PDA

View Full Version : More scientists stating the obvious



BrilloPad
21st June 2015, 09:33
Earth has entered sixth mass extinction, warn scientists - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11687091/Earth-has-entered-sixth-mass-extinction-warn-scientists.html)

Humans are responsible for so many species dying out that we are now in a sixth mass extinction, Stanford University has warned

Only solution is less humans. Maybe we could start with killing all the scientists who peddle these pseudo-religious obvious statements.

NotAllThere
21st June 2015, 10:11
Thinking long term, sooner or later a big rock is going to wreak far more havoc to Earth's ecosystem than a nuclear holocaust ever could. Eventually, the sun will sterilise the planet completely. Therefore it makes sense for an intelligent form of life to emerge that can take life out into the galaxy (and beyond). The only alternative to humans exploiting the Earth for our own ends is complete annihilation.

BlasterBates
21st June 2015, 10:29
In the 1990's the scientists predicted that within 30 years the forests in central Europe would be more or less wiped out.

Well it's now 2015 and they're still looking pretty healthy.

I think these scientists need some funding to research this. They will also need to attend conferences in Hawaii and the Caribean, and they'll have to be invited on TV talk shows where they will be able advertise their latest books.

SpontaneousOrder
21st June 2015, 17:11
The only entities that we're aware of, capable of expressing a preference when it comes to genetic and species diversity, are human beings. I.e. we're the only one's who give a tulip.

I was reading about Morressey the other day saying
"If humans disappeared tomorrow, the world would thrive and prosper,"

What the feck does that even mean? 'Prosper'? by what standard without man?

I like the nature, and I'd like to see it stick around. But the only thing that values nature is mankind - so erasing mankind to preserve nature (even hypothetically as Morrissey means it) is a contradiction.

minestrone
21st June 2015, 17:29
In the 1990's the scientists predicted that within 30 years the forests in central Europe would be more or less wiped out.

Well it's now 2015 and they're still looking pretty healthy.

I think these scientists need some funding to research this. They will also need to attend conferences in Hawaii and the Caribean, and they'll have to be invited on TV talk shows where they will be able advertise their latest books.

To be fair improvements in power station design reducing emissions in Europe have halted forest destruction. There was a serious problem, to say that the prediction was wrong and that issue just went away on its own is nonsense.

SueEllen
21st June 2015, 17:31
I was reading about Morressey the other day saying

What the feck does that even mean? 'Prosper'? by what standard without man?

I like the nature, and I'd like to see it stick around. But the only thing that values nature is mankind - so erasing mankind to preserve nature (even hypothetically as Morrissey means it) is a contradiction.

Some other species will take over and evolve. So erasing mankind won't help.

expat
22nd June 2015, 06:33
Sometimes doom-saying is intended not to predict the future but to prevent it. When the worst then doesn't happen, it may be because making the prediction had the desired effect.

BTW while it is obvious that human activity is causing a lot of species to become extinct, an "extinction" refers to a relatively short period in geological terms, when many species become extinct; this is likely to have a great effect on life on Earth overall.

BrilloPad
22nd June 2015, 07:02
Thinking long term, sooner or later a big rock is going to wreak far more havoc to Earth's ecosystem than a nuclear holocaust ever could. Eventually, the sun will sterilise the planet completely. Therefore it makes sense for an intelligent form of life to emerge that can take life out into the galaxy (and beyond). The only alternative to humans exploiting the Earth for our own ends is complete annihilation.

Agreed. Intelligent life needed. That rules humans out.

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 10:03
The 'obvious' is frequently wrong. Population growth is an issue, however in terms of environmental damage, consumption growth is a larger one,. Birth rates are dropping, the UN estimates the population will peak in 2200, at a level 50% higher than today. But steady economic growth of 3% a year, as we have now and seen almost universally as ' a good thing' , leads to a doubling of economic activity every 23 years, or 1,134% by 2100, getting to over 1,800% by 2115.

Of course this won't happen, but it puts into perspective the relative threat from rising people numbers and rising consumption.

BrilloPad
22nd June 2015, 10:21
The 'obvious' is frequently wrong. Population growth is an issue, however in terms of environmental damage, consumption growth is a larger one,. Birth rates are dropping, the UN estimates the population will peak in 2200, at a level 50% higher than today. But steady economic growth of 3% a year, as we have now and seen almost universally as ' a good thing' , leads to a doubling of economic activity every 23 years, or 1,134% by 2100, getting to over 1,800% by 2115.

