Jim wrote “It is interesting to note the tents in the pro-AGW camp ….
Margaret Thatcher, Enron, big insurance, creationists, religious fundamentalists, financial markets, Greens, Rio Tinto, social democrats, Scientologists, Rupert Murdoch etcetera.
If nothing else, finding a common cause amongst that lot is a major achievement!”
I will add Madonna and Cameron Diaz.
Let’s see who are skeptical. There is Paul Biggs, Bob Carter …who else?
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A trendy bandwagon is the place to be, especially if you don’t understand the science or its uncertainties, and you are financially protected from the consequences of futile policies based on flawed science.
You can have Madonna – but Cameron Diaz can believe anything she wants as far as I’m concerned.
There aren’t too many celeb sceptics that come quickly to mind – David Bellamy and Michael Crichton is all I can find without Google.
But I’m sure Lyndon La Rouche isn’t someone who’d warm the cockles of the heart of an honest unbeliever!
Bob Carter make spectacular statements, and then walks away from them.
Is this a test of faith?
the delusionists just keep on deluding on
Swindle Redux:
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/
Do you think human activity is a significant contributor to global warming?
Voting has now closed.
Results:
Yes 52.23%
No 45.14%
Don’t know 2.62%
Total votes: 2060
and following on from Rog
(Trust me !)
Author Professor Bob Carter (Panellist)
Date/Time 12 Jul 2007 11:11:57pm
Subject Re: Paid guest speakers in film?
Tim,
That isn’t actually true.
The scientists used by Durkin included some quite outstanding people.
You hve to take seriously the comments that they made, and weight them up against the IPCC orthodoxy.
The key issue here is not necessarily to come down strongly on one side of other of a complex debate, but to understand that there is (i) absolutely no consensus on the degree of risk from human wamring, and (ii) no direct evidence that CO2 is producing dangerous warming.
Bob Carter {ENDS}
ROTFL !
Luke: If we loosely combined local audience and auntie polls since TGGWS, those who watched and those who didn’t, we have maybe an eight at best committed on the AGW concept. That leaves a lot for the next government to haul in especially if the mob including Alan can be distracted by this tack.
Assuming it was a properly sampled survey, the polls show very strong support. The recent survey of 1800 people by CSIRO’s Queensland Centre for Advanced Technologies, , found a “seismic shift” had occurred in public thinking on climate change and the environment.
“The most striking result … is the extraordinarily high proportion (90 per cent) of respondents who now rate climate change as an issue vital to the nation’s future,” it reads.
Breaking news – major speech by George Bush on global warming:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/56902/
Recent excavations in northern Italy have discovered what appears to be the results of an early poll… In answer to the question “Is the Earth the centre of the Universe?” … “si” – 823 (believed to be mainly churchmen and church scholars), “No” – 1. The church claims that this settles the matter.
Human activity includes ghg’s, pollution, land use changes, urbanisiation etc.
Bob Carter is correct:
The likes of Christy, Shaviv, Reiter etc are credible – indeed Christy is part of the IPCC process, and Reiter was but resigned.
i) absolutely no consensus on the degree of risk from human wamring, and (ii) no direct evidence that CO2 is producing dangerous warming.
We don’t know the effect of an iconic doubling of CO2 – which is why we have unverifiable computer models (1.1C to 6.4C) There is no direct evidence that CO2 is producing or will produce dangerous warming.
Codswallop:
There is plenty of evidence empirically for the greenhouse effect in terms of Philipona’s ground research, Harries paper, the RSS MSU analysis showing a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, Royer’s work looking at paleo climate sensitivity, the recent Proc Royal Soc A paper which blew away solar as a current positive driver (but maybe not negative !), all the radiative physics mentioned in those two recent RC posts, the 4AR reports etc etc.
Shaviv has yet to prove anything from his flawed “models”. Christy couldn’t even analyse his own data properly.
