Global warming is a scam......
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4066189.stm
Climate change 'is the norm'
Viewpoint
By Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London
Even as climate experts and politicians meet in Buenos Aires to mark the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, many sceptical scientists will still be arguing that the international consensus on "global warming" has got it wrong.
Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the current debate over global warming difficult to fathom. Climate changes - this is what it does.
To expect permanent stability in climate patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity and instability of weather.
If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.
Ice caps either advance or retreat, and thank goodness. Following the last Ice Age, the climate is warming, and sea-level is rising - but well within their historical ranges.
As environments alter, so fauna and flora either adapt or die out; nature is very unsentimental.
But for the now-infamous and discredited "hockey stick" temperature curve for the last millennium, used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to add body to the case for Kyoto, most observers would not have suspended belief over claims that today's weather is the "mostest" "on record".
Time dependent
This expression is simply a lie. We know from the geological (and archaeological) record that weather variations and extremes are the norm.
Such extremes occur gradually and rapidly, and obviously were not human-induced (anthropogenic). How then can they represent a threat greater than that of terrorism, as the UK's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, maintains, except to minds unwilling to accept the inevitability of planetary change?
The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy.
The real question then is not whether climate and sea level changes are occurring and are good or bad things; they have been occurring naturally for billions of years. Nor is the question whether these changes are actually taking place; a moot point at best, as there are conflicting data, but the question is utterly dependent on the time frame.
Rather, environmentalists ask whether climate change is anthropogenic, and if so, can it be stopped. I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change.
One would be better off asking the question whether volcanic eruptions alter the weather; there at least we can answer "yes".
The only proof of anthropogenic climate change ever offered, which to my mind is fallacious, is that temperature has increased with Western industrialisation; before industrialisation, the hockey stick would negate the Medieval Climate Optimum and Little Ice Age.
There is a closer correlation between this latest warming and universal suffrage. In science, temporal coincidence between events is no proof of a causal link.
Media 'scare'
So, as we enter the third millennium, we should preoccupy ourselves not with the silly question of whether at outrageous expense we could predictably influence the weather, least of all by focusing on just a single component. Instead, we should consider how to adapt ourselves to the inevitability of natural climate and sea-level change.
The issue thus framed would completely alter the capital expenditure question facing policy makers, away from tinkering with the emissions from the cleaner, industrialised nations (thereby delaying modelled anthropogenic global warming by little more than a decade), and towards more pragmatic solutions.
These might include the abandonment of sub-sea level lands condemned to flooding (including the Netherlands), shifting to Mediterranean crops in northern Europe, the re-cultivation of cold terrains (eg Greenland), and the aggressive reforestation as a microclimate control strategy to rehabilitate dry lands.
As for oil, it will almost certainly be too expensive to use as a mass energy source within 25 years.
Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.
It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don't all change our ways. However, believing in anthropogenic global warming is not enough, but that is all it can offer.
The author, Dr Martin Keeley, is Visiting Professor in Petroleum Geology, at University College London, UK.
Climate change 'is the norm'
Viewpoint
By Dr Martin Keeley
Geologist, and a Visiting Professor at University College London
Even as climate experts and politicians meet in Buenos Aires to mark the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol, many sceptical scientists will still be arguing that the international consensus on "global warming" has got it wrong.
Those of us who study the pre-human history of the Earth find the current debate over global warming difficult to fathom. Climate changes - this is what it does.
To expect permanent stability in climate patterns displays a fundamental lack of understanding of the complexity and instability of weather.
If the global climate were not getting warmer, it would be getting cooler; stasis is not an option.
Ice caps either advance or retreat, and thank goodness. Following the last Ice Age, the climate is warming, and sea-level is rising - but well within their historical ranges.
As environments alter, so fauna and flora either adapt or die out; nature is very unsentimental.
But for the now-infamous and discredited "hockey stick" temperature curve for the last millennium, used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to add body to the case for Kyoto, most observers would not have suspended belief over claims that today's weather is the "mostest" "on record".
Time dependent
This expression is simply a lie. We know from the geological (and archaeological) record that weather variations and extremes are the norm.
Such extremes occur gradually and rapidly, and obviously were not human-induced (anthropogenic). How then can they represent a threat greater than that of terrorism, as the UK's chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, maintains, except to minds unwilling to accept the inevitability of planetary change?
The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy.
The real question then is not whether climate and sea level changes are occurring and are good or bad things; they have been occurring naturally for billions of years. Nor is the question whether these changes are actually taking place; a moot point at best, as there are conflicting data, but the question is utterly dependent on the time frame.
Rather, environmentalists ask whether climate change is anthropogenic, and if so, can it be stopped. I have come across no rigorous proof that wasteful human pollution has caused any significant climate change.
One would be better off asking the question whether volcanic eruptions alter the weather; there at least we can answer "yes".
The only proof of anthropogenic climate change ever offered, which to my mind is fallacious, is that temperature has increased with Western industrialisation; before industrialisation, the hockey stick would negate the Medieval Climate Optimum and Little Ice Age.