Of course this won't happen, but it puts into perspective the relative threat from rising people numbers and rising consumption.

Most consumption happens in the West. But those Easterners are catching up.

DodgyAgent
22nd June 2015, 10:34
The 'obvious' is frequently wrong. Population growth is an issue, however in terms of environmental damage, consumption growth is a larger one,. Birth rates are dropping, the UN estimates the population will peak in 2200, at a level 50% higher than today. But steady economic growth of 3% a year, as we have now and seen almost universally as ' a good thing' , leads to a doubling of economic activity every 23 years, or 1,134% by 2100, getting to over 1,800% by 2115.

Of course this won't happen, but it puts into perspective the relative threat from rising people numbers and rising consumption.

Talk about the bleeding obvious. Of course consumption growth will increase as the population grows.

BlasterBates
22nd June 2015, 10:52
Green policies are a major threat to biodiversity:

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/biofuel

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 11:20
Green policies are a major threat to biodiversity:

https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/topics/biofuel

They're not green then are they? Sign here (https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/908/eu-destroys-700-000-hectares-of-rainforest-for-biofuels):


The European Union wants to protect the climate and reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles by blending fuels with increasing shares of supposedly eco-friendly “biofuels”.

Last year, 1.9 million tons of palm oil were added to diesel fuel in the EU – in addition to millions of tons of equally harmful rapeseed and soybean oils.

The plantations needed to satisfy Europes's demand for palm oil cover an area of 700,000 hectares – land that until recently was still rainforest and the habitat of 5,000 endangered orangutans. Despite the clear-cutting, the EU has classified palm oil as sustainably produced.

This policy has now blown up in the legislators’ faces, with scientists confirming what environmentalists and development experts have long asserted: biofuels help neither people nor the environment – and they are most certainly not climate-neutral, as even studies commissioned by the EU show. Biodiesel from palm and soybean oil, but also from European-grown rapeseed, has a larger carbon footprint than diesel from fossil sources.

The EU must scrap its biofuels policy immediately, but the agri-industry is fighting hard to maintain the status quo. Not surprising, when one considers that biofuels are currently subsidized to the tune of 10 billion euros in the EU alone.

Decision making in the European Union is a long process and involves many different actors that bring in studies, reports, arguments, and numbers. Hundreds of industry lobbyists seek to influence this process and they are trying hard to protect their financial interests. Next, the European Parliament and its committees along with the Council of the European Union will need to agree on a compromise based on the proposal published in October 2012.

Please sign our petition to the EU and demand an end to biofuels.

Glad to see you're catching up with genuinely green thinking from the last decade.


CC219 In line with party policy on applying the precautionary principle, the Green Party calls for an immediate moratorium on agrofuels from large-scale monocultures - a period for scientists and policy makers in the EU and western nations to gain a greater understanding of the true impacts on the social, human rights, land rights, climate impact, and biodiversity impact issues. The Green Party supports the Agrofuels Moratorium Call launched in July 2007 in Brussels (supported by over 100 organisations in its first week).Agrofuels is the term coined to describe liquid fuels from biomass, which consists of crops and trees grown specifically for that purpose on a large-scale.

Policy adopted 2007.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/archive/news-archive/3160.html

Feeding Cars, Not People | George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/) (a mere 11 years ago)
Worse Than Fossil Fuel | George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/)
An Agricultural Crime Against Humanity | George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2007/11/06/an-agricultural-crime-against-humanity/)

BlasterBates
22nd June 2015, 12:33
They're not green then are they? Sign here (https://www.rainforest-rescue.org/petitions/908/eu-destroys-700-000-hectares-of-rainforest-for-biofuels):



Glad to see you're catching up with genuinely green thinking from the last decade.



Policy adopted 2007.

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/archive/news-archive/3160.html

Feeding Cars, Not People | George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2004/11/23/feeding-cars-not-people/) (a mere 11 years ago)
Worse Than Fossil Fuel | George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2005/12/06/worse-than-fossil-fuel/)
An Agricultural Crime Against Humanity | George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2007/11/06/an-agricultural-crime-against-humanity/)

Green policies are very similar to communist policies.

Communism doesn't work because it is fundamentally flawed, so too are green policies.

The only way European countries such as the UK or Germany can achieve their ambitious CO2 emission goals is through wholescale deforestation.

