Sunday, April 06, 2008

Global warming will kill us all #94

Your humble Devil didn't get out of bed until quite late today. So imagine his surprise when he looked out of his window and saw this little lot.


Snow! In London! In April!



Some kids were obviously up earlier than I; as you may be able to see in the picture above, they have managed to build two snowmen. (They are standing where you can see that patch of grass, to the right of the centre of the picture.)

Thank goodness all of those scientists started talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming" a few years ago, eh? Otherwise they'd be looking pretty bloody stupid right now...

UPDATE: this seems to be a god time to remind people, from John Redwood's blog, of what the consensus was in the early 1970s.
I am also grateful to a correspondent for sending me the following quotes, which shows how professional opinion changes, as it should do in the light of new facts and theories

“The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we “prepare for the next ice age”
(Science Digest, Feb 1973)

“..the approach of a full-blown 10,000 year ice age” (Science, March 1 1975)

” The North Atlantic is cooling about as fast as an ocean can cool… growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter”
(Christian Science Monitor, 27 August 1974)

Lowe Ponte, “The Cooling”, 1976, forecast the problems of global cooling

Yup. And couldn't have been more wrong. You've got to love these crazy scientists and their forecasting...

72 comments:

Anonymous said...

I see no snowmen. Point them out or I'll hunt you down like a dog and kill you.

Anonymous said...

Forget that. I now see snowmen.

verity said...

I remember that the world was going to run out of oil before the end of the last century. Oooh err! Lots of people made a very nice living writing and warning of these predictions. Talks. Articles. The usual.

Today, we know we have reserves of 100m barrels. We should still be seeking alternatives, of course, because much of that 100m is in Saudi Arabia which I personally would enjoy seeing surrending to the shifting sands of the Sahara with Riyadh's gleaming domes eventually covered over. The but "We're running out of oil! Everyone panic!!!!!" mode was the "man-made climate change" of its day.

Evil Clanger said...

Global warming - we are all total bastards, global cooling we are all bastards, things stay exactly the fucking same - we are all bastards.

Exercising personal choice makes you a bastard and it will end up either heating, cooling or not affecting one iota the climate - YOU BASTARD!

Leave it to those who know just what you should do or, indeed, should want to do. Leave it to Al.

Mark Wadsworth said...

DK, you haven't understood it, have you? It's the global warming that has caused temperatures to go down!!*

Scientists are all saying "Panic! The weather is different to what we forecasted". The fact that their models were rubbish never occurs to them.

* In a more literal sense, modest global warming has led to the Antarctic Ice thickening - warmer air is damper air, when it blows over the Antarctic, it falls as snow and stays there for a heck of a long time.

Which, as Evil C points out, proves that we are all bastards. We are allowing water to turn into ice, while millions of people in The Turd World have no drinking water etc etc.

Budgie said...

DK said:
"Thank goodness all of those scientists started talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming" a few years ago, eh?"

I would like to think that AGW was a hoax (ie the perpetrators knew it was wrong all along). But it is worse. It was (is) a bandwagon, a mob effect, a collective irrationality where the emotional experience of rolling along as a gang member was more important than the truth. As mad as Marxists.

They are, as you say DK, now trying to weasel their way out of "global warming". But behind the BBC and mainstream political views about "climate change" still lurks the irrationality of CO2 being the direct, simplistic and immediate cause of global warming. Which the last 10 years of increasing CO2 but reducing global temperature has demonstrated is not the case.

You are right to highlight the the AGW wriggle factor.

verity said...

Mark and Evil Clanger - Yes. It is all about the One Worlder agenda in the service of which, we are supposed to give up the benefits of our civilisation to help people who never bothered to develop a civilisation.

It is always Africa that is cited. Has anyone else ever noticed this? Global warming - the Africans won't be able to grow food because their countries will have become deserts! They will starve! Microbes will grow like wildfire in the water and there will be no drinking water! Eeeeeek! Alternatively, there will be mass migration of Africans and the assumption is, all the developed world, which is most of the world these days, let's face it, would be so sapped of willpower, we would let hundreds of millions of them come flooding in.

Global cooling! The Sahara will be covered with ice! Crops will not grow in Africa! The Africans will starve!!!

Using up the "precious resource" of oil (what the hell would we be saving it for?) - there will be no aircraft fuel for the Africans to get their produce to markets! They will starve! There will be diseases and we won't be able to get precious medicines to the continent of Africa!!