There is a closer correlation between this latest warming and universal suffrage. In science, temporal coincidence between events is no proof of a causal link.
Media 'scare'
So, as we enter the third millennium, we should preoccupy ourselves not with the silly question of whether at outrageous expense we could predictably influence the weather, least of all by focusing on just a single component. Instead, we should consider how to adapt ourselves to the inevitability of natural climate and sea-level change.
The issue thus framed would completely alter the capital expenditure question facing policy makers, away from tinkering with the emissions from the cleaner, industrialised nations (thereby delaying modelled anthropogenic global warming by little more than a decade), and towards more pragmatic solutions.
These might include the abandonment of sub-sea level lands condemned to flooding (including the Netherlands), shifting to Mediterranean crops in northern Europe, the re-cultivation of cold terrains (eg Greenland), and the aggressive reforestation as a microclimate control strategy to rehabilitate dry lands.
As for oil, it will almost certainly be too expensive to use as a mass energy source within 25 years.
Global warming is indeed a scam, perpetrated by scientists with vested interests, but in need of crash courses in geology, logic and the philosophy of science.
It provides the media with a new scare story, which has been picked up by the focus groups and turned into the new religion, offering us hell if we don't all change our ways. However, believing in anthropogenic global warming is not enough, but that is all it can offer.
The author, Dr Martin Keeley, is Visiting Professor in Petroleum Geology, at University College London, UK.
I'd have to agree, that it definitely seems difficult to model the climate taking all things into account and proving correlations between manufacturing and climate change, vs. the odd eruption (which could be equivalent to several factories worth of pollution over maybe decades?).
The heat, carbon dioxide, warm water, and chemicals usually classified as pollutants, do alter the local environment. Acid rain is proven, smog above LA is real and human generated, etc. The question is how does our rate of producing CO2 and heat compare of the natural geophysical heat and CO2 generation, averaged out over the millenia? I think there will always be conflicting models.
The heat, carbon dioxide, warm water, and chemicals usually classified as pollutants, do alter the local environment. Acid rain is proven, smog above LA is real and human generated, etc. The question is how does our rate of producing CO2 and heat compare of the natural geophysical heat and CO2 generation, averaged out over the millenia? I think there will always be conflicting models.
Whilst many of Keeley's comments are completely sound it does worry me when apparently authorititive commentators can say something like:
"The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy."
If that isn't just a flippant comment or cheap shot, it shows a real ignorance of the modelling of non-linear, dynamic systems. This kind of silly comment undermines his credibility.
Predicting whether or not it will be raining next Wednesday in London is an entirely different problem from trying to model the impact of a change in CO2 level, or solar activity, or whatever factor, on the climate in the longterm. In terms of the latter type of model, we have no problem at all predicitng what next week's weather will be like, because we are "only" trying to determine the characteristic behaviour of the system, not specific behaviour at a precise point in time and space.
Also, no one in their right mind ever claimed that the climate was stable. Of course the climate changes over time. The question has always been about the rate at which change takes place.
"The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy."
If that isn't just a flippant comment or cheap shot, it shows a real ignorance of the modelling of non-linear, dynamic systems. This kind of silly comment undermines his credibility.
Predicting whether or not it will be raining next Wednesday in London is an entirely different problem from trying to model the impact of a change in CO2 level, or solar activity, or whatever factor, on the climate in the longterm. In terms of the latter type of model, we have no problem at all predicitng what next week's weather will be like, because we are "only" trying to determine the characteristic behaviour of the system, not specific behaviour at a precise point in time and space.
Also, no one in their right mind ever claimed that the climate was stable. Of course the climate changes over time. The question has always been about the rate at which change takes place.
Doesn't he mean weather prediction is simple, whilst the long term stuff is not, and we can't get the simple stuff right, so what hope is there for the complex stuff?
Makes sense to me.
Anyway, bin dun......
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=11&f=23&t=135062&h=0
Makes sense to me.
Anyway, bin dun......
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?p=11&f=23&t=135062&h=0
ATG said:
something like:
"The factors influencing climate and sea-level change are multiple and complex, whether slow or rapid. I still cannot comprehend how anyone can hope to model even present day phenomena, never mind into the future; we still cannot predict next week's weather with any accuracy."
If that isn't just a flippant comment or cheap shot, it shows a real ignorance of the modelling of non-linear, dynamic systems. This kind of silly comment undermines his credibility.
That seems a little biased. It is after all a statement of fact. Allbeit based on empiracal raw data rather than a computer model. As for silly, I really think that in the last 15 years sandalism has rather pushed the silliness envelope. When we have halfwits from the "University" of east anglia making statements like "Never mind the data the computer model tells us" it is clear that well funded idiots from la la land are being listened to rather than shut away in a safe place.
While I'd agree that the effects of industrialisation cannot be positive for air quality, but so far as warming and cooling in concerned, I think it's time we just admitted we can't play God with our own climate.
Deforestation is something I take issue with, though. Trees contribute massively to improved air quality, and the more we cut down, the less we'll have to breathe.