The only way you would stop this, is if environmentalists would push for fossil fuel rather than deforestation. But they don't. Do they march into the Amazon rain forest to stop it ? ...no they're too busy protesting against fossil fuels.

Until that happens watch the forests disappear.

DodgyAgent
22nd June 2015, 12:37
Green policies are very similar to communist policies.

Communism doesn't work because it is fundamentally flawed, so too are green policies.

The only way European countries such as the UK or Germany can achieve their ambitious CO2 emission goals is through wholescale deforestation.

The only way you would stop this, is if environmentalists would push for fossil fuel rather than deforestation. But they don't. Do they march into the Amazon rain forest to stop it ? ...no they're too busy protesting against fossil fuels.

Until that happens watch the forests disappear.

Indeed, the left have hijacked climate change as a means to exert collectivist policies and control on the rest of us.

BrilloPad
22nd June 2015, 12:48
Indeed, the left have hijacked climate change as a means to exert collectivist policies and control on the rest of us.

The right are no better. High house prices causing wage slaves for the young.

Scientists do the same thing.

I am starting to wonder if churches are the best of the bunch. Despite their many faults.

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 13:18
Until that happens watch the forests disappear.

Yes! We should burn more coal, oil and gas to hit our emissions targets. Got that.

Sorry to insert a few facts into the heated and hateful rhetoric, but here are a few:

1. The trend in contributions to CO2 emissions from deforestation have steadily reduced since the 1990s. 6,4 Gigatonnes (27% of the total) then, around 5.4 Gt (21%) in 2010. Why any nation would want to reverse this trend is mysterious, indeed for those who have signed up to REDD it would be disastrous.

2. The vast bulk of deforestation is logging for paper or to clear land for other crops, notably palm oil. A tiny fraction is for biofuels.

3. Environmentalists oppose and campaign against unsustainable forestry and 1st and 2nd generation biofuels, and have done so for some time.

DodgyAgent
22nd June 2015, 13:30
The right are no better. High house prices causing wage slaves for the young.

Scientists do the same thing.

I am starting to wonder if churches are the best of the bunch. Despite their many faults.

What has high house prices got to do with climate change? Or is it that another "implied" consequence of yours

BlasterBates
22nd June 2015, 13:31
A tiny fraction is for biofuels.



...oh yes tiny


Estimates are that the UK alone will burn pellets made from 82 million tonnes of wood, eight times the country’s total domestic wood production


Recent investigations revealed that pellet producers supplying European demand were rampantly escalating deforestation and biodiversity destruction. In the Southeast US, pellets are being sourced from rare Atlantic coastal wetland forests,

Wood Bioenergy: Green Land Grabs for Renewable Energy (http://globalforestcoalition.org/wood-bioenergy-green-land-grabs-for-renewable-energy/)

I think tiny is not the word I would use. I think the term "deforestation on a massive scale" would be more appropriate.

Most environmentalists are playing this down, as they prefer mass scale deforestation to burning fossil fuels.

BrilloPad
22nd June 2015, 14:01
Indeed, the left have hijacked climate change as a means to exert collectivist policies and control on the rest of us.


What has high house prices got to do with climate change? Or is it that another "implied" consequence of yours

Just pointing out its not just the left that "exert collectivist policies and control on the rest of us".

Since when has a CUK thread remained on track?

DodgyAgent
22nd June 2015, 14:27
Just pointing out its not just the left that "exert collectivist policies and control on the rest of us".

Since when has a CUK thread remained on track?

It is the left that do not like the concepts of individual freedom and responsibility

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 14:45
...oh yes tiny





Wood Bioenergy: Green Land Grabs for Renewable Energy (http://globalforestcoalition.org/wood-bioenergy-green-land-grabs-for-renewable-energy/)

I think tiny is not the word I would use. I think the term "deforestation on a massive scale" would be more appropriate.

Most environmentalists are playing this down, as they prefer mass scale deforestation to burning fossil fuels.

Well, its good to see concern about deforestation, which is bad news for any reason. But the fact remains that the forest lost for biofuels is a small fraction of the 50,000 square miles cleared annually.

And you simply made it up about environmentalists playing it down.

