PDA

View Full Version : Burn them! (but capture the Carbon, okay?)



DimPrawn
22nd February 2011, 09:31
Zoe Ball's father Johnny vilified for questioning global warming | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1359350/Zoe-Balls-father-Johnny-vilified-questioning-global-warming.html)

Cue sasguru and his Excel spreadsheet.

:rolleyes:

TimberWolf
22nd February 2011, 09:50
He should be excommunicated. Atheist too. I'll get the fire ready.

VectraMan
22nd February 2011, 09:52
It's a bit sad that you need to refer to Johnny Ball as "Zoe Ball's father Johnny".

Good article.

DimPrawn
22nd February 2011, 09:59
He's knocking up a chart using some "adjusted" data showing that comparing now to the coldest year in recent history makes it look warmer, even though it is freezing just about everywhere in the world.

Still, village idiot, cretin / moron types lap it up and put it in their latest spreadsheet.

:laugh

GreenLabel
22nd February 2011, 09:59
Where's the sockie PJClarke?

Surely he has to rebut this rebuttal?

Sas may have forgotten the password.

TykeMerc
22nd February 2011, 10:39
I've a lot of respect for Johnny Ball, his TV programmes were undoubtedly part of the reason I'm interested in physical science, can appreciate mathematics and trained as an engineer.

As it happens I agree with the views expressed in that article (despite it coming from the Wail) as I've yet to see evidence to convince me that AGW is real and remain firmly sceptical although open minded. His cost outlines are quite alarming and I agree with his sentiment about children being indoctrinated as I have 2 children in school and one at uni all of which were subjected to it. Fortunately they're bright enough to have thought about the issues and discussed them so they're firmly sceptical too.

BlasterBates
22nd February 2011, 11:04
I instinctively warmed to the almost Heath Robinson-like engineering behind those early attempts to harvest the energy of the wind and the waves, the tide and the sun.
But there was a big problem: Hard as I tried, I couldn’t make the sums add up. These devices either didn’t produce anything like enough energy, or the energy they produced was too expensive to be economically viable....

Sad isn't it....my view too and the view of most of the engineers in the electricity generation industry, where I used to work as an Engineer.

and now the National Parks are littered with useless Heath-Robinson contraptions.

Spacecadet
22nd February 2011, 11:13
Sad isn't it....my view too and the view of most of the engineers in the electricity generation industry, where I used to work as an Engineer.

and now the National Parks are littered with useless Heath-Robinson contraptions.

I'm sure there was something on Material World a few months ago about how the Scottish rivers are being ruined by hydro electric with the effect that some rivers are dry Monday-Friday and then turned back on for the tourists at the weekend.

VectraMan
22nd February 2011, 11:28
I'm sure there was something on Material World a few months ago about how the Scottish rivers are being ruined by hydro electric with the effect that some rivers are dry Monday-Friday and then turned back on for the tourists at the weekend.

It's always seemed to me that turning all the disused mills into small hydro electric plants was something of a no-brainer, as essentially the environmental damage has already been done. And there's an argument that it's preserving the heritage, even if it's not quite the original purpose.

The BBC had an article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12486420) about Scottish hydroelectrric yesterday. The problem is whenever you read about these schemes (as one mentioned in that article), they all sound impressive until you get to the bit that says "provide enough power for 200 homes". 200 homes barely seems worth the effort, and as that doesn't count businesses, schools, transport, etc., it's actually far less than the requirements for 200 families.

Spacecadet
22nd February 2011, 11:43
It's always seemed to me that turning all the disused mills into small hydro electric plants was something of a no-brainer, as essentially the environmental damage has already been done. And there's an argument that it's preserving the heritage, even if it's not quite the original purpose.

The BBC had an article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-12486420) about Scottish hydroelectrric yesterday. The problem is whenever you read about these schemes (as one mentioned in that article), they all sound impressive until you get to the bit that says "provide enough power for 200 homes". 200 homes barely seems worth the effort, and as that doesn't count businesses, schools, transport, etc., it's actually far less than the requirements for 200 families.

Found something with pictures:
Why is the River Garry Dead? (http://savethegarry.com/WhyistheGarrylikethis.htm)

DimPrawn
22nd February 2011, 11:48
Found something with pictures:
Why is the River Garry Dead? (http://savethegarry.com/WhyistheGarrylikethis.htm)

Okay, we destroy our rivers, kill the wildlife and ruin the landscape, but it is better than a burning inferno of global warming we have all seen with our own eyes!

