[News] 'enjoy life while you can: in 20 years global warming will hit the fan'.

[Barham's tash]

If you really believe that garbage you’re fed on the Internet , you’re a moron.

I think I’ll use my training from my geology degree to decipher what is/isn’t garbage and interpret the data to come to my own conclusions thanks.

Stay classy....

 

[The Clamp]

I think I’ll use my training from my geology degree to decipher what is/isn’t garbage and interpret the data to come to my own conclusions thanks.

Stay classy....

Educated people can be fooled by conspiracy rhetoric too. You’re not immune.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Roughly during half- time of our Champions League Semi-Final home leg v Real Madrid, 18th April 2043.

Very short of sixty years.

 

[Barham's tash]

Educated people can be fooled by conspiracy rhetoric too. You’re not immune.

Data isn’t rhetoric though is it?

 

[The Clamp]

Data isn’t rhetoric though is it?

You haven’t offered up any data. Just the usual conspiracy nut gibberish about “knowing where to look”. NASA involvement, uncredited quotes, no sources, no hard data. Claiming to have degrees in the subject while blindly assuming nobody else has any qualifications in the subject, blindly assuming nobody else has done any research. Pffft. Heard it all before, matey and it all points to you being an absolute cock.
The rhetoric you use is directly from The Conspiracy Theorists Guidebook.
But anyway I don’t debate with conspiracy fruitcakes as it just fuels your fever. I thought we’d rid the board of such nonsense a few years back. Seems not.
Keep it crazy, Murdoch!

Wibble.

 

[Trufflehound]

It’s not a strange claim it’s a counter point. I’m not a non believer in climate change nor am I discounting the anthropogenic source of climate change I’m simply saying it’s possible we’ve been fed a specific version of the truth.

NASA for one it has been claimed, [then discredited and then re-claimed by other scientists ]has manipulated data to show exacerbated warming trends when in fact some locations show no net change in temp and some locations show a net reversal in temperature rises.

I’m merely pointing out that if you look closely enough there is still ambiguity over the data, and all I’m saying here is mankind may be spared its blushes for our causation of any warming by an even bigger force than us - the Sun. [space.com has a myriad of articles talking to this very situation with broad conclusion that a decline in solar influence would likely lead to regional but widespread cooling - such as that seen during the Maunder Minimum which was a period often referred to as the little ice age].

If you believe an inconvenient truth the Arctic was supposed to be ice free in the summer by now, it isn’t, and the Greenland ice cap would be gone with global sea levels having risen 20m as a result - they aren’t and it hasn’t and in fact the last two years specifically show a similar melt ratio closer to the 1980-2010 median [commonly used climatic data from which to compare] / lots of articles on http://nsidc.org/Greenland-today if you’re interested.

My only point was we should be wary of implying the statistical significance of our dataset as far as climate is concerned because we have such a paucity of raw data. The climate proxies available to us from ice cores etc are of course analogously useful but don’t necessarily tell us the whole picture - beware of media influenced hyper normalisation.

That's not ambiguity over the data, it's micromanaging the data by picking and choosing facts to suit your agenda.

Saying that the fact it's getting colder in a few places is a counter-argument to global warming is a bit like saying that the fact it gets colder when the sun goes down is also evidence of global cooling.

That's why serious climatologists talk in terms of global average temperatures when the discuss the warming. No one seriously thinks it's happening evenly everywhere you look.

 

[Barham's tash]

That's not ambiguity over the data, it's micromanaging the data by picking and choosing facts to suit your agenda.

Saying that the fact it's getting colder in a few places is a counter-argument to global warming is a bit like saying that the fact it gets colder when the sun goes down is also evidence of global cooling.

That's why serious climatologists talk in terms of global average temperatures when the discuss the warming. No one seriously thinks it's happening evenly everywhere you look.

I don’t have an agenda - let’s break this down.

Climate change in the form of warming is happening

We are the most likely cause

The global data average supports this in the medium term.

The influence of the sun/solar cycles is not well understood.

We’re entering a possible record breaking solar minimum and this might yet save us from ourselves because there are tentative links between solar minimums, regional climatic variations, possible enhanced volcanic activity and therefore potential for a positive climatic feedback mechanism of global cooling.

However that having been said it’s foolish to simply believe everything that gets mainstream media focus over the research material that doesn’t. Its science 1.01 to read as much published material as possible and come to your own conclusions or draft your own hypothesis on the basis of what came before.

In this age of being force fed things that suit a movement/agenda be wary that’s all I’ve ever said.

 

[Trufflehound]

I don’t have an agenda - let’s break this down.

