Well after multiculturalism another lib-left sacred cow is about ready for the spit.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/972/the_high_priests_of_global_warming_have_lost_their_prestige_and_the_realists_are_winning_the_debate

and

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html

I wonder whether any humble pie will be eaten for all the strident attacks on global warming sceptics by the warmists, not to mention attempts to shut down debate and stifle contrary opinion.

Sad.

VERY sad.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

David Rose is a guy who denies climate change in the way creationists deny evolution, and flat-Earthers deny the Earth is, well, not flat. That is to say, with claims so ridiculously wrong it’s charitable to call them ridiculously wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dangerous-effects-of-global-warming/2013/09/08/14a96d62-1721-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html

You know what they say about a picture being worth 1000 words?

Bang goes my long planned yachting voyage crossing the northwest passage.

You know what they say about a picture being worth 1000 words?

Bang goes my long planned yachting voyage crossing the northwest passage.

Even in 2012, the record year for Arctic sea ice extent reduction, the North West Passage was not open for business, unlike the Northern Passage skirting Russia which was most definitely open both in 2012 and 2013. See below:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/russia-moves-to-promote-northeast-passage-through-arctic-ocean-a-917824.html

Also as previously pointed out extent is only one part of the equation, the thickness of the sea ice is also crucial. Far more important is the longer term trend, as 12 months in geological or even meteorological terms is the equivalent of a nanosecond away. Reversion to the mean and similar are obviously far too technical for the average Mail or Telegraph "reader" (the Mail is really more of a comic, with an anti-semitic pedigree), and obviously anything else just does not fit their agenda.

From your favourite "lib-left" publication:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

But as usual why let facts get in the way of a good story....

The Arctic ice sheets will expand and contract, some years more than others. If you pick the right year, Dan, you may still be able to make your trip through the North-West Passage!

You know what they say about a picture being worth 1000 words?

Bang goes my long planned yachting voyage crossing the northwest passage.

Even in 2012, the record year for Arctic sea ice extent reduction, the North West Passage was not open for business, unlike the Northern Passage skirting Russia which was most definitely open both in 2012 and 2013. See below:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/russia-moves-to-promote-northeast-passage-through-arctic-ocean-a-917824.html

Also as previously pointed out extent is only one part of the equation, the thickness of the sea ice is also crucial. Far more important is the longer term trend, as 12 months in geological or even meteorological terms is the equivalent of a nanosecond away. Reversion to the mean and similar are obviously far too technical for the average Mail or Telegraph "reader" (the Mail is really more of a comic, with an anti-semitic pedigree), and obviously anything else just does not fit their agenda.

From your favourite "lib-left" publication:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

But as usual why let facts get in the way of a good story....

Ah, so it's now the thickness of the ice which is the new fallback position, I warrant should it be thicker next year the ice will be found to be in the wrong place. You are right about a year being insignificant in the scheme of things, but so too is humankind's entire presence on earth, indeed measured throughout the entire geological history of earth we are only just nudging above the line dividing cold periods from warm periods. With this in mind I wonder why warmists go so far as faking data that does not fit their short term projections, such as the 2004 prediction that the North Polar icecap would have disappeared entirely by 2013, according to the BBC and repeated in the photo caption in your Guardian article, this time without a date mentioned. The alarmists are backed up by huge amounts of cash and research grants, which no doubt demand results in order to justify their renewal. Yes, best not have a debate and best silence those threatening vested interests.

P.S I bet Al Gore made a pretty penny selling out his TV interests and warmist franchise to the petro dollars that fund Al Jazeera.

Just been watching Breakfast TV on BBC.

There's a new theory, due to the study of recently-found mammoth DNA, that the mammoths were not wiped out by human hunting, but by global warming. After which it got cold again. After which it got warm again, After which ...

The only major group who refuse to accept global warming are Creationists.

[edit] who also refuse to accept evolution and the main reason they refuse to accept evolution (there are others) is because it points to the Earth being more than 6-10,000 years old.