BlasterBates
22nd February 2011, 11:55
We used to have urban areas and the countryside, where you could go for walks, enjoy the views. get the feeling that working in your dreary office is worth it so you can experience the outdoors. Thanks to the Green movement, the entire landscape is going to be industrialised. On a programme last night a commentator pointed out that for the Green party of a German state to achieve their aim of having 100% renewable energy, that 150 square miles would need to be covered in solar panels just to power one factory, for a few hours around midday. I wonder how much of the rain forest will be left once we're all using biofuels.

Doggy Styles
22nd February 2011, 11:55
For taking an intellectual stand, my name and reputation have been comprehensively trashed. And something very similar has happened to Dr David Bellamy.

In the past decade or so I’ve been mocked, vilified, besmirched — I’ve even been booed off a theatre stage. I’ve lost bookings, had talks cancelled and been the subject of a sinister internet campaign against me that only came to an end following the intervention of the police.

if you Googled my name, the second site that came up mysteriously redirected you to a site offering explicit pornographic pictures. Nothing to do with me, I hasten to add, and one call was enough to quickly rectify the problem, but I fear more damage had been done.

David Bellamy can’t get on television and I can’t even get a ten-minute meeting with the controller of Radio 4.Never mind whether AGW is real or not, this is how one side of the debate deals with those who question them.

They are only a couple of rungs down from religious fundamentalists and their 72 virgins.

DimPrawn
22nd February 2011, 11:56
The Carbon zealots are eco-terrorists.

d000hg
22nd February 2011, 12:37
I agree with his sentiment about children being indoctrinated as I have 2 children in school and one at uni all of which were subjected to it. Fortunately they're bright enough to have thought about the issues and discussed them I was able to reprogram them so they're firmly sceptical too.
:devil

dang65
22nd February 2011, 12:49
if you Googled my name, the second site that came up mysteriously redirected you to a site offering explicit pornographic pictures.
Uh, dude, your name is "Condom Testicle". I don't think it's that mysterious.

stillooking
22nd February 2011, 13:09
It's not Global Warming that should be the 'main issue' -

Population growth is the greatest threat to quality of life and the planet.

dang65
22nd February 2011, 13:12
Population growth is the greatest threat to quality of life and the planet.
Don't worry, Johnny Ball could solve that one easily. He just has to apply his name to the problem.

TimberWolf
22nd February 2011, 13:17
It's not Global Warming that should be the 'main issue' -

Population growth is the greatest threat to quality of life and the planet.

Shhh.


http://www.topsecretwriters.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/classified.gif

Doggy Styles
22nd February 2011, 14:29
It's not Global Warming that should be the 'main issue' -

Population growth is the greatest threat to quality of life and the planet.I've been saying that for years. That's two of us who understand it now.

DimPrawn
22nd February 2011, 14:35
I've been saying that for years. That's two of us who understand it now.

To make matters worse, most of them are here on this tiny island.

3million migrants came to UK under Labour in biggest population growth in 1,000 years | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359336/3million-migrants-came-UK-Labour-biggest-population-growth-1-000-years.html)

amcdonald
22nd February 2011, 14:44
David Bellamy can’t get on television and I can’t even get a ten-minute meeting with the controller of Radio 4.

You sure that wasn't Alan Partridge ?

amcdonald
22nd February 2011, 14:45
To make matters worse, most of them are here on this tiny island.

3million migrants came to UK under Labour in biggest population growth in 1,000 years | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359336/3million-migrants-came-UK-Labour-biggest-population-growth-1-000-years.html)

The Daily Wail headline generator strikes again :igmc:

TimberWolf
22nd February 2011, 15:18
To make matters worse, most of them are here on this tiny island.

3million migrants came to UK under Labour in biggest population growth in 1,000 years | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359336/3million-migrants-came-UK-Labour-biggest-population-growth-1-000-years.html)

I'd bet it was a lot more than 3 million.

