Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

I'm not discounting it, I'm just showing that it's not quite as cut and dried as you'd have us all believe.

 

Does the document state that it is not an official record? YES

Did I lie about that? NO.

 

Does it say Likely, hedging it's bets? YES

Did I lie about that? NO.

 

Was it released on the 8th of December? YES

Did I lie about that? NO

 

Please tell me EXCATLY where I have been dishonest about the WMO 'report'.

 

I even stated that I'd be quite willing for you to point me at the revised edition due out early this year. I think I'm being quite open minded re AGW on this thread.

 

I've even 'put my money where my mouth is' stating that I'll sell my gas guzzler and buy a Pious. I'm sure that'd save me lots more money; money that the corrupt labour governement can tax my offsping on when I'm dead and gone.

 

You have been dishonest about it by discarding its evidence on temperatures of the last ten years, based purely on the fact that the last years data is incomplete.

 

You have shifted the goalposts to respond to a strawman to avoid dealing with the issues.

[Lockjaw]

 

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:

 

Hi Wildcat. I'm observing this thread, from an objective position, with great interest for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that, as a physics teacher, I am required to teach the idea of AGW to my GCSE students and, that being the case, I wish to remain as up to date as possible with all the related issues including opposition to the accepted science / politics of the subject.

 

I note with interest that you chose to answer only one of the three questions convert asked you in post 1044. I wonder if you would care to explain why.

 

Cheers.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Lockjaw

[Wildcat]

Hi Wildcat. I'm observing this thread, from an objective position, with great interest for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that, as a physics teacher, I am required to teach the idea of AGW to my GCSE students and, that being the case, I wish to remain as up to date as possible with all the related issues including opposition to the accepted science / politics of the subject.

 

I note with interest that you chose to answer only one of the three questions convert asked you in post 1044. I wonder if you would care to explain why.

 

Cheers.

 

I assume you mean this exchange:

 

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

 

In which case my answer is brief because it is a sidetrack from the issue, of whether global warming A) exists and B) is human influenced which has been the primary topic of conversation issues I have been contributing on because having read around the subject looked at the various sources I am convinced are beyond reasonable doubt.

 

I am probably slightly reluctant to move in to a debate on carbon trading because without a common understanding of those 2 issues any debate is unlikely to have enough common ground to be useful.

 

In general the points are in relation to whether Carbon Trading is a good thing or not, the answer is I think fairly complex with some good and some bad parts to it. The link I gave for example explains some issues of carbon trading that are concerning and that come from a source worthy of consideration, at the least. In my opinion registering that complexity is sufficient for the current debate.

 

But since you ask, specifically I will attempt a tentative view:

 

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

 

I think the reasoning is that it provides a way by which Carbon emissions can be reduced gradually. It is a kind of emissions tax that is intended to gradually increase to provide a financial incentive to companies to switch to reduced emissions. The beneficiaries of the taxes are supposed to be the sort of project in areas of the world with lower carbon emissions that require development, and due to the nature of the tax the incentive is to invest that money in technologies that either are low carbon emitters and therefore have long term sustainability under the system or that absorb carbon like reforestation. One problem highlighted in the film is that because of the complexity of the agreements this aspiration is not really happening, with emissions increasing in europe since the EU introduced Carbon Trading (a point the video makes).

 

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

 

This question I suppose can only be answered by pointing out that the alternative would be preventing multinationals chosing where to do business and is outside of any current international controls I am aware of. Being a bit of an internationalist I think there should be stronger international controls in place, enforced both by an international body and by workers being able to act in solidarity with one another through the legalisation of taking part in secondary action and strengthening of the ILO. Both solutions, I would think would be very unpopular with a more freemarket thinker. Without that I think the criticism highlighted by multinationals moving industry and work is poigniant, and shows the dangers of thinking carbon trading, will deliver.

 

What is worthwhile about Kyoto and Copenhagen is not the market set up to trade in carbon, although on a nationalist basis the City of London has done rather nicely out of it, but the emissions targets.

