BBC News 24 - CO2 emissions a logical contradiction!
Discussion
BBC News 24 had an interesting debate (12.30pm Sat) discussing Iraq, Copenhagen, and Bankers bonuses.
The Copenhagen discussion takes a twist, it starts at 15.00 minutes on the video below...
"As it happens, CO2 emissions have increased over the last 10 years and the global temperature has dropped. I am not a scientist, but I did lecture in philosophy for years, and I know a logical contradiction when I see one! If CO2 emissions are the chief cause of global warming, then there would need to be a direct correlation, but there is an inverse correlation!
You want to wreck the economies of the advanced countries, and depress the economies of the poor countries, all in the name of a theory that doesn't hold up!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pgv8d/Date...
The Copenhagen discussion takes a twist, it starts at 15.00 minutes on the video below...
"As it happens, CO2 emissions have increased over the last 10 years and the global temperature has dropped. I am not a scientist, but I did lecture in philosophy for years, and I know a logical contradiction when I see one! If CO2 emissions are the chief cause of global warming, then there would need to be a direct correlation, but there is an inverse correlation!
You want to wreck the economies of the advanced countries, and depress the economies of the poor countries, all in the name of a theory that doesn't hold up!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pgv8d/Date...
deeps said:
BBC News 24 had an interesting debate (12.30pm Sat) discussing Iraq, Copenhagen, and Bankers bonuses.
"As it happens, CO2 emissions have increased over the last 10 years and the global temperature has dropped. I am not a scientist, but I did lecture in philosophy for years, and I know a logical contradiction when I see one! If CO2 emissions are the chief cause of global warming, then there would need to be a direct correlation, but there is an inverse correlation!
You want to wreck the economies of the advanced countries, and depress the economies of the poor countries, all in the name of a theory that doesn't hold up!"
Who'd have thought it ? surely not ? all the world's scientist's agree on this and it's settled. It must be, I saw it on telly. And Gordy's just pledged £1.5b of next years' borrowing to help all these poor little countries so that can't be right, can it ? nah, must be another flat earthist idiot. "As it happens, CO2 emissions have increased over the last 10 years and the global temperature has dropped. I am not a scientist, but I did lecture in philosophy for years, and I know a logical contradiction when I see one! If CO2 emissions are the chief cause of global warming, then there would need to be a direct correlation, but there is an inverse correlation!
You want to wreck the economies of the advanced countries, and depress the economies of the poor countries, all in the name of a theory that doesn't hold up!"
nice find, good quote.
AH, you see, you are missing the point.
Global Warming, as the name suggests, doens't mean that the planet has to get warmer... Or indeed any part of it getting warmer. You see, I hope that clears things up.
Oh, it can get cooler due to nature, but any warming is not due to nature no sir, that can't happen, nature can only cool............. Just in case you had any silly ideas.
Global Warming, as the name suggests, doens't mean that the planet has to get warmer... Or indeed any part of it getting warmer. You see, I hope that clears things up.
Oh, it can get cooler due to nature, but any warming is not due to nature no sir, that can't happen, nature can only cool............. Just in case you had any silly ideas.
deeps said:
BBC News 24 had an interesting debate (12.30pm Sat) discussing Iraq, Copenhagen, and Bankers bonuses.
The Copenhagen discussion takes a twist, it starts at 15.00 minutes on the video below...
"As it happens, CO2 emissions have increased over the last 10 years and the global temperature has dropped. I am not a scientist, but I did lecture in philosophy for years, and I know a logical contradiction when I see one! If CO2 emissions are the chief cause of global warming, then there would need to be a direct correlation, but there is an inverse correlation!
You want to wreck the economies of the advanced countries, and depress the economies of the poor countries, all in the name of a theory that doesn't hold up!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pgv8d/Date...
This is a sceptic canard that has been dealt with already on P&P more than once, short term trends are dominated by internal variability, principally ENSO, so if you look at a 10 year trend, pretty all you will see is ENSO. If you look at a trend long enough to cover a few ENSO cycles, you get an idea of the underlying trend. So there is no logical contradiction, just someone not bothering to look into the opposing side of the argument to see if the apparent "contradiction" has been resolved already. It has, for details, see the Easterling and Wehner paper that I have mentioned several times when this canard comes up:The Copenhagen discussion takes a twist, it starts at 15.00 minutes on the video below...
"As it happens, CO2 emissions have increased over the last 10 years and the global temperature has dropped. I am not a scientist, but I did lecture in philosophy for years, and I know a logical contradiction when I see one! If CO2 emissions are the chief cause of global warming, then there would need to be a direct correlation, but there is an inverse correlation!
You want to wreck the economies of the advanced countries, and depress the economies of the poor countries, all in the name of a theory that doesn't hold up!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pgv8d/Date...
Easterling and Wehner said:
Is the climate warming or cooling?
