|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 11, 2009 17:33:09 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Feb 12, 2009 15:34:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 12, 2009 16:11:21 GMT
Holier than thou attitude from Theon then! Obviously Theon is entitled to say: without anyone questioning his qualifications and whether his implied seniority with respect to Hansen is as he states. And clearly, turning up once a year to review the work would indicate that he fell down on his own job if the result was that the manipulation and evasion could take place.  |
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 12, 2009 17:39:50 GMT
And clearly, turning up once a year to review the work would indicate that he fell down on his own job if the result was that the manipulation and evasion could take place. How often does Hansen show up to check on one of his thermometers? |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 12, 2009 18:38:46 GMT
They're not Hansen's thermometers.
The attacks against the man, as usual, are based on pure fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by ron on Feb 12, 2009 18:51:51 GMT
They're not his thermometers the way he wasn't Theon's subordinate.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Feb 12, 2009 18:56:16 GMT
They're not his thermometers the way he wasn't Theon's subordinate. As I said, it's a fantasy world imposed by others seeking to attack the man. It's obvious from Theon's own disclaimers in his words that he knows he is exagerating his role as Hansen's "superior". |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Feb 12, 2009 22:11:39 GMT
I had a recent chat to a Climate Scientist. Expertise in hydrology (floods, rain etc,) not the greenhouse effect. Supervisor of many research projects around the world. Like all climate scientists, brilliant in their specialty. And like most, they take the greenhouse effect for granted. None of them are physicists or chemists (which is the knowledge base for the GHE) and none of them are likely to be able to discuss it intelligently, as it is taken by faith. Of course this is normal in science. You tend to accept the work of others outside your own field.
While we didn't argue the GH effect as such (I value the friendship too much! ;D) I got the following information:
1. The real Climate Scientists believe the media over hypes Global warming.
2. They are too busy to correct the misconception, nor do they know how to. (They are not advocates.)
3. They are concerned with funding and getting the job done, which is usually some tiny area of research such as flood control in a particular catchment, risk, and means of controlling floods etc.
4. They "believe" in Global Warming/Climate change, but most would have a moderate view, not "Panic, we only have x years"
5. They are all passionate about what they do, which makes them easy fodder for any reporter looking for a story.
We should all be aware that the vast majority of climate scientists are doing good work, and are not really aware of the giant fraud imposed upon them. Their need for funding tends to lock them in to the prevailing view.
There is only a tiny handful of totally deranged scientists / advocates. There is an old term "Religious mania". Passionate belief can be very dangerous, both religious or political. And it can be spread by those with charisma and oratory - though when I look at pictures of Al Gore I shudder.
I think we need to encourage those we know who are close to this dangerous ideology. We know that arguing with them is a little pointless (as we see every day on this board). The more we can do to gently bring them to scientific objectivity the better.
How is the question! They tend to be brainwashed as in the worst of cults. Like folk in such groups, they are trained to give standard responses "this is how you answer objection A. etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 13, 2009 2:02:32 GMT
Unlike Climatologists - meteorological forecasters are validated daily if not more often and receive kudos or diatribes for their mistakes usually within hours of committing them. Their methods and forecasts are not dependant on the existance of climate change, they would operate fine as-is even if the Earth held a constant average temperature over millions of years without any climate change. They don't need to understand decadal influences of climate and so they are not automatic authorities on it. Climatologists (from current experience) NEVER admit to there being a mistake but merely move t0heir forecasts outside everyone's life-span and disparagingly call anything in between 'mere weather'. From current experience many meteorologists who speak out against AGW turn out to be as ignorant of the subject as a total layperson. Some even admit this up front. They have to go read up on such things as the greenhouse effect, atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases, etc. Some also make it clear they are getting their info from media articles they recently read. Well - meteorologists have a considerable success rate. If the IPCC reports and models are the acme of climatological science - I have yet to see a correct forecast from a climatologist. All that is said is that yes its outside the error bars now - but wait another 100 years (or just after your lifetime) and it will be correct. Any divergence from the climatological forecast is 'weather' - but wait another 100 years (or just after your lifetime) and it will be correct. Meteorologists spend a lot of time scoring their 'skill' level in their forecasts. There are validation groups specifically set up to do nothing but score the capabilities of weather forecasters and their systems. Climatologists get a pass on this as their validation test is 100 years from now (or just after your lifetime) and we are sure it will be correct. I have no problem with people doing research and modeling complex systems in attempts to understand them. I am involved in a lot of that myself: but its the use of unvalidated unverified research models that are acknowledged to be inaccurate and based on simplifying assumptions to provide decision support information to politicians without a suitable health warning that I find close to dishonest. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Feb 13, 2009 15:39:26 GMT