 

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

 

As the video linked to gives as an analogy the Industrialised West could be compared to being a neighbour that has had a wild party and dumped rubbish in his neighbours garden. As I understand it the targets are uniform, the problem we have in the West is that we use and emit more carbon than the rest of the world, we are the ones causing the problem.

 

A Chinese person for example emits 4.6 tonnes per capita compared with the US that produces 19 tonnes per Capita, the EU around 14 tonnes per capita.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

 

Whilst China is industrialising and no doubt increasing its emissions it has a long way to go before they reach the same level per person as the West. The mess being created is one being created by people in the West and it is therefore for us to mitigate the effects of the mess we are responsible for.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Wildcat

[Provesta]

Some evidence;

 

 

Arctic permafrost leaking methane at record levels, figures show

 

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

 

Scientists have recorded a massive spike in the amount of a powerful greenhouse gas seeping from Arctic permafrost, in a discovery that highlights the risks of a dangerous climate tipping point.

 

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

 

The discovery follows a string of reports from the region in recent years that previously frozen boggy soils are melting and releasing methane in greater quantities. Such Arctic soils currently lock away billions of tonnes of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, leading some scientists to describe melting permafrost as a ticking time bomb that could overwhelm efforts to tackle climate change.

 

They fear the warming caused by increased methane emissions will itself release yet more methane and lock the region into a destructive cycle that forces temperatures to rise faster than predicted.

 

Paul Palmer, a scientist at Edinburgh University who worked on the new study, said: "High latitude wetlands are currently only a small source of methane but for these emissions to increase by a third in just five years is very significant. It shows that even a relatively small amount of warming can cause a large increase in the amount of methane emissions."

 

Global warming is occuring twice as fast in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth. Some regions have already warmed by 2.5C, and temperatures there are projected to increase by more than 10C by 2100 if carbon emissions continue to rise at current rates.

 

Palmer said: "This study does not show the Arctic has passed a tipping point, but it should open people's eyes. It shows there is a positive feedback and that higher temperatures bring higher emissions and faster warming."

 

The change in the Arctic is enough to explain a recent increase in global methane levels in the atmosphere, he said. Global levels have risen steadily since 2007, after a decade or so holding steady.

 

The new study, published in the journal Science, shows that methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. The increase represents about 1m extra tonnes of methane each year. Palmer cautioned that the five-year increase was too short to call a definitive trend.

 

The findings are part of a wider study of methane emissions from global wetlands, such as paddy fields, marshes and bogs. To identify where methane was released, the researchers combined methane levels in the atmosphere with surface temperature changes. They did not measure methane emissions directly, but used satellite measurements of variations in groundwater depth, which alter the way bacteria break down organic matter to release or consume methane.

 

They found that just over half of all methane emissions came from the tropics, with some 20m tonnes released from the Amazon river basin each year, and 26m tonnes from the Congo basin. Rice paddy fields across China and south and south-east Asia produced just under one-third of global methane, some 33m tonnes. Just 2% of global methane comes from Arctic latitudes, the study found, though the region showed the largest increases. The 31% rise in methane emissions there from 2003-07 was enough to help lift the global average increase to 7%.

 

Palmer said: "Our study reinforces the idea that satellites can pinpoint changes in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted from a particular place on earth. This opens the door to quantifying greenhouse gas emissions made from a variety of natural and man-made sources."

 

Palmer said it was a "disgrace" that so few satellites were launched to monitor levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. He said it was unclear whether the team would be able to continue the methane monitoring in future. The pair of satellites used to analyse water, known as Grace, are already over their expected mission life time, while a European version launched last year, called Goce, is scheduled to fly for less than two years.

 

The new study follows repeated warnings that even modest levels of global warming could trigger huge increases in methane release from permafrost. Phillipe Ciais, a researcher with the Laboratory for Climate Sciences and the Environment in Gif-sur-Yvette, France, told a scientific meeting in Copenhagen last March that billions of tonnes could be released by just a 2C average global rise.