David R. Easterling
National Climatic Data Center, NOAA, Asheville, North Carolina, USA
Michael F. Wehner
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA
Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longerterm warming.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL037810...David R. Easterling
National Climatic Data Center, NOAA, Asheville, North Carolina, USA
Michael F. Wehner
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA
Numerous websites, blogs and articles in the media have claimed that the climate is no longer warming, and is now cooling. Here we show that periods of no trend or even cooling of the globally averaged surface air temperature are found in the last 34 years of the observed record, and in climate model simulations of the 20th and 21st century forced with increasing greenhouse gases. We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longerterm warming.
BTW, there is also the fact that eight of the ten warmest years of the UAH satelite dataset are all in the noughties, and the data for the last ten years is well within the expected value for the trend up to 1999, which suggests that there isn't much to this "global cooling" in the first place.
the dotted line is the continuation of the trend computed over 1979-1999, note the data after 1999 is pretty much what you would expect from looking at the data for 1979-1999.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-t...
Jasandjules said:
But let's face it, short term trends are in the thousands of years in the climate of the earth.
it is the sceptics that try to refute AGW based on a 10 year trend, so why do you apply that criticism to a trend that shows warming, but not an even shorter trend that shows cooling? ludo said:
Jasandjules said:
But let's face it, short term trends are in the thousands of years in the climate of the earth.
it is the sceptics that try to refute AGW based on a 10 year trend, so why do you apply that criticism to a trend that shows warming, but not an even shorter trend that shows cooling? If anything, the evidence in support of AGW has become weaker given the CRU leak, rather than stronger.
Ali G said:
ludo said:
Jasandjules said:
But let's face it, short term trends are in the thousands of years in the climate of the earth.
it is the sceptics that try to refute AGW based on a 10 year trend, so why do you apply that criticism to a trend that shows warming, but not an even shorter trend that shows cooling? Ali G said:
refute AGW bsed upon scientific principles - ie there is no supportable evidence of the CO2 released by man's burning of fossil fuels having any impact on the temperature of the planet. If evidence is forthcoming, and withstands scrutiny from the most vociferous opponents of AGW, then opinions may change.
As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.Ali G said:
Agree that a 10 year cooling period is no more relevant than the supposed recent period of warming - both are imho totally irrelevant in the scheme of things.
if the data are irrellevant then that is also a rather extreme position IMHO.The timescale thing is a curious game to play as manmade-up warming supporters are capable of cerry picking at olympic level, but the reality is that if you pick any timescale then there is clearly no...ah hang on manmade-up warming supporters are limited to about 150 years. Ah well that explainhs the lack of perspective. Everybody else isn't, so a wider view reveals a lot of pertinent information. Even so, focusing on those 150 years there is clearly no human signal visible in global climate data with established cause and effect to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Same thing for ice, salty sea water, windy weather, crispy polar bear steaks or anything else. As the information from Climategate spreads what can possibly be done to hide the decline...in manbearpig belief.
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
turbobloke said:
The timescale thing is a curious game to play as manmade-up warming supporters are capable of cerry picking at olympic level, but the reality is that if you pick any timescale then there is clearly no...ah hang on manmade-up warming supporters are limited to about 150 years. Ah well that explainhs the lack of perspective. Everybody else isn't, so a wider view reveals a lot of pertinent information. Even so, focusing on those 150 years there is clearly no human signal visible in global climate data with established cause and effect to anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Same thing for ice, salty sea water, windy weather, crispy polar bear steaks or anything else. As the information from Climategate spreads what can possibly be done to hide the decline...in manbearpig belief.
Indeed. Let's not forget other anecdotal evidence of fraud or the intent to lie? Have we asll forgtten about things such as the policy document, "Warm Words" ? One could probably say that the folk at UEA were merely implementing government policy, but surely not eh? 
If this fiasco has underlined one thing at all, it is that we are being lied to, and not just about climate change, people like to call is "spin", why don't they just call it by it's real name? Dishonesty.
rovermorris999 said:
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
It can be proven to a reasonable and open mind that man is responsible for the rise in CO2, and yet there are "vociferous opponents" of AGW who don't accept that (e.g. Essenhigh, s2art, turbobloke), so my point remains. There are plenty of "sceptics" that can't accept any part of the argument, whether it can be proven or not, so if someone will only accept AGW when the most vociferous opponents accept it, then that is a very extreme position.Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
If you don't think the causal link is established beyond reasonable doubt, then let me know where you think the problem lies and perhaps I can address it.
ludo said:
rovermorris999 said:
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
It can be proven to a reasonable and open mind that man is responsible for the rise in CO2, and yet there are "vociferous opponents" of AGW who don't accept that (e.g. Essenhigh, s2art, turbobloke), so my point remains. Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
Atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics "don't accept that".
All others do, such as my role misrepresented in your post, is indicate reality.
Others seem to be keen on having data to back up manbearpig, and on seeing established causality and this is entirely right. Not a good thing for manmade-up warming supporters as you/they cannot offer anything as there is nothing to offer.