Remember the "Population Bomb"? Where the world was going to be so over-populated within X number of years, there wouldn't be enough food to go round and you-know-who would starve?

Anonymous said...

Bloody hell useless youth of today can't even build proper snow persons!

Can someone ask that nice Mr Gore to fly in his jet a bit more 'cos it aint half fucking cold?

Vasey said...

In fairness, global warming is a global average prediction. It's expected that some parts of the world will cool due to the somewhat unpredictable effects of such a large system getting knocked out of whack. As I recall, at one point, it was predicted that global warming would shut down, or at least severely diminish, the Gulf Stream which would have rather adverse effects on British temperatures.

Anyway, it's not like there's a damned thing we can do about it now if it is real. The real engines of climate change, by current theories, are entirely outside of this nation's grasp and multinational organisations are rather too ineffective to accomplish much of anything. You'd better be right, DK, or we're all heading for the knacker's yard.

V said...

global warming is a global average prediction

This is what is wrong with today's class of eco mentalist. They were dodging double maths to go to protesting about some cows damaging the environment!

For the hard of thinking, here is a real world example - the North pole is getting melty according to the BBC - where the south pole is getting much colder - this was not reported by the BBC - therefore, balancing out any average temperature you may like to record is done without having to use a calcy box!

This is happening everywhere.
I've already quoted earlier in the year that I think this year will be statistically the same as 1982 - and, so far, everything is falling into place.

That is how predictions are done. Analysis, test, review and prove. Sorry, I guess most of the eco mentalists dodged the lesson on statistics as well!

verity said...

Vasey - Wrong. It's the sun wot done it.

mitch said...

Weather tracks sunspot cycles it that simple!!.Look it up they have known this for years.C02 my fukin arse.

verity said...

You're preaching to the wrong congregation, Mitch. We know this. It's the ranting lefties who don't know it. Or don't believe it.

rob halford's gay lover said...

The people who comment here really are a bunch of fucking twats. They're even worse than you, for fuck's sake.

Of course, "libertarianism" will never, ever get any popularity worth mentioning in the real world.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

"what the consensus was in the early 1970s."

and the truth is that scientists were mainly talking about greenhouse warming even then. All the BS about 'global cooling' is just a myth. Look at the peer reviewed literature (hint: not newsweek) and it isn't there.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

Anonymous said...

I have a wonderful idea, rob halford's gay lover. Why don't you go and fuck yourself with a cactus and then die of rectal cancer in a country that hasn't invented morphine yet?

curly15 said...

Bring back Nigel Lawson!

Jones said...

Frank O'Dwyer,

Nothing really unusual. Britain has had late snow every so often for years, and no 'peer reviewed' documents can make it otherwise. I cite 1923, 1935, 1943, 1955, 1968, 1975, 1979, 1981 and 1982 (I rode a motorcycle through both those winters - brr) 1985, and so on. I recall 2002 and 2003 as being pretty nippy too. Check out the weather records for proof, or maybe take a good long walk outside to see for yourself. Academic papers alone prove nothing without reference to the real world.

We had cool spell, then a warm spell, now it's going to get cooler for a while. The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on etc, etc.

I just object to the natural variability of Earth's climate being used as an excuse for social engineering and extra taxation.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

jones,

Please read what I wrote and not what you thought I wrote.

I am responding to DK's claim that there was a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 70s. This is a myth. There was no such consensus and in fact most of the literature was about greenhouse warming even in the 70s - see the paper I cited, which reviews the scientific literature from that time.

peter carter-fuck said...

Verity:

I really hope that there 100 billion barrels of oil left. 100 million will last us a couple of months, and I've just taxed the car for a year.

Budgie said...

frank o'dwyer

I lived through the seventies and what I read about was global cooling and the dangers of a new ice age. Not global warming.

Sorry, I think AGW fanatics are trying to re-write history.

Jones said...

Sorry Frank,

I'm with Budgie on this one. I too was around in the 70's. The media were all on about the 'Next ice age' until about 1979 when I first recall mention of a 'warming' effect. Even then I wasn't convinced because of working outdoors during those years and seeing the snow and sleet sometimes coming down horizontally during the winters. 1979-1991 was often quite rough weatherwise. You had to be there to experience it. Could reminisce for hours, but I have a life. You know how it is.

Semaj Mahgih said...

