Climate Deniers take note

[Zero Liability]

We don't deny Climate Change.

We simply question the proportion that is anthropogenic, and hence how much of it we can prevent in future.

FTFY

But yes, that is exactly right. It's a pretty heated debate based on very complex science that is dumbed down to serve political agendas and fill the coffers of corporations that have gotten on board with it. I enjoyed Bob Carter's Climate: The Counter Consensus on this, as he documents a lot of the political and media corruption that has become endemic to the debate. The book is pretty interesting as he puts a lot of the science in perspective, but I say this as a lay-person.

The AGW hypothesis, which is highly specific in nature, and the platitude of "climate change" are not equivalent. And even if you accept the former of the two, you can still question a lot of the policies proposed to "counter" it, particularly if it is not unequivocally bad (from our POV as a species.)

I am more concerned about whether we, as a species, will push back the disease known as ageing and continue building our wealth and therefore our means to control our environment, than horror stories spun out of computer models, which are hardly unprecedented in recent history.

[GB9]

It matters not, we're insignificant as far as the universe is concerned. In fact the age of man is not a pin prick in the length of time the universe has been in existence.
Tapatalk

WSSS

Its getting warmer. We didn't do it, although we do pollute.

It was a damn sight warmer when the dinosaurs were about. Were they to blame?

[Paddy]

WSSS

Its getting warmer. We didn't do it, although we do pollute.

It was a damn sight warmer when the dinosaurs were about. Were they to blame?

Proof of media brainwashing at its best….


From the corporate prospective. My company is successful, I have made huge profits but we have polluted so you should pay to clean up your mess.

and

From the corporate prospective. My company is successful in drilling for oil in Johnny foreigner land, I have made huge profits but we have trouble with Johnny foreigner so you should pay to for the Army out of your taxes. I can't afford to because my company is based in Panama.

[DodgyAgent]

FTFY

But yes, that is exactly right. It's a pretty heated debate based on very complex science that is dumbed down to serve political agendas and fill the coffers of corporations that have gotten on board with it. I enjoyed Bob Carter's Climate: The Counter Consensus on this, as he documents a lot of the political and media corruption that has become endemic to the debate. The book is pretty interesting as he puts a lot of the science in perspective, but I say this as a lay-person.

The AGW hypothesis, which is highly specific in nature, and the platitude of "climate change" are not equivalent. And even if you accept the former of the two, you can still question a lot of the policies proposed to "counter" it, particularly if it is not unequivocally bad (from our POV as a species.)

I am more concerned about whether we, as a species, will push back the disease known as ageing and continue building our wealth and therefore our means to control our environment, than horror stories spun out of computer models, which are hardly unprecedented in recent history.

Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging | Video on TED.com

He looks just like an IT contractor

[pjclarke]

Updated

Click

Apparently splicing a gaph of absolute temperature reconstructions from one spot on the Antarctic that ends in the late 1900s to a graph of recent global temperature anomalies is the way to go.

So the authors of the graph must believe the current global temperature is around minus 33C.

Blaster will now explain the difference between an anomaly and an absolute temperature value for us ...

[BlasterBates]

Click

Apparently splicing a gaph of absolute temperature reconstructions from one spot on the Antarctic that ends in the late 1900s to a graph of recent global temperature anomalies is the way to go.

So the authors of the graph must believe the current global temperature is around minus 33C.

Blaster will now explain the difference between an anomaly and an absolute temperature value for us ...

Greenland actually

You need to brush up on your Geography. You can check out Prof. Easterbrook's website, he's a glaciologist, a professor you know.

Oh I forgot you believe that blogger who works as an assistant in a Hardware store

[pjclarke]

Why do these 'experts' always turn out to be old and long-retired?

Ooops. Didn't think it was worth that much attention to detail, being BS from start to finish. I stand corrected,...

Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus, long-retired, if we're being a stickler, here is what his (still practising and publishing) colleagues have to say ..

We, the active faculty of the Geology Department at Western Washington University, express our unanimous and significant concerns regarding the views espoused by Easterbrook, who holds a doctorate in geology; they are neither scientifically valid nor supported by the overwhelming preponderance of evidence on the topic [...] Easterbrook's views are filled with misrepresentations, misuse of data and repeated mixing of local vs. global records. Nearly every graphic in the hours-long presentation to the Senate was flawed, as was Easterbrook's discussion of them. […] more than 100 years of research in physics, chemistry, atmospheric science and oceanography has, via experiments, numerous physical observations and theoretic calculations, clearly demonstrate - and have communicated via the scientific literature - that carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas; its presence and variations in Earth's atmosphere have significant and measureable impacts on the surface temperature of our planet. Alternatively, you can take Easterbrook's word - not supported by any published science - that the concentration and effects of carbon dioxide are so small as to not matter a bit.

In a specific example, Easterbrook referred to a graph of temperatures from an ice core of the Greenland ice sheet to claim that global temperatures were warmer than present over most of the last 10,000 years. First, this record is of temperature from a single spot on Earth, central Greenland (thus it is not a "global record"). Second, and perhaps more importantly, Easterbrook's definition of "present temperature" in the graph is based on the most recent data point in that record, which is actually 1855, more than 150 years ago when the world was still in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and well before any hint of human-caused climate change.

As the active faculty of the Western Washington University Geology Department that he lists as his affiliation, we conclude that Easterbrook's presentation clearly does not represent the best-available science on this subject, and urge the Senate, our state government, and the citizens of Washington State to rely on rigorous peer-reviewed science rather than conspiracy-based ideas to steer their decisions on matters concerning our environment and economic future.

Ooops again. If you’re going to argue from authority, its usually best to ensure your authority has some.

[DodgyAgent]

Ooops. Didn't think it was worth that much attention to detail, being BS from start to finish. I stand corrected,...

Easterbrook is Professor Emeritus, long-retired, if we're being a stickler, here is what his (still practising and publishing) colleagues have to say ..



Ooops again. If you’re going to argue from authority, its usually best to ensure your authority has some.

The age old trick of trashing the source. this time it is just because the author has retired. I presume when you mean "authority" you mean someone with a vested interest in the problem existing (whereas not interested in solving the problem)

[DodgyAgent]

This is the product that could de pollute the oceans and removes excess CO2 from the atmosphere. Apparently the climate change and conservation industry hate it and will have nothing to do with it. According to two companies that sell solutions to pollution problems no one will even look at it:

..:: Welcome to Nualgi ::..

They have now thought up a neat way of stopping it altogether:

IMO | Marine geoengineering including ocean fertilization to be regulated under amendments to international treaty

Ban anything from being put into the ocean (except of course they are still allowing agricutural run off and traditional pollutants to continue)

[pjclarke]

The 'retired' is a detail, he also happens to be completely wrong, as his more active erstwhile colleagues make clear.

Ad hominem is indeed a fallacy, however if you take an interest in the topic you soon notice that a pattern emerges ... there is such a preponderence of scientific evidence and opinion underpinning the proposal that AGW is a reality that those who wish to contradict it cherry-pick the one or two contrarian 'experts' who offer a different view. These often turn out to be elderley and long since retired from academic life. That of itself doesn't make them wrong, its the fact that they are wrong that makes them wrong.

So we have Easterbrook (born 1935) on the ice cores, Nils Morner (b.1938) on sea level, Bill Gray (b.1929) on hurricanes, Fred Singer (who'll deny anything if the money is right b.1924.). And so on. Plenty more examples in this short list.