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
rovermorris999 said:
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
It can be proven to a reasonable and open mind that man is responsible for the rise in CO2, and yet there are "vociferous opponents" of AGW who don't accept that (e.g. Essenhigh, s2art, turbobloke), so my point remains. Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
Atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics "don't accept that".
All others do, such as my role misrepresented in your post, is indicate reality.
Others seem to be keen on having data to back up manbearpig, and on seeing established causality and this is entirely right. Not a good thing for manmade-up warming supporters as you/they cannot offer anything as there is nothing to offer.
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
rovermorris999 said:
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
It can be proven to a reasonable and open mind that man is responsible for the rise in CO2, and yet there are "vociferous opponents" of AGW who don't accept that (e.g. Essenhigh, s2art, turbobloke), so my point remains. Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
Atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics "don't accept that".
All others do, such as my role misrepresented in your post, is indicate reality.
Others seem to be keen on having data to back up manbearpig, and on seeing established causality and this is entirely right. Not a good thing for manmade-up warming supporters as you/they cannot offer anything as there is nothing to offer.
As you haven't posted that elusive human signal yet, the one with unambiguous attribution, have you been out looking and found the missing sink?
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
rovermorris999 said:
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
It can be proven to a reasonable and open mind that man is responsible for the rise in CO2, and yet there are "vociferous opponents" of AGW who don't accept that (e.g. Essenhigh, s2art, turbobloke), so my point remains. Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
Atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics "don't accept that".
All others do, such as my role misrepresented in your post, is indicate reality.
Others seem to be keen on having data to back up manbearpig, and on seeing established causality and this is entirely right. Not a good thing for manmade-up warming supporters as you/they cannot offer anything as there is nothing to offer.
If the environment were a net source of CO2 then the annual rise would be greater than the level of anthropogenic emissions, that is indeed self-evident. The observations show this is not the case, and hence we know that the environment is not a net source of CO2 and therefore cannot be responsible for the rise.
turbobloke said:
Obfuscation, basically. It's not worth pointing out that even that hallowed tenet has had to yield since the arrival of Einstein's mass-energy relationship, and that over short-timescales (bearing in mind still the mass-energy relation) classical conservation laws are violated - but the irony is there to be seen as even that science wasn't settled
I think if several Gt of carbon dioxide were converted into energy via the E=MC^2 relationship, we might just have noticed!also classical conservation laws are not violated, as mass and energy are equivalent, conservation of mass/energy is not violated by the conversion of mass to energy and vice versa.
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
rovermorris999 said:
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
It can be proven to a reasonable and open mind that man is responsible for the rise in CO2, and yet there are "vociferous opponents" of AGW who don't accept that (e.g. Essenhigh, s2art, turbobloke), so my point remains. Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
Atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics "don't accept that".
All others do, such as my role misrepresented in your post, is indicate reality.
Others seem to be keen on having data to back up manbearpig, and on seeing established causality and this is entirely right. Not a good thing for manmade-up warming supporters as you/they cannot offer anything as there is nothing to offer.
The one you quoted says nothing about the processes causing a balance or imbalance nor how a position is established where it is. All it says is that whatever is coming from where and going to wherever the total before it came and after it went is the same. Wow. Not even good spin.
ludo said:
turbobloke said:
ludo said:
rovermorris999 said:
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
It can be proven to a reasonable and open mind that man is responsible for the rise in CO2, and yet there are "vociferous opponents" of AGW who don't accept that (e.g. Essenhigh, s2art, turbobloke), so my point remains. Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
Atmospheric data and basic kinetics and thermodynamics "don't accept that".
All others do, such as my role misrepresented in your post, is indicate reality.
Others seem to be keen on having data to back up manbearpig, and on seeing established causality and this is entirely right. Not a good thing for manmade-up warming supporters as you/they cannot offer anything as there is nothing to offer.
You keep making this simple mistake Ludo. I think it is some form of mental block.
ludo said:
rovermorris999 said:
''As I pointed out on another thread, there are many things known with some certainty where there are still vociferous opponents, e.g. those who don't believe that manned moon landings actually happened, or that HIV causes AIDS, or that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that asbestos is the same thing as talc. If you are going to refuse to accept that AGW is real while there are vociferous opponents that are not convinced, you are taking a rather extreme position IMHO.''
Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
It can be proven to a reasonable and open mind that man is responsible for the rise in CO2, and yet there are "vociferous opponents" of AGW who don't accept that (e.g. Essenhigh, s2art, turbobloke), so my point remains. There are plenty of "sceptics" that can't accept any part of the argument, whether it can be proven or not, so if someone will only accept AGW when the most vociferous opponents accept it, then that is a very extreme position.Except that all the above can be proven to a reasonable and open mind unlike man-made climate change.
Prove the causal link beyond reasonable doubt Ludo and I'll believe it.
If you don't think the causal link is established beyond reasonable doubt, then let me know where you think the problem lies and perhaps I can address it.
Remember everyone if you don't accept Ludo's proof then you are not reasonable and are close-minded.
Do you really expect to win people over with that kind of rhetoric?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff