 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jonfairway Great Old One Joined: 09 Mar 2005 Total posts: 1185 Gender: Unknown |
 Posted: 22-11-2012 14:30 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Totally agree with you.....the human race is a greedy distructive and just plain nasty bunch.....
what we leave behind for our children in 100 years to clean up beggers belief !!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Sergeant_Pluck Great Old One Joined: 10 Apr 2012 Total posts: 504 Location: The Hague, Netherlands. Age: 40 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 22-11-2012 15:09 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Jonfairway wrote: | | what we leave behind for our children in 100 years to clean up beggers belief !!! |
I'm yet to be convinced we have that long left anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 22-11-2012 15:21 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sergeant_Pluck wrote: | | Jonfairway wrote: | | what we leave behind for our children in 100 years to clean up beggers belief !!! |
I'm yet to be convinced we have that long left anyway. |
Yeah, we might suffer the collapse ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| rynner2 What a Cad!
Great Old One Joined: 13 Dec 2008 Total posts: 21362 Location: Under the moon Gender: Male |
| Posted: 22-11-2012 15:31 Post subject: |
|
|
|
We are leaving emissions cuts too late
21 November 2012
EMISSIONS are still way too high to stop dangerous climate change, warns a new report from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
To stop the Earth warming more than 2 °C above preindustrial levels, global emissions must peak at 44 gigatonnes in 2020 and then fall. However, the report says that 2020 emissions are likely to be between 8 to 13 gigatonnes higher. This range is calculated on how well or not countries deliver on their pledges to cut emissions. So in the best-case scenario, where everyone meets their targets, emissions are still 8 Gt too high.
This "emissions gap" has grown: first estimates by UNEP in 2010 put it at between 5 and 9 Gt.
Unless drastic action is taken soon, we are likely to see a 4 °C rise this century, warns Simon Anderson at the International Institute for Environment and Development in Edinburgh, UK.
A report from the World Bank, also published this week, paints a stark picture of a 4 °C warmer world riven by severe heatwaves, floods and droughts. "It will be absolutely catastrophic for certain parts of the world," Anderson says.
By delaying emissions cuts, the world is simply deciding to pay more for them later, he says
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628923.100-we-are-leaving-emissions-cuts-too-late.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 23-11-2012 09:47 Post subject: |
|
|
|
http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
There is no science in this, just numbers. And the numbers - the un-manipulated numbers - do not support the AGW hypothesis. So what is the purpose of the AGW conspiracy?
If a scientist convinces himself there is a Giant Spaghetti Monster, does that make the existence of the Giant Spaghetti Monster a scientific fact?
Due to personal experiences, I'm religious. Does that entitle me to scoff at people that point out there is no hard evidence for religion? Of course not. I can only point out that as they have not had my experiences then they should respect my different conclusion. In the case of the AGW hypothesis, it is not based on experience but alleged facts. When those facts are shown to be erroneous, selective or manipulated - as they have been - the hypothesis should fall. What is the motivation behind those keeping it alive? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mythopoeika Boring petty conservative
Joined: 18 Sep 2001 Total posts: 9109 Location: Not far from Bedford Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-11-2012 11:33 Post subject: |
|
|
|
It's a good question, Cochise.
It could be that it's all been done to enable a new form of money-making for the elite few. Carbon trading, that's what I'm talking about. It's a big racket, and it'll get bigger.
Another dimension to this is that both carbon trading and hobbling of Western industry with a green agenda seems set up to siphon wealth from wealthy countries to poorer countries. I don't quite know how this would benefit the global elite, but you can bet they are finding a way to make a profit from the huge transfer of wealth.
I'm just rambling out loud... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 25-11-2012 10:34 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Similar to my thoughts.
I do incidentally believe the human race is creating ecological problems and using resources wastefully, and a change of behaviour is called for - but in many respects it is the people now loudly embracing AGW - oil companies, international capitalists, etc. who are behind much of the exploitation.
I don't believe they would latch on to something because of public opinion - they are powerful enough to change public opinion. No, I believe it is because they've found a way to keep their ball rolling - in fact to make even more money. Many of the 'solutions' proposed - windmills, battery cars - are actually more wasteful of resources than the current infrastructure. But they represent an easy way to get access to streams of money that otherwise they'd have to work for - they'd actually have to do something profitable other than relying on digging things out of the ground. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17931 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 29-09-2013 14:04 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience
September 26th, 2013 in Space & Earth / Environment
Dead science lives on, thanks to the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change. Credit: Scott Beale
The warm start to Australian spring has been accompanied by a deluge of pseudoscience. Anti-vaccination campaigners andaliens made appearances, but the deluge was primarily climate pseudoscience in the Murdoch Press and talk radio.
The deluge included interviews with, and an op-ed by, retired scientist Bob Carter, a lead author of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) reports.
What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an "N"?
Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change "sceptics",bankrolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute'sbackers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation.
The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience.
Consensus and adversaries
We know 97% of climate scientists have concluded, based on the evidence, that anthropogenic climate change is real. Contrary to recent claims in the media, there is remarkably good agreement between models of climate change and the temperature data.
There has been 0.12 degrees of warming per decade over the past 50 years, which is very similar to the expected warming of 0.13 degrees per decade.
How does the NIPCC spread doubt, given the temperature record and consensus of professional scientists? The answer is manufactured partisanship.
The IPCC (no N) produces a comprehensive and critical overview of climate change science for governments. It is written by hundreds of scientists, anyone can volunteer to review drafts, and those comments appear online.
