Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Wildcat]

You know that there is actually ZERO scientific empirical evidence for the theory of Man Made climate change based on C02 emissions.

 

it was disproved though experiment in the 19th century

 

The claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) can increase air temperatures by “trapping” infrared radiation (IR) ignores the fact that in 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping IR. Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood’s experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.

 

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

 

Those who claim that CO2 molecules in the atmosphere can cause heating by trapping IR have yet to provide any empirical scientific evidence to prove such a physical process exists. The experiment by R.W. Wood demonstrates that even a highly reflective covering cannot cause heating by trapping IR in a confined space. There is no way CO2, which at best only affects a small portion of the IR produced by earth’s surface, can heat the atmosphere by trapping IR.

 

The article you have cited doesn't support your conclusions.

 

Your reference is to an experiment that wiki cites as being one that distinguishes the "greenhouse effect" in climate from that under glass in the garden.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#The_distinction_between_the_greenhouse_effect_and_real_greenhouses

 

He is not a sceptic himself at all.

 

For your interest, there was a paper published recently that claimed to refute the "greenhouse effect". You can read about it here:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/04/die-fachbegutachtung-below-is-elis.html

 

It perhaps gives some context to what people think of theories like this.

 

You only have to compare the earth to the moon, to see the "greenhouse effect".

 

There is some more here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-greenhouse-effect-exist-intermediate.htm

 

No scientist of any credibility disbelieves the effect exists.

 

How do you come to a different conclusion based on out of context quotation from a 1909 Professor's notebook? How did you manage to find such an arcane reference? When I google greenhouse gas effect I find loads of respectable organisations explaining to me how it works.

 

Have you really been trying to find the truth out and found a a blog comment about the meaning of a 1909 Professor's notes and taken it to be evidence of a disproof compared with everything else you would have found? That really is incredibly gullible.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Wildcat

[convert]

Get ready folks. They want to start rationing us:-

 

 

Cancun climate change summit: scientists call for rationing in developed world

 

...In one paper Professor Kevin Anderson, Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, said the only way to reduce global emissions enough, while allowing the poor nations to continue to grow, is to halt economic growth in the rich world over the next twenty years.

 

This would mean a drastic change in lifestyles for many people in countries like Britain as everyone will have to buy less ‘carbon intensive’ goods and services such as long haul flights and fuel hungry cars.

 

Prof Anderson admitted it “would not be easy” to persuade people to reduce their consumption of goods

 

He said politicians should consider a rationing system similar to the one introduced during the last “time of crisis” in the 1930s and 40s.

 

This could mean a limit on electricity so people are forced to turn the heating down, turn off the lights and replace old electrical goods like huge fridges with more efficient models. Food that has travelled from abroad may be limited and goods that require a lot of energy to manufacture.

 

“The Second World War and the concept of rationing is something we need to seriously consider if we are to address the scale of the problem we face,” he said...

 

 

...But Dr Myles Allen, of Oxford University’s Department of Physics, said this might not be enough. He said that if emissions do not come down quick enough even a slight change in temperature will be too rapid for ecosystems to keep up. Also by measuring emissions relative to a particular baseline, rather than putting a limit on the total amount that can ever be pumped into the atmosphere, there is a danger that the limit is exceeded.

 

 

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

 

Just remind me how much the carbon footprint of the cancon summit is?

[Stormy]

But is he wrong? You have just said "three harsh winters" ago. Last year it was quite bad, but the year before according to this account was a "Another mild, largely snowless winter".

 

Temperatures locally go up and down because of natural cyclic variation anyway. And whilst it is cold now, it is nearly December, it is not like it is unusual to be cold at this time of year!

 

To know if the Scientist the Independent quotes is correct you need to look at what Uk temperatures have been doing over the last 10 years. If you look at the CET UK temperature record, you see we are still part of an upward trend. The evidence is he may be right.

 

For goodness sake. He said "Snow will be a thing of the past." Have a look outside, we had the same last year and a little bit less (but still snow) the year before. How can you possibly question whether he was wrong or not!?

 

If he has it wrong it makes no difference to any arguments against global warming, anyway. The evidence is different, but you would look at datasets of temperature readings for example: Global temperature record. Where you can see the temperature trend is increasing.