[convert]

You have been dishonest about it by discarding its evidence on temperatures of the last ten years, based purely on the fact that the last years data is incomplete.

 

You have shifted the goalposts to respond to a strawman to avoid dealing with the issues.

 

You're the one who brought up the report. I just pointed out the fact that it is only a press release, that it was just a prediction, and that the data used was incomplete. Nothing wrong in that. No goalposts were moved in making this post, or the subsequent ones old chap.

[convert]

Wildcat, thank you for (finally) trying to address the questions I asked. You might want to fix your quotes though.

 

I see you take the view of carbon output per capita; would you like to compare total carbon output of China v USA?

 

Let's face it, if you're right (along with the other warmists) the global climate won't care about the per capita figures, it's the total amount that counts.

[Stormy]

It would be good if the Anti-global warming Scientists were prepared to enter a debate rather than hiding behind websites and deleting opposing arguments.

 

And as I have pointed out Dr Pachauri was put in post by the Bush administration, the damage he does to the IPCC is a result of a sceptical Republican adminstrations actions.

 

The actions of and discussion of the rights and wrongs of Climate Trading is a seperate issue. If it is doing damage to the scientific debate then it is only doing so through a confusion between seperate debates.

 

There are more challenges of debate from realist scientists but none are taken up! Piers Corbyn has challenged any warmist scientist to a televised, public debate but nobody will accept his offer.

Claiming scientists hide behind websites and delete opposing arguments is rather an odd thing to claim without linking to anything. I will be happy to read any evidence to back up that claim.

 

If ever evidence was required as to how crazy the debate has got, watch this video:

(The claim starts at about 1:50)

 

As for the rights and wrongs of Carbon Trading I fundamentally disagree that it is a confusion of separate debates. Since we are now beginning to see evidence that the Prophet Al Gore and his AGW Church isn't quite so robust as once thought, we must now begin to ask ourselves why. Why the lies?

 

Why did Copenhagen "fail" to do anything worthwhile, apart from keep in place the carbon trading schemes set up by Koyoto?

 

I am sure you will cling to your failed science and call me a denier and denounce me as a selfish westener who can't live without his car.

But I am not. I firmly believe that we should look after our environment, and a smooth transition to a low carbon economy which isn't dependant on fossil fuels is an essential aspect of this. But instead we have these crazy policies which make a few people richer and richer which are based on shoddy science and do nothing to alleviate the alleged problems.

Jobs are lost, even land is taken away in the name of AGW

The Church of AGW and the obsession with Biofuels has driven up the price of food in third world countries and for what? So a few of us rich folk can feel slightly less guilty about how we live our lives? How can this possibly be good for humanity or the Planet?

 

I am quite sure you or any other warmist will say that carbon trading is wrong, biofuels are wrong, it is wrong what happened in Redcar. But you cannot deny this, that these are the policies and real life effects. This is whats happening in the name of AGW.

Where are all these green jobs we are promised? They're not on the Isle of Wight, thats for sure.

What positive steps are being taken to significantly reduce worldwide CO2 levels?

Where is the talk on the thorny issue of overpopulation? Any drop in CO2 levels will be negated by a rise in population. But where is the sensible discussion about that? Please feel free to enlighten me.

 

What is happening in the name of AGW is a total disgrace and the longer we accept what is going on, the worse it is going to get.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Stormy

[Wildcat]

Wildcat, thank you for (finally) trying to address the questions I asked. You might want to fix your quotes though..

 

As I explained in my response I had already addressed your points

 

I see you take the view of carbon output per capita; would you like to compare total carbon output of China v USA?

 

Let's face it, if you're right (along with the other warmists) the global climate won't care about the per capita figures, it's the total amount that counts.

 

They are about equal.

 

Solving the issue and making changes to lifestyles is about personal responsibility and therefore whilst we are discussing ways to deal with the problem it is the per capita figure that is relevant.

