Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

Isn't this,taken from the link I gave,saying the opposite?

 

"...Soloman said it was not clear if the drier atmosphere, which the NOAA report says is the reason global warming fell flat over the last decade, is a natural process or came to be due to human emissions. If the latter is true, carbon dioxide emissions would actually be responsible for a negative feedback that cancels at least some of the warming it causes by pushing water vapor back to the surface of the earth and out of the stratosphere, where it acts as a potent greenhouse gas. According to the report, a 10% decrease in atmospheric water vapor alone was responsible for a 25% drop in predicted temperature increase...."

 

No it isn't saying the opposite.

 

It may even be worrying news. We have just had the hottest decade ever and if there is a slight cooling mechanism from CO2 emissions as this paper suggests, then that means the warming mechanism has been underestimated by the same amount.

 

From what I can gather most people are viewing the effect to be neutral or may vary the predicted 0.2 degree temperature rise a decade by + or - 0.05 degrees. It may help add some detail and refine current models but it won't have much impact on the overall trend. There is also a question mark over the data, not everyone has confidence in balloon borne radiosonde data from the stratosphere.

 

The BBC has an interesting article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8483722.stm

Edited January 31, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

Another embarrassing revelation in the Telegraph today.

 

And a significant comment from an IPCC report contributor...

 

Roger Sedjo, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future who also contributed to the IPCC's latest report, added: "The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

 

"It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

 

Remember 4,000 people contributed to the IPCC report. That a sceptical paper should find one who thinks the IPCC management team border on advocacy, hardly seems like anything of any great surprise nor significance.

[Greybeard]

How many of those 4000 are climate scientists ? In fact many of the contributors are self-appointed oracles, peering into their crystal balls trying to extrapolate far into the future, the findings of the real scientsts.

 

The significance of what Roger Sedjo says is "It (the IPCC) needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

 

Most people already acknowledge that the IPCC is politicaly motivated.

 

I see in the Guardian today our Minister for Climate Change has declared war on the sceptics, no doubt it will not be long before we doubters are criminalised. Banning things under penalty of hefty fines and imprisonment seems to be the govt.'s stock solution to every little problem these days.

[Wildcat]

How many of those 4000 are climate scientists ? In fact many of the contributors are self-appointed oracles, peering into their crystal balls trying to extrapolate far into the future, the findings of the real scientsts.

 

The significance of what Roger Sedjo says is "It (the IPCC) needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives."

 

The IPCC claim 2,500 scientists. People like Roger Sedjo, an economist would not count in that figure even if he was a contributer.

 

Most people already acknowledge that the IPCC is politicaly motivated.

 

Somehow I doubt that, although politics has certainly played its part, like for example the sceptical Bush administration role in the appointment of Rajendra Pachauri.

 

I see in the Guardian today our Minister for Climate Change has declared war on the sceptics, no doubt it will not be long before we doubters are criminalised. Banning things under penalty of hefty fines and imprisonment seems to be the govt.'s stock solution to every little problem these days.

 

That is hyperbole and paranoia, Ed Balls has talked about battling the Sceptical propoganda because it is not supported by the scientific evidence and could do the country's economy untold damage by leaving us by the wayside whilst other countries take the lead in environment technologies, and not least the damage the arguments do to the City of London that has made itself a centre for carbon trading.

 

It is also worth pointing out that the strong language is probably a result of it being hard to see the sceptical arguments as anything more than propoganda because the arguments used are so poor and more often than not frankly dishonest and therefore as immoral attempts to deny any responsibility for the tragedies that are a consequence of our actions:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2234

Edited January 31, 2010 by Wildcat

[Berberis]

67 pages and the only conclusion that can be made from this discussion is Wildcat will not listen to anyone unless they are of the same opinion as he/she.

[Wildcat]

67 pages and the only conclusion that can be made from this discussion is Wildcat will not listen to anyone unless they are of the same opinion as he/she.

 

Can you give even one example on this thread of me dismissing an opinion without good reason?

 

In fact 67 pages in to the thread and no one has so far given a credible reason to doubt anthropomorphic climate change.

[truman]

Can you give even one example on this thread of me dismissing an opinion without good reason?

 

In fact 67 pages in to the thread and no one has so far given a credible reason to doubt anthropomorphic climate change.

 

Your mind is made up already....

[truman]

The IPCC claim 2,500 scientists.

 

And of those how many are climate scientists...?

[Wildcat]

Your mind is made up already....

 

If someone gave me a reason to doubt the expert opinion of the consensus then I would look at it hopefully and with an open mind, as I have done throughout the thread.

 

Perhaps rather than asking me you could suggest an alternative explanation for a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere, whilst the sun is going through a cooling phase?

Edited January 31, 2010 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

And of those how many are climate scientists...?

 

With qualifications in Climate Science? or more simply scientists with associated degrees that have published papers on Climate Science? If the former I have no idea, if the latter then by definition 2,500.