EternalOptimist
22nd June 2015, 14:53
Earth has entered sixth mass extinction, warn scientists - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11687091/Earth-has-entered-sixth-mass-extinction-warn-scientists.html)

Humans are responsible for so many species dying out that we are now in a sixth mass extinction, Stanford University has warned

Only solution is less humans. Maybe we could start with killing all the scientists who peddle these pseudo-religious obvious statements.

Paul Erlich ???

How anyone can take that eejit seriously is beyond me. here are some of his gems


'In the 1970s … hundreds of millions are going to starve to death' - Erlich 1968

'by the 1980s most of the world’s important resources would be depleted. 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980-1989 and that by 1999, the US population would decline to 22.6 million. The problems in the US would be relatively minor compared to those in the rest of the world' - Erlich 1968

'By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.' - Erlich 1971

'I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971, if ever.' - Erlich 1968

The Limits to Growth (1972) – projected the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and natural gas by 1993. It also stated that the world had only 33-49 years of aluminum resources left, which means we should run out sometime between 2005-2021

.....and there is lots, lots more


The guy is a typical Green. a malthusian

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 15:38
Paul Erlich ???

The guy is a typical Green. a malthusian

Quote-Mine and Copy-And-Paste FAIL. Erlich is not an author of Limits to Growth.

If you think an ad-hominem attack against one of six distinguished co-authors, now in his eighties largely based on a scenario-based book he wrote in his thirties is going to make the problem go away, you're taking optimism to delusional levels. If anything the study seems conservative.

https://woods.stanford.edu/news-events/news/mass-extinction-here

shaunbhoy
22nd June 2015, 15:45
so erasing mankind to preserve nature (even hypothetically as Morrissey means it) is a contradiction.

I think that erasing Morrissey would be a good start. Dreary Manc twunt!!!

:ladybags:

BlasterBates
22nd June 2015, 15:51
Quote-Mine and Copy-And-Paste FAIL. Erlich is not an author of Limits to Growth.

If you think an ad-hominem attack against one of six distinguished co-authors, now in his eighties largely based on a scenario-based book he wrote in his thirties is going to make the problem go away, you're taking optimism to delusional levels. If anything the study seems conservative.

https://woods.stanford.edu/news-events/news/mass-extinction-here

...and of course you don't indulge in personal attacks when you disagree with a scientist.

You just stick to the facts.

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 15:56
...and of course you don't indulge in personal attacks when you disagree with a scientist.

You just stick to the facts.

Most of the time, problem is, a lot of the time the 'scientists' cited by the inactivists tend to be

1. Aging, retired and disowned by their erstwhile colleagues.

2. Nuts

I'm thinking Easterbrook, Plimer, Nils-Axel Morner .....

But I always try to provide evidence of point 2, based on their loony claims ...

BlasterBates
22nd June 2015, 15:58
Most of the time, problem is, a lot of the time the 'scientists' cited by the inactivists tend to be

1. Aging, retired and disowned by their erstwhile colleagues.

2. Nuts

I'm thinking Easterbrook, Plimer, Nils-Axel Morner .....

But I always try to provide evidence of point 2, based on their loony claims ...


At least he wasn't a target of an investigation.

Climategate, need we say more?

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 16:07
At least he wasn't a target of an investigation.

Climategate, need we say more?

Well, I think perhaps you should, unless 'no smoke without fire' nod nod wink wink is the full extent of your argument?

DodgyAgent
22nd June 2015, 16:25
Quote-Mine and Copy-And-Paste FAIL. Erlich is not an author of Limits to Growth.

If you think an ad-hominem attack against one of six distinguished co-authors, now in his eighties largely based on a scenario-based book he wrote in his thirties is going to make the problem go away, you're taking optimism to delusional levels. If anything the study seems conservative.

https://woods.stanford.edu/news-events/news/mass-extinction-here

I think he borrowed the trick from you

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 16:28
At least he wasn't a target of an investigation.

Climategate, need we say more?

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html

DodgyAgent
22nd June 2015, 16:33
Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act | Climate Change | US EPA (http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html)

It also says this yet omits to mention that the climate always has changed and always will. The EPA is "spinning" facts and taking them out of context Climate change is real and it is happening now.

Your fanatical obsession to control and defend every facet of the argument about climate change reveals that you have an agenda that is nothing to do with the so called "problem" If it was then you would concede many of the contradictions to the argument. You do not which tells us more about you than it does about the "problem"

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 16:52
. (Usual paranoid blether and personal attack

The EPA, along with a handful of other enquiries found zero evidence of anything in the illegally obtained mails to bring the scientific work into doubt. Unlike the others it is subject to judicial review, so anyone who thinks differently can challenge the review. Nobody has.