From yesterday's Telegraph :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html

Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong Top climate scientists have admitted that their global warming forecasts are wrong and world is not heating at the rate they claimed it was in a key report.

Sad.

VERY sad.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html

David Rose is a guy who denies climate change in the way creationists deny evolution, and flat-Earthers deny the Earth is, well, not flat. That is to say, with claims so ridiculously wrong its charitable to call them ridiculously wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-dangerous-effects-of-global-warming/2013/09/08/14a96d62-1721-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html

Indeed, it appears that it all started in the Mail on Sunday.

http://skepticalscience.com/5-stages-climate-denial-on-display.html

As previously stated by myself, the ONLY major body or group who deny global warming are the Creationists for reasons totally unrelated to science or reason, though I would suggest that both 'science' and 'reason' are the same thing.

Note that HB's link to the Telegraph comes from the Mail.

Very few people deny that global warming is a feature of the planet's life cycle.

What is queried is the cause and the effect.

In the various ice ages that have occurred there has been global cooling, followed by global warming. It is partly due to these phrnomena that the human race has developed as it has.

That these events have happened many times within the life-cycle of the Earth is agreed. What is not agreed is the amount of influence the activities of the human race have had in speeding-up such a cycle, or the effects any such speeding-up would have.

The destruction of the rain forest in Brazil and Indonesia is having a considerable effect, as there are many less absorbers of carbon from the atmosphere. We should ban these countries from destroying their rain forest. We should ban Malaysia and Thailand from destroying their forest to plant palm-oil trees. We should ban Vietnam from growing eucalypts and bamboo for the paper mills and revert to old forest.

Or are all these ventures creating more quick-grow plant life and thus more carbon is captured by this man-made interference in nature?

I note that yesterday in the UK, at the Liberal Democrat Party Conference, the Lib-Dems reversed their policy on nuclear power. Now they like it as a 'green' producer of electricity. Is that because they have finally realised that the windmills all over the country only produce 2% of the power, yet put 20% on the average electricity bill?

Granted that petrol and diesel engines pollute the atmosphere - so should we turn to electric cars, nuclear-powered shipping, (revert to sail for smaller vessels) and limit the number of air-flights? Stop China using coal-fired power stations (thus stopping the Australian coal industry dead in it's tracks).

Others have said that the next big conflagration on this planet will be a war about water rights. Surely if we melt the ice-caps we will postpone such a war?

All suggestions for actions that should be taken to manage Mother Nature will be gracefully received.

Creationists aren't the only ones finding fault with the global warming myth. Apparently the UN has its doubts as well. I hope these links are satisfactory.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Earth not warming as fast as once predicted: Reports 117

QMI AGENCY

FIRST POSTED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 10:56 AM EDT | UPDATED: MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 12:08 PM EDT

A leaked draft of a UN climate change report to be released later this month shows the planet isn't warming as quickly as previously believed, reports say.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecasts carbon emission-caused global warming would increase average temperatures by between 1.5-4.5 C, rather than the 2007 report claim of 2-4.5 C, according to a summary obtained by the National Post.

The report suggests the threshold for climate change damage may not have been crossed as most experts say that global warming of less than 2 C won't cause harm.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/16/earth-not-warming-as-fast-as-once-predicted-reports

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change - A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

By MATT RIDLEY

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," part of which will be published on Sept. 27.

There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/17/climate_change_denial_speak_up_speak_out.html

It’s also upsetting to know that we have the facts, the science, the scientists, and really all of reality on our side. But human nature is a contrary beast, and doubt is a seed that grows lushly in dark places.

Others have said that the next big conflagration on this planet will be a war about water rights. Surely if we melt the ice-caps we will postpone such a war?

There is plenty of salt water on the planet. It is fresh water that is the worry in the future.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/17/climate_change_denial_speak_up_speak_out.html

It’s also upsetting to know that we have the facts, the science, the scientists, and really all of reality on our side. But human nature is a contrary beast, and doubt is a seed that grows lushly in dark places.

