Global protests over climate change

[RickBradford]

This is what is important and should be the focus of this thread.

Actually, if you read the title, the focus of the thread should be 'Global Protests over Climate Change."

Furthermore, it is not up to you to decide what is and what is not up for debate here.

[chuckd]

@ chuckd

I think you are like many others getting hung up on something you do not understand and as you put it you're not a climate specialist. As you are not a climate specialist, you are therefore not in a position to ridicule predications made by the qualified.

The level of uncertainty with the modelling is considered acceptable by the IPCC and this is what matters. All greenhouse gases will by their physical properties absorb IR energy. The greater the concentration of these gases, the more energy is in the atmosphere. The science is not up for debate, but what is, is how we all can reduce emissions in an equitable way. This is what is important and should be the focus of this thread.

I am " not in a position to ridicule predications (sic) made by the qualified"?

Are you so presumptuous as to suggest that I need your approval before I can make a post voicing an opinion on this topic?

Just for your information, I have always tried to learn from others more qualified than I on subjects I was not formally trained in. This has proven to be successful for me in the past and I will continue using this approach for my remaining days.

You, sir, are not now and never will be, one of those sources.

Who died and left you in charge anyway?

Edited September 29, 2014 by chuckd

[Somtamme]

@ chuckd;

It's when u make statements, like 'the only certainty I have seen is the certainty that many of their predictions have been wrong'. The problem is you cannot make sweeping statements like this, without being criticised because it goes against the qualified opinion. Your opinion has no basis.

But could we please move on, and come back with more interesting subject, like how would you suggest to reduce energy consumption in a more sustainable and cost effective way? This is the debate to be had, and for the United Nations to decide.

[chuckd]

@ chuckd;

It's when u make statements, like 'the only certainty I have seen is the certainty that many of their predictions have been wrong'. The problem is you cannot make sweeping statements like this, without being criticised because it goes against the qualified opinion. Your opinion has no basis.

But could we please move on, and come back with more interesting subject, like how would you suggest to reduce energy consumption in a more sustainable and cost effective way? This is the debate to be had, and for the United Nations to decide.

Certainly we can move on. How about these little posers?

1. Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt and with 100% accuracy that so called global warming is caused by man?

2. Can you prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt and with 100% accuracy why the UN should be the global arbitrator of all things climate related?

I await with bated breath.

[RickBradford]

Your opinion has no basis.

Actually, chuckd's opinion has a cast-iron basis.

Of the 73 models which went into the CMIP5 ensemble model from the World Climate Research Programme, every single one predicted a lot more warming than has actually occurred, trying to make the global warming problem seem dangerous

As the prominent climatologist Dr Roy Spencer noted: "The modellers and the IPCC have willingly ignored the evidence for low climate sensitivity for many years. The discrepancy between models and observations is not a new issue…just one that is becoming more glaring over time."

As you yourself pointed out not too long ago: "Some people will always try to deny something they do not want to believe in, for whatever reason. This is a normal condition." How true.

Edited September 29, 2014 by RickBradford

[Somtamme]

Messrs Bradford & Chuckd, you appear entrenched in views opposite from that of the international community of climate scientists (IPCC) and I think you're ignoring basic physics. Like, I said, it is time to probably move on.

For example, I for one would be interested how countries like Thailand aim to reduce their dependency on oil and gas and how planning and highway policies implement these changes which eventually filter down. This is the important point, not boring people with out of date ideas.

[RickBradford]

@Somtamme

A couple of questions for you.

Have you read any of the actual IPCC reports, or even part of one?

Second, what are the "basic physics" you believe I am ignoring?

[Somtamme]

Dear Mr Bradford, you keep trying to goad me into answering your questions. I have already explained and made my point which you ignore and furthermore, it is not for me to educate you.

[chuckd]

Dear Mr Bradford, you keep trying to goad me into answering your questions. I have already explained and made my point which you ignore and furthermore, it is not for me to educate you.

Then why did you find it necessary to try and "educate" me a few posts ago.

Can't have it both ways.

NO RESPONSE REQUIRED.

[RickBradford]

Dear Mr Bradford, you keep trying to goad me into answering your questions. I have already explained and made my point which you ignore and furthermore, it is not for me to educate you.

I'm not trying to 'goad' you into doing anything. I have much better things to do with my time.

You have plainly stated your belief that I am ignoring "basic physics", a subject you have not touched on previously anywhere in the thread. I was hoping that, as a matter of courtesy, you might be able to tell me what "basic physics" you are referring to. That is something you have not explained at all.

The other question about whether you have read any of the IPCC reports is a fairly simple one, quite easily answered with a 'Yes' or 'No' or a 'Don't Know'. That's not too hard, is it? If the question upsets you, feel free to leave the space blank.