You bastards - I'm so envious over here in western Gobi. How could you have snow and we, the home of snow, have 22 degrees? Plus!!!!!

Semaj Mahgih said...

Good to see Verity getting about too.

Chalcedon said...

Global warming.............I remember the summer of 1976...........incredibly hot. Nothing since seems to compare. Let's face it, in the UK we have weather rather than a climate. Being an island on the far West of Europe our weather is very changeable.

The graphs are shopwing an average slight global cooling over the past 10 years.

Gore lied.

Henry Crun said...

"peer reviewed", isn't that a bit like getting A-level students to mark each others exam papers?

Roger Thornhill said...

I must object to those snowpersons. They are a couple, which implies discrimination against single parents due to the reinforcement of social stereotypes with regards acceptable social structures. They also exhibit a representation of individuals with a BMI index over 25 and so may encourage childhood obesity.

Neal Asher said...

As Orson Scott Card pointed out:

Here's the raw truth:

All the computer models are wrong. They have not only failed to predict the future, they can't even predict that past.

That is, when you run their software with the data from, say, the 1970s or 1980s, and project what should happen in the 1990s or 2000s, they project results that have absolutely nothing to do with the known climate data for those decades.

In other words, the models don't work. The only way to make them "work" is to take the known results and then fiddle with the software until it finally produces them. That's not how honest science is done.

...

These models did not predict ten years of no warming, and the whole AGW bullshit rests on these models. You know, stuff from people sitting in NASA offices fiddling about with computer programs rather than going out and measuring stuff.

Oh, here's one of those 70s articles about the cold:

http://theskinner.blogspot.com/2007/03/lets-not-forget-ice-age.html

lettersfromatory said...

Now now, let's remember that 'climate change' is very different from global warming. Climate change can explain the complete absence of a summer in the UK last year, whereas global warming is a defunct term.

wildgoose said...

I grew up in the 1970s and remember all the "coming Ice Age " stuff very clearly.

Incidentally vasey, "it was predicted that global warming would shut down, or at least severely diminish, the Gulf Stream" is complete unscientific garbage. The Gulf Stream is powered by the rotation of the Earth, with more warm water deflected northwards than southwards because of the shape of the coastline of Brazil. All this talk of "shutting down" or "reversing" the Gulf Stream would need the Earth to stop rotating in its current direction and start to rotate in the opposite direction.

This example alone shows the Global Warming fruitcakes to be unscientific lunatics who should either be ignored or mocked.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Verity, that's an excellent list, but you forgot "AIDS was developed in a CIA laboratory by fundamentlist Christians to wipe out promiscuous Africans"

Dorothy Lucan-Manners said...

Several people have built depressing little houses in your back garden. How long, exactly, were you asleep?

Frank O'Dwyer said...

budgie and others,

"I lived through the seventies and what I read about was global cooling and the dangers of a new ice age. Not global warming."

Then clearly your choice of reading was no better in the 70s than it is now. You were told in the 70s that there was a scientific consensus about global cooling? You were misinformed. A review of the 70s scientific literature shows the opposite.

If there is a lesson to be learned from that, it's that you were not very good at choosing sources in the 70s. Now it's 30 years later and nothing has changed. You were misinformed about global cooling then, and you're misinformed about it now. Your media sources were wrong about the science then, and your media sources are wrong about the science now.

Budgie said...

Frank

Unless, of course, you are wrong about the 1970s and wrong about now too.

No doubt in 30 years time some clever clogs will tell us that the scientific "consensus" was opposed to global warming.

The AGW theory was very specific: Man increases the amount of CO2; increasing CO2 directly creates global warming; therefore only Man cause current global warming.

This theory is already discredited, by the facts of increasing CO2 over the last 10 years whilst temperatures were static. So much so that even its proponents now talk about "climate change".

It is a pity that AGW fanatics won't admit (as one scientist has done) that they deliberately exagerated to gain attention. The reality is the global climate is far more complicated than the AGW fanatics admit and is driven by many factors, the sun being far away the most fundemental and important.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

budgie,

"Unless, of course, you are wrong about the 1970s and wrong about now too."

Are you a skeptic or a solipsist? Which part of 'a review of the 70s scientific literature shows no consensus about global cooling' is hard to understand? Go read the paper I cited.

"The AGW theory was very specific: Man increases the amount of CO2; increasing CO2 directly creates global warming; therefore only Man cause current global warming."