The guy you quote from 'Slate' complains of the distortion of facts by climate change denyers - yet he himself does not quote any facts.

This whole discussion is distorted on both sides because there is little proof that can be brought by either side that the changes to the climate are anything but natural changes to the climate.

A few years ago there was a lot of fuss about holes in the ozone layer, caused by the use of various gases in refigerator compressor systems and the leaks therefrom. Nowadays nothing is heard about holes in the ozone layer, because the problem has been fixed - partly by the change of refrigerants, but mainly by Mother Nature.

Quite frankly, to me, this is a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Until we are sure of all the facts, and how they should be interpreted in relation to one another, we cannot have a real discussion on which future steps need to be taken and which are possible. Also which steps may be giving additional help to Gaia and which are a waste of resources.

There is too much emotion in this matter, from people who campaign for 'green' solutions without an understanding of the economy. We can, for instance, close down all gas-fired and coal-fired power stations within a week - but then we'll have millions of dead people polluting the atmosphere because there will be no heating, no water being pumped to houses, no sewage being treated and no work for anyone - because we do not have an alternative power / energy supply sufficient to drive any of our utilities. And renewable resources currently supply 2% of the UK's power at 20% of the average user's power bill.

Julia Gillard / Kevin Rudd lost the Australian election partly on their carbon tax policy. The European Union have increased all our energy costs with their carbon credit schemes. These do not enforce many companies to change their policies, the costs are just passed on to the consumer. None of the politicians, economists, policy makers, think tank members or other assorted time wasters have the solution to the climate change problem (if such there be) other than costly interventions that do very little, except increase the price we all pay for all our goods and services.

Others have said that the next big conflagration on this planet will be a war about water rights. Surely if we melt the ice-caps we will postpone such a war?

There is plenty of salt water on the planet. It is fresh water that is the worry in the future.

Around 2004/5 I built a 100MIG/D (one hundred million imperial gallons per day) desalination plant near Ruwais in Abu Dhabi. That was Phase 1. I know that phase 2 is complete, but not sure of phase 3.

This production was intended for the irrigation of trees along the median of the road between Ruwais and Abu Dhabi - around 250km long. Also for the irrigation of plantations of trees in the area around Ruwais. Not for drinking purposes for the population - we had already built other desalination plants for that purpose.

I also recall another scheme considered by the various GCC governments to capture large icebergs and tow them to the Gulf as a source of fresh water.

In Hong Kong my apartment, along with many others, used a dual water system - fresh drinking water in the kitcen and shower, but salt water toilet flushing and cleaning.

If we can slow down or reverse desertification, we may solve some of our problems. When I was working in Iran we had to plant an area about twice the size of our site with trees and put in an irrigation system - as did most other major projects.

Also in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had planted most of Jebel Akdhar (the green hills outside Benghazi) with trees in an effort to stop the Sahara coming any further North. Unfortunately the goats belonging to the Bedou started eating all these nice young trees, so the government bought up all the goats to stop this happening. The Bedou happily took the money, went over the border into Egypt and bought more goats. But many trees survived - just not enough to make a success of the policy.

Long-range forecast: sunny spell will wipe out life on Earth


http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/18/forecast-life-on-earth

But I don't think we need worry too much!

Long-range forecast: sunny spell will wipe out life on Earth

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/18/forecast-life-on-earth

But I don't think we need worry too much!

I note that this Guardian article is based upon research from the University of East Anglia.

It distresses me to admit that there is a daughter campus of the UEA in Cambridge, and that the main campus is based in Norwich, a bastion of Anglian citizenry. However, we must admit that there science is usually based upon growing bigger and better swedes, turnips and rape. (The crop, of course!). We here in Cambridge do tend to consider them as culturally lacking in the finer points, although Delia Smith was a shining light in the gastronomic scene before she took up football.

Thus I tend to take any offering from our neighbour with just a pinch of salt, I do consider that their scientific observations (you will remember that they were in the forefront of the global warming movement until their 'scientific' results and interpretations were found to be less than accurate) need a peck of the natrial derivative in order to swallow them - a quantity that dear Delia would greatly frown upon.

