My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Michaelangelica]

[Eclipse Now]

And none of that was peer-reviewed. Please, try again. Linking to a website that claims "purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns" is not valid "evidence" that global warming isn't a fact.

 

:eek_big: :) :):hihi::D

Oh man, I just had to go share that one with my lady! :hihi::hihi:

 

I've been watching you Flying Binghi!

 

Flying Binghi repeats his usual pattern.

 

1. Make rude assertion (about "belief") and quote stupid and dangerously misleading skeptic.

2. Sit back and poke fun at people who try to answer with GENUINE science.

3. Wait till everyone's moved on to discussing other serious aspects of science and Flying Binghi is starting to feel a little bored.

4. Rinse and repeat by quoting another moronic and dangerously misleading skeptic who "Just can't handle THE TRUTH"!

 

This is the behaviour of an internet troll. Ignore the real issues, dance around playing the accused all the while being rude by not engaging an honest conversation.

 

FB, what are you doing quoting a GEOLOGIST who's full of **** when it comes to climate? Please at least check their wiki before you quote people like this... honestly!

 

Ian Plimer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Climate change

 

Plimer is also critical of what he sees as irrational elements within the environmental movement. He is critical of greenhouse gas politics and argues that extreme environmental changes are inevitable and unavoidable. He suggests that meteorologists have a huge amount to gain from climate change research, and that they have narrowed the climate change debate to the atmosphere - Plimer claims that the truth is more complex. He suggests that money would be better directed to dealing with problems as they occur rather than making expensive and futile attempts to prevent climate change.

 

He differs markedly from the climate change consensus in contending that the Great Barrier Reef will benefit from rising seas, that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature, that only 0.1 % of carbon dioxide emissions are due to human activities, and that 96% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour.

 

He claims that the current theory of human-induced global warming is not in accord with history, archaeology, geology or astronomy and must be rejected, and that promotion of this theory as science is fraudulent, and that the current alarmism on climate change is not science.[2][3

]

 

Sorry Plimer, but go grab a copy of "Weather Makers" or spend a few weeks in a CSIRO lab with some climate people or something, because you're embarrassing yourself! And get yourself peer reviewed once in a while and stop frightening the little ones like FB with stories of worldwide climatologist recalcitrance on their favourite little money earner.

 

Honestly, if AGW is just a conspiracy to make some scientists some money, then the moon really is made of cheese, the moon landing WAS faked, and Area 51 contains little green men.

[Flying Binghi]

Eclipse Now, are you suggesting the peoples of China and India are governed by fools ?

 

Again, via Tom Switzer -

 

The Chinese government is not only refusing to cut its emissions; it is building a new coal-fired plant nearly every week. The Indian government is not only rejecting (Australian Prime Minister) Rudd-style cuts; it is unashamedly saying poverty poses a greater threat to its people than climate change.

[Essay]

AHaHahahahahaha!

My wife will appreciate that one, Michael; as will I again, many times over....

 

Climate change looks more and more like becoming a catastrophe we inflict upon ourselves in trying to avoid one we have only imagined.

Full article via - SCIENCE: Global-warming - myth, threat or opportunity? - 27 September 2008

...

And some further doubts about the science being all-done -

Hey, who says it's "all-done?"

Binghi, I addressed those good, but somewhat skewed, points you quoted from Ian Plimer...

[130 scientific papers, mainly on mineral deposits (especially the Broken Hill deposit, gold deposits and other metalliferous ores)

& 6 books:

including Telling lies for God (Random House) on religious fundamentalism and A Short History of Planet Earth (ABC Books) on the history of the planet, life and greenhouse....] ...good source, but....

Really! An interest in religious fundamentalism. How curious; I wonder, does he know Walter Starck?

===

 

Well, at least Ian is a real scientist. But in your most recent post, and at the risk of being a bit too judgemental....

I was drawn in by the "Science" link, thinking it was from Science Magazine. But noooo...

"This article [by Walter Starck] is reproduced from National Observer (Council for the National Interest, Australia), No. 77, Winter 2008."

 

Who is....

Gosh, tell us what you really think Walter:

CONSERVATION: Conservation vs. environmentalism - 30 July 2005

CONSERVATION: Conservation vs. environmentalism

by Professor Walter Starck

"...a powerful but ignorant urban minority which controls the environmentalist agenda."