BlasterBates
22nd February 2011, 15:39
Johnny Ball booed by atheists over climate change denial - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6825502/Johnny-Ball-booed-by-atheists-over-climate-change-denial.html)

EternalOptimist
22nd February 2011, 16:30
PJ, I read your links, but they were not peer reviewed, so I will ignore them till the next IPCC report comes out, at which point I will check up what it says in the 'Johnny Ball' paragraph




:rolleyes:

Spacecadet
22nd February 2011, 16:58
Johnny Ball booed by atheists over climate change denial - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6825502/Johnny-Ball-booed-by-atheists-over-climate-change-denial.html)

Surprised he wasn't tied to a chair and dunked in the nearest river

TimberWolf
22nd February 2011, 17:40
There's always Channel4 if he never works for the BBC again.

pjclarke
22nd February 2011, 19:25
Ah, the Telegraph :ohwell. 'Was, Is and Will be' full of it.

How the media works, Pt 94... Case Studies

So Fred Singer makes up some bogus numbers about glacier retreat, Bellamy then mangles them further them in a letter to New Scientist, and fails to bother correcting them. In the media he is of course the victim of McCarthyite blacklisting by AGW zealots....

Case Study II The 'persecution' of Johny Ball

Comment left at Deltoid ...


I was actually at the Godless show and Mr. Ball certainly was not booed off stage, or even booed with much enthusiasm. From where I sat I certainly couldn't hear any booing. What I did hear was stoney silence and nervous laughter which was as much about his off-colour humour as his anti-climate change ranting.

Storm in a tea cup, really, but the Tabloids [who] took off with the story obviously can't have been present at the time.

You'd think anyone searching the internet for 'Johnny Ball' would know to erm, filter the results but no, JB Googles himself and one of the links he comes up with is the site of a namesake pornstar. In the TES this is reported as


Mr Ball, father of TV and radio presenter Zoe, told The TES a website featuring pornographic images was posted online bearing his name,


James Delingpole (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100076821/how-the-green-lobby-smears-its-enemies/) rasies the ante, quoting the Daily Mail


In a sinister twist, websites have also been set up in his name which contain pornographic images.

and the lie picks up momentum as Brendan O'Neill (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100076870/the-persecution-of-johnny-ball-and-how-gross-intolerance-is-crushing-free-debate-on-climate-change/) 'knows' who did this vile thing:-


“extreme greens” have publicly ridiculed his views and even set up websites featuring him in photoshopped porno images.

Delingtool and O Neill have this much in common: they believe AGW is a hoax, they make stuff up, and the Telegraph publishes their fiction.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01130/opinion-graphics-2_1130720a.gif

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 08:17
PJ, newspapers are in business to sell papers. wise up





:rolleyes:

BlasterBates
23rd February 2011, 10:17
Professor Judith Curry, climatologist on the IPCC report:

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/)


Bad science and/or dishonesty?

There is no question that the diagrams and accompanying text in the IPCC TAR, AR4 and WMO 1999 are misleading. I was misled. Upon considering the material presented in these reports, it did not occur to me that recent paleo data was not consistent with the historical record. The one statement in AR4 (put in after McIntyre’s insistence as a reviewer) that mentions the divergence problem is weak tea.

It is obvious that there has been deletion of adverse data in figures shown IPCC AR3 and AR4, and the 1999 WMO document. Not only is this misleading, but it is dishonest (I agree with Muller on this one). The authors defend themselves by stating that there has been no attempt to hide the divergence problem in the literature, and that the relevant paper was referenced. I infer then that there is something in the IPCC process or the authors’ interpretation of the IPCC process (i.e. don’t dilute the message) that corrupted the scientists into deleting the adverse data in these diagrams.



In other words the IPCC report is full of misleading sh*t. Furthermore:


I would like to know what the heck Mann, Briffa, Jones et al. were thinking when they did this and why they did this, and how they can defend this, although the emails provide pretty strong clues. Does the IPCC regard this as acceptable? I sure don’t.


Good on for Johnny Ball taking on these dishonest charlatans.

...and in a nutshell, the "real" research question.


I view paleoclimate as a really important subject in the context of understanding climate change. I have no interest in warmest year or warmest decade; rather we need to understand the magnitude and characteristics and causes of natural climate variability over the current interglacial, particularly the last 2000 years. I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick. I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).

I don’t want to throw the baby away with the bath water here. But this whole issue is a big problem for the science and has been an enormous black eye for the credibility of the IPCC and climate science. I suspect that many denizens will be on board with my assessment and are very familiar with McIntyre’s analysis. I would be particularly interested in hearing from any defenders of these global paleotemperature analyses by Mann et al.