That is not 'the AGW theory' and the part about 'only Man' is a complete non sequitur as well as complete bollocks. If that were really the AGW theory then there would be no need to test it as it doesn't even parse logically.

If you want to understand what the theory is why don't you read about it. You could start by reading the IPCC WG1 report which mentions all the other factors you say are ignored. I don't expect you to agree with it but you would sound less daft if you understood what it said.

"the global climate is far more complicated than the AGW fanatics admit and is driven by many factors, the sun being far away the most fundemental and important."

LOL. Too complicated for all those scientists to figure out - so thank Christ there is no shortage of punters on the net who can tell us it's mostly to do with the sun. Now that you've solved that one, which complex scientific question do you plan to solve in your lunch hour today?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Frank, I've got a good scientific question, how is it possible to cycle from Amsterdam to London, given that most of the middle-bit is water? Budgie? Anybody?

my first post said...

I am frightened, frightened and scared, scared and terrified. The depleted ozone layer has moved in next door to me.

No more sun-bathing, lazy late-Summer picnics with happy smiley people recalling idyllic hot-spells followed by mellow Autumns and harvest festivals.

Will we be crushed by icebergs or have our brains sizzled by solar energy?

Ha ha ha...Only kidding ya.

We only have to wait for the school holidays to finish and then the weather will go back to normal!

Ooooops, nearly forgot to add a sweary, Fucking Cunt's these climate freaks.

Anonymous said...

For goodness' sake you lot! Stop talking climate. The nice Mr Gore said the "debate was over" and that's good enough for me.

So no more debating, okay?

Frank O'Dwyer said...

mark wadsworth,

"Frank, I've got a good scientific question, how is it possible to cycle from Amsterdam to London, given that most of the middle-bit is water?"

I hope you're sitting down because those useless scientists have had solutions to the problem of crossing water for some time now. Does the word ferry ring a bell? It is in the post you linked to. Quite why you thought it relevant I can't imagine.

Perhaps your point is that since the scientific consensus was for global cooling in the 70s (even though it wasn't) therefore all climate forecasts must be wrong. In particular those that say that the ocean will remain liquid next month must be wrong and I should be able to skate over. Right?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Frank, we've got a problem with definitions here.

I would describe this as "Cycling from Amsterdam to Port X (in the Netherlands) and from Port Y (in Engliand) to London", that would surely be a more accurate description?

On a grammatical point, "The post to which you linked." is preferable to "The post you linked to."

Mark Wadsworth said...

"England" not "Engliand", obviously.

Mr Angry said...

I for one am extremely concerned about man's influence on climate change.

If only we could stop all industrialisation today, then our planet could have an entirely constant average temperature like we had in the million or so years before the industrial revolution came along and ruined everything.

Neal Asher said...

Whilst sitting here during an English spring with the central heating on and hailstones beating the tarmac outside, I took a look at the paper Frank cited. And, as always, I just didn't believe it. The problem with the AGW warmista watermelons is that they are untrustworthy witnesses. They have told too many lies. The paper is just another exercise in statistics. Again it is someone collecting data and massaging it to fit ideology. It is an attempt to kill that embarrassing Ice Age episode of the 70s.

Neal Asher said...

Just read the first paragraph and the agenda is clear enough. The Nobel-winning IPCC vs those hateful deniers who keep throwing the 70s Ice Age in their faces.

frank O'Dwyer said...

neil asher,

"I took a look at the paper Frank cited. And, as always, I just didn't believe it"

Argument from incredulity is always such an impressive rebuttal. I don't care what you believe. Disproving the conclusion of paper would be very simple if you were right. Just provide sufficient examples from the peer reviewed scientific literature of the 70s to show a consensus regarding global cooling and you're done.

Of course you can't do that, hence the ad hominem attacks on the authors.

cassandra said...

I think you will find that the BBC still uses the term "global warming" quite often and BBC world uses it in between adverts for whiskey and holidays to China very often!
The latest BBC world offering is a fake BBC report on a fake WHO report about a fake link to inreasing illness due to fake global warming! The report even showed hurricane Katrina and AIDS victims! Hmmmm?
How wonderful that all those billions of pounds are being used to educate the ignorant masses that we are destroying ourselves and the only way to save ourselves is to, er destroy ourselves and if we dont destroy our way of life we will, er, destroy our way of life and not forgeting of course that the earth will burst into flames and we will all die terrible deaths etc etc? Hmmmm? sounds a bit like the fucking bible doesnt it? In fact the eco nutters are describing the bible! Fuck me! we are all fucked!

