Global Warming is NOT Manmade

[WilD_CaT]

Show me where the economy has forced any one to cut down. Our petrol price is exorbitant now but people still use there cars inthe exact same way. In any event no company is going to sell anything at a price that no one will buy, so even high costs will never get to the point that will mean no sales. If you believe that companies are one day going to wake up and say 'hey their is not much fuel left, only enough for another 10 years, so lets put the price up to the point that no one buys anymore then you don't know much about how companies make money. They want to make as much profit as posible but also want to make sales so they insure that prices remain affordable.

So you are saying the petrol price getting bigger has had no impact on the car manufacturing industry. No impact on the types of cars people are buying (Small vs Large), no impact on how we drive (Economically vs "heavy right foot"), how much has already been spent on R&D into alternative fuel sources and will continue to be spent on this?

As far the limit or cap on prices, the limit will be at what point is no one on the planet willing to pay the price asked. Think forwards. Most people will probably be using alternative fuel sources and only the super-rich with their old cars and ferrari's and such will be able to afford it So the cap will be far above what most people can afford. The more profitable it is drilling and selling oil the more likely investors will put money into looking for alternatives.

The price equilibrium is the point at which supply and demand meet. If demand remains high then they can keep raising prices until and equilibrium is reached. It has nothing to do with afforadability but profit maximisation. Read the damn article. I know perfectly well how companies make money and being nice and pricing everything low so it is affordable has nothing to do with it. Prices will always in a free market reflect supply and demand. So you are right in that they won't raise prices till no one can afford it (NO demand) but wrong to assume it will remain affordable. Not when they can make more money by raising the price.

Guess what all the environmentally friendly solutions, gadgets and eco friendly alternatives produced thus far have come in the absence of any legislation. Why is this?

People have realised that if you consume something that doesn't replenish it won't last forever. At some point it will run out. So people are seeking alternatives.

People have also realised that due to the changes in technology it will be cheaper and more efficient to use certain alternatives rather than drilling and shipping oil all over the globe. It has nothing to do with any enacted legislation forcing R&D into those areas.
In the face of rising costs to our current lifestyle people demand cheaper alternatives.

Seriously you are the one who shows lack of understanding.

And stop passing AGW as a fact that the entire scientific community is in agreement about. If the community was then there would be 1 climate model that is 100% accurate or pretty close. Not 20 or so. And those other 20 models wouldn't need anymore more funding would they? So due to the fact that their are multiple models and massive DISAGREEMENT, AGW is not a fact. Not like gravity or *gasp* evolution.

Besides how the scientific community agrees with a hypotheses is by attempting to disprove it(And failing) and questioning and checking the data and evidence. When the evidence from the IPCC is called into question that throws everything up in the air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QThpdRs6hoY

Besides AGW is a hypotheses. The models used as evidence for AGW are hypotheses themselves, not facts. Trying to enact legislation that will change how people interact and do business on a massive scale whilst not caring about the consequences or the economic effects is completely irrational and insane.

 

[BacchusZA]

Actually, the belief that global warming is not caused by humans is a myth. Scientists are mostly unanimous in the fact that global warming on the scale that it is now is not natural and seen as though many on this forum believe in science above all else, it should then not be disputed. Those scientists that say otherwise are viewed as 'heretic' by their peers. The Data is far from incomplete, Scientists have been working for a long time in our last "clean" environment, Antartica, collecting it. More importantly there is evidence, that if nothing is done to stop it we are heading for disaster.

As for humans not being as big an impact on the environment, as i said, blinkers.

I don't see any other creatures on earth building factories that produce poisonous gas byproducts or drive cars that pump gasses into the atmosphere or dump poisonous wastes all over the place.

Sorry to break this to you, but the belief that AGW is real is anything but unanimous, and the number of sceptics in the scientific community, people who use those same scientific pricniples and who have come to very different conclusions is growing at a very rapid pace. And if you want to talk about science, then the first thing you need to do is immediately drop words like "myth" and "heretic". Words like that have a place in theological, metaphysical, and philosophical discussions, not scientific ones.

