Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Would someone care to comment about what I posted a few pages ago, about Corus Redcar shutting down? Whilst we are all here arguing about whether or not CO2 has any effect on our climate, one major effect on peoples lives is happening as a direct result of the church of AGW and critically carbon trading which is so revered in political circles. In case some people missed it I shall re-post the general gist of what I said. It would be nice if some warmist could attempt to justify this, Wildcat I know you already pointed to criticism of carbon trading in response but another persons criticism of a scheme is irrelevant, I could point you to hundreds of criticisms of it but it doesn't make one tiny bit of difference.

 

The point is that people are making a fortune out of this. One might think that a company such as Tata, who belch out CO2 on an industrial scale would be horrified by the idea of carbon trading. But they make millions, potentially billions off the back of it.

AGW is a racket, a fraud. The sooner you open your eyes to the vast sums of money which are being made off the backs of you and I, the better.

Wake up!

 

No AGW isn't a fraud, frauds are based on deceipt and you have no evidence of that. It is based on the considered opinion of the majority of scientists across relevant field of knowledge based on thousands of peer reviewed papers directly dealing with the issue and thousands more record the impacts it is having on migratory patterns, habitation, ice sheets etc. In fact, no one yet on this thread has presented a single peer reviewed example of a paper denying AGW.

 

What you are right to highlight is that Carbon Trading does little if anything to reduce carbon emissions (at least not directly). The argument therefore should be that more needs to be done, not less.

[convert]

The other natural factors contributing to the cooling of the Stratosphere are other in what sense?

 

Oh Other as in the case of volcanic erruptions, as previously mentioned which caused changes in stratospheric ozone levels. If you actually look at the data you'll see two massive step changes in temperature. These coincide with natural volcanic erruptions, however the warmists use mathematical smoothing to try and hide these step changes, and produce a trend line that fits their theories.

 

The effect of water is a part of the climate change models you are criticising. The point is that you have missed is that water vapour is not a forcing factor, unless you can give any reason to suggest it is?

 

As I have shown before the climate change models fit the facts and only do so because of the inclusion of the greenhouse effect and CO2.

Yet climate change models continue to fail to predict the current cooling trends, and even Trenberth can't account for the recent lack of warming.

 

Hmm of course I am going to link to pro-AGW site to explain a pro-AGW point... It is not a matter of belief, it is about the science, the link contains a reference to report on which it is based. If you are going to discount evidence simply because it takes an opposing view then your believer reference is rather hypocritical.

 

And before you accuse me of the same where I have discounted sites on this thread it has been because they have been shown to be misleading, misused sources and give platforms for ideas that have been comprehensively refuted.

I have to concede that we are going round in circles on this. So I have a suggestion. You're quite happy with the current 'science' on AGW, I'm not. Why don't we get the government to let me opt out of paying the green taxes, whilst you continue to do so? It's just like the IPCC wanting us to reduce our Carbon output whilst letting China and India, etc increase their's.

 

 

Just answer me these questions though;

 

If CO2 is such a Global problem, and we have to reduce our output, why have Carbon trading schemes?

 

Why allow Companies to move production from here to other geographies on the back of carbon credit trading?

 

Why allow Developing countries to increase their carbon output? Surely their carbon is just as damaging to the global climate as ours?

[Wildcat]

I see what you're saying, and I agree. However that didn't stop the Pro AGW camp from taking a very small subset of tree ring data to support their failed hockeystick from the Yamal series did it?

 

Same thing in my opinion.

 

The hockeystick has been shown to be true by numerous other studies.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

[Wildcat]

Oh Other as in the case of volcanic erruptions, as previously mentioned which caused changes in stratospheric ozone levels. If you actually look at the data you'll see two massive step changes in temperature. These coincide with natural volcanic erruptions, however the warmists use mathematical smoothing to try and hide these step changes, and produce a trend line that fits their theories.

 

Any evidence for that? Because the evidence does not support your conclusion:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

 

Yet climate change models continue to fail to predict the current cooling trends, and even Trenberth can't account for the recent lack of warming.

 

There is no cooling, the earth is still warming and Trenberth has been shown to be correct.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

 

I have to concede that we are going round in circles on this. So I have a suggestion. You're quite happy with the current 'science' on AGW, I'm not. Why don't we get the government to let me opt out of paying the green taxes, whilst you continue to do so? It's just like the IPCC wanting us to reduce our Carbon output whilst letting China and India, etc increase their's.

 

Why should ignorance allow you an opt out from taxation? Should I be able to deny the relationship between cigarettes and cancer to avoid paying taxes? The idea is absurd.

 

I don't think the IPCC has a view on Carbon Trading, they report on the science not politics and have made recommendations about what level of Carbon emissions that are safe or controlable. I have skimmed their 4th report and can't see any refernce to it. Do you have any evidence of their advocacy for carbon trading schemes?

 

Just answer me these questions though;

 

If CO2 is such a Global problem, and we have to reduce our output, why have Carbon trading schemes?

 

Why allow Companies to move production from here to other geographies on the back of carbon credit trading?