Neal Asher said...

Ever heard the tale of Peter and the Wolf, Frank?

The entire point here is, having seen hockey sticks from the IPCC and distorted graphs from the NOAA, those, and many more like them, have just lost credibility. They are unreliable witnesses. Liars.

And yeah, ad hominem attacks make me feel better. As a 'denier' I've been subject to them and I ain't turning the other cheek.

And no, I'm not going to try and disprove this. I know what it is and I'm not going to spend time researching it. I already know that the AGW side like to adjust history and this looks to me like the same sort of shit.

Incidentally, can you disprove that a teapot is orbiting the sun? No, thought not.

defender said...

Now this straight from the Mail
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=557209&in_page_id=1770
2008: The year the world will cool down
Last updated at 16:44pm on 7th April 2008

Comments (9)

The world will experience global cooling this year, according a leading climate scientist.


The head of the World Meteorological Organisation said La Nina - the weather phenomenon which is cooling the Pacific - is likely to trigger a small drop in average global temperatures compared with last year.


The prediction - which follows a bitterly cold winter in China and the Arctic - is prompting some sceptics to question the theory of climate change.

Scroll down for more...


The news that the earth appears to be cooling would seem to contradict most experts who say that global warming is melting ice at the Poles

Read more...

The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change

However, the World Meteorological Organisation insists that this year's cooling has nothing to do with global climate change.

In fact, this year's temperatures could still be way above the average - and it is possible that 2008 will exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.


La Nina is Spanish for "The Girl" and describes a cooling of the central and eastern Pacific.

It typically lasts for 12 months. In recent months it caused one of the coldest winters in memory in China, and brought torrential rains to Australia.

While La Nina can affect weather around the world, it is usually less of an influence than El Nino (The Boy). In an El Nino year, the Pacific warms up.


Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organisation's secretary general, said La Nina was expected to continue into the summer, depressing global temperatures by a fraction of a degree.


But he said temperatures in 2008 would still be well above average for the last 100 years.


The Met Office predicts that 2008 will be around 0.4C warmer than the average for 1961-1990.


It said temperatures are influenced by a range of variables - including changes in the sun's output, pollution and weather cycles such as La Nina.


But most scientists argue that the long-term temperature rises since 1880 can only be explained by carbon dioxide from human activity.

Jones said...

Guys,

I'd stop bitch fighting over an unproven theory and learn to wrap up warm for the next year or three. From the latest SOHO data we are at a prolonged sunspot minimum (One of the sunspot cycles is very late indeed) and that generally presages a long cold snap on jolly old planet Earth. Winter draws on. Brrr!

cassandra said...

Defender,

Most scientists do not argue that the tiny fluctuations in natural cyclic climate variation are caused by man made CO2!
SOME scientists think that maybe that is the case and some scientists think the the climate cycle is natural and some scientists think its a bit of both!
The media and governments and eco pressure groups have joined in an unholy alliance and stamped on dissent and silenced critics and fiddled figures and perverted the evidence to support their political stance.
You cannot spell concensus without the CON and that is what the tranzis, self inflated polititians, Luddite eco nutters, socialist/marxist whackjobs wishing for a nu USSR MK2!
Thousands of scientists have signed petitions and written thousands of reports and they have been consistantly silenced by the MSM.
So I repeat, the majority of scientists do not believe in tipping points nonsense, biblical floods and other alarmist tripe but that is not what the media report!

Mark Wadsworth said...

Defender, thanks for this bit (as widely reported elsewhere) "The Met Office predicts that 2008 will be around 0.4C warmer than the average for 1961-1990." That's a bit like Estate Agents saying "House prices are still higher than they were two years ago". It's a totally meaningless statistic!!

Cassandra, thanks for this bit "You cannot spell concensus without the CON"; you in turn cannot spell 'consensus'.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

neal asher,

"And no, I'm not going to try and disprove this. I know what it is and I'm not going to spend time researching it. I already know "

Spoken like a true 'skeptic'. You are impervious to evidence.

"the AGW side like to adjust history and this looks to me like the same sort of shit."

Classic conspiracy theory: evidence against the conspiracy becomes part of the conspiracy.

"Incidentally, can you disprove that a teapot is orbiting the sun? "

As I said: not skepticism but solipsism.

