Al Gore Slamdunked

[Dr_Dave]

Interesting analysis of the code issues that various people are claiming to be "smoking guns".

 

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/qu...mining_code.php

 

- The "fudge factor" apparently isn't even used (commented out further on);

- The data that "hides the decline" is discussed openly in the paper that comes out of it.

 

It's a real, real shame that the memes that come out of this are being propagated endlessly and can't be stopped now, no matter how much debunking we do. It's a shame not only for the reputation of science and scientists, but also for the potentially awful consequences of AGW being real.

 

Dave

[Ringwraith]

Copenhagen climate summit: 1,200 limos, 140 private planes and caviar wedges

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhage...iar-wedges.html

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough.

[MilitantDogOwner]

Heard a piece on the Wright Stuff (from the Sun or the Wail I think) that green house gases and a hole in the ozone layer are in fact helping protect the ice caps by creating new air flows and air currents which are cooling the ice caps.

 

Although take it with a pinch of salt considering the red tops are the source.

[Slim]

Copenhagen is preparing for the climate change summit that will produce as much carbon dioxide as a town the size of Middlesbrough. [/i]

 

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/12/co...campaign=th_rss

 

"the Danes had long planned to offset an eventual 100,000 tons of carbon, setting aside nearly a million Euros"

 

I see you have the brainiac Palin on side Ringy, you must be proud!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2...ics_steami.html

[Cambon]

"the Danes had long planned to offset an eventual 100,000 tons of carbon, setting aside nearly a million Euros"

 

Carbon offset? What a load of cock!

[Slim]

Carbon offset? What a load of cock!

 

Did you read the article? Certainly better than nowt.

[Slim]

Nice balanced view from the Loony Lord, calling a Jewish bloke from Sustrans 'Hitler Youth'

[manshimajin]

Apparently Al Gore will only fly economy now on domestic and international flights, catches the bus or train from the airport to town, stays in a little hotel without 'luxury' (ie power hungry) facilities such as pools and gyms, carries his own bag and refuses to have any bodyguards travel with him.

 

If only all politicians and ex politicians would do the same to set a leadership example. If only they'd stop preaching energy efficiency in the EU whilst moving the EU Parliament every month from Brussels to Strasbourg and back.

 

(BTW - can anyone explain to me how the 'carbon offset' system works - as I understand it you pollute the atmosphere with carbon today and justify you actions and salve your conscience by saying you have arranged for a tree to be planted that will soak up an equivalent amount of carbon in about 25 years time when it has grown to a decent size - that is of course if all the carbon you have pumped out today hasn't destroyed the world in 25 years time). I understood that the whole idea was to stop pumping too much CO2 out over the next 10 years - not to offset it sometime in the mid term future.)

Edited December 13, 2009 by manshimajin

[Slim]

(BTW - can anyone explain to me how the 'carbon offset' system works - as I understand it you pollute the atmosphere with carbon today and justify you actions and salve your conscience by saying you have arranged for a tree to be planted that will soak up an equivalent amount of carbon in about 25 years time when it has grown to a decent size - that is of course if all the carbon you have pumped out today hasn't destroyed the world in 25 years time). I understood that the whole idea was to stop pumping too much CO2 out over the next 10 years - not to offset it sometime in the mid term future.)

 

Offsetting is just the mechanism, there's lots of different ways to do it, from investing into renewables like windfarms to waste reduction. There's lots of dubious carbon offsetting, and yes, tree planting doesn't seem to be particularly effective. Carbon offset programmes that use cash to prevent the destruction of forests seems much more effective.

[Terse]

One of the 'Minority'

[Slim]

One of the 'Minority'

 

A detailed response:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...in-new-clothes/

 

It's interesting stuff, I think alternative theories from respected figures like this are worth taking seriously and investigating, and there are groups that are attempting to validate this work. Even if the theories are correct, which isn't conclusive, it doesn't deny there's warming it's just challenging the source. Atmospheric carbon reduction is still a worthy goal even if he's correct.

[Chinahand]

One of the 'Minority'

Svensmark's research is very controversial - he's now taken up publishing a populariser of his ideas with a journalist - but is under scrutiny by fellow members of the scientific community.

 

I actually know Sir Arnold Wolfendale - he's former Astronomer Royal - good to see him still publishing away.

[Terse]

One of the 'Minority'

 

A detailed response:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...in-new-clothes/

 

It's interesting stuff, I think alternative theories from respected figures like this are worth taking seriously and investigating, and there are groups that are attempting to validate this work. Even if the theories are correct, which isn't conclusive, it doesn't deny there's warming it's just challenging the source. Atmospheric carbon reduction is still a worthy goal even if he's correct.

Thanks for a considered reply, Slim.

I can't help feeling that public support for reducing carbon emissions would be much improved if the doomsday scenario was a little less pronounced, and alternative theories were at least given reasonable consideration rather than simply being rejected out of hand.

Just my personal opinion.

[Slim]

I can't help feeling that public support for reducing carbon emissions would be much improved if the doomsday scenario was a little less pronounced, and alternative theories were at least given reasonable consideration rather than simply being rejected out of hand.

Just my personal opinion.

 

I understand that, but I also see the difficulty scientists and policy makers have here. It is, as we've seen, an incredibly complicated subject. None of us here fully understand it, which is evident from the argument on both sides. It's also potentially an extremely serious threat.

 

We've seen in this thread, that most people don't want to be arsed. Most people don't like change, are very comfortable the way they are, thank you. So pitching the arguments correctly is very difficult. It's hard not to dismiss some of the very ridiculous alternative theories out of hand, many of them are just too stupid to even consider, let alone have the people working on real science distracted by it. And if the doomsday scenario wasn't pronounced, would policy makers take notice?

 

To me, you've got to break it down quite simply:

 

- Lots of verifiable work by respectable and qualified people

- Potentially very serious implications

- Potential solutions have lots to gain outside the issue

- Not much downside

 

So why not go along with it? By all means challenge the science, that's what it's there for.

 

Much of the argument comes down to oil and coal, which we know wont last forever. So even if you don't think global warming is man made, a push now to wean ourselves off oil must be a good thing?

[Terse]

Not a criticism of climate change - just a warning that no one should ever trust a politician! CLICK