Climate change in the form of warming is happening

We are the most likely cause

The global data average supports this in the medium term.

The influence of the sun/solar cycles is not well understood.

We’re entering a possible record breaking solar minimum and this might yet save us from ourselves because there are tentative links between solar minimums, regional climatic variations, possible enhanced volcanic activity and therefore potential for a positive climatic feedback mechanism of global cooling.

However that having been said it’s foolish to simply believe everything that gets mainstream media focus over the research material that doesn’t. Its science 1.01 to read as much published material as possible and come to your own conclusions or draft your own hypothesis on the basis of what came before.

In this age of being force fed things that suit a movement/agenda be wary that’s all I’ve ever said.

It's fine to be sceptical, but relying on a solar minimum to save us is clutching at straws a bit. Most peer-reviewed studies, as I'm sure you will agree, suggest that it will only have a limited effect on stemming the rising temperature trend. It might kick the endgame a decade or so down the road, but that'll be about it.

 

[blue-shifted]

Mate, I hope you're right. But the great majority of scientists, who also presumably don't have an agenda, think you're wrong.

I suppose the reason people are getting frustrated with you and the points you are making is that politicians and oil companies etc have been leaping on views of the tiny number who (have most likely to have been paid to) disagree so that we can maintain the status quo. The more who cast doubt on evidence, without sourcing or providing their own evidence, the easier it is for the vested interests not to act.

I don’t have an agenda - let’s break this down.

Climate change in the form of warming is happening

We are the most likely cause

The global data average supports this in the medium term.

The influence of the sun/solar cycles is not well understood.

We’re entering a possible record breaking solar minimum and this might yet save us from ourselves because there are tentative links between solar minimums, regional climatic variations, possible enhanced volcanic activity and therefore potential for a positive climatic feedback mechanism of global cooling.

However that having been said it’s foolish to simply believe everything that gets mainstream media focus over the research material that doesn’t. Its science 1.01 to read as much published material as possible and come to your own conclusions or draft your own hypothesis on the basis of what came before.

In this age of being force fed things that suit a movement/agenda be wary that’s all I’ve ever said.

 

[Machiavelli]

It’s not a strange claim it’s a counter point. I’m not a non believer in climate change nor am I discounting the anthropogenic source of climate change I’m simply saying it’s possible we’ve been fed a specific version of the truth.

NASA for one it has been claimed, [then discredited and then re-claimed by other scientists ]has manipulated data to show exacerbated warming trends when in fact some locations show no net change in temp and some locations show a net reversal in temperature rises.

I’m merely pointing out that if you look closely enough there is still ambiguity over the data, and all I’m saying here is mankind may be spared its blushes for our causation of any warming by an even bigger force than us - the Sun. [space.com has a myriad of articles talking to this very situation with broad conclusion that a decline in solar influence would likely lead to regional but widespread cooling - such as that seen during the Maunder Minimum which was a period often referred to as the little ice age].

If you believe an inconvenient truth the Arctic was supposed to be ice free in the summer by now, it isn’t, and the Greenland ice cap would be gone with global sea levels having risen 20m as a result - they aren’t and it hasn’t and in fact the last two years specifically show a similar melt ratio closer to the 1980-2010 median [commonly used climatic data from which to compare] / lots of articles on http://nsidc.org/Greenland-today if you’re interested.

My only point was we should be wary of implying the statistical significance of our dataset as far as climate is concerned because we have such a paucity of raw data. The climate proxies available to us from ice cores etc are of course analogously useful but don’t necessarily tell us the whole picture - beware of media influenced hyper normalisation.

You're dressing this all up in scientific garb, but you're right, I was wrong to state that you made a strange claim. You make strange claims in the plural, all inflected with a sense of intellectual superiority.
I don't think climate change is happening because I'm ripe for 'media influenced hyper normalisation'. I note who owns the vast majority of the media around the world, what messages they pump out, whose interests these serve, what effects they have, and so on. Most of the media in this country either ignore climate change, or think it's a topic ripe for a 'balanced' perspective involving a believer and a denier.
I think CC is happening because of the abundance of evidence marshalled by the IPCC, and think they're appropriately reflecting the methodology of the scientific community in the way in which they approach the topic.

 

[BBassic]

Well with that and the subsequent lack of space that has ruled out letting the wife in. You sometimes have to make hard decisions.

Heh, 'hard' decisions.

Heh heh heh heh

 

[Barham's tash]

It's fine to be sceptical, but relying on a solar minimum to save us is clutching at straws a bit. Most peer-reviewed studies, as I'm sure you will agree, suggest that it will only have a limited effect on stemming the rising temperature trend. It might kick the endgame a decade or so down the road, but that'll be about it.