 

"For its more extreme adherents it has become a form of fundamentalism, with all of the righteousness, narrowness and even hatred that so often accompanies that form of belief.

Environmentalism reflects not so much a connection with the natural world as a disconnection from it."

 

--Walter Starck has a PhD in marine science has had some 50 years worldwide experience of coral reefs. Currently, he is editor/publisher of Golden Dolphin Video CD Magazine, a bi-monthly CD-based publication on diving and the ocean world.

"... experience of coral reefs." Does that mean "diving," as with his publication's focus?

What possible motive could he have for railing against alarmists and conservationists, and the consequent calls for the "overprotection" of reefs?

...also, wondering about any scientific research during the 45 years since Walter's PhD. No? None?

 

Where does the title "Professor" come from?

Do research associates get to use that title? See:

Jennifer Marohasy: About Walter Starck

"His views on reef biology derived from direct observation are not always in accord with popular theories."

IMHO, I'm guessing it's these views which inform his conclusions about climate science.

She says that Walter once said: "Environmentalism is about much more than concern for a healthy environment. You could describe it as a quasi-religious blend of new-age nature worship, junk science, left-wing political activism and anti-profit economics."

===

 

...Tom Switzer has some points worthy of discussion, and...

...more on the PDO later. That PDO is some interesting new stuff, eh"

 

The "wrong" stuff (Walter Starck) had to be taken care of tonight, right?

But the right stuff (Tom & PDO) can wait until tomorrow, eh?

 

...Thanks again, for the cartoon!

===

 

"What could I say? I congratulated her on her remarkable perceptivity." -trivia quote....

 

~

[Flying Binghi]

I see I missed your post 849 Essay...think I'll wait for Eclipse Now to answer my last question before going further

[Eclipse Now]

FB, I never said anything about China, but that just illustrates your argument tactic.

 

FB: Professor XYZ disproves global warming

Eclipse: Professor XYZ is not a climatologist, and has not published any PEER REVIEWED works on climatology. He may as well promote those purple unicorns and the effect they have on leprechauns!

FB: How about those Chinese hey?

 

Yep, gutted by your witty reply and unassailable logic! You WIN FB — everyone give FB a HAND!

[Essay]

I see I missed your post 849 Essay...think I'll wait for Eclipse Now to answer my last question before going further

Well heck, it's tomorrow already, eh?

 

The Tom Switzer stuff is about policy and politics, not science ...or am I missing something. Isn't that a whole 'nother discussion?

 

The PDO stuff is interesting and I haven't read much about it yet, but it sounds like some natural variation that may help in masking (currently) some of the AGW effects.

 

Y'know, regardless of all the details, let me ask you if you don't think that by adding the huge amounts of energy (and entropy) into our biosphere, that we aren't increasing instability (within what seems like a fairly delicate system that easily changes modes)?

 

Thanks Binghi,

~ :)

[Michaelangelica]

extract from The Weather Makers: by Tim Flannery

An even more fun read is "The Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer same publisher.

For me the intersting thing in the book was both the US and UK defence forces have developed Climate Change startegies /senarios in case they are needed.

Climate wars - Environment - smh.com.au

The World Today - From climate change to nuclear war

 

 

The China quote is a little off the mark.

China still wary of putting emissions cap in place

MICHAEL RICHARDSON

22/09/2008 10:32:00 AM

China's top legislature has just approved a new law designed to put production in what is now one of the world's four biggest economies on a more sustainable foundation. When the law comes into force in January, it will add weight to government efforts to get industry to use energy and other resources less wastefully and curb emissions that harm health and the environment.

 

Dubbed the ''circular'' economy by officials, this is China's latest effort to go green by raising efficiency and harnessing alternative energy to reduce reliance on coal, oil and gas all of which when burned release carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming and climate change.

China still wary of putting emissions cap in place - Opinion - Editorial - General - The Canberra Times

 

The USA, as well, is "wary"?

China is still a little behind the USA in emissions (certainly on per capita basis)

How Much Chinese GHGs is producing junk to keep American capitalism and Wal Mart et.al., afloat?

In the interest of equalizing the world's greenhouse gas emissions on a per capita basis, the report said China's level needs only to fall by 4 percent, while India's could grow 230 percent.

