Global Warming

[BlasterBates]

Well, in one corner is our good friend the Dodgy Agent who says there is no compelling evidence for manmade climate change.

And on the other side there is THE NATIONAL SCIENCE ACADEMIES OF THE DEVELOPED WORLD, who assert that

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

A fair fight?

That statement dates from 2005, btw, since then there have been more: Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's what Richard Feynman had to say about the National Academy of Science:

I had trouble when I became a member of the National Academy of Science, and I had ultimately to resign. Because there was another organization, most of whose time was spent in choosing who was illustrious enough to be allowed to join us in our organization. Including such questions as: 'we physicists have to stick together because there's a very good chemist that they're trying to get in and we haven't got enough room...'. What's the matter with chemists? The whole thing was rotten .

feynman

Say no more...

[DodgyAgent]

A lot of signatures from people employed by government NO hard hard evidence and no attempt to put any perspective such as what % of C02 is man made? And as usual along with all the "entitlement" brigade extensive use of "poor people" in the rhetoric when actually it is only their own pockets they are interested in

[d000hg]

Here's what Richard Feynman had to say about the National Academy of Science:



feynman

Say no more...

On the other hand they still know more than DA does.

[original PM]

Has there been any evidence or studies of whether the actual body heat radiated by living things has any effect on the overall temperature?

I mean 3 billion people pumping out 37.1 degrees c is one thing - but when the population is 6 billion (as it is now) would that not have some effect on warming?

just asking like

[DodgyAgent]

On the other hand they still know more than DA does.

[EternalOptimist]

Has there been any evidence or studies of whether the actual body heat radiated by living things has any effect on the overall temperature?

I mean 3 billion people pumping out 37.1 degrees c is one thing - but when the population is 6 billion (as it is now) would that not have some effect on warming?

just asking like

It's a good question.
A team of pholosophers asked the same question of the Hadley mega computer, which is linked to the IPCC and Al Gore by an orbital mind control laser.
The answer was clear, there will be 35 million climate refugees by 2010, east africa will suffer floods, Manhatten will be under 20 feet of water, snow will be a thing of the past, all the frogs will be dead and foinavon will win the 15:15 at aintree

[pjclarke]

Feynman died nearly two decades before the academies' statement was drafted.

1 contrary voice is not inconsistent with a concensus. See here for an examination of Christy's scepticism.

Not doing Easterbrook's Greenland nonsense again. He fakes graphs and the data does not say what he says it does. If he had a valid point he would submit to a journal for scrutiny and peer-review, as it is his own University department say his stuff is not worthy of serious consideration.

A lot of signatures from people employed by government NO hard hard evidence and no attempt to put any perspective such as what % of C02 is man made?

Manmade CO2 fluxes are a few % of the annual carbon cycle, the point is we add a few ppm a year, and that peturbation will persist for centuries. CO2 is now 35% above the range in which it has cycled for at least 600K years.



The warming effects of this were forecast by Svante Arrhenius over a century ago, no doubt as a moneymaking scheme for parasitic 21st century socialists.

[BlasterBates]

Feynman died nearly two decades before the academies' statement was drafted.
.

...and it's still rotten as he said. Those of us who rail against the academies aren't anti-science, we are in good company, we have the second most illustrious scientist of the 20th century on our side.

1 contrary voice is not inconsistent with a concensus. See here for an examination of Christy's scepticism.

Conensus has no scientific meaning. You've avoided the point, as usual. The point being plenty of illusrtious scientist maintain that the AGW argument is weak.

Not doing Easterbrook's Greenland nonsense again. He fakes graphs and the data does not say what he says it does. If he had a valid point he would submit to a journal for scrutiny and peer-review, as it is his own University department say his stuff is not worthy of serious consideration.
.

The opinion of a blogger, not a scientist. Show me any comment from a reputable scientist that says that. If there isn't one we can ignore it. I presume though you will continue to push the opinion of a scientifically untrained blogger. Which is just simply a demonstration of throwing science out the window, and using propoganda to make your point.

Oh and you can actually double check from the temperatures

Have you checked the Oxygen isotope curves, not faked at all. Easterbrook is merely presenting information readily available.

and what about this:

http://www2.imm.dtu.dk/~kmos/papers/B7-Science1998.pdf


According to the blogger the temps only go up to 1870 or 1900, how do these scientists get data for 1930 then?

and what happened after 1930, was there a temperature spike. This data doesn't show a spike:


http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/gr...eenlandave.dat


The key point is that Oxygen isotope data, contradicts the discredited tree trunk analysis. Of course if you don't believe that why don't you check the peer reviewed literature:

Climate Audit

Presumably you'll ignore that too.

Point is there has been plenty of temperature swings over the millennia.

The crux of the debate is not whether there has been warming, it's whether climate variations are natural. That's why the tree trunk analysis is so crucial, because it is "proof" that the temperatures are constant, except they're not are they.

How do you explain the evidence of glaciers going back and forth, and the Alpine glaciers being further back during Roman times? Is that consistent with unchanging temperatures over the millennia?

[pjclarke]

It is a bit of an own goal, not to say tiresome once a claim has been discredited, simply to turn up the volume and repeat it ad infinitum. Until Easterbrook publishes his analysis of the GISP2 Greenland ice cores (which he won't), then it has the same status as a blog, and yes it is bloggers (plural) who have shown that he fakes graphs http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-...s-the-incline/.

Show me any comment from a reputable scientist that says that

I did - my link was to Easterbrook's erstwhile University department's position statement. Previously I've cited Richard Alley, who has published on the data, wrote the definitive work on ice cores and says Easterbrook's use of the data is bogus. Which means you'll repeat it in a week or so.

Of course if you don't believe that why don't you check the peer reviewed literature: Climate Audit

Another tactic - a bogus link. That site is run by Steve McIntyre who has published precisely one paper, since rebutted and not on O2 isotopes. You expect people to trawl through 20,000 odd blog posts to find the one you mean?

So please - a cite to a study in the literature that supports your claim ....

It almost certainly was warmer in the past - at certain times, and in certain regions. But the evidence points to modern simultaneous warming on every continent being unprecendented in rate and magnitude.

[escapeUK]

I will believe in this when the governments of the world actually start to promote things that would stop it, for instance population control, maximum one child per couple, abolish tax benefits for families.

While they continue to do things such as add a bit of extra tax on a flight while building more runways, make some cars have more tax on than others etc then I will continue to believe its a hoax.