 

Why allow Developing countries to increase their carbon output? Surely their carbon is just as damaging to the global climate as ours?

 

As I have already said Carbon Trading is insufficient and has little effect. Arguments around its efficacy are a side issue to the debate, but since you are interested here is a little explanation fo why and how Carbon Trading in many ways makes things worse:

 

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337&Itemid=168

Edited January 14, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

Any evidence for that? Because the evidence does not support your conclusion:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf

 

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

 

Will NASA do for a start.

 

There is no cooling, the earth is still warming and Trenberth has been shown to be correct.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Yeah Right

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

 

 

Why should ignorance allow you an opt out from taxation? Should I be able to deny the relationship between cigarettes and cancer to avoid paying taxes? The idea is absurd.

Why should government taxation policy be based on studies where the science isn't settled? Actually strike that question. It's just a corrupt government raising taxes to plug the hole in it's finances. The great CO2 cash cow.

 

I don't think the IPCC has a view on Carbon Trading, they report on the science not politics and have made recommendations about what level of Carbon emissions that are safe or controlable. I have skimmed their 4th report and can't see any refernce to it. Do you have any evidence of their advocacy for carbon trading schemes?

 

 

 

As I have already said Carbon Trading is insufficient and has little effect. Arguments around its efficacy are a side issue to the debate, but since you are interested here is a little explanation fo why and how Carbon Trading in many ways makes things worse:

 

http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=337&Itemid=168

Other than the crap spouted at Kyoto an Hopenfakem you mean. Didn't both of these jollies conferences state that we should reduce our carbon outputs, whilst allowing developing nations to increase theirs?

[Wildcat]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

 

Will NASA do for a start.

 

It doesn't refute my point and is a study from 7 years earlier than the one I gave.

 

Yeah Right

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

 

You are the loopy one if you believe anything on Wattsupwiththat.

 

Those same results on the World Meteorological site look very different:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/images/compare_datasets_big.jpg

 

The report that goes with it:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

 

Also see this:

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4500

 

And on Watts this:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat-inanity-defense-censor-peter-sinclair-video/

 

Why should government taxation policy be based on studies where the science isn't settled? Actually strike that question. It's just a corrupt government raising taxes to plug the hole in it's finances. The great CO2 cash cow.

 

Do you think that cigarette smokers denying the link with cancer because the science isn't proven to their satisfaction should be able to opt out of taxation too? Because the two arguments are directly parallel. The link between human emissions and global warming is proven beyond any reasonable doubt and accepted throughout the peer reviewed literature. It is only a handful of cranks backed up by fossil fuel lobbiests and wishful thinkers that deny it.

 

Other than the crap spouted at Kyoto an Hopenfakem you mean. Didn't both of these jollies conferences state that we should reduce our carbon outputs, whilst allowing developing nations to increase theirs?

 

What has that to do with the IPCC? Your response appears to be to an assertion I didn't make.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

Well done Wildcat, a press release from the WMO, stating "For use of the international media, not an official record"

 

A press release that jumps the gun somewhat, stating that 2009 is likely (only likely) to be amongst the 10 warmist on record.

 

A document released on the 8th December 2009, with revisions to be made in early 2010.

 

Tell you what, when they update it for the mini ice age that the majority of the northern hemisphere is currently experiencing let me know (and even some of the southern), and I'll read the rest of the 'report'.

 

A report using the, now infamous due to climategate, CRU HadCrut3 data, along with data from NASA (GISS dataset) and NOAA.

 

PS it looks like NOAA might have been cooking the books http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/ghcn-does-unadjusted-mean-cooked/ along with CRU.

 

So that's 2 wheels likely to fall of the MMGW trike. Even the IPCC will find it hard to pedal the new AGW unicycle.

[Wildcat]

Well done Wildcat, a press release from the WMO, stating "For use of the international media, not an official record"

 

A press release that jumps the gun somewhat, stating that 2009 is likely (only likely) to be amongst the 10 warmist on record.

 

A document released on the 8th December 2009, with revisions to be made in early 2010.

 

Tell you what, when they update it for the mini ice age that the majority of the northern hemisphere is currently experiencing let me know (and even some of the southern), and I'll read the rest of the 'report'.

 

A report using the, now infamous due to climategate, CRU HadCrut3 data, along with data from NASA (GISS dataset) and NOAA.

 

PS it looks like NOAA might have been cooking the books http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/ghcn-does-unadjusted-mean-cooked/ along with CRU.

 

So that's 2 wheels likely to fall of the MMGW trike. Even the IPCC will find it hard to pedal the new AGW unicycle.

 

A) that is the same data you were using.

 

B) my original assertion didn't rely on that data, surface temperature were a tiny fraction of the data I referred to.

 

C) that is a very strange use of likely just because a blogger doesn't understand something.

[Wildcat]

D the WMO article was about the last 10 years. discounting it as u have is dishonest

[retep]

An interesting read,

http://www.judicialwatch.org/files/documents/2010/783_NASA_docs.pdf