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 10:29
What happend was this. thermometer records only go back a short time, and the climate experts need to know whether the planet warmed up, and in which years. So they looked at old tree rings.
A big fat tree ring means healthy growth, which means warmer
a skinny little tree ring means it was cooler

so far so good. its known as a proxy i.e. it stands in for thermometer records in the time there were no thermometers.

but when the tree rings proxies were compared to thermometer readings, in recent times, they did not correlate at all.

Now most people would say 'hang on, this is a bad idea, its not much of a proxy'


but not the hockey stick dudes. They left the last bit off their graph, and thats whats getting peoples backs up


lets put it this way, if we ignored and hid test results that showed our new system had serious bugs, we would be sacked. and righly so




:rolleyes:

BlasterBates
23rd February 2011, 11:07
...and it wasn't just the modern warming it failed to show, which they argued was because trees grow differently due to the extra CO2 (after they'd been found out) :laugh , there was an unusually warm year in the 19th century which failed to show up in the proxy data as well.

Which means as a proxy tree rings are friggin useless.

DimPrawn
23rd February 2011, 11:11
Surely tree growth depends not only on temperature, but also sunlight levels, CO2 levels, levels of nutrients in the soil and rainfall?

Without knowing the other factors, you cannot tell how warm it was by looking at tree rings?

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 11:15
Of course there are lots of other proxies for various climate related analyses. corals, shells, microrganisms, gas bubbles in ice etc


but its the same as their models. there is no substitute for the real thing. please, dont pretend that there is


:rolleyes:

Pondlife
23rd February 2011, 12:41
Praise be!

I've seen the light!

Mein Fuhrer!

I can walk again!

Alms for an ex leper?

Spacecadet
23rd February 2011, 12:52
Last edited by pjclarke; Today at 12:35. Reason: dead links


The only reason I can think of for dead links is that your link reference library needs updating!

sasguru
23rd February 2011, 13:03
It is noticeable that the usual suspects are generally lacking in brainpower: DP, BB, EO, Zeitghost.
I don't expect any of them were near top of class.
All rather likeable ne-er-do-wells, but not bright enough to understand why they don't understand what they don't understand.
Meanwhile they prove to be useful idiots for the Zionist/Oil industry/Vested interests whose generally extremely well-funded propaganda is designed to maintain an interest in the Middle East/Oil industry.
Gor forbid that we stop using fossil fuels and find more maintainable energy sources: a lack of interest in Israel and the Middle East would follow as a logical consequence.

Where's the money coming from? Why aren't they as transparent as they claim climate scientists should be?
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation)

"We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."

Does this sort of stuff not ring a bell with the useful idiots? Apparently not.

HTH

DimPrawn
23rd February 2011, 13:07
It is noticeable that the usual suspects are generally lacking in brainpower: DP, BB, EO, Zeitghost.
I don't expect any of them were near top of class.
All rather likeable ne-er-do-wells, but not bright enough to understand why they don't understand what they don't understand.
Meanwhile they prove to be useful idiots for the Zionist/Oil industry/Vested interests whose generally extremely well-funded propaganda is designed to maintain an interest in the Middle East/Oil industry.
Gor forbid that we stop using fossil fuels and find more maintainable energy sources: a lack of interest in Israel and the Middle East would follow as a logical consequence.

Where's the money coming from? Why aren't they as transparent as they claim climate scientists should be?
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation)


HTH

I've got no problem with researching ways to use less energy, less dependence on imported oil, etc.

Just creating a pretend issue with CO2, false science, etc, idiotic IPCC predictions, manipulating data, spreading lies really gets my goat.

The government taxed the hell out of fuel and now tax the hell out of the smoke it produces. You couldn't make this tulip up.

:laugh

SueEllen
23rd February 2011, 13:36
It is noticeable that the usual suspects are generally lacking in brainpower: DP, BB, EO, Zeitghost.
I don't expect any of them were near top of class.
All rather likeable ne-er-do-wells, but not bright enough to understand why they don't understand what they don't understand.
Meanwhile they prove to be useful idiots for the Zionist/Oil industry/Vested interests whose generally extremely well-funded propaganda is designed to maintain an interest in the Middle East/Oil industry.
Gor forbid that we stop using fossil fuels and find more maintainable energy sources: a lack of interest in Israel and the Middle East would follow as a logical consequence.