Gee I can't imagine why people figure people like you are in denial.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Frank,

The computer models have not been able to predict the past without adjustment. Why should they be able to predict the future?

DK

Frank O'Dwyer said...

DK,

Why are you changing the subject? Can you comment on the paper I cited above (buried in the comments, so I grant you may not have seen it). I think it provides pretty clear and convincing evidence that the frequently claimed 70s scientific consensus regarding 'global cooling' is a myth.

Please note the distinction between media and the scientific literature - though in fact, the same paper provides some evidence that there was no journalistic consensus then either. However here I am only addressing the claim you made in your post, i.e:

go(o)d time to remind people, from John Redwood's blog, of what the consensus was in the early 1970s

According to the review of the primary literature I have referenced, the consensus then was not one of global cooling or 'immininent ice age' or any such thing.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Sorry, Frank. Missed that; been busy. Reading now and I'll post when I've assimiliated it...

DK

Frank O'Dwyer said...

DK,

No worries. The main point is addressed in sections 7-9 of the paper if you just want the gist of it.

Budgie said...

Frank

The commonly accepted definition of AGW (which I gave) is that there is global warming and it is only caused by Man made increases in CO2.

This is the definition the politicians use (quoting their tame "scientific advice") in order to impose "carbon" trading, wind turbines and "green" taxes etc on us.

If you think the politicians have got the "scientific consensus" (that ever fluid "consensus") wrong, then tell them.

You cannot have it both ways. If it is not "global warming" but "climate change"; if it is not just CO2; and if it is not just Man, then - congratulations - you have joined us, the sceptics.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

budgie,

"The commonly accepted definition of AGW (which I gave) is that there is global warming and it is only caused by Man made increases in CO2."

No it isn't. The claim as I understand it is that the temperature trend on climate timescales (~30 years) is the net result of changes in radiative forcings and associated feedbacks. The major forcings and the uncertainties for each are stated fairly clearly in the IPCC WG1 report. CO2 is one of the most important forcing but it is not the only one. Other forcings include albedo change, nitrous oxide, ozone, solar irradiance and cloud albedo effect from aerosols (the last is an example of an anthropogenic cooling effect). See for example figure SPM.2 in the WG1 report summary.

FYI that report (and contrary to the claims of the skeptics) is pretty conservative in its projections and not alarmist. For example, no projections of biblical floods etc. In fact the latest report left out projections of ice melt because they were so uncertain. As for temperature, which is only one of the climate attributes that would be expected to change (although the main one), the increase is claimed to be largely, but not solely, due to CO2 increases. It is the CO2 increases, not the temp increases, that are claimed to be mainly or entirely anthropogenic and there is pretty good evidence for that.

I am saying this not to assert that it is true - although I do think it is likely correct - but just to make the point that if you cannot accurately characterise the theory in the first place (never mind whether it is right or wrong) what does that say about where you are getting your information? The problem is that the skeptic arguments are full of trivial and silly inaccuracies like this, and the rest consists largely of logical fallacies, conspiracy theories, and clueless mathematics. In fact, I had no real opinion about AGW at all and was vaguely skeptical of it until I started to fact check the skeptic arguments and realised how incredibly weak they were.

Budgie said...

You are still trying to have it both ways. Either AGW is as I defined it above or it isn't.

If it is - well tough.

If it isn't then you must tackle the politicians who do use this definition. And if you do cross them you will be considered a "denier". Oh horrors!

I suspect that you are becoming confused because scientists are back-pedaling furiously. As DK said in his original blog: "Thank goodness all of those scientists started talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming" a few years ago, eh?"

Moreover, your use of the term "scientific consensus" is propagandist - it is a meaningless concept. Numbers do not ensure truth or accuracy. A "consensus" is for politicians to hide behind.

There is not a "consensus" now (there are too many who doubt AGW); and there wasn't a "consensus" in the 1970s either. But what was reported, including in popular scientific magazines was "global cooling".

cassandra said...

Mark Wadsworth,

Just who do you think you are, the fucking spelling police?
If you have a point then make it you pedantic twat! Picking on typos and spelling mistakes without making a real contribution to the dialogue simply marks you out as a grade A cunt!
My advice? get a fucking life teacher boy!

My names Mark Wadsworth and Im a sad twat, g,night.

cassandra said...