[Wildcat]

You're the one who brought up the report. I just pointed out the fact that it is only a press release, that it was just a prediction, and that the data used was incomplete. Nothing wrong in that. No goalposts were moved in making this post, or the subsequent ones old chap.

 

Let's look back for a moment at the background:

 

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/

 

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/

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.

 

It was a press release, which says the quality of the data will be pretty well checked.

 

The data is only incomplete in so far as last year is concerned. As you can see I was raising it in response to a point you made about a ten year trend. Discounting the evidence of the WMO press release based on the fact the last years data is incomplete is an attempt by you to score a point with rhetorhic and discount evidence that Wattsupwiththat is using unrecognisable data to make their claims.

[Wildcat]

There are more challenges of debate from realist scientists but none are taken up! Piers Corbyn has challenged any warmist scientist to a televised, public debate but nobody will accept his offer.

Claiming scientists hide behind websites and delete opposing arguments is rather an odd thing to claim without linking to anything. I will be happy to read any evidence to back up that claim.

 

I didn't know he had offered that. It seems strange since he is well known for being secretative about his methods and has ignored the request to debate with this person:

 

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/trying-to-bet-on-climate-with-piers.html

 

Ps he is obviously wrong in describing climate change as being due to solar effects because the Stratosphere is cooling at the same time as the Troposphere is warming. A solar explanation cannot account for that difference.

 

If ever evidence was required as to how crazy the debate has got, watch this video:

(The claim starts at about 1:50)

 

He is talking about a failure of internationalism that increases the threat of natural disasters. It may not be relevant to what happened in Haiti, but looking forward at future events his point is valid.

 

As for the rights and wrongs of Carbon Trading I fundamentally disagree that it is a confusion of separate debates. Since we are now beginning to see evidence that the Prophet Al Gore and his AGW Church isn't quite so robust as once thought, we must now begin to ask ourselves why. Why the lies?

 

What lies?

 

Why did Copenhagen "fail" to do anything worthwhile, apart from keep in place the carbon trading schemes set up by Koyoto?

 

That would require an essay in itself. In short politics and short term self interest.

 

I am sure you will cling to your failed science and call me a denier and denounce me as a selfish westener who can't live without his car.

But I am not. I firmly believe that we should look after our environment, and a smooth transition to a low carbon economy which isn't dependant on fossil fuels is an essential aspect of this. But instead we have these crazy policies which make a few people richer and richer which are based on shoddy science and do nothing to alleviate the alleged problems.

Jobs are lost, even land is taken away in the name of AGW

The Church of AGW and the obsession with Biofuels has driven up the price of food in third world countries and for what? So a few of us rich folk can feel slightly less guilty about how we live our lives? How can this possibly be good for humanity or the Planet?

 

I am quite sure you or any other warmist will say that carbon trading is wrong, biofuels are wrong, it is wrong what happened in Redcar. But you cannot deny this, that these are the policies and real life effects. This is whats happening in the name of AGW.

Where are all these green jobs we are promised? They're not on the Isle of Wight, thats for sure.

 

You response is precisely the confusion I was talking about. The issues that you raise are problems of economics and have nothing to do with the science of gloabl warming, a scientific debate that is ongoing, but that is sufficiently resolved for us to be sure that CO2 emissions are the cause of current warming.

 

Ohh and Delingpole is a ......

http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/search?q=delingpole

 

What positive steps are being taken to significantly reduce worldwide CO2 levels?

 

A lot of research, the targets set at Kyoto, and the increasing use of technologies like clean coal, wind generation etc.

 

Where is the talk on the thorny issue of overpopulation? Any drop in CO2 levels will be negated by a rise in population. But where is the sensible discussion about that? Please feel free to enlighten me.

 

That is a topic for a seperate thread.

 

What is happening in the name of AGW is a total disgrace and the longer we accept what is going on, the worse it is going to get.

 

I agree with the last sentence but I suspect for opposite reasons.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Wildcat