Friday, August 24, 2007

Yet more climate change crap

Highlighted over at EU Referendum is yet another example of the stupidity of the anthropogenic climate change lobby; the first is a report from a June 2005 edition of LiveScience.
"Global warming makes North Atlantic less salty"

And the second article is from The New Scientist, August 2007, which breathlessly proclaims the opposite.
"Global warming makes North Atlantic more salty"

These people will claim anything, eh? Even if one accepts that each of these articles in not an outrightly mendacious attempt to shore up the AGW theory—and, of course, the fat wads of funding that accompany that myth—the only other conclusion that we can draw is that the sceintists don't have a fucking clue what they are measuring or, indeed, how the global climate actually works.

If they cannot even agree, in a period of two years, whether the Atlantic is getting saltier or not, why should we believe these idiots when they predict catastrophe deriving from the rise in levels of a gas that only makes up, on average, 0.003% of our atmosphere?

Whether we do believe them or not, we certainly should think really, really carefully before committing trillions of pounds to fighting a problem which may not actually exist. Especially when the costs are now expected to be higher than we initially thought.
As Booker reported last Sunday, Prof William Nordhaus, of Yale, has just published calculations showing that cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale proposed by Gore might possibly save $12 trillion (£12,000bn) - but that their cost would be nearly three times as much, $34 trillion, more than half the world's GDP.

These are truly terrifying figures and we should be very wary of committing this cash on the say-so of a bunch of people who don't know what the fuck they are playing at.


jgball said...

I spent a while yesterday following some of the links in that article. Turns out some of their temperature data stations are in carparks (tarmac), next to air conditioning exhausts, airports (more tarmac) and it took outside asssistance to inform them that some of their models were affected by YK2 and that was in 2006. What kind of experts are they using? Sounds like Cherry picking from an infinite number of monkeys, unfortunately all too common.

the doctor said...

One report is about salinity on the surface and the other is about salinity in the deeps . Therefore both articles can be correct .

Pogo said...

On the subject of global warming bollocks...

There's a sort of "in passing" comment on John Brignell's "Numberwatch" site concerning the "El Nino" effect in 1998, which, according to the Church of Global Warming caused that year to be particularly warm globally. However, as Prof Brignell says, the "El Nino" effect is purely one of convection - which is only a redistributive function, it cannot be additive... So, how the fuck does it manage to warm up the entire planet?

TimeLord said...

Ok DK, maybe I`m just a thick cunt, but if Ice is more dense than Water then why is the sea level supposed to rise when it melts?
Or am I just a thick cunt...?

jgball said...

Timelord, if icecubes were denser than water they would sink, at least they din't in my drinks last night. Most ice is actually land based therefore when it melts it fills up the ocean basins. Thats why there used to be a land bridge between us and the EU during the last ice age. Lord knows, but you don't have to be a scientist to smell when the bullshit's being thrown off the train.

Devil's Kitchen said...


You are correct; given the relative densities of ice and water, the melting of the Artic ice would result in no net water rise.

However, ice run-off from land-based glaciers would lead to a rise in sea level.

However, what we are tending to see is that glaciers are shrinking in area but increasing in thickness; there seems to be little net melting at present.