If the solar minimum continues for another c59 years [primarily because our sun has moved into an area of the solar system devoid of fuel and therefore any likely increase to cyclical activity is likely to be much lower than normal] then it might be longer than a decade but I totally get your point here.

I guess I’m hypothesising that anything helps if it buys us time to change our selfish ways and invent new technologies to move us back towards a climatic equilibrium - unlikely I know but I like to think I’m an optimist!

Mate, I hope you're right. But the great majority of scientists, who also presumably don't have an agenda, think you're wrong.

I suppose the reason people are getting frustrated with you and the points you are making is that politicians and oil companies etc have been leaping on views of the tiny number who (have most likely to have been paid to) disagree so that we can maintain the status quo. The more who cast doubt on evidence, without sourcing or providing their own evidence, the easier it is for the vested interests not to act.

Isn’t that contradictory? If the mainstream media was in the hands of the lobbyists then it would be report after report saying nothing to see here, carry on as we are, it’s all a natural cyclical scenario etc rather than wall to wall global warming coverage that we do have?

And again to reiterate I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy, we are warming, and we have caused it.

 

[Barham's tash]

You're dressing this all up in scientific garb, but you're right, I was wrong to state that you made a strange claim. You make strange claims in the plural, all inflected with a sense of intellectual superiority.
I don't think climate change is happening because I'm ripe for 'media influenced hyper normalisation'. I note who owns the vast majority of the media around the world, what messages they pump out, whose interests these serve, what effects they have, and so on. Most of the media in this country either ignore climate change, or think it's a topic ripe for a 'balanced' perspective involving a believer and a denier.
I think CC is happening because of the abundance of evidence marshalled by the IPCC, and think they're appropriately reflecting the methodology of the scientific community in the way in which they approach the topic.

Again I wasn’t meaning to come across as superior intellectually just suggesting it’s worth being open to the possibility that we’ve been fed only one side of the argument and the other has been purposefully suppressed.

Yet again, we are warming and we have caused it but just maybe don’t believe all you hear on mainstream media. Shrug.

 

[blue-shifted]

It's only wall to wall coverage if you read the Guardian and watch free to air TV. There's not much reporting on this in the Murdoch press.

If the solar minimum continues for another c59 years [primarily because our sun has moved into an area of the solar system devoid of fuel and therefore any likely increase to cyclical activity is likely to be much lower than normal] then it might be longer than a decade but I totally get your point here.

I guess I’m hypothesising that anything helps if it buys us time to change our selfish ways and invent new technologies to move us back towards a climatic equilibrium - unlikely I know but I like to think I’m an optimist!



Isn’t that contradictory? If the mainstream media was in the hands of the lobbyists then it would be report after report saying nothing to see here, carry on as we are, it’s all a natural cyclical scenario etc rather than wall to wall global warming coverage that we do have?

And again to reiterate I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy, we are warming, and we have caused it.

 

[lasvegan]

https://youtu.be/7W33HRc1A6c

 

[beorhthelm]

It's fine to be sceptical, but relying on a solar minimum to save us is clutching at straws a bit. Most peer-reviewed studies, as I'm sure you will agree, suggest that it will only have a limited effect on stemming the rising temperature trend. It might kick the endgame a decade or so down the road, but that'll be about it.

the suggestion is the solar output is may have more affect on world temperatures than local emissions. early models and studies didnt include solar input or applied a simple constant, when its known to change. as the primary source of all energy in the atmosphere, it has more than a limited effect.

 

[The Clamp]

The solar cycle excuse for global warming is a crackpot theory adopted by climate change deniers and bonkers fundamental Christian groups.
To hope that a sun minimum can save us is ironically, lunacy. It’s an 11 year cycle for Christ’s sakes.

 

[Trufflehound]

the suggestion is the solar output is may have more affect on world temperatures than local emissions. early models and studies didnt include solar input or applied a simple constant, when its known to change. as the primary source of all energy in the atmosphere, it has more than a limited effect.

Presumably you are referring to the report earlier this year by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, that well-known climate change denying organisation with a political agenda that has links to and is likely funded by big oil?

OK.

 

[highflyer]

so we should give up worrying about it? build nuclear to save the world isnt going to sell well to the rest of the eco-brigade. heard the predictions 10, 15, 20 years ago, how many are accurate?

So far the predictions from 10, 15 years ago are proving terrifyingly accurate:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

 

[pb21]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the vast majority of climate change sceptics are are far more inclined to be right-wing/laissez-faire/libertarian more generally.