The reason I ask, is that you have some rather bizarre ideas about what the IPCC actually says, so I wondered whether you were getting your information direct from their reports, or from another source, such as a Greenpeace press release or the mainstream media.

Edited September 30, 2014 by RickBradford

[meand]

Selling climate science is like selling iphones on release day. It doesn't need to be done, it sells itself.

I think more and more people are realizing the only way to respond to deniers is no response at all.

Edited October 1, 2014 by meand

[RickBradford]

Selling climate science is like selling iphones on release day. It doesn't need to be done, it sells itself.

And then has to be immediately returned because it's faulty on all counts.

iPhone 6 glitches leave Apple's chief red faced

[Ulysses G.]

The reason I ask, is that you have some rather bizarre ideas about what the IPCC actually says, so I wondered whether you were getting your information direct from their reports, or from another source, such as a Greenpeace press release or the mainstream media.

Maybe spam in his inbox from Al Gore?

[RickBradford]

^^^

To be honest, I have no idea where these people get their notions from, only it certainly isn't the IPCC.

With the added benefit of getting this thread back on topic, here is a 2-minute video interview of New York climate protesters by National Review, trying to discern their reasons for marching.

It is entertaining and instructive.

[canuckamuck]

I am glad I watched that, I feel I understand the green movement so much better now.

Some thought provoking quotations:

"If we know a species is gonna be here tomorrow, it could be here the next day. If it's gone tomorrow it's not going to be here the next day."

" And the temperature of the planet will heat up beyond anybody's ability to comprehend how hot that will be." (quote from a polar bear)

[Somtamme]

Meand, I take your point some people are clearly ignorant.

[canuckamuck]

Selling climate science is like selling iphones on release day. It doesn't need to be done, it sells itself.

I think more and more people are realizing the only way to respond to deniers is no response at all.

It's for the best, the climate wasn't listening to you either.

Edited October 1, 2014 by canuckamuck

[Somtamme]

Ignorance is one thing, but money talks.

So if Thai Govt were to introduce policies like grants or feed-in tariffs to encourage the provisions for renewable energy, I am sure many would choose this option and thereby reduce their emissions both gaseous and vocal.

[meand]

Meand, I take your point some people are clearly ignorant.

It is pretty much a carbon copy of the evolution/creation debate. Go back 20 or 30 years and people were saying the most absurd things. Now more and more are coming around, because they are objective and wise enough to realize that such a young earth is a rather ridiculous notion, among other things of course. Exactly what's happening here. I think the more quiet we are, the more they will get a chance to convince themselves. We sure aint going to convince them if modern day geniuses like Stephen Hawking aren't able to do it.

Edited October 2, 2014 by meand

[Ulysses G.]

It is pretty much a carbon copy of the evolution/creation debate.

No it isn't. Now THAT is ignorant.

[teatree]

Interesting interview with the founder of Greenpeace.

[chuckd]

Ran across this article today:

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

Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years

September 30, 2014 - 4:28 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville.

<snip>

“You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behavior. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system,” Christy replied.

“And that the way the predictions were wrong were all to one direction, which means the predictions or the science is biased in one direction, toward overcooking the atmosphere.”

Christy added that basing government policy affecting millions of Americans on “very poor” climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate is “a fool’s errand.”

Read article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years

[canman]

Ran across this article today:

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

Satellite Data: No Global Warming For Past 18 Years

September 30, 2014 - 4:28 PM

By Barbara Hollingsworth

(CNSNews.com) – The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville.

<snip>

“You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behavior. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system,” Christy replied.

“And that the way the predictions were wrong were all to one direction, which means the predictions or the science is biased in one direction, toward overcooking the atmosphere.”

Christy added that basing government policy affecting millions of Americans on “very poor” climate models that have been shown to be inaccurate is “a fool’s errand.”

Read article here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/satellite-data-no-global-warming-past-18-years

“You’re going back to a fundamental question of science that when you understand a system, you are able to predict its behavior. The fact that no one predicted what’s happened in the past 18 years indicates we have a long way to go to understand the climate system,” Christy replied.

“And that the way the predictions were wrong were all to one direction, which means the predictions or the science is biased in one direction, toward overcooking the atmosphere.”

Two sentences which sum up the state of climate science as it stands today. The 3%ers are starting to get their voices heard.

[Somtamme]

@ Ulysses G.

You have expressed your view in this thread that it cannot be right to release such huge quantities of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. So, if you were to be offered the option to save money off your electricity bill, through the installation of PV panels would you take up this option? Similarly, in colder countries would you look to save money through more insulation?

[Somtamme]

@ Teatree; I accept some of Dr Moore's arguments, in that he recognises greenhouse gas emissions as having a positive radiative potential. So with increased GHG emissions, there will be more absorbed energy in the atmosphere.