Theories and dodgy computer models which don't even attempt to model half the known variables, never mind the stuff we haven't been able to figure out, are not proof. Fitting data to your theory instead of fiting your theory to the data is not proof. Persisting in using the same models when they prove to be hopelessly innacurate, and ignoring data which doesn't fit your prediction is not proof. it's not even science. It's propoganda and gross dishonesty. To use your word, "blinkers" indeed.

And consensus is not proof, not for either camp. You may recall that not so very long ago the overwhelming consensus was that the solar system revolved around the earth. That the earth itself was flat. These were "unnasailable truths', sufficiently firmly held that people were tortured and murdered for questioning them at the time. We disprove theories which have been held as true by the overwhelming consensus for the longest time on a regular basis. AGW can't even claim to have remotely been proved. It only takes one person to disprove a theory such as AGW, no matter how many people believe it to be the truth, remember that.

And would you care to point out where I said humans haven't had an impact on the environment? They have, a very significant, and bad one at that. We've done a lot of damage we need to take steps to firstly limit, and then undo as far as possible. As I said, these are things that are the right thing to do for their own sake, or we will face dire consequences in the very near future.

The climate, however, now that's a very different story. A story that's a very long way from told, a story with very large holes in it, and a story we may not be able to have any impact on at all, regardless of why it changes.

You claim to practice science? Then do so. Open your eyes and your mind to the fact that AGW is an unproven theory, that there are a growing number of people developing credible evidence to show that climate change isn't significantly impacted by man, if at all, and for crying out loud, don't ever tell somebody to not question or debate an unproven theory.

You want your heresy?
That's it, right there.

 

[Ronjay]

So we are to carry on the way we are now. Because scientists agree that GW is there but can't come to agree on a model to go by. And to continue on this path until we have completely damaged the ecology to the point of irreversibility. That's like an ant been told to ignore the ant eaters that the economic ants are busy making because it will mean that their will be less money.

 

[BacchusZA]

Great to see you using that scientific mind, and employing those scientific principles there. Fantastic example of reading what somebody has written and not just seeing what you think they have said, but instead actually getting to grips with the concepts and ideas put forward.

I'll spell it out in point form, to help you, ok?

1. AGW is an unproven theory.
2. The theory that AGW is false is also unproven.
3. A great deal more research on both sides of the issue needs to be done before we can get anywhere near determing how much of an impact man has had on climate change, never mind whether or not we can do anything about it.
4. Man has had a huge impact on the environment around him, and has done much damage that needs to be undone / repaired.
5. We need to take big steps to limit the damage we have already done, and to prevent further damage.
6. None of the above constitutes advocating we stick our heads in the sand and ignore what could be a very significant threat to our species, as you evidently seem to think any dissenting viewpoint suggests.

Does that help at all?

 

[Ronjay]

Sorry to break this to you, but the belief that AGW is real is anything but unanimous, and the number of sceptics in the scientific community, people who use those same scientific pricniples and who have come to very different conclusions is growing at a very rapid pace. And if you want to talk about science, then the first thing you need to do is immediately drop words like "myth" and "heretic". Words like that have a place in theological, metaphysical, and philosophical discussions, not scientific ones.

Theories and dodgy computer models which don't even attempt to model half the known variables, never mind the stuff we haven't been able to figure out, are not proof. Fitting data to your theory instead of fiting your theory to the data is not proof. Persisting in using the same models when they prove to be hopelessly innacurate, and ignoring data which doesn't fit your prediction is not proof. it's not even science. It's propoganda and gross dishonesty. To use your word, "blinkers" indeed.

And consensus is not proof, not for either camp. You may recall that not so very long ago the overwhelming consensus was that the solar system revolved around the earth. That the earth itself was flat. These were "unnasailable truths', sufficiently firmly held that people were tortured and murdered for questioning them at the time. We disprove theories which have been held as true by the overwhelming consensus for the longest time on a regular basis. AGW can't even claim to have remotely been proved. It only takes one person to disprove a theory such as AGW, no matter how many people believe it to be the truth, remember that.