I will concede, indeed welcome with open arms any compelling critique that means we do not face a potential crisis. I am afraid though that the musings of an unemployed software engineer who asserts that 'every gas molecule with more than two atoms is a greenhouse gas' doesn't quite make the cut.

What does the willingness to embrace a 9 month old nonsense essay on LinkedIn tell us about your approach to the problem I wonder?

BlasterBates
22nd June 2015, 17:22
Well, I think perhaps you should, unless 'no smoke without fire' nod nod wink wink is the full extent of your argument?

Happy to oblige and I'm pleased you asked as I think this can't be discussed enough:

IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit (http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/)

Deliberate misleading in all it's glory.

Fraud it may not be, but sloppy it certainly is, and worthy of an investigation.

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 18:35
Happy to oblige and I'm pleased you asked as I think this can't be discussed enough:

IPCC and the “Trick” « Climate Audit (http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/)

Deliberate misleading in all it's glory.

Fraud it may not be, but sloppy it certainly is, and worthy of an investigation.

That blog post from Steve McIntyre, master of the mountain from a molehill, contains no evidence of deliberate misleading.

So, six years ago the internal mail archive of the CRU was illegally plundered, published and subjected to endless hostile scrutiny, and as a consequence you want to discuss a dubious blog analysis of emails discussing a fairly arcane graph back in 1999 for a report that has long since been superseded. Seems a pretty small crumb, but let's give it a go. McIntrye artfully weaves together a few quotes to give the appearance of scientists conspiring to present a certain impression. But what's this?


even a cursory examination of the emails in question shows that the discussion was really about other aspects of the reconstruction, specifically obvious discrepancies between Briffa’s reconstruction and the other two under consideration over the major part of the reconstruction’s length. Thus, once again, McIntyre’s speculations are shown to be utterly without foundation.

Even worse, McIntyre left out intervening sentences within the actual proffered quotes in what appears to be an unsophisticated attempt to mislead.

Looks like even the little crumb just melted.

Full details of McIntyre's chicanery: McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics | Deep Climate (http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/)

See also : Steve McIntyre, down in the quote mine – Deltoid (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/11/steve-mcintyre-down-in-the-quo/)

BlasterBates
22nd June 2015, 18:49
That blog post from Steve McIntyre, master of the mountain from a molehill, contains no evidence of deliberate misleading.

So, six years ago the internal mail archive of the CRU was illegally plundered, published and subjected to endless hostile scrutiny, and as a consequence you want to discuss a dubious blog analysis of emails discussing a fairly arcane graph back in 1999 for a report that has long since been superseded. Seems a pretty small crumb, but let's give it a go. McIntrye artfully weaves together a few quotes to give the appearance of scientists conspiring to present a certain impression. But what's this?



Looks like even the little crumb just melted.

Full details of McIntyre's chicanery: McIntyre provides fodder for skeptics | Deep Climate (http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/)

See also : Steve McIntyre, down in the quote mine – Deltoid (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/11/steve-mcintyre-down-in-the-quo/)

are you sure ?

IPCC TAR and the hockey stick | Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/)


The IPCC process is clearly broken, and I don’t see anything in their recent policies that addresses the problems that Christy raises. The policy makers clearly wrought havoc in context of the AR5 WG3 report; however there is a more insidious problem particularly with the WG1 scientists in terms of conflict of interest and the IPCC Bureau in terms of stacking the deck to produce the results that they want.

Who is "Deep Climate" ?

Is he a scientist ?


For private and professional reasons, I prefer to remain anonymous to the general public, at least for now. hmm

Has he published anything ?

pjclarke
22nd June 2015, 21:56
are you sure ?

IPCC TAR and the hockey stick | Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/29/ipcc-tar-and-the-hockey-stick/)



Who is "Deep Climate" ?

Is he a scientist ?

hmm

Has he published anything ?

More ad hom. To address his arguments - do you deny that McIntrye rearranged and edited quotes to misrepresent the contents of the stolen mail? You don't need a doctorate to spot that, (although I see Dr Curry posts Christy's unsceptical reproduction of the 'argument' uncritically). DC's identity is not hard to discover but I'm going to respect his anonymity. He's just a blogger, far as I know, but he did point out, in another blog post, that McIntyre's claim to reproduce the HS by inputting red noise - a common denier meme - was based on some bizarre and unscientific cherry picking.