He is also correct when he refers to the uncertainty with the climate models in that they have problems modelling variables such as moisture content and cloud formation. But like I said earlier, models are only a predictive tool. You have have to also bring in quantitative measurements to help inform the argument or policy decision.

But, you should not use this uncertainty as an argument not to say the predictions are incorrect and to reduce energy consumption in an equitable and cost effective way.

What Dr Moore does not touch on are some of the more negative aspects associated with large volumes of emissions being currently released into the atmosphere, such as the increase in PM10 and 2.5 concentration, which reduce life expectancy of all people who are exposed. So, rather than completely discounting the IPCC reports, you need to understand the context they are used by Governments to help inform effective energy policy.

[Ulysses G.]

@ Ulysses G.

You have expressed your view in this thread that it cannot be right to release such huge quantities of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. So, if you were to be offered the option to save money off your electricity bill, through the installation of PV panels would you take up this option? Similarly, in colder countries would you look to save money through more insulation?

i think that you have mixed me up with someone else.

[canuckamuck]

@ Teatree; I accept some of Dr Moore's arguments, in that he recognises greenhouse gas emissions as having a positive radiative potential. So with increased GHG emissions, there will be more absorbed energy in the atmosphere.

He is also correct when he refers to the uncertainty with the climate models in that they have problems modelling variables such as moisture content and cloud formation. But like I said earlier, models are only a predictive tool. You have have to also bring in quantitative measurements to help inform the argument or policy decision.

But, you should not use this uncertainty as an argument not to say the predictions are incorrect and to reduce energy consumption in an equitable and cost effective way.

What Dr Moore does not touch on are some of the more negative aspects associated with large volumes of emissions being currently released into the atmosphere, such as the increase in PM10 and 2.5 concentration, which reduce life expectancy of all people who are exposed. So, rather than completely discounting the IPCC reports, you need to understand the context they are used by Governments to help inform effective energy policy.

I am impressed you watched that piece with Dr. Moore. Yet I am surprised that you still have a remaining argument. As he basically burned anthropogenic climate hysteria down to the ground. Referring to the climate scientists as deniers of reality. Priceless

You keep saying things like you cannot say the predictions are incorrect. How is this logical? The predictions from the last 25 years or more have all been incorrect through to today, and I am confident they will still be wrong tomorrow. And they have all been wrong on the side of more warming which is a clear indication of bias and junk science. They weren't even in the ballpark. In fact we have basically no warming and are potentially heading for a cooling.

How can being totally wrong be a guide for sensible energy policy? How can you say they weren't wrong?

And please no straw-man about particles. that is a separate discussion from Global warming.

[RickBradford]

Everything I have read about, or by, Patrick Moore, makes me regard him as a true hero.

He was a seminal figure in the fledgling environmental movement of the 1970s, when Greenpeace was a small fringe group taking on 'the system', and only left when, as he put it, it became over-run with wannabe Marxists orphaned by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989.

"To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology."

Their ideological offspring were to be seen at the recent climate protests with their banners declaring "End capitalism, stop climate change."

In typical totalitarian Green style, great efforts have been made to erase Moore from Greenpeace history.

Greenpeace has now itself become part of 'the system' with its munificent funds and splendid yachts, its high-priced lawyers schmoozing EU politicians in the comfortable corridors of power.

Moore remains as a shining -- but increasingly rare -- example of an environmental activist who actually cares about the environment and conducts his personal life accordingly.

He embodies two words unknown to today's Greenpeace -- humility and integrity.

[Somtamme]

@ Ulysses G.

You have expressed your view in this thread that it cannot be right to release such huge quantities of GHG emissions into the atmosphere. So, if you were to be offered the option to save money off your electricity bill, through the installation of PV panels would you take up this option? Similarly, in colder countries would you look to save money through more insulation?

i think that you have mixed me up with someone else.

I think you will find you said in post no.112 "I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere".

May I also add, you appear to be compulsive denier.

[Somtamme]

@ Canuck

I am pleased you acknowledge that I took the time to listen to Dr. Moore.

But Dr Moore's argument of uncertainties with the predictive modelling, and particularly that of moisture content and cloud formation, this cannot be used as you put it, for the IPCC model to be burned to the ground. Such dismissive terminology crucially ignores the fact that modelling of future climate is an immensely complicated process whereby there are many parameters like cloud formation, levels of moisture, plus others like effects of aerosols which are recognised as problematic to model.

But rather than burn the model to the ground as you suggest, it needs to be recognised that the models do have a degree of uncertainty but this is at an acceptable level achieved through consensus of scientific opinion (IPCC).

And no, It is not a separate discussion point regarding the small particles. Quite clearly, if you thought this should be treated in isolation, you do not understand the complexity of this subject.