Mark(teacher boy) Wadsworths retarded comment about the CIA inventing AIDS just about sums this deluded cunt up.
The AIDS virus started as a common viral infection in African chimpanzees and the virus did a species jump by either randy African men shagging chimps or because many Africans have a peculiar penchant for eating live and raw monkey brains!
Stick that in your PC pipe and smoke it!
The smug leftists invent the truth as they go along to fit their perverted world PC view.

Neal Asher said...

Ah but Frank, I've been arguing about this for years, quite often wondering if I'm wrong, then immediately finding bald-faced lies supporting the AGW hypothesis, and increasingly lately finding those lies being disproved. No, the ocean hasn't warmed up, no the Polar bears are not dying out, no the ice caps are not melting away, no CO2 does not cause runaway warming, but appears after warming (and yes in a prehistoric era we had a period when the atmosphere contained 10 times the CO2 it does now, during an ICE AGE), no the sea level will not rise 20 feet and no warming is not going to fuck us up - precisely the opposite. Layer upon layer, fact upon fact yet, when presented with them, the AGW supporter denies, denies, denies. So, when something comes out like the article you pointed to, produced by those with definite interest in keeping the AGW thing going and therefore attacking that embarrassing Ice Age episode, I'll certainly read it, but I’ll tend to be very dubious.

I am even more dubious when I read the first paragraph and find a policy statement: the wonderful Nobel-winning IPCC (a prize incidentally shared with 20ft sea-level rise, correlation between CO2 and temperature lying fuck Al Gore) vs the myth of the climate science predicting an imminent Ice Age in the 70s.

Yes, according to this article there was no consensus amidst climate scientists about global cooling. I am in fact fine with that; it probably was a myth – media hysteria. There is no consensus amidst climate scientists about the causes and effects of global warming now. We are doubly unfortunate, however, to live in an age where the Green movement has been hijacked by the left, and by money-grabbing politicians and it is amidst them you’ll find this consensus: we produce CO2, our CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming. This too is a myth massaged by the media. All climate scientists agree with the first point, very few agree with the second.

Oh, I just have to laugh hysterically at your last post, Frank. Skeptic arguments are full of trivial inaccuracies are they? What, you mean like hockey sticks?
I'll take trivial inaccuracies against outright lies every time.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

budgie,

"As DK said in his original blog: "Thank goodness all of those scientists started talking about "climate change" rather than "global warming" a few years ago, eh?""

What do you think the CC in IPCC stands for? The IPCC was formed about 20 years ago.

"Moreover, your use of the term "scientific consensus" is propagandist - it is a meaningless concept."

Take it up with DK. I am responding to his post which uses the term.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

neal asher,

"Ah but Frank, I've been arguing about this for years, quite often wondering if I'm wrong"

Wonder no more! You're wrong. :-)

More seriously - well actually I was serious - but one thing at a time. I don't mind having a debate about the wider issues but I mainly came into this thread to talk about the 70s myth and see if anyone was interested in facts.

"Yes, according to this article there was no consensus amidst climate scientists about global cooling. I am in fact fine with that; it probably was a myth – media hysteria"

As I said, the paper also has evidence against that as there were also media reports and books of the opposite view. But like yourself I don't care so much about that point. The point is that the media (and I include the blogs) is not the same as the science, then or now.

"Frank. Skeptic arguments are full of trivial inaccuracies are they?"

Yes. For example somebody links Nigel Lawson's piece up there. When you follow the link to the newspaper article, Lawson tries to compare the IPCC projections of sea level rise to that in Gore's movie and fails to get either one of them right. This level of accuracy is not an isolated incident but is in fact completely typical of 'skeptical' arguments. I don't think I've ever seen one that didn't contain a bogon like that.

Budgie said...

Frank

You still fail to address my fundamental point: AGW means 'man made global warming'; my definition (not original to me, btw) is exactly the one used by politicians to justify eco-hysteria, 'carbon' taxes, bans and control freakery.

Since you quote the IPCC's current view that CO2 is only a contributor to "climate change", I assume you do actually condemn the politicians, eco-fanatics and commentators who espouse the "man made CO2 causes GW" mantra.

It will be interesting to see if you will do so.

Neal Asher said...

