920s. To dismiss this serious and rigorous research by a distinguished World Bank economist as some kind of silly conspiracy to try and force green taxes on people is frankly ridiculous. This is not moral high ground preaching by environmentalist but hard headed economic analysis of the risks, informed by the most detailed scientific evidence.

 

I have no doubt that history will treat the climate sceptics of the early 21st century very harshly. Future generations will demand to know why, when the scientific evidence is so overwhelming, we failed to act...

 

Is that speaking from a scientific background or as an observer?

[Chinahand]

Solar Activity

 

Oh no not the Telegraph ! Please use this one Albert. At least its from a credible source

 

Click

 

I really would recommend reading the RealClimate blog. This is a site written by climatologists who are actively working and publishing sceintific papers in the field. Their index page gives links to all the typical controversies within the scientific community, and publishes refuations of those who are using the science to distort the debate.

 

It has a whole section on solar forcing, and this is a reasonable summary of the solar cycles debate. The main point is that there are reputable scientific papers which point to the role of the solar cylce in climate change (some say it has an influence of up to 35%, but these conclusions are controversial and disputed). Because it is extremely difficult to find proxies for solar cycles back in time it is difficult to get any long term trends to link climate to the solar cylces: scientists have attempted to do this with from the amounts of isotopes of Berylium and C14, but it's not clear. The site actively discusses the paper the Telegraph champions, points out the problems with it, and provides alternative research that contradicts it. Cherry picking one paper and saying everything is down to a single source is just simplistic; the maddenning thing is that the detail of the Telegraph story admits this; recognizing the role of CO2; but the headline and bombast does not ... typical sloppy journalism.

 

The basic conclusion of their review of the scientific literature is:

 

Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.

 

To get to that conclusion you've got to wade through discussions of about 20 scientific papers showing how complex the issues are. I'm happy with this issue being multifaceted and complex, its as I would expect, but to say as a result man made carbon isn't important, and isn't going to influence our future climate is illogical and anti-scientific.

[Albert Tatlock]

I really would recommend reading the RealClimate blog. This is a site written by climatologists who are actively working and publishing sceintific papers in the field. Their index page gives links to all the typical controversies within the scientific community, and publishes refuations of those who are using the science to distort the debate.

This is a good site. Will have a good delve.