Well it's better to have energy security, decreased pollution and in the case of open cast mining - stopping large scale destruction of the environment, as a goal then just climate change.

BTW When I've been to places like Turkey and Greece I thought having solar panels on the top of buildings to heat their hot water made sense but not because of climate change.

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 13:43
It is noticeable that the usual suspects are generally lacking in brainpower: DP, BB, EO, Zeitghost.
I don't expect any of them were near top of class.
All rather likeable ne-er-do-wells, but not bright enough to understand why they don't understand what they don't understand.
Meanwhile they prove to be useful idiots for the Zionist/Oil industry/Vested interests whose generally extremely well-funded propaganda is designed to maintain an interest in the Middle East/Oil industry.
Gor forbid that we stop using fossil fuels and find more maintainable energy sources: a lack of interest in Israel and the Middle East would follow as a logical consequence.

Where's the money coming from? Why aren't they as transparent as they claim climate scientists should be?
Global Warming Policy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation)

"We can now see that the campaign conducted by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."

Does this sort of stuff not ring a bell with the useful idiots? Apparently not.

HTH

I am interested in good health for me and my family as well. But if someone tried to sell me snake-oil and told me everyone in the street was buying it, doctors and scientists endorsed it, and even the great SasGoru swallowed it by the bucketful, he would still get my size nine proxy boot up his bum



:rolleyes:

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 13:44
The only reason I can think of for dead links is that your link reference library needs updating!

or the rebuttal site for newbies is down





:rolleyes:

sasguru
23rd February 2011, 14:14
Just creating a pretend issue with CO2, false science, etc, idiotic IPCC predictions, manipulating data, spreading lies really gets my goat.

:laugh

Scenario 1:

All the world's scientists, science academies and scientific societies have generated a conspiracy using false data that shows man-made C02 is raising the earth's temp.

Scenario 2:

The data indicates that man-made C02 is raising the earth's temp. This causes alarm in special interest groups who fear the consequences, particularly in Israel. So shadowy "foundations" with vast amounts of cash are set up to promote the opposite view.

If you think Scenario 1 is more likely than Scenario 2 you are indeed a useful idiot.

Doggy Styles
23rd February 2011, 14:23
Have AGW believers ever broached the issue of population growth?

Which negates all of their proposed per capita cuts in CO2 production?

After all, that particular hockey stick is actually established fact, no jiggery pokery required.

But I don't suppose there are any juicy grants in that line.

BlasterBates
23rd February 2011, 14:46
Life really is too short to try and dam the torrent of BS flowing along this thread, but here are a few facts:

>> Some tree ring proxies in some regions, all in the Northern Hemisphere, do diverge from instrumental temperatures since about 1960. This was known as the ‘divergence problem’ and of course the nefarious ‘Team’ did their absolute utmost to ensure nobody found out about it. They did this by er, publishing (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html) widely on the subject in the academic literature (http://www.wsl.ch/info/mitarbeitende//cherubin/download/D_ArrigoetalGlobPlanCh2008.pdf ) (as opposed to the Daily Mail.) and the IPCC reports, and of course only a select few elite and trusted scientists have access to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem) or the internet (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Tree-ring-proxies-divergence-problem.htm).

>> There are of course, other proxies, and here is the abstract from the most recent comprehensive reconstruction (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf+html), published in 2008



Tabloid Translation: we know about the problems, thanks, but the Hockey Stick lives with or without Tree Rings.

The latest research on the paleoclimate record and in particular the medieval warming period was presented at a conference in Lisbon last year amongst others by Phil Jones and Michael Mann.

According to Professor Judith Curry, a highly respected climate scientist, as far as I'm aware not a journalist at the Daily Mail, it was a heap of Bull Sh1t

Hiding the Decline | Climate Etc. (http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decline/#more-2485)


There was another Workshop in Lisbon this past year (Sept 2010), on the Medieval Warm Period. The abstracts for the presentations are found here. No surprises, many of the usual people doing the usual things.



and she laments:



I view paleoclimate as a really important subject in the context of understanding climate change. I have no interest in warmest year or warmest decade; rather we need to understand the magnitude and characteristics and causes of natural climate variability over the current interglacial, particularly the last 2000 years. I’m more interested in the handle than the blade of the hockey stick. I also view understanding regional climate variations as much more important than trying to use some statistical model to create global average anomalies (which I personally regard as pointless, given the sampling issue).