I had a recent chat to a Climate Scientist. 1. The real Climate Scientists believe the media over hypes Global warming. 2. They are too busy to correct the misconception, nor do they know how to. (They are not advocates.) 3. They are concerned with funding and getting the job done, which is usually some tiny area of research such as flood control in a particular catchment, risk, and means of controlling floods etc. 4. They "believe" in Global Warming/Climate change, but most would have a moderate view, not "Panic, we only have x years" 5. They are all passionate about what they do, which makes them easy fodder for any reporter looking for a story. I agree with 1 and 2. For 3 I do know some climate scientists at the front end with the same attitude about getting the job done (the funding bit they've secured long term). For 4, it's about getting the job done - eg. writing "My paper says that the lower level of warming will be 2C - AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE" doesn't tend to get through peer review. For 5, journos misunderstand everything (not just in climate science. Astronomy and particle physics are other obvious examples. If that were really the case, the prevailing view would get more extreme over time. These guys have been at it for over 20 years, and in that time they still haven't agreed on one disasterous scenario. Al Gore isn't a scientist. I'd agree that Hansen seems to be at the end of the spectrum given the language he uses. The climate scientists I've met are extremely mild-mannered. That's because objection A is one of "but CO2 is only .03%, but climate is always changing, but man is arrogant to think he can have an effect, but volcanoes put out more co2, but co2 was higher in the past and it was colder, but co2 lags warming, but Al Gore's film had an error, but co2 isn't even the strongest greenhouse effect, but co2 is saturated, but they said there was going to be an ice age, but scientists ignore UHI, but the discredited hockey stick has been discredited, but Marc Morano has brainwashed me to believe that the great climate scientist Alan Titchmarsh of BBC1's Gardener's World has disproved global warming because 'it was smoggy in the 60s and we didn't have 4x4s then'" Is that deranged enough for you  |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 13, 2009 23:30:21 GMT
This is truely the equivalent of soaking wheat seeds in ice water to condition them to cold weather and will have about the same consequences...... ie. millions dead....but isn't that the real goal for the warmingista's. Paul Ehrlich is proud. www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2009/2009-02-13-091.asp |
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 14, 2009 0:47:07 GMT
"That's because objection A is...'Al Gore's film had an error'..."
an error? HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 14, 2009 15:32:24 GMT
This is truely the equivalent of soaking wheat seeds in ice water to condition them to cold weather and will have about the same consequences...... ie. millions dead....but isn't that the real goal for the warmingista's. Paul Ehrlich is proud. www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2009/2009-02-13-091.asp we have a severe grand minimum - then people should remember the names of the founders of this 'Center for Biological Diversity' as people to sue. As the people in Kentucky found in the last month - freezing weather and no power is NOT pleasant. Of course the initial claims IF the weather gets colder will be that it is due to AGW and more power plants will be shut down. It would be really sensible to ensure that there is sufficient power before closing existing power generation systems. California already has rolling blackouts as it has insufficient power generation. Perhaps the best way to reduce energy consumption is to ban air-conditioning rather than close down power plants. |
|
|
|
Post by jorgekafkazar on Feb 14, 2009 23:01:02 GMT
[vertrimmt]Perhaps the best way to reduce energy consumption is to ban air-conditioning rather than close down power plants. Jawohl! JK. Sounds good to me, but I don't live in Aguanga. (Actually, there's a program out here now that lets Big Brother Electric Co. remotely shut down your air conditioner if they start to have a brown-out. It's pretty nifty, from the point of view of someone who doesn't own an A/C. Eventually, air conditioners may only work here between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m.) |
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Feb 15, 2009 14:25:10 GMT
Will someone give this man rabies shots!!
James Hansen in the UK Observer
"A year ago, I wrote to Gordon Brown asking him to place a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in Britain. I have asked the same of Angela Merkel, Barack Obama, Kevin Rudd and other leaders. The reason is this - coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.The climate is nearing tipping points.
Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades. As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting. As the tundra melts, methane, a strong greenhouse gas, is released, causing more warming. As species are exterminated by shifting climate zones, ecosystems can collapse, destroying more species.