IPCC reports openly discuss the strengths, weaknesses, criticisms and uncertainties of the science. The reports provide policy makers with a range of plausible outcomes given rising atmospheric CO2.
Heartland's NIPCC partially mimics the IPCC, but with key differences. It is written and reviewed by dozens of people, almost exclusively drawn from the "sceptic" community, and is consequently highly partisan.
Indeed, the NIPCC advocates an adversarial approach to assessing climate science, with partisan "teams" arguing for different positions.
This call for an adversarial debate has also been repeated in recent op-eds by Bob Carter, Judith Curry and Gary Johns.
The call for adversarial debate is a variant of the debate ploy, a common pseudoscience tactic. At first glance having two teams present competing positions seems entirely reasonable, but this approach only works if the intended audience can effectively assess the arguments presented.
Can a general audience or policy makers distinguish truth from fiction when it comes to technical aspects of climate science?
Will a general audience know when someone is deliberately confusing transient climate response (TCR) with equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)? Will they know that TCR and ECS differ by roughly a factor of two? Perhaps not.
Will they triangulate the truth, assuming technical arguments they don't understand have equal merit? Quite possibly.
Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience
The comparison between global temperatures (red) and models (grey) is actually very good, contrary to some claims in the media. Credit: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/best-case-scenario/
This is the fundamental problem with trying to resolve scientific questions via an adversarial approach, and this problem isn't new. Back in 1920, a large audience wasunable to assess competing claims about the general relativity when Albert Einstein debated Phillip Lenard. That debate generated column inches and acrimony, but did nothing to advance science.
In this context, the IPCC's comprehensive approach to evaluating climate science makes sense, with experts providing an overview of the science for policy markers. It also explains why the minority wishing to delay action are promoting an adversarial approach.
Zombie science
Does the NIPCC fairly and robustly assess the science? No. It is all too easy to find "debunked" papers getting a second life in latest NIPCC report.
Sea levels around Australia have risen by roughly 100mm during the past century, but Boretti (2012) claimed sea levels rose by only 50mm over that period. However, John Hunter and I found that Boretti's own flawed analysis gives an answer of 78mm. While Boretti himself grudgingly accepts that 50mm is wrong, this erroneous value is reported as fact by the NIPCC.
IPCC AR4 concluded that CO2 is the cause of increased global
temperatures, with natural variability not playing a major role. It was thus surprising when McLean et al. (2009) concluded that global temperatures were varying largely in response to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation.
However, McLean's analysis effectively subtracted out the long-term trend caused by CO2, so they only measured the (natural) causes of short-term variability.
Foster et al. (2010) thoroughly debunked McLean et al., and McLean perhaps debunked himself by predicting 2011 would be the coolest year since 1956. That year was anything but cool. However, the McLean et al. conclusions are reported as fact in the latest NIPCC report, with no mention of the Foster et al. commentary.
Dead science lives in the NIPCC reports: Boretti and McLean are just the tip of the iceberg. Houston & Dean (2011), Scafetta & West (2005) and others also appear, all without mention that these papers were followed by highly critical commentaries.
It is this deliberately partisan, selective, and uncritical approach to evidence that marks the NIPCC report as a work of pseudoscience.
Bob Carter's op-ed for the Daily Telegraph was titled "Report gives the truth about climate at last", but I prefer a different description of NIPCC reports – one that may not be fit for publication.
Source: The Conversation
This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).
The Conversation
"Adversaries, zombies and NIPCC climate pseudoscience." September 26th, 2013. http://phys.org/news/2013-09-adversaries-zombies-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience.html |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tonyblair11 Joined: 28 Jan 2002 Total posts: 2080 |
| Posted: 29-09-2013 16:26 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Funny how the recent lull in warming was put down as natural causes! lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 29-09-2013 16:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| tonyblair11 wrote: | | Funny how the recent lull in warming was put down as natural causes! lol |
No fooling you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| tonyblair11 Joined: 28 Jan 2002 Total posts: 2080 |
| Posted: 29-09-2013 18:19 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I believe in agw. It's fun to get all sides blustered. I didn't catch the reasons behind why it was natural. Do you know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 29-09-2013 22:05 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| tonyblair11 wrote: | | I believe in agw. It's fun to get all sides blustered. I didn't catch the reasons behind why it was natural. Do you know? |
Depends what they mean by natural. Natural variability, weather cycles like El Niño and La Niña, volcanos, Sun activity, soot. There are a lot of variables beyond the basic physics, so nobody's quite sure. But, I prefer the idea that with increasing trapped heat, there's more energy in the system and the natural heatsinks are absorbing more of it. Melting ice caps, glaciers and Greenland, warming oceans expand, more unstable and violent weather patterns. The jet stream has shifted, for starters. Not just the sea ice extent, but the volume of ice in the Arctic, has shrunk drastically.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/27/mankind-extremely-likely-the-cause-of-global-warming-scientists-say-a-change-from-very-likely-in-2007/
The last decade was the warmest on record, though.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/last-decade-confirmed-as-the-w/14913958
So, it depends on what you mean by a lull.
The Earth's biosphere is a very big, complicated and dynamic system. Change one bit and you risk changing it all. Some parts will absorb the shock better than others and some on the margins will be changed more drastically.
One meteorologist read the IPCC report, burst into tears and swore he'd never fly again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/27/eric-holthaus-twitter_n_4005003.html?utm_hp_ref=green
What a wuss, eh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