. . .

Australia is one of the world's worst carbon dioxide polluters per capita because of its heavy reliance on abundant coal reserves.

Australia told to cut greenhouse gas emissions - International Herald Tribune

and

China backs Kyoto as basis for greenhouse gas action - National - smh.com.au

[Flying Binghi]

Oh, Oh....small problemo here...

 

Chinese to buy into Rio Tinto

 

BHP chief executive Marius Kloppers wants the Chinese company's support for his scrip-based takeover, which would create the world's biggest producer of aluminum and energy coal.

 

Chinese to buy into Rio Tinto | Business | News.com.au

 

One should be careful of their reading of Oz journalists 'intereptation' of just what is happening in the REAL world.

[Eclipse Now]

FB: Please answer the question: is Plimer a climatologist, and has he written anything peer reviewed by the climate community?

 

Also, some of the world's cheapest solar thermal domestic hot water units come out of China because of their commitment to climate change. Understand they are trying to industrialise, which at one level sadly involves giving their populations lung cancer by mining stacks of coal, but at another level involves some of the largest green projects in the world. China is a bunch of contradictions that are both taking the climate and environmental issues seriously because they HAVE to, and are sadly addicted to cheap coal energy to try and raise 800 million of them out of severe poverty. It's a complicated story, and your snide characterisation of a very complex situation does China no justice, but sadly lives up to the reputation you're creating for yourself. Suggestion: try subscribing to Scientific American podcast "Science Talk", they cover this stuff in depth, in quite simple terms so that you'll be able to keep up.

 

FB, can you please join in the discussion that we're all having, like, the one involving facts and the actual task of exchanging ideas? Just rudely dumping verbal diarrhoea unconnected to anything and merely to entertain yourself is, well, a bit off. :naughty:

 

There's a good boy.

[Flying Binghi]

try subscribing to Scientific American...

 

I allowed my subscription to lapse years ago - bit too ....'fanciful' for me :naughty:

 

 

It's a complicated story...

 

So-called Scientists who think they have the 'answer' for us six billion plus people need to understand it IS a complicated story - one should be very carefull before they decide they have 'the' complete answer to the worlds climate future - methinks the 'science' is far from complete.

[Zythryn]

Patient: Doctor, my head hurts!

 

Doctor: Stop banging your head into a brick wall

 

Patient: But I don't yet understand how the wall is put together (with 100% certainty)!!

[InfiniteNow]

Naomi Oreskes: You CAN Argue with the Facts - Full Talk | Smart Energy

 

...research done by Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California in San Diego. In 2004, she published a fascinating article in the magazine Science, titled

Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

, that I highly recommend.

 

This podcast is the full version of a talk given by Naomi on Stanford campus this last April.

A shortened version was posted earlier. In it, she introduces this topic and summarizes her findings. To me, her work and that of others, shows clearly how difficult it is to disseminate research findings to the general public in a convincing manner, especially when the media is influenced by lobby groups with other interests.

 

 

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

[Essay]

So-called Scientists who think they have the 'answer' for us six billion plus people need to understand it IS a complicated story....

They know it's complicated, but when they talk to policy makers and the public, they have to simplify it as much as possible; often leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations.

===

 

Earlier I posted, "Binghi, I addressed those good, but somewhat skewed, points you quoted from Ian Plimer..."

but I forgot to include this:

 

Rising Acidity in the Ocean: The Other CO2 Problem: Scientific American

Before the industrial era began, the average pH at the ocean surface was about 8.2 (slightly basic; 7.0 is neutral). Today it is about 8.1.

Although the change may seem small, similar natural shifts have taken 5,000 to 10,000 years. We have done it in 50 to 80 years.

Although our understanding remains murky, the fossil record shows that ocean life has suffered massive extinctions during periods of rapidly rising carbon dioxide levels.

 

Emissions could reduce surface pH by another 0.4 unit in this century alone and by as much as 0.7 unit beyond 2100. We are hurtling toward an ocean different than the earth has known for more than 25 million years.

I had gone off onto the concept that comparing all of geologic history was skewing the "absolute statements" about what is normal in Earth's history.

 

Btw, what do you think of that point? It applied to several of the statements made by Plimer.

