Climate change sceptics lose vital argument

mkpdavies · 03-12-2006, 06:41 PM

JP is spot on and all I see is a religious fanatic abusing anyone who won't agree with him.

No point trying to tell a fanatic their God doesn't exist, so there isn't much point in bothering.

Oh an my scientist is better than your's because he doesn't rely on voodoo to prove his argument. I could have just added "internationally repected" before his name, but as that is the way of the witchdoctor I'll refrain.

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/discuss.asp?item=122

Quote:

Jeff wrote: "If GHG were the major cause, then the first time they rose they would never have stopped, until we had Venus on our hands."
No one says that GHG forcing has been the dominant historical forcing. But it is now. The earth has been warmer than its bolometric temperature because of greenhouse gases, and this remains the case today, and increasing the concentration of those gases will raise the global temperature by a few degrees. That's all. It doesn't need to run away to be an issue.

"These simple facts utterly destroy any notion that CO2 is a significant contributor to global temperature."
Completely untrue. It's true that GHG concentrations are often a consequence of fluctuations in temperature, especially on long timescales where changes in insolation/orbital parameters lead to changes in albedo and hence temperature. But those effects aren't terribly relevant to the current situation. At the moment, because we're enhancing atmospheric concentrations of GHG so fast, the GHG act as a cause rather than an effect, driving temperatures higher.
2/11/2006 Matthew McDonald Also bear in mind however there is an element of phase change with regard to sunlight from vis to IR so effectively GHG are more opaque on the way out, however GHG do not trap gases as much as absorb and emit meaning secondary (sorry other GHG) molecules must be present to have a cascade effect of multiple absorb emit cycles, the truth is regardless of opaque nature of CO2 or not the heat gets out eventually, venusian models should never be used as there isn't enough atmosphere or carbon available to reach those sorts of levels
18/10/2006 Jeff Framo wrote: " These are all criticisms of institutions (IPCC) or the paleoclimate community (a small (and some would argue irrelevant) part of the climate science research community). Reconstructions (a) all tell pretty much the same story, regardless of the details of the methods (b) are largely irrelevant to current climate change because the mechanisms behind the response are different. The fact is that GHG are opaque in the infrared, this means they trap outgoing energy, heating the earth. Increase the GHG and you'll increase the amount of LW energy trapped."

This isn't borne out by the evidence. If GHG were the major cause, then the first time they rose they would never have stopped, until we had Venus on our hands. If they are opaque, then they also reflect heat back into space, therefore neutralizing any trapping of heat. But as historic data has shown, Temp goes up first almost always, followed by CO2 often by hundreds or thousands of years. In some cases temp goes down as CO2 goes up, and vice versa. These simple facts utterly destroy any notion that CO2 is a significant contributor to global temperature.

Models may say otherwise, but there is no corroboration from reality.

And if the Hockey Stick controversy is irrelevant, why is it so prominently used by the IPCC as "proof"?
1/10/2006 Framo These are all criticisms of institutions (IPCC) or the paleoclimate community (a small (and some would argue irrelevant) part of the climate science research community). Reconstructions (a) all tell pretty much the same story, regardless of the details of the methods (b) are largely irrelevant to current climate change because the mechanisms behind the response are different. The fact is that GHG are opaque in the infrared, this means they trap outgoing energy, heating the earth. Increase the GHG and you'll increase the amount of LW energy trapped.
1/10/2006 Sylvain The paleoclimatologist community is a close knit community that doesn't archive and share information about the locations and technics used for their findings.

Climate audit's Steve McIntyre describe all the problem he had with that community of traveling buddies. This lead to the harsh criticism from the NRC and Wegman toward their method.

Here is an example: the hockey stick from was first stating that it was a recontruction for north america. But when use by the IPCC it lead to believe that it was a global reconstruction.

Meanwhile the CO2 science website links to worldwide study that don't share the findings of mann's yet they are always singled out as local phenomena.

If the HS wasn't the most important peace to prove man made GW why did the IPCC used it that much. Why haven't they used all the other evidence who are supposed to have so much weight.
1/09/2006 Framo The Hockey Stick controversy is irrelevant to the reality of anthropogenic global warming. All reconstructions of the last thousand years of temperature data find the same basic shape, with the relevant bit being the steep temperature increase since about 1860. It's this last bit that has the relevant cause: anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The details of the medieval period are less relevant: not only does the data provide a weaker constraint, but also the forcings aren't terribly well known. The important point is that different, anthropogenic causes are driving recent temperature rise, and these are likely to continue and even get stronger, driving temperatures higher and higher. Nothing in the (over-hyped) hockey stick controversy alters the basic case for AGW. Have a poke around on realclimate.org for the mainstream position on this.