BlasterBates
23rd February 2011, 16:45
What they were saying in 1922:

1922: 'Extraordinary warmth in the Arctic during the last few years' -- Polar ice sheet to melt down? | Climate Depot (http://www.climatedepot.com/r/9897/1922-Extraordinary-warmth-in-the-Arctic-during-the-last-few-years--Polar-ice-sheet-to-melt-down)

sound familiar? :eyes

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 16:46
I think what curry means by sample size, is that location and numbers are equally important.

for example, putting the thermostat for your front room central heating in the garage would be a bad mistake, because the temperatures vary , even over a short distance.

It is statistical complexities like this that SasGoru has difficulties understanding, so I have designed this little model for him

garage (cold) <> living room (urban heat island)




:rolleyes:

pjclarke
23rd February 2011, 19:59
Bullsh1t? Actually, it is more that she is concerned about the overstatement of certainty in certain studies, which would be fair enough if she confined herself to an opinion, after all Professor Curry is indeed a distinguished climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. One would hope her opinion counted as an informed one. However climatology is a broad discipline and her specialist expertise is in atmospheric science and tropical storms. As she herself concedes at the start of the thread:


paleoproxies are outside the arena of my personal research expertise, and I find my eyes glaze over when I start reading about bristlecones, etc.

So it is interesting that she considers herself qualified to pass judgement on the work of people who have studied such matters as their life's work, and further to tacitly accuse them of dishonesty. She is on a bit of a one-woman crusade to build bridges between the 'sceptics' and mainstream science. Unfortunately she has taken some of the sceptics at face value and repeated some of their talking points without checking if they were well-founded, which if you are relying on Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) is only going to lead to trouble and indeed the good Professor has learned the hard way (http://climateprogress.org/2010/07/25/hockey-stick-real-climate-montford-judith-curry-tamino-gavin-schmid/) that not everything you read on the internet, or in the Bishop's uniquely 'inventive' book, is true.

Gavin Schmidt of NASA is unimpressed, to put it mildly, with this latest 'contribution' to the debate ....


You have gone significantly over the line with this post. Accusations of dishonesty are way beyond a difference of opinion on how a graph should be displayed.

If you thought that a single, smoothed graph of estimates of paleo-temperature told the whole story of paleo-climate reconstructions is far more a failing at your end than it is the authors involved. How can a single graph say everything that can possibly be said?

Summary graphs are by their very nature, summaries. The graphs you pick out were summaries of various estimates of what paleo-temperature estimates from the literature were. It is therefore not surprising that they show only the reconstructions where the authors had confidence that the reconstructions were actually of the temperatures. [...]

Problems with modern divergence – which only applies to the Briffa et al curve in any case – are issues to be dealt with in the technical literature, as they still are. Try actually reading the papers on the subject, and perhaps you would be less confused. Start with briffa et al (1998): Briffa et al (2001): or D’Arrigo et al (2007):

But if you think that the divergence problem makes Briffa et al (2001)’s reconstruction unreliable for whatever reason, go ahead and ignore it. It doesn’t affect Moberg et al, Ljundqvist 2010, Mann et al 2008 or Osborn and Briffa (2006). And it doesn’t make Briffa dishonest.

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 20:23
ok pj, we have all heard the negative stuff. Now say something positive about somebody


maybe, even, possibly say something positive about somebodies ideas




:rolleyes:

pjclarke
23rd February 2011, 21:19
Briefly, cos I am tired, and I empathise with Dawkins' history teacher (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece) , and nobody actually, y'know, gives a sh1t....

The full global warming solution: How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm (http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/10/the-full-global-warming-solution-how-the-world-can-stabilize-at-350-to-450-ppm/)

And in answer to the population growth question being addressed by environmentalists, George Monbiot points out (http://www.monbiot.com/2008/01/29/population-bombs/) that, in terms of environmental damage and pollution, economic growth (historically coupled with emissions rising), the holy grail of most politicians, is a lot worse than more (mostly poor) people.


if we accept the UN’s projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase to the rate of economic growth. Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3% a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3% means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by roughly 1600%. [...] So economic growth this century could be 32 times as big an environmental issue as population growth. And, if governments, banks and businesses have their way, it never stops. By 2115, the cumulative total rises to 3200%, by 2138 to 6400%. As resources are finite, this is of course impossible, but it is not hard to see that rising economic activity – not human numbers – is the immediate and overwhelming threat.