And would you care to point out where I said humans haven't had an impact on the environment? They have, a very significant, and bad one at that. We've done a lot of damage we need to take steps to firstly limit, and then undo as far as possible. As I said, these are things that are the right thing to do for their own sake, or we will face dire consequences in the very near future.

The climate, however, now that's a very different story. A story that's a very long way from told, a story with very large holes in it, and a story we may not be able to have any impact on at all, regardless of why it changes.

You claim to practice science? Then do so. Open your eyes and your mind to the fact that AGW is an unproven theory, that there are a growing number of people developing credible evidence to show that climate change isn't significantly impacted by man, if at all, and for crying out loud, don't ever tell somebody to not question or debate an unproven theory.

You want your heresy?
That's it, right there.

I never claimed to practice science, please point to the post that I said that. Nor have I said one should not question or debate unproven theory, please point to the post that I said that. So we have had a huge impact on our environment hmmm. So our environment has nothing to do with our climate? So pollution has nothing to do with our climate and weather. Hmm, how come then, we get acid rain?

 

[WilD_CaT]

So we are to carry on the way we are now. Because scientists agree that GW is there but can't come to agree on a model to go by. And to continue on this path until we have completely damaged the ecology to the point of irreversibility. That's like an ant been told to ignore the ant eaters that the economic ants are busy making because it will mean that their will be less money.

The model/s predict what will happen in the future. If we are uncertain about the model and thus uncertain about the future, to make policies based on predictions that are not certain is wrong.

 

[BacchusZA]

Actually, the belief that global warming is not caused by humans is a myth. Scientists are mostly unanimous in the fact that global warming on the scale that it is now is not natural and seen as though many on this forum believe in science above all else, it should then not be disputed.

So you didn't say the theory of AGW shouldn't be disputed then, and you don't practice, or at the very least place great faith in what has been claimed as scientific practice in this matter? My bad I guess.

And there's a very big step from the local or micro scale effects of pollution such as acid rain and poisoned rivers and lakes, even when they affect wide areas, to macro scale effects on the climate such as increasing or decreasing global temperatures, raising sea levels, and so on. The one we can certainly take steps to minimize and prevent, the other perhaps not so much.

A question though, would acid rain actually be considered an effect on the weather per se? While it certainly changes the composition of the actual rain drop, does it cause changes in rainfall density, frequency, and so on? Pollution certainly affects local environments and ecosystems, but does it actually impact the weather, and from there the climate? I'd be interested to see any data on that. The quick look I had on google & science direct generated a lot of articles relating to the combined impact of weather conditions and pollution on conditions such as asthma, COPD, & so on, but I didn't see anything linking pollution to actual changes in weather conditions.

Like I say though, it was only a quick look, so if you have data like that from a reputable, verifiable source, I'd be keen to look at it.

 

[WilD_CaT]

I never claimed to practice science, please point to the post that I said that. Nor have I said one should not question or debate unproven theory, please point to the post that I said that. So we have had a huge impact on our environment hmmm. So our environment has nothing to do with our climate? So pollution has nothing to do with our climate and weather. Hmm, how come then, we get acid rain?

Dude your attitude says as much. Labelling people who disagree as "heretics" and "denialists" such as a holocaust denialist, a loony etc. It paints the portrayal that you are the authority on the matter and any disagreement is absurd. One should always advocate questioning what people tell us and having a critical mind when it comes to things.

Local weather phenomenons are not proof of climate change. Besides you should get with the times. In 1970's it was global cooling that was the problem. Then it became global warming and since then the rhetoric has changed to "climate change" to allow for any change in climate, warming or cooling.

The issue is whether or not human industrialisation has a measurable effect on the global climate, climate cycles etc. and whether or not this affect is in fact something "problematic" and needs to be redressed.