Hockey stick? More like crock of ****!

jp · 03-12-2006, 06:48 PM

I didn't expect to convince you, but I hope the spectators will get an idea of where you are coming from giving the above rant.

All good ad- hom stuff - attack the messenger rather than the message.

If you want to talk about the two papers which seem to me to be authentic & based on reality, lets do it.

Otherwise I wil have the grace you don't seem to be able to exhibit by giving you the last word!

PS See you on this page 3rd December 2011 when you'll be able to convince me about the dire global cooling which no doubt we will be experiencing by then!

David Holland · 06-12-2006, 03:58 PM

As the UK will soon be a net importer of oil and gas and most oil and gas states are hostile to the west. You could argue that it does not matter if the greenhouse effect is real or not - we still need to find alternative fuels that don't provide money to terrorists and Chavez etc.

If I wanted to help terrorist states I would not have joined UKIP I would be in Respect !

mkpdavies · 06-12-2006, 04:03 PM

I am happy for the self sufficiency argument to be made, as that is based on common sense and logic, rather than voodoo.

Make that the underlying foundation to policy and then we are talking. If that then means our tiny proportion of amn made co2 drops (note nature will continue to produce more or less over time by many factors), then so be it.

John Carter · 06-12-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Holland

As the UK will soon be a net importer of oil and gas and most oil and gas states are hostile to the west. You could argue that it does not matter if the greenhouse effect is real or not - we still need to find alternative fuels that don't provide money to terrorists and Chavez etc.

1.5 acres will support one cow or the production of about 60,000 litres of biodiesel.

Besoeker · 06-12-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

1.5 acres will support one cow or the production of about 60,000 litres of biodiesel.

How?

John Carter · 06-12-2006, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

1.5 acres will support one cow or the production of about 60,000 litres of biodiesel.

How?

Go look it up. The truth is out there.

Besoeker · 06-12-2006, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

1.5 acres will support one cow or the production of about 60,000 litres of biodiesel.

How?

Go look it up. The truth is out there.

Your claim.
Put up or shut up.

Clippo · 07-12-2006, 07:19 AM

Nice one Besoeker,
pin them them down and you'll expose their absurdities.

Soddball · 07-12-2006, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Holland

As the UK will soon be a net importer of oil and gas and most oil and gas states are hostile to the west. You could argue that it does not matter if the greenhouse effect is real or not - we still need to find alternative fuels that don't provide money to terrorists and Chavez etc.

1.5 acres will support one cow or the production of about 60,000 litres of biodiesel.

I can't get the cow in my petrol tank.

06-12-2006, 03:58 PM	#13 (permalink)
David Holland Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: London Posts: 1,319	We need to use less oil anyway. As the UK will soon be a net importer of oil and gas and most oil and gas states are hostile to the west. You could argue that it does not matter if the greenhouse effect is real or not - we still need to find alternative fuels that don't provide money to terrorists and Chavez etc. If I wanted to help terrorist states I would not have joined UKIP I would be in Respect ! __________________ More people + no new homes = housing shortage.

06-12-2006, 04:03 PM	#14 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,615	I am happy for the self sufficiency argument to be made, as that is based on common sense and logic, rather than voodoo. Make that the underlying foundation to policy and then we are talking. If that then means our tiny proportion of amn made co2 drops (note nature will continue to produce more or less over time by many factors), then so be it. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-12-2006, 06:48 PM	#12 (permalink)
jp Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 996	I didn't expect to convince you, but I hope the spectators will get an idea of where you are coming from giving the above rant. All good ad- hom stuff - attack the messenger rather than the message. If you want to talk about the two papers which seem to me to be authentic & based on reality, lets do it. Otherwise I wil have the grace you don't seem to be able to exhibit by giving you the last word! PS See you on this page 3rd December 2011 when you'll be able to convince me about the dire global cooling which no doubt we will be experiencing by then!

07-12-2006, 07:19 AM	#19 (permalink)
Clippo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Cheshire Posts: 1,780	Nice one Besoeker, pin them them down and you'll expose their absurdities.