Deforestation is something I take issue with, though. Trees contribute massively to improved air quality, and the more we cut down, the less we'll have to breathe.
So, what is the 'hockey stick' graph showing?
I've done a quick search of the jolly old interweb, and each example of this 'curve' has no explanation of what is actually being shown.
It appears to show the yearly rate of change of temperature over the period 1000ad-2000ad. However, the implication drawn in the spiel alongside most interweb resident examples of the graph is that temperature has suddenly shot up, which is not the same thing at all.
Also, by applying an average line to the curve, it appears that the temperature has been falling by 0.2-0.25 of a degree every year from 1000ad to 1850ad. King Arthur must have had a fair old muck sweat on, if the temperature has dropped by 850years x 0.2degs = 170degs!!!
So, as someone who, before he failed his statistics A-level developed a healthy disrespect for stats in general and badly labelled graphs in particular, my reading of this graph is:
a. It doesn't show what people are told it shows,
b. The data may be correct, but it doesn't 'stack up', and
c. It's a pile of steaming sh
te! Can anyone give a reasonably unbiased description of just what, if anything, this widely quoted graph says about our past and present climate?
Cheers
Paul
If you need to know how the hockey stick was discredited, look at www.john-daly.com.
John was a prolific sceptic, but his site has stagnated following his sudden death last year.
John was a prolific sceptic, but his site has stagnated following his sudden death last year.
v8thunder said:
While I'd agree that the effects of industrialisation cannot be positive for air quality, but so far as warming and cooling in concerned, I think it's time we just admitted we can't play God with our own climate.
Deforestation is something I take issue with, though. Trees contribute massively to improved air quality, and the more we cut down, the less we'll have to breathe.
Absolutely, while Greenpeace hypes global warming one can't deny the fact that the 'lungs' of the planet are dissappearing faster than flashers. It's bloody irritating when an important issue that we all care about is stolen by lentilists, politicians and anyone else who feels it'll make a few bob or justify their position. You can draw a pretty good parallel with this and 'Safety Partnerships'
Apache said:In climate terms, the oceans are far more important than the forests. Deforestation is primarily about the type of tree being lost and the impact on ecosystems rather than the number or area, as the actual number of trees worldwide isn't decreasing like the greens claim. In fact nothing much (ozone depletion, acid rain, glacier retreat, severe weather, think-of-another-green-myth) is quite as the environ mental ists claim.
While I'd agree that the effects of industrialisation cannot be positive for air quality, but so far as warming and cooling in concerned, I think it's time we just admitted we can't play God with our own climate. Deforestation is something I take issue with, though. Trees contribute massively to improved air quality, and the more we cut down, the less we'll have to breathe.
Absolutely, while Greenpeace hypes global warming one can't deny the fact that the 'lungs' of the planet are dissappearing faster than flashers. It's bloody irritating when an important issue that we all care about is stolen by lentilists, politicians and anyone else who feels it'll make a few bob or justify their position. You can draw a pretty good parallel with this and 'Safety Partnerships'
>> Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 8th December 17:49
For anyone who is interested, link below points to a doc that I think gives a good summary of the state of play from a scientific perspective. This stuff is peer-reviewed. Whether it turns out to be right or wrong, it is at least honest.
www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
www.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html
v8thunder said:
While I'd agree that the effects of industrialisation cannot be positive for air quality, but so far as warming and cooling in concerned, I think it's time we just admitted we can't play God with our own climate.
Deforestation is something I take issue with, though. Trees contribute massively to improved air quality, and the more we cut down, the less we'll have to breathe.
The effects of industrialisation may not be quite what we humans like to think they are in macro terms, though in micro terms for local environements they can be quite objectionable.
But then, so can nature red in tooth and claw.
Acid rain is certainly not new or particularly recent. The term was coined by Dr. Angus Smith, an academic from Manchester, in the 1850's.
Deforestation is probably misrepresented, especially in relation to the Rain Forest and it is worth considering that the 'timeless' rain forest as presented probably did not exist 5 or 6ooo years ago. It only came about at its current locations because of climate change. What caused the climate to change remains speculative.
Like so many other subjects, many close to PH'ers hearts, the more people are allowed to broadcast their own views to supports their own agendas - the Lib Dems spokesthing on BBC radio this morning for example - the more the populace are likely to accept dogma as fact and truth.
In the currently industialised world, de-forestation was mainly completed several thousand years ago (at least in the UK it was and likely to be the same throughout what we now call Europe). Since then the world has experienced rather warm periods and rather cold periods each lasting somewhat longer than any data records of direct measurement currently available.
By all means consider the potential of influencing change in a scientific manner but don't make speculative and unprovable theories the basis for serious social policy decisions.
And let's not have any more BS anti-science about Carbon Dioxide being a pollutant. If you want plants to grow and increase productivity higher levels of CO2 are, generally, beneficial.
Of course few academics will find the time to write papers that are so unfashionable that the research required attracts no funding and the papers produced fail to find publishers.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff