Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Cyclone]

How about the one about the glaciers disappearing by 2050, widely accepted as a lot of (not very) hot air now, even by the IPCC who published it.

[Cyclone]

I have already answered all those points.

 

The fact the developing world releases less per capita seems irrelevant to you. Do you really think we are worth 5 to 10 times more than people in developing countries? Even if you do, achieving reductions in CO2 emissions taking that viewpoint is going to be impossible.

 

Your position is based on a selfish principle of self interest that is obvious political nonsense.

 

Surely our worth is irrelevent, the fact is that 2 billion people in China producing 1 10th as much CO2 as you and me and increasing all the time means that flinging the 60 million in the UK back into the stone age would have a barely measureable impact.

 

Of course we could massively cut the amount of soot produced in the 3rd world, something that we could achieve quickly and relatively cheaply and this would have a far faster and greater impact than CO2 reductions.

But it's not cool is it. So you're not bothered about that. It's all about the CO2.

[Cyclone]

No periods of history have to be ignored. The debate on the extent or whether, when and where there has been a medieval warm period is an irrelevance

Funny how you're allowed to just dismiss anomalies with a waive of the hand and a "nothing to see here". Just like the data 'fixing' really.

And then you try to pass it off as you just being smarter than everyone else, and us amongst the proletariat, we really just don't get it.

 

Time will tell I suppose. I doubt you'll come back to apologise though.

[Wildcat]

There were 25 million in 2001 according to the Red Cross.

 

Since then climate related incidents have been rising.

 

http://www.ourworld-yourmove.org/climate-change/we-have-to-be-prepared-for-climate-change/#

 

There is no reason to believe there aren't no 50 million environmental migrants. Many will be in Dhaka, several million were displaced in Vietnam because of flooding.

[Wildcat]

Surely our worth is irrelevent, the fact is that 2 billion people in China producing 1 10th as much CO2 as you and me and increasing all the time means that flinging the 60 million in the UK back into the stone age would have a barely measureable impact.

 

Of course we could massively cut the amount of soot produced in the 3rd world, something that we could achieve quickly and relatively cheaply and this would have a far faster and greater impact than CO2 reductions.

But it's not cool is it. So you're not bothered about that. It's all about the CO2.

 

??? I am quite happy to see reductions in soot emissions, if they are effective and it is cheap to do so. I remember you cited an artilce some time ago making similar claims specifically about a type of soot in the himalayas. Unfortunately there were other articles that said that soot reduction would be ineffective and that the costs of reducing soot would be prohibitive.

 

I have no firm belief either way, but if it works then it should be done.

 

What you don't seem to realise however is that just because you found an article that seemed to have a positive solution, for a specific region that this has anything to do with the need to deal with the global issue of CO2.

[Wildcat]

Funny how you're allowed to just dismiss anomalies with a waive of the hand and a "nothing to see here". Just like the data 'fixing' really.

And then you try to pass it off as you just being smarter than everyone else, and us amongst the proletariat, we really just don't get it.

 

Time will tell I suppose. I doubt you'll come back to apologise though.

 

Hardly a wave of the hand. I pointed out that using tree ring proxies in the recent time period when they were no longer a proxy for temperature would be a fraud. The argument is simple and clear and the alternative stupid.

[Wildcat]

How about the one about the glaciers disappearing by 2050, widely accepted as a lot of (not very) hot air now, even by the IPCC who published it.

 

You mean the sentence in the IPCC report on environmental impacts?

 

How exactly does that mistake undermine in any significant way the first section of the report (which was subject to the most robust peer review and was where the science of global warming was discussed) or indeed the report as a whole.

 

This is highlighting a minor inconsequential flaw with the intention of undermining the wealth of evidence collated from elsewhere that corresponds with the consensus view on the topic.

[convert]

I have already answered all those points.

No you haven't

 

The fact the developing world releases less per capita seems irrelevant to you. Do you really think we are worth 5 to 10 times more than people in developing countries? Even if you do, achieving reductions in CO2 emissions taking that viewpoint is going to be impossible.

 

Your position is based on a selfish principle of self interest that is obvious political nonsense.

 

Straw man alert. No where have I stated that we are worth 5 to 10 times more than people in devloping countries. My position is that if CO2 is harmful (I very much doubt this, but I don't rule it out) then the surely we should be looking at the biggest producing nations by total volume and some arbitrary per capita economic figure. However you don't seem to get this.

[convert]

Hardly a wave of the hand. I pointed out that using tree ring proxies in the recent time period when they were no longer a proxy for temperature would be a fraud. The argument is simple and clear and the alternative stupid.

 

So it's OK to use tree ring proxies for years that we don't have observed (fudged) datas for. However you don't trust the figures from the rings when we have actual observations of temperature, so they are simply discarded.

 

 

Cherry (tree) picking at it's worst.

 

The only thing that's stupid on here is your inability to see both sides of the debate.

[convert]

You mean the sentence in the IPCC report on environmental impacts?

 

How exactly does that mistake undermine in any significant way the first section of the report (which was subject to the most robust peer review and was where the science of global warming was discussed) or indeed the report as a whole.

 

This is highlighting a minor inconsequential flaw with the intention of undermining the wealth of evidence collated from elsewhere that corresponds with the consensus view on the topic.

 

That mistake calls into question the credibility of the IPCC, along with several other 'mistakes' in the report and the executive summary.

 

Again the word consensus. Science doesn't operate by consensus.