Do you see why only the past 20-40 Million years of climate history is the most relevant to understanding our current climate's parameters; and why anything over 100 Million years is much less important to understanding today's (and tomorrow's) climate? ...really it's only the past 5 to 10 Million years that's instructive, but....

 

So you mentioned that post #849 had been briefly unnoticed; it'd be nice if you'd tell me what you think of the responses I had to all those points of Plimer's.

 

& ...what about this question too?

Y'know, regardless of all the details, let me ask you if you don't think that by adding the huge amounts of energy (and entropy) into our biosphere, that we aren't increasing instability (within what seems like a fairly delicate system that easily changes modes)?

===

 

Also, this quote of Tom Switzer's is worth discussing:

Not only was it impermissible to question climate change science; we were now being told to not even question unilateral action to combat global warming, even if it would come at huge cost to the economy. It was a sad state of affairs that ideas bearing on Australia’s national interest could not be discussed and speculated on freely without fear of being dismissed by those who claim moral superiority in this debate.

 

Okay, I see the point here, although a bit of an exaggeration; these days it is sort of politically incorrect to deny climate change. The AGW crowd is a bit defensive, although given their history of persecution and that it is only within the past few years that they've been on the politically correct side of the debate, I think it's fairly understandable.

 

One other factor contributes to the AGW folks being defensive about their position and resistant to acknowledging limitations.

It is because so often any sign of perceived weakness in their "scientific certainty" is jumped upon by the denialists and trumpeted as "evidence" that the whole of climate science is bogus or shaky; or that "the 'science' is far from complete," as if that should be a reason to abandon any policy decision.

Should we have waited until the science was "complete" before shooting for the moon, or building a nuclear weapon, or building an internet?

 

And if some AGW folks do sound "self-righteous," it is because they are thinking more about the future of humanity, and less about the immediate concerns for maintaining the lifestyle of a profligate culture.

Of course, if you're questioning their premise, then it's easy to question how they value the future.

But in the end, I think they sound no more self-righteous than those proponents of continuing a business-as-usual strategy which values growth as a solution to most problems.

===

 

But regardless of these political, moral and values questions....

What do you think about these more technical points:

 

...that post #849 had been briefly unnoticed; it'd be nice if you'd tell me what you think of the responses I had to all those points of Plimer's.

 

& ...what about this question too?

Y'know, regardless of all the details, let me ask you if you don't think that by adding the huge amounts of energy (and entropy) into our biosphere, that we aren't increasing instability (within what seems like a fairly delicate system that easily changes modes)?

 

Thanks,

~ :)

[Michaelangelica]

FB

I don't think any scientist is claiming all the answers.

The Gaia/planet is far too complex a system even for the best human/computer model (According to Douglas Adams it could be a giant computer :))

But there is a remarkable scientific consensus about man-made effects on climate.

The consequences of rejecting that advice could be dire.

There will always be arguments and differences, that is how science works.

Like the gambling atheist, we perhaps should have an each way bet?

 

BTW there will be 9 billion of us in 2050.

[Eclipse Now]

M, I totally agree.

 

I'm hoping that climatologists suddenly come up with a 'safety valve' that they can conclusively prove will short-circuit global warming, some heretofore invisible mechanism that if not totally cancels out our forcings, at least takes the edge off them.

 

But it would have to be a consensus of the world's peer reviewed climate scientists saying it for me to accept it, not a horny leprechaun.:hyper:

[Essay]

M, I totally agree.

 

I'm hoping that climatologists suddenly come up with a 'safety valve'

I think we have the knowledge of that control valve. It is our ability to regulate the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Through skillful management of our agricultural, land, forest and ocean resources, we can draw down CO2 levels enough to affect the global temperature (especially if combined with restricted emissions).

Conversely, if due to some tipping point we started heading into a glaciation, we could increase CO2 emissions and reverse our resource management practices (promoting more tilling, fertilizer use, deforestation, overharvesting, etc.) to again reverse the draw-down of CO2 and increase levels enough to moderate the cooling trend.

 

It's just a matter of having the collective will to take control of our future; rather than having our destiny decided by the vagueries and randomness of solar variation, our place in the orbital cycles, natural variation, or even our own bad habits.

 

~ :hyper:

 

p.s. I think the IPCC section on agriculture and land use explains this, but since it's so hard to quantify the soil's effects on CO2, they don't pursue it as a strategy.