 

I sort of agree with you here. Snow here does not prove or disprove MMGW/CC one way or another. But it shows how ludicrous some of the arguments have been in favour of the MMGW argument. If they got this wrong, and so many other things wrong too, then what else have they got wrong?

 

Old people not heating their homes is a result of the banking crisis and Tory policies, not a result of the relatively small amount spent on environmental policies.

 

Bills have gone up significantly recently, and a lot of it is due to the European Emissions Trading Scheme.

http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/ets.pdf

 

"We estimate that the ETS cost to British Consumers is £3Billion per year, equivalent to around £117 per family"

 

Im not sure how on earth you manage to blame the Tories since they weren't in power last year or the year before when this article was written AND they have kept the winter fuel allowance:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/elderhealth/3531276/Thousands-of-elderly-people-die-of-cold-each-winter-in-a-national-scandal.html

 

"Last winter 25,300 more people died in the winter months than in the summer, an increase of seven per cent on the previous year, data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show.

 

Most of these are due to circulatory and respiratory diseases and the majority occur among the elderly in a situation which has been condemned by campaigners.

 

There are fears the death toll will be higher this year as forecasters predict lower temperatures than last year, utility bills have risen and the credit crunch means many households are struggling to make ends meet."

 

 

BUT - since snow will be a thing of the past, high domestic energy bills are a price worth paying

Edited November 30, 2010 by Stormy

[Stormy]

Get ready folks. They want to start rationing us:-

 

 

 

Source http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html

 

Just remind me how much the carbon footprint of the cancon summit is?

 

Obscene isn't it, in the age of the video conference they fly around the world to waffle on and eat caviar.

 

Until they start talking seriously about OVERPOPULATION, which is the key threat to humanity's future, then I shall pay no heed to Cancun and other pointless self congratulationary, back slapping conferences.

[spinac]

You might not like the idea of a select few scientists and politicians attending a conference half way round the world. That doesn't mean the scientific arguments are undermined though and the whole scientific community should be ignored.

 

Or put another way, just because Nick Clegg may have got some things a bit wrong lately, it doesn't mean that everybody who lives in Sheffield is wrong about everything.

 

Overpopulation? - not discussed nearly enough. It seems to have been off the radar for too long. What did David Attenborough say recently? - that the human population has increased 3 fold in his lifetime - or something equally dramatic?

 

Human numbers and lifestyle are unsustainable, but it seems we are happier to run like lemmings over a cliff edge than face up to the problem and do anything about it.

[convert]

You might not like the idea of a select few scientists and politicians attending a conference half way round the world. That doesn't mean the scientific arguments are undermined though and the whole scientific community should be ignored.

Does make them hypocrites though doesn't it. Practice what you preach? However their 'science' has already been shown to be more than shaky. Error bars anyone.

 

Or put another way, just because Nick Clegg may have got some things a bit wrong lately, it doesn't mean that everybody who lives in Sheffield is wrong about everything.

Straw man alert !!

 

Overpopulation? - not discussed nearly enough. It seems to have been off the radar for too long. What did David Attenborough say recently? - that the human population has increased 3 fold in his lifetime - or something equally dramatic?

 

Human numbers and lifestyle are unsustainable, but it seems we are happier to run like lemmings over a cliff edge than face up to the problem and do anything about it.

Now on the overpopulation issue I couldn't agree more.

[spinac]

Does make them hypocrites though doesn't it.

 

Just because you don't practice what you preach ... doesn't make what you preach wrong though does it? I'm as guilty as anyone ... (just another lemming?)

[convert]

Just because you don't practice what you preach ... doesn't make what you preach wrong though does it? I'm as guilty as anyone ... (just another lemming?)

 

Take a look at this, then tell me what you think of them.

 

 

 

 

 

Where's Al Qaeda when you need them

[max]

Does make them hypocrites though doesn't it. Practice what you preach? However their 'science' has already been shown to be more than shaky. Error bars anyone.

 

Straw man alert !!

 

Now on the overpopulation issue I couldn't agree more.

 

The only doubts cast are by "scientists" in the employ of multinational oil companies. There's no evidence of reputable scientist repudiating the science.

[Berberis]

The only doubts cast are by "scientists" in the employ of multinational oil companies. There's no evidence of reputable scientist repudiating the science.

 

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

 

Are they all being paid by multinational oil companies? If yes, please give evidence for each.