Replication and due diligence, Wegman style | Deep Climate (http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/)

EternalOptimist
23rd June 2015, 14:10
Make yourself useful pj. go and plant a tree or something

DodgyAgent
23rd June 2015, 14:29
The EPA, along with a handful of other enquiries found zero evidence of anything in the illegally obtained mails to bring the scientific work into doubt. Unlike the others it is subject to judicial review, so anyone who thinks differently can challenge the review. Nobody has.

I will concede, indeed welcome with open arms any compelling critique that means we do not face a potential crisis. I am afraid though that the musings of an unemployed software engineer who asserts that 'every gas molecule with more than two atoms is a greenhouse gas' doesn't quite make the cut.

What does the willingness to embrace a 9 month old nonsense essay on LinkedIn tell us about your approach to the problem I wonder?

All well and good so presumably you can explain therefore quite easily why he is wrong instead of smearing him personally. Or do you prefer your ad hominen technique that you so criticise everyone else for using?

BlasterBates
23rd June 2015, 14:40
http://http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-britain-must-be-ready-for-worst-droughts-in-modern-times-9746455.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-britain-must-be-ready-for-worst-droughts-in-modern-times-9746455.html)

Look forward to some dry weather predicted by the climate scientists.

BrilloPad
23rd June 2015, 14:44
http://http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-britain-must-be-ready-for-worst-droughts-in-modern-times-9746455.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-weather-britain-must-be-ready-for-worst-droughts-in-modern-times-9746455.html)

Look forward to some dry weather predicted by the climate scientists.

I remember 1976. Supposed to be a once in 50 year occurrence.

The solution is o move the population to an area with high rainfall. Starting with parliament. It needs about £10bn worth of work. Just move it to Manchester. It rains there every day....

pjclarke
23rd June 2015, 15:20
All well and good so presumably you can explain therefore quite easily why he is wrong instead of smearing him personally. Or do you prefer your ad hominen technique that you so criticise everyone else for using?

I already gave three examples: He claimed climatology 'ignores' water vapour in GHG calculations, false, I linked to the IPCC FAQ where it is discussed. He said CO2 readings are suspect because they are only taken in one location, a volcano, I gave a link explaining that CO2 is monitored worldwide, and he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable to anyone whose opened a chemistry textbook. There are many many more howlers but surely three is enough?

Then there's 'the smell test', anyone who can disprove over a hundred years of physics and chemistry and demonstrate that placing the planet in a radiative imbalance is not going to cause it to heat up will earn a Nobel, minimum, plus the undying gratitude of governments and the fossil fuel industry. This guy posted his essay on LinkedIn where it sank without trace, until you stumbled upon it ....

DodgyAgent
23rd June 2015, 15:42
I already gave three examples: He claimed climatology 'ignores' water vapour in GHG calculations, false, I linked to the IPCC FAQ where it is discussed. He said CO2 readings are suspect because they are only taken in one location, a volcano, I gave a link explaining that CO2 is monitored worldwide, and he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable to anyone whose opened a chemistry textbook. There are many many more howlers but surely three is enough?

Then there's 'the smell test', anyone who can disprove over a hundred years of physics and chemistry and demonstrate that placing the planet in a radiative imbalance is not going to cause it to heat up will earn a Nobel, minimum, plus the undying gratitude of governments and the fossil fuel industry. This guy posted his essay on LinkedIn where it sank without trace, until you stumbled upon it ....

For a start water vapour is consigned very much to the back of the alarmists debate as are so many other factors. Are you saying that a molecule consisting of more than one molecule does not absorb light/heat?.
I notice that your argument shifts the onus on "disproving" science rather than proving it which is why you people latch onto any extreme of climate behaviour and try to link it to the burning of fossil fuels. This guy may not be the worlds greatest scientist but he is playing you lot at your own game.

BlasterBates
23rd June 2015, 15:49
he asserts that any gas molecule with more than 2 atoms is a GHG is laughable

Perhaps you should open a chemistry textbook.

EternalOptimist
23rd June 2015, 16:02
Perhaps you should open a chemistry textbook.

Usually it's good form to let things slide, but pj laughing at this guy is execrable considering that only last week he had to be educated about 'dry steam'.

go and plant a tree pj.