See also The Population Myth | George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/)

I will now be accused of being anti-progress and anti-prosperity.

Spacecadet
23rd February 2011, 21:26
ok pj, we have all heard the negative stuff. Now say something positive about somebody


maybe, even, possibly say something positive about somebodies ideas



Or how about a post relevant to contracting :tired

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 21:26
I will now be accused of being anti-progress and anti-prosperity.

just anti free-thinking

pj, if it was against the law to think for yourself, would there be enough evidence to convict you ?



:rolleyes:

EternalOptimist
23rd February 2011, 21:27
Or how about a post relevant to contracting :tired

he does actuall post in the taxy stuff. credit where its due

MarillionFan
23rd February 2011, 21:30
he does actuall post in the taxy stuff. credit where its due

He was talking to you cloth ears.:eyes

TimberWolf
23rd February 2011, 22:06
Briefly, cos I am tired, and I empathise with Dawkins' history teacher (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article6805656.ece) , and nobody actually, y'know, gives a sh1t....

The full global warming solution: How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm (http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/10/the-full-global-warming-solution-how-the-world-can-stabilize-at-350-to-450-ppm/)

And in answer to the population growth question being addressed by environmentalists, George Monbiot points out (http://www.monbiot.com/2008/01/29/population-bombs/) that, in terms of environmental damage and pollution, economic growth (historically coupled with emissions rising), the holy grail of most politicians, is a lot worse than more (mostly poor) people.



See also The Population Myth | George Monbiot (http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/)

I will now be accused of being anti-progress and anti-prosperity.

Exponential growth, which as as you say the holy grail of politicians, is doomed to a spectacular fail eventually. But quoting that author's figures and dismissing population (not just growth) as almost irrelevant next to economic growth doesn't do you credit IMO. For one thing he hasn't factored in the poor getting richer. China and India are on the ascendency and Africa may be next. Even if population were to peak in 2050 at 10 billion (I have my doubts), this adds about 1% [assuming a constant rate of growth for the sake of simple arithmetic, from 6 billion to 10 billion in 44 years) to your 3% growth figure. This also assumes that that 3% global growth applies equally to poorer nations, who seem to be growing at the fastest rate (albeit from a lower base).

And growth aside, even in a static population, having a child in the west has a far greater carbon footprint than any amount of swapping to low energy light bulbs.

Population is the real and only issue here. Rising CO2 levels is but one small symptom of this greater problem.

Doggy Styles
23rd February 2011, 22:25
And in answer to the population growth question being addressed by environmentalists, George Monbiot points out (http://www.monbiot.com/2008/01/29/population-bombs/) that, in terms of environmental damage and pollution, economic growth (historically coupled with emissions rising), the holy grail of most politicians, is a lot worse than more (mostly poor) people.If I was a cynic I'd say that conclusion is chosen as the one that best fits the argument of AGW believers.

'Poor' people in the third world cut down millions of acres of CO2-breathing trees every year, and burn a large chunk of them.

Oil-producing countries are full of 'poor' people.

The UK population has increased by nearly ten percent since 1997. Are AGW believers trying to tell us that they are mostly poor people whose extra energy use is insignificant?

TimberWolf
24th February 2011, 09:32
Just remember that booming populations can turn to bust.

Something will notice the resource.:smokin

50% of the population of Europe departed during the Black Death*.




Because the plague killed so many of the working population, wages rose and some historians have seen this as a turning point in European economic development.
Bubonic plague - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague)

Boomed.

Spacecadet
24th February 2011, 09:40
what the plague did was free peasants from bondage to the land.
Due to the massive lack of labour, the peasants could pretty much demand their own terms

Doggy Styles
24th February 2011, 10:36
what the plague did was free peasants from bondage to the land.
Due to the massive lack of labour, the peasants could pretty much demand their own termsIncluding free donkey jackets, because the world wasn't as warm as it is now.