The issue is not whether pollution is bad. It is bad. It does affect my health for example. That does not however give me the right to prevent you from driving a petrol powered car. The reason is, I cannot prove the the exhaust fumes from your car have directly impacted my health.

You need to show direct causality between humans and the climate. It has to be clearly demonstrated.

One of the biggest problems is the fact that CO2 or carbon emmissions apparently cause global warming. I.E. Rising CO2 levels precipitate rising temperatures. Now we know there is a lot of CO2 in water. We know as water heats CO2 is released.

So if there is a rising temperature change, you will have more evaporation and thus more CO2 in the atmosphere. So when data shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature it doesn't for example, necessarily mean that CO2 caused the rise in temperature because it could very well be the other way round. In fact many graphs showing this correlation between CO2 and temperature explicitly show a lag between CO2 and temperature, where temperature PRECEEDS the change in CO2. I.E First it gets warmer, then CO2 levels rise.

Since their is a great fixation on the idea of "carbon credits" and this significantly affects business and the economy, this question on causality between CO2 and temperature needs to be correctly shown, whatever the answer may be.

 

[BacchusZA]

The model/s predict what will happen in the future. If we are uncertain about the model and thus uncertain about the future, to make policies based on predictions that are not certain is wrong.

I'm a soldier. I can tell you from painful personal experience that plans based on bad intel (data / information / whatever) get people killed.

Having no plan can be worse than having a bad plan at times, but I don't think that's the case here. Based on what I've read on the debate on AGW we're going to find out that our impact on naturally occuring climate cycles is nowhere near as significant as many people fervently claim, and that there's very little on a practical level we can do to affect climate change, even if we try. Crippling economies with bogus taxes and restrictions isn't the answer, rather it's de-politicising the issue, conducting the proper research and obtaining the right data, so that we can actually determine with some reasonable degree of certainty what our impact is, and then formulate - if it proves to be possible - effective means of dealing with, or at least mitigating the effects of climate change.

On the other hand, pollution, deforestation, over fishing, and carelessly wiping out species left, right, and center, and so on, we can and must do something about, and rapidly.

 

[WilD_CaT]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/engdahl1.1.1.html

Glacier Meltdown: Another Scientific Scandal Involving the IPCC Climate Research Group

by F. William Engdahl

Only days after the failed Copenhagen Global Warming Summit, yet a new scandal over the scientific accuracy of the UN IPCC 2007 climate report has emerged. Following the major data-manipulation scandals from the UN-tied research center at Britain’s East Anglia University late 2009, the picture emerges of one of the most massive scientific frauds of recent history.

Senior members of the UN climate project, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been forced to admit a major error in the 2007 IPCC UN report that triggered the recent global campaign for urgent measures to reduce "manmade emissions" of CO2. The IPCC’s 2007 report stated, "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world." Given that this is the world’s highest mountain range and meltdown implies a massive flooding of India, China and the entire Asian region, it was a major scare "selling point" for the IPCC agenda. As well, the statement on the glacier melt in the 2007 IPCC report contains other serious errors such as the statement that "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas. And a table in the report says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters. Then comes a math mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year. Now scientists around the world are scouring the entire IPCC report for indications of similar lack of scientific rigor.


It emerges that the basis of the stark IPCC glacier meltdown statement of 2007 was not even a scientific study of melting data. Rather it was a reference to a newspaper article cited by a pro-global warming ecological advocacy group, WWF.

The original source of the IPCC statement, it turns out, appeared in a 1999 report in the British magazine, New Scientist that was cited in passing by WWF. The New Scientist author, Fred Pierce, wrote then, "The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a paper published by the Indian Government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist." The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas."1

The same Pachauri, co-awardee of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, has recently been under attack for huge conflicts of interest related to his business interests that profit from the CO2 global warming agenda he promotes.2


Pearce notes that the original claim made by Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, in a 1999 email interview with Pearce, namely that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035, never was repeated by Hasnain in any peer-reviewed scientific journal, and that Hasnain now says the remark was "speculative."