The public, buffeted by weather fluctuations and economic turmoil, has little time to analyse decadal changes. How can people be expected to evaluate and filter out advice emanating from those pushing special interests? How can people distinguish between top-notch science and pseudo-science?Those who lead us have no excuse - they are elected to guide, to protect the public and its best interests. They have at their disposal the best scientific organisations in the world, such as the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences. Only in the past few years did the science crystallise, revealing the urgency.
Our planet is in peril. If we do not change course, we'll hand our children a situation that is out of their control. One ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks.The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has already risen to a dangerous level. The pre-industrial carbon dioxide amount was 280 parts per million (ppm). Humans, by burning coal, oil and gas, have increased this to 385 ppm; it continues to grow by about 2 ppm per year. Earth, with its four-kilometre-deep oceans, responds only slowly to changes of carbon dioxide.
So the climate will continue to change, even if we make maximum effort to slow the growth of carbon dioxide. Arctic sea ice will melt away in the summer season within the next few decades. Mountain glaciers, providing fresh water for rivers that supply hundreds of millions of people, will disappear - practically all of the glaciers could be gone within 50 years - if carbon dioxide continues to increase at current rates. Coral reefs, harbouring a quarter of ocean species, are threatened.The greatest danger hanging over our children and grandchildren is initiation of changes that will be irreversible on any time scale that humans can imagine. If coastal ice shelves buttressing the west Antarctic ice sheet continue to disintegrate, the sheet could disgorge into the ocean, raising sea levels by several metres in a century. Such rates of sea level change have occurred many times in Earth's history in response to global warming rates no higher than those of the past 30 years. Almost half of the world's great cities are located on coastlines.The most threatening change, from my perspective, is extermination of species. Several times in Earth's history, rapid global warming occurred, apparently spurred by amplifying feedbacks.
In each case, more than half of plant and animal species became extinct. New species came into being over tens and hundreds of thousands of years. But these are time scales and generations that we cannot imagine. If we drive our fellow species to extinction, we will leave a far more desolate planet for our descendants than the world we inherited from our elders. Clearly, if we burn all fossil fuels, we will destroy the planet we know. Carbon dioxide would increase to 500 ppm or more. We would set the planet on a course to the ice-free state, with sea level 75 metres higher. Climatic disasters would occur continually. The tragedy of the situation, if we do not wake up in time, is that the changes that must be made to stabilise the atmosphere and climate make sense for other reasons. They would produce a healthier atmosphere, improved agricultural productivity, clean water and an ocean providing fish that are safe to eat.Fossil-fuel reservoirs will dictate the actions needed to solve the problem. Oil, of which half the readily accessible reserves have already been burnt, is used in vehicles, so it's impractical to capture the carbon dioxide. This is likely to drive carbon dioxide levels to at least 400 ppm. But if we cut off the largest source of carbon dioxide - coal - it will be practical to bring carbon dioxide back to 350 ppm, lower still if we improve agricultural and forestry practices, increasing carbon storage in trees and soil.
Coal is not only the largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide, it is the dirtiest fuel. Coal is polluting the world's oceans and streams with mercury, arsenic and other dangerous chemicals. The dirtiest trick that governments play on their citizens is the pretence that they are working on "clean coal" or that they will build power plants that are "capture-ready" in case technology is ever developed to capture all pollutants.The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species - its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.The German and Australian governments pretend to be green. When I show German officials the evidence that the coal source must be cut off, they say they will tighten the "carbon cap". But a cap only slows the use of a fuel - it does not leave it in the ground. When I point out that their new coal plants require that they convince Russia to leave its oil in the ground, they are silent. The Australian government was elected on a platform of solving the climate problem, but then, with the help of industry, it set emission targets so high as to guarantee untold disasters for the young, let alone the unborn.
These governments are not green. They are black - coal black.The three countries most responsible, per capita, for filling the air with carbon dioxide from fossil fuels are the UK, the US and Germany, in that order. Politicians here have asked me why am I speaking to them. Surely the US must lead? But coal interests have great power in the US; the essential moratorium and phase-out of coal requires a growing public demand and a political will yet to be demonstrated.The Prime Minister should not underestimate his potential to transform the situation. And he must not pretend to be ignorant of the consequences of continuing to burn coal or take refuge in a "carbon cap" or some "target" for future emission reductions. My message to Gordon Brown is that young people are beginning to understand the situation. They want to know: will you join their side? Remember that history, and your children, will judge you."
|
|