Skeptics are skeptical because of the kind of bullshit squirted out by the likes of Gore, Mann and Hansen. Let's face it, if government and green policies were based on reality, skepticism would not be so important. However, the mentioned policies are based on hysteria. Skeptical arguments are generally based on less hysteria and less inaccuracy than the idiots telling us massive petrol taxes or a reversion to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle will save the planet. You mention Lawson's bit about a 20ft sea-level rise ... so the IPCC predicts a foot, but skeptics did not make up that 20ft figure, green eco-fascists did. How much more do I need to emphasise this? Skeptics are not the source of such inaccuracies; hysterical green twits and greedy politicians are.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

budgie,

"You still fail to address my fundamental point: AGW means 'man made global warming'"

Yes, it does. That is different to your original claim that the theory is that it can only be caused by man.

It is true that (the mainstream theory is) that in recent times CO2 is the major factor. Most of the other inputs I listed are also anthropogenic.

Questions about whether that theory is right (I think it very likely is), what the effects might be and when, or what if any policy is appropriate are entirely separate to what the theory is in the first place. If you want to find out what the IPCC et al says, the reports are easy to find. You will then know what they say. It is not compulsory to agree with them but it is reasonable to expect you to be accurate in describing their claims.

"It will be interesting to see if you will do so."

I think it will be more interesting to see if people on your side of the aisle ever correct the much simpler assertions that are demonstrably false (e.g. the 70s myth, or 'they switched to talking about climate change a few years ago', when a body called the International Panel for Climate Change - you may have heard of it - has been producing reports for 20 years now. Moreover in any case they are still talking about global warming).

If you cannot admit simple errors like that then it is difficult to take you seriously on anything more complicated.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

(speaking of errors - I mean intergovernmental panel of course:-)

Neal Asher said...

You're being ingenuous, Frank. Yes, we have the IPCC so named, but the so-called problem has been called anthropogenic global warming until recent years. The 'problem' was rebranded in the same way and for the same reasons that Creationism became Intelligent Design.

So you won't take seriously those who make simple errors, yet you will take seriously those caught out lying to push a political agenda. I guess it will take quite a lot to shake your faith.

Frank O'Dwyer said...

neal asher,

"Yes, we have the IPCC so named, but the so-called problem has been called anthropogenic global warming until recent years."

So there used to be an IPAGW? The only people I've seen insist on terms such 'anthropogenic global warming' has been the 'skeptics', presumably to suggest that there is some other kind of global warming.

But anyway, nobody's stopped talking about global warming - and the conspiracy theory that the scientific community have relabelled 'global warming' to 'climate change' so that they can talk about global cooling as easily as warming is simply insane. The theory is that climate change (e.g. changes in drought patterns) is happening as well as and because of global warming, not instead of global warming.

The only person I know of who is on record as preferring the term 'climate change' to 'global warming' is republican consultant Frank Luntz, because focus groups found climate change sounded less scary than global warming.

"you will take seriously those caught out lying to push a political agenda"

Please stop making things up. Thanks.

Budgie said...

Frank said:
"That is different to your original claim that the theory [AGW] is that it can only be caused by man."

No. It is exactly the same. If Man causes AGW nothing else does. So "only" might be superfluous but is entirely correct. Bear in mind I also said "current".

The definition of AGW that I gave is the one used by politicians to justify light bulb bans, wind farms, carbon trading, and all the other 'eco' junk.

Also Frank said:
"assertions that are demonstrably false e.g. the 70s myth, or 'they switched to talking about climate change a few years ago"

You haven't demonstrated them to be false. Whilst "global cooling" may be a myth (like global warming) it was reported and discussed in the 1970s. I know: I was there.

The BBC, for one, has switched from talking about GW to "climate change". The government also, but it does not stop them indulging in ridiculous policies at our expense based on the justification of man made CO2 being the cause of (supposed) global warming.

Anonymous said...

Are you all serious? Don't believe in global warming, eh? I say the same thing I say to the few idiots I know who think the same way.... just wait awhile. See what you think 10-20 years from now if we do nothing. If any of you have children you should be ashamed! They will hate you in years to come. There were people back in the day who doubted that the earth revolved around the sun as well..... but you don't hear much from them nowdays, do you? How many of you want to gamble that you're right? Because if you're wrong..... you're wrong in a way that can't be undone. The earth will be just fine.... in a few million years it will sequester the carbon again. But we don't know if the human race can survive this higher amount of carbon in the atmosphere. DO YOU ALL REALLY WANT TO ROLL THE DICE ON THIS ONE? Hell, I don't want this thing to be real either, but when the top 2500 climatologists can agree that humans are 90% responsible, you can't wait for 100%.