What Climate change?

[petergriffin]

denial /de·ni·al/ (dĭ-ni´il) in psychiatry, a defense mechanism in which the existence of unpleasant internal or external realities is kept out of conscious awareness.

[BlasterBates]

Don't have to deny anything, just need to "look out the window" and see the snow.

[darmstadt]

It should not be hard to establish whether he is telling the truth should it?

"The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number.

It is not really a question of truth. It is to do with the prognosis

Actually it's to do with what you believe in:

The sun has set over the central Arctic Ocean and Arctic sea ice extent is now increasing. Sea ice extent in Antarctica appears to have passed its seasonal maximum. The peak Antarctic value recorded so far of over 20 million square kilometers (7.7 million square miles) sets a new record over the period of satellite observations. - National Snow and Ice Data Center

or:

The planet's two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth's ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.

or:

The IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group also lists sea ice losses from a warming Arctic as the biggest threat to polar bear survival. At their 2013 meeting, scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears:

4 are declining
5 are stable
1 is increasing
9 have insufficient data

Are polar bear populations increasing: in fact, booming? | Polar Bears International

or:

No one actually really knows about polar bears, if they are increasing or decreasing

Really its all bollocks because as soon as one side says something then the other counteracts it with their figures...

[expat]

As I said smear the messenger

If he claims to have "done a lot of study" but he is not in any way qualified to do so, and has not published any study, but merely expresses an unsustantiated opinion contrary to those who have actually studied the science, then he is not a smeared messenger, he is a liar and a nutcase.

[DodgyAgent]

Actually it's to do with what you believe in:



or:



or:



or:




Really its all bollocks because as soon as one side says something then the other counteracts it with their figures...

some wisdom at last!

[DodgyAgent]

If he claims to have "done a lot of study" but he is not in any way qualified to do so, and has not published any study, but merely expresses an unsustantiated opinion contrary to those who have actually studied the science, then he is not a smeared messenger, he is a liar and a nutcase.

So all his claims are lies are they? So when a CEO who does not understands technology makes a decision involving how technology is used he/she is not entitled to do so because he is not a trained computer nerd?

[Churchill]

The answer of course will be to smear the messenger

Well that's one of your tricks too so I wouldn't whinge too loudly.

[pjclarke]

Don't have to deny anything, just need to "look out the window" and see the snow.

A little context:

[DodgyAgent]

Well that's one of your tricks too so I wouldn't whinge too loudly.

I do so within the context of arguing the points on their own merit. As opposed to those who ignore the points completely and revert simply to the person who has made them.

[pjclarke]

Is it that time already? Coleman pushes one of these open letters out every few years...His 'proof' that climate change is a lie is itself full of untruth.

There is no significant man-made global warming at this time, there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future. Efforts to prove the theory that carbon dioxide is a significant “greenhouse” gas and pollutant causing significant warming or weather effects have failed.

Wrong in every respect. Without the greenhouse effect the planet would be around 30C cooler, CO2 is an important part of the GH effect and human activities have increased the concentration by 40%, well outside the range it has been in for at least 400,000 years. Unlike another GHG, water vapour, where any excess precipitates out, CO2 is long-lasting once emitted. The effect on the planet's energy budget is uncontroversial, a positive radiative imbalance of about 1.6 Watts per square metre. Objects with a positive radiative imbalance tend to get warmer. That first sentence alone is enough to blow his credibility.

There has been no warming over 18 years.

There are several estimates of global temperature, all have risen over that time period, some more than others.

William Happer, Ph.D., Princeton University, Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard Smithsonian Observatory, John Christy, Ph.D., University of Alabama and 9,000 other Ph.D. scientists all agree with my opening two sentences.

He doesn't name the rest of his supporting cast, but I guess he is referring to the so-called 'Oregon petition',

even though that document says there is no 'catastophic' Gw rather than 'significant'. The petition has been going 16 years, and while it has been supported by a few thousand medics, vetenarians, engineers, nurses and chiropracters and a few actual scientists, the signatories are a fraction of 1% of the millions eligible to sign.

Yet at your October 23 Hammer Forum on Climate Change you have scheduled as your only speakers two people who continue to present the failed science as though it is the final and complete story on global warming/climate change. This is major mistake. I urge you to re-examine your plan. It is important to have those who attend know that there is no climate crisis. The ocean is not rising significantly. The polar ice is increasing, not melting away. Polar Bears are increasing in number. Heat waves have actually diminished, not increased. There is not an uptick in the number or strength of storms (in fact storms are diminishing).

Sea level rise, as measured by satellite, is over 3cm/decade. This is enough to be a significant factor in infrastructure planning, expert opinion is that it is likely to accelerate, threatening coastal cities, freshwater supplies and worsening storm damage. Arctic sea ice is diminishing faster and has been for longer than Antarctic sea is growing.



And land ice is disappearing at both ends of the world. The data on extreme weather and tropical storms is very variable, its hard to tease out a signal from the noise, but even there the data is at odds with Coleman's nonsense. IOW he has 'proved' nothing, its just factually-wrong blather.