Long-range forecast: sunny spell will wipe out life on Earth

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/18/forecast-life-on-earth

But I don't think we need worry too much!

I note that this Guardian article is based upon research from the University of East Anglia.

The life cycle of stars (including our own) is well known

http://www.nationalstemcentre.org.uk/elibrary/resource/5415/the-life-cycle-of-stars

If you want to know a bit more about the sun best to ask the real experts...

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Long-range forecast: sunny spell will wipe out life on Earth

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/18/forecast-life-on-earth

But I don't think we need worry too much!

I note that this Guardian article is based upon research from the University of East Anglia.

It distresses me to admit that there is a daughter campus of the UEA in Cambridge, and that the main campus is based in Norwich, a bastion of Anglian citizenry. However, we must admit that there science is usually based upon growing bigger and better swedes, turnips and rape. (The crop, of course!). We here in Cambridge do tend to consider them as culturally lacking in the finer points, although Delia Smith was a shining light in the gastronomic scene before she took up football.

Thus I tend to take any offering from our neighbour with just a pinch of salt, I do consider that their scientific observations (you will remember that they were in the forefront of the global warming movement until their 'scientific' results and interpretations were found to be less than accurate) need a peck of the natrial derivative in order to swallow them - a quantity that dear Delia would greatly frown upon.

You take it with a pinch of salt, HB; I offered it with tongue in cheek.

Just to reinforce the case for global warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/21/climate-change-ipcc-global-warming

Let's just say today's IPCC report makes some interesting reading.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4192/despite_the_guff_no_proof_on_man_made_climate_change

The difference between the words proof and consensus is crucial here, consensus can, and often is, wrong, especially where money and politics are involved.

This extract from one of the comments to the above link points out some of the unanswered questions.

It's political and money grubbing, always has been, always will be.

1. They cannot explain the medieval warm period nor the Little Ice Age.
2. They have 'discovered' a new decadal oscilliation pattern and it still doesn't figure in any model - why? Perhaps it explains climatic change NOT forced by CO2 emissions.
3. Solar output still does not have sufficient weighting in any of their models either.
4. Recent cooling cannot be explained at all - remember 'hide the decline'.

Now, the current excuse is that the ocean's swallowed all that heat and it was solely forced by CO2 leading to acidification. Oh really.

The problems with this subject are

1. All commentators and all politicians have vested interests in one side or the other. Some have investment in 'green' solutions, others have interests in 'fossil fuel' solutions. There are very few people viewing the argument from a completely independent standpoint.
2. The media reports are sloppy. The headlines and articles published currently are mostly saying 'Humankind responsible for global warming' and similar sensationalist garbage. Humankind - according to the report - may be responsible for 55% of the increase in temperature. In other words, the planet is heating up, even without the human activity.

I do not deny that the planet is experiencing a change in climatic conditions. This is a constant feature of our planet - we have had several ice ages and several periods far warmer than we are now experiencing. But how much of the current drift towards a warmer period is caused by human activity (current and past) is not yet quantifiable - in my opinion. In Victorian times we were much dirtier with fuel than we now are, as everything was powered by coal. In the 1950s/60s there was a plateau where no increase in temperature was measured.

How do these two happenings fit into the picture? Our atmosphere is getting cleaner - remember acid rain? When did you last hear it mentioned?

Remember the hole in the ozone layer? When did you last hear it mentioned?

I am quite happy to support economically valid methods of producing energy - nuclear (preferably thorium/hot salt method as there is no production of potentially weapons grade material and disposal of waste is much easier), tidal, wave action, hydro are all viable, without producing any serious by-products, but solar and wind are not cost effective and the materials are of short life span - windmills eor ten years as against gas-powered production of at least 25 years (I've been working on power plants in Bangladesh that are 40 years old and we have given them another 15 years of life - hopefully)

The green lobby, their opponents, the media all give you one part of the discussion. None will give you the whole story.