And I’m taking a special interest in mossies – perhaps sporogenesis may well be affected by climate change as well as species and sub-species of mosquitos. There’s much more here than meets the eye. My next special subject. I reckon Reiter has got a case of sour grapes.
Dangerous warming who knows. Also depends what humanity does or does not do about CO2 emissions. Also maybe we’re totally wrong on the biofeedback calculations too. But I’m sure your assurances Paul come with a no risk money back guarantee. You don’t think the PETM provides any warnings from the past?
Luke,
I am touched by your concern for mosquitoes.
Perhaps that is why you are so insistent on sacrificing humans in Africa to preserve them.
It’s been a long time since we’ve had human sacrifice to satisfy the nature gods.
Save the fleas!
Schiller – Read what I said. I’m really starting to wonder about your intelligence you know.
Woody is as thick too for following.
Luke,
I am familiar with your attitude regarding the humans vs. mosquitoes issue, and you have made it clear that you favor the latter.
You’ve finessed it by making it a humans vs. bird eggshells issue, but you also made it clear you favor the latter.
Make the issue as nebulous as you like, Luke, the weight of your comments make clear that you don’t like humans–and, by extension, that you don’t like yourself.
It’s good to wrestle with personal issues, but laying those issues on other people is not healthy, because you personally can’t grow and mature when you do that.
Luke, there is hope for you. There are nice people, you could even be friends with several of them.
Same old Same old. zzzzzzzz
There’s nothing wrong with Christy’s data the 2005 ‘error’ was 0.035K which was within the margin for error of plus or minus 0.05K.
Anyone who thinks they can control the weather or climate by attempting to manipulate atmospheric CO2 should really be in a padded cell.
Luke, you refer to the 4AR of the IPCC concerning empirical evidence supporting AGW. However, you seem to be unaware of the IPCC’s definition of climate change.
I quote from the IPP WG1 4AR, page 2, footnote 1.
“Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to
human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”
Note that there is a distinct difference to the definition used by the FCCC, which is the UN body. The FCCC definition is also used by all environmental groups.
This means that when the IPCC reports a change, or an observed fact, it does not split this into a natural component and an AGW component.
However, the FCCC and environmental groups treat all IPCC results and data in the same way as the FCCC. This means that there is a misuse of numbers, always on the high side, which gives rise to the alarmist result.
So before you quote the IPCC data as proof of AGW, make sure that you clarify how much is due to natural affects, and how much is due to AGW.
The IPCC does report some data as AGW, but in every case, it makes it very clear that it is an AGW result.
Similarly, you must be careful when quoting other reports and papers to clarify which definition the reporters are using, because if this is not absolutely clear, you will be adding to the confusion, not reducing it.
Get the padding then. So Paul denies all the radiation physics and claims to be God !
Yes PP, we’re talking AGW – anthropogenic i.e. human influenced climate change whether be CO2, other greenhouse emissions from human activities or land use change or aerosol pollution. “A” as in anthropogenic.
And yes the 20th century is a mixture of both natural and “A”. No problemo. The future projections are for scenarios with a lot more “A”.
The papers I point to give good evidence to long held assumptions about the strength of the CO2 forcing. Anything else seems to a bleating denial of reality, physics and the Earth’s history.
The Earth’s history shows climate sensitivity to CO2 is low.
As Pielke Sr says:
“Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”
No it doesn’t – it shows climate sensitivity is what you’d expect or greater.
CO2 has both lead climate change events and acted as feedbacks to Milankovitch climate change.
We now know that Pielke is just another denialist.
Margaret Thatcher, Enron, big insurance, creationists, religious fundamentalists, financial markets, Greens, Rio Tinto, social democrats, Scientologists, Rupert Murdoch etcetera have a lot in common.
They want money, and they’ll say greenie words to get your money.
This is not rocket science.
“all the radiative physics mentioned in those two recent RC posts”
Luke: your trouble is you either see yourself as a Cadre defending the indefensible or cannot pick good friends or sources.
(I hope the link works.)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/realclimate-saturated-confusion.html#950828671255856421