Al Gore Slamdunked

[Terse]

Almost exactly what we've been saying!

 

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

 

Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

 

He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

 

He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

[Albert Tatlock]

Almost exactly what we've been saying!

 

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

 

Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

 

He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

 

He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

Too late. It's already a religion.

[Slim]

Almost exactly what we've been saying!

 

Yet look at the reaction to this and other stories where elements of research have been thrown into doubt and have required revision. See how people who don't understand the principles of research latch onto it and claim it discredits all parts of the subject. People should question science, that's the point, but they should understand how to apply those questions.

 

I agree with pretty much everything in that article, but it works both ways. Science isn't certain of anything, I think most people misunderstand that.

[Chinahand]

Very simple - and obviously a bit simplistic - explanation of the green house effect. But a really nice demonstration of direct science. You could almost do this experiment in your kitchen with ordinary thermometers!

[Slim]

Is there enough evidence of potential fraud for an enquiry?

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1847...misconduct.html

 

"The internal inquiry has found that Mann did not "participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data"

[Chinahand]

Just to add some evidence for those who claim its been a cold January.

 

Remember that just because its cold in one place doesn't mean it isn't warm in another.

 

January 2010 is the warmest January since satellite observations began - a lot warmer.

 

 

Link to explain the data.

 

Basically it may be cold over the UK and the Southern US, but its alot warmer than usual in the high Artic - the warmer areas more than cancel out the colder ones, making for an overal rise in temperatures.

 

[Cambon]

January 2010 is the warmest January since satellite observations began - a lot warmer.

Ah good, I'll get the suncream and shades out then, and wait for the summer.

[Terse]

MORE GENUINE DOUBTS ABOUT WARMING

[Slim]

MORE GENUINE DOUBTS ABOUT WARMING

 

 

Did you read that all the way to the end? Do so, and read this too:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomm...g-all-this.html

 

Christy, it seems to me, is very vocal that the headlines of climate science have been over stated. He doesn't say anywhere that I can see that warming isn't happening, just that the science isn't as complete as the headlines suggest.

[Chinahand]

Just to say - the satellite data I've posted above is consistent with the data from the ground stations and is not affected by any of the issues concerning badly placed recording statations.

 

Plus see this and this - which directly deal with the claims made by Mr Watt's quoted in Terse's article and which show the evidence of climate change is a lot more than historical temperature records.

[Slim]

[Cambon]

But Slim, sea levels have been changing ever since the dawn of time. Off Jersey there is an area called the petrified forest, which during an exceptionally low tide you can see. This is from when that whole area (including the channel Islands) was dry land. In other parts of the world lakes and seashore have dried up. A whole re-balancing act of nature.

 

I am not saying that adding carbon from fossil fuel is not adding to the already unstoppable problem (called nature). I am just tired of the scaremongering and industry that has grown up around it.

 

Carbon is carbon. There is a finite amount of carbon on earth. All the carbon that is now oil, coal, gas, was once living organisms. It was all above the surface. As Albert Tatlock continually bangs on about, the only way to reduce the amount of carbon used is to reduce the number of people. As the population of earth continues to grow, so will the atmospheric carbon problem. It really is as simple as that.

[Slim]

But Slim, sea levels have been changing ever since the dawn of time. Off Jersey there is an area called the petrified forest, which during an exceptionally low tide you can see. This is from when that whole area (including the channel Islands) was dry land. In other parts of the world lakes and seashore have dried up. A whole re-balancing act of nature.

 

Not sure what you mean by 're-balancing act of nature'. The reply is the same as Chinas to Gazza above, nobodys saying that temperature, and sea levels, have been constant forever. The pace of change and mans influence on it is the issue here. We're not worried about the change that'll take tens of millions of years, there's nothing we can do about that. What Climate Change is concerned with is the change that takes decades, and the acceleration of that change from mans influence, eg:

 

 

 

I am not saying that adding carbon from fossil fuel is not adding to the already unstoppable problem (called nature). I am just tired of the scaremongering and industry that has grown up around it.

 

As we've debated to death, industry would far rather this problem went away. Scaremongering? What else would you do, ignore the issue?

 

 

Carbon is carbon. There is a finite amount of carbon on earth. All the carbon that is now oil, coal, gas, was once living organisms. It was all above the surface. As Albert Tatlock continually bangs on about, the only way to reduce the amount of carbon used is to reduce the number of people. As the population of earth continues to grow, so will the atmospheric carbon problem. It really is as simple as that.

 

In my opinion, none of that is true.

[Cambon]

In my opinion, none of that is true.

 

Wow! Back to school for you then

 

Yes, the sea level is rising. Yes, scientists say that the northern ice cap in particular is melting. As a very large proportion of that is floating, it is already displacing it's weight by volume of water. So a bit like ice in a glass, as it melts the level stays the same.

 

On the other hand, the likes of the Aral sea (fourth latgest sea in the world) has halved in size since the 1960s. The massive man made lake that feeds the Hoover dam is drying us as the rivers that feed it dry up. Even the world's largest freshwater lake, Lake Superior is at it's lowest level in the best part of a century. All the great lakes are drying up. All that water has to go somewhere and my guessing is water vapour (the biggest greenhouse gas) and then the sea.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Cambon

[Slim]

Wow! Back to school for you then

 

Like I said, we're not talking about millennial cycles here. They're not really of any relevance to this discussion. Yes, the carbon that is now being released into the atmosphere may once have been organic, but what matters to us as a thriving organism of the day is where that carbon is now what effect it has on our environment. Taking a simplistic example; drilling it and burning it is in our control, and it's creating the problem. How is highlighting the fact that this carbon may have been an animal millions of years ago in any way relevant to mankind today?

 

 

As to the population point, one person in Tanzania has the same footprint as 320 Americans. You cannot tell me that carbon output cannot be reduced by anything other than reducing the population in the face of those kind of figures.

 

Yes, the sea level is rising. Yes, scientists say that the northern ice cap in particular is melting. As a very large proportion of that is floating, it is already displacing

it's weight by volume of water. So a bit like ice in a glass, as it melts the level stays the same.

 

Is there a point here?

 

 

On the other hand, the likes of the Aral sea (fourth latgest sea in the world) has halved in size since the 1960s. The massive man made lake that feeds the Hoover dam is drying us as the rivers that feed it dry up. Even the world's largest freshwater lake, Lake Superior is at it's lowest level in the best part of a century. All the great lakes are drying up. All that water has to go somewhere and my guessing is water vapour (the biggest greenhouse gas) and then the sea.

 

A landlocked sea that's drying because of man made diversions? Inland lakes drying and creating water vapor? All parts of climate change and the feedback loop. Whats your point, unnless I'm missing it you appear to be demonstrating climate change?