Despite the lack of scientific validation, the 10-year-old claim ended up in the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

Since publication of the latest New Scientist article, the IPCC officially has been forced to issue the following statement: "the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

The IPCC adds, "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said."3


In an indication of the defensiveness prevailing within the UN’s IPCC, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, insists that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report."

Some serious scientists disagree. Georg Kaser, an expert in glaciology with University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, gave a damning different assessment of the implications of the latest scandal affecting the credibility of the IPCC. Kaser says he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the IPCC report was published. "This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude. All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made. If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured."4

The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim. It appears he is as well shaken by the wave of recent scandals. He told a conference in Dubai on energy recently, "They can't attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won't sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown (sic). In fact, I will float much higher," he told the Guardian. His remarks suggest more the "spirit of Woodstock" in 1969 than of what is supposed to be the world’s leading climate authority.

Notes

Fred Pearce, Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim, 11 January 2010.
F. William Engdahl, UN IPCC Climate Change chief in Conflict of Interest Scandal, December 27, 2009.
Seth Borenstein, UN climate report riddled with errors on glaciers, AP, January 20, 2010.
Ibid.
This article originally appeared on GlobalResearch.ca.

 

[WilD_CaT]

The other problem is that 1st world have benefitted from the industrial age and its processes and how it has alleviated poverty and increased their standards of living.

If the economic development of third world nations is curtailed this would affect the rate of the alleviation of poverty and will reduce the rate at which standards of living are improved.

How, even if you accept AGW can you balance the negative affects of AGW and the rate of poverty alleviation and economic development of third world countries.

 

[Ronjay]

So you didn't say the theory of AGW shouldn't be disputed then, and you don't practice, or at the very least place great faith in what has been claimed as scientific practice in this matter? My bad I guess.

And there's a very big step from the local or micro scale effects of pollution such as acid rain and poisoned rivers and lakes, even when they affect wide areas, to macro scale effects on the climate such as increasing or decreasing global temperatures, raising sea levels, and so on. The one we can certainly take steps to minimize and prevent, the other perhaps not so much.

A question though, would acid rain actually be considered an effect on the weather per se? While it certainly changes the composition of the actual rain drop, does it cause changes in rainfall density, frequency, and so on? Pollution certainly affects local environments and ecosystems, but does it actually impact the weather, and from there the climate? I'd be interested to see any data on that. The quick look I had on google & science direct generated a lot of articles relating to the combined impact of weather conditions and pollution on conditions such as asthma, COPD, & so on, but I didn't see anything linking pollution to actual changes in weather conditions.

Like I say though, it was only a quick look, so if you have data like that from a reputable, verifiable source, I'd be keen to look at it.

Right, I never said that I'm a scientist, I said "and seen as though many on this forum believe in science above all else, it should then not be disputed"

I said this based on things that I have read. But it is a subject that I, by no means have been keeping up with, so I do stand to be corrected. After reading the posts further on by WilD_CaT of the IPCC it seems that my outlook may be a little outdated so I promise to stop being a pig headed @rse about this subject and catch up on some reading on the subject before anymore posts.

That said however I do still feel that we as a species have a huge impact on our environment. Such an impact must have side effects, some of these effects could be on our climate. As such we should take steps to change the way things are done, if not at a policy level then on a personal one. I do also feel strongly about those companies that do disregard environmental issues and do willy-nilly disperse Carbon based gasses into the atmosphere. Even if there is no Evidence that we are not contributing to GW is it then OK to continue pouring all this stuff out into our atmosphere until we discover yea or nae? I for one would rather be cautious and stop now, rather then continue and then find out that GW is our fault.

Just my 2c and now I'll shut up until I've read more and caught up.

 

[Nod]

I think cities have a huge impact on rainfall, as the heat radiated from all that concrete influences cloud formation, and thus rainfall in those areas.

 

[BCO]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-ipcc-is-not-infallible-shock/

For a more balanced opinion on all these new IPCC "scandals".