rprt - no, you miss what I'm saying, I don't think that the driver is pressure from the drug companies - its the very essence of research to identify a problem and solve it, scientists naturally focus their work on problems rather than "not a problem" - its entirely paved in good intentions.
As for the global industrial complex - have you seen how much money is going to be made by a certain large steel company closing their factory in the UK, opening another one in india with the same CO2 output, and then selling all the european carbon credits that they were gifted for the Teeside Chorus factory on the open market?
As for backing organisations to rubbish the existing science - you have to apply the level playing field to organisations like Greenpeace, a clearly biased multi million pound global organisation, who's jobs depend entirely on the level of funding they can attract to tell us how we're all doomed - and how many other fake charities and research organisations? most of which get money from the climate change research budget - would the people at CRU have jobs if climate change was not 'the biggest threat facing humanity'?
Its not deliberate, its entirely paved with good intentions, but theres certainly a significant risk of bias creeping in! Don't forget, that anyone who doubts the science is told that the science is settled, theres an overwhelming consensus, look at the CRU emails, trying to rubbish and suppress papers and scientists that don't agree, and limit access to the raw data to people who are 'on message' - its a self licking ice cream cone, the science perpetuates itself - follow the money!
Interesting that your assertions in no way correspond to the graphs you post to support your arguments hainey. You state that man has only contributed 6GT (source please) and yet we are currently above the highest levels seen during recent natural cycles as recorded in ice cores.
[img] 
[/img]
follow the money!
We have an economy completely based on the exploitation of oil, gas and coal.
The money in the oil business dwarfs the money available in carbon credits and the like - and yet even the oil companies see the writing on the wall.
Look at oil company advertising - they are all telling us how green they are and that they are moving into renewables, whilst at the same time funding climate denial websites.
If they though there was a problem with the science they'd be funding genuine science to develop alternative explanations and running adverts telling us not to worry.
Ozone.. Acid rain...
We took action.. It got sorted! If we hadn't been told about the risks and possible worst case outcomes we wouldn't have done anything and the predictions may very well have turned out.
Interesting that your assertions in no way correspond to the graphs you post to support your arguments hainey.
He doesnt do science and hasnt responded in any way to any of the points put to him. Even the paper he lifted the graph from doesnt support his view, the mans deluded.
LOL.
You have already agreed with me that it is not possible to conclude that climate change is due to man, and yet you are still trying to argue it.
You asked to see natural cycles because apparently they didn't exist - i showed you them.
Please show me evidence of climate change due to man.
Oh you can't.
Are you really that arrogant?
If you read all my posts i have never said that is definitly down to natural cycles or that its definitly not due to man. I have said that there is no conclusion in either way and the original point with all this is that we are not tackling the main contributors instead we are attacked the easy targets. There is NO consistency (like with the majority of the computer models).
could you go back and address the points I raised from your somewhat shoddy interpretation of a few statistics you posted.
oh and by the way your used of "conclude" is wrong many people have concluded that climate change is man made, they just are not able to prove it.
I don't have time to read through, could you summarise your conflicting arguments for me please?
Many people have concluded the opposite too.
Round and round we go!
I tell you what i will help you out:
Many scientists have concluded that the current climate change is due to man
Many scientists have concluded that the current climate change is in keeping with natural cycles we have seen before
No one can prove it either way.
It REALLY is that simple.
erm ok, your wrong but ok.
So what does "natural" mean?
Many people have concluded the opposite too.
Hainey.. There are many many many times more qualified scientists 'concluding' that the weight of evidence points towards man made GW than there are actual qualified scientists 'concluding' the opposite.
There is no proof either way. There is however LOTS of evidence for MGW and considerably LESS against. That's why those that understand what they are talking about use carefully considered language like 'conclusion' and 'weight of evidence'.
Your 'opinion' however is entirely your own and not up for debate.
Why the hell am I still engaging you?
Duh!.. 🙂
hainey,
You haven't shown us how natural cycles explain [b]current [/b]CO2 levels and climate change.
You've shown us that there are natural cycles of warming and CO2 levels, but you gloss over the fact that they do NOT explain [b]current[/b] trends.
Its REALLY that simple.
There are many many many times more qualified scientists 'concluding' that the weight of evidence points towards man made GW than there are actual qualified scientists 'concluding' the opposite.
Wrong.
Where is your evidence for this?
What about those many many scientists who have been exposed for essentially tailoring their research to exagerate their findings? What are their incentives for this?
At the moment, in the current political climate, there is NO incentive for coming forward and saying that climate change is not due to man.
Your current trends are over what, a 150 year period? Its too short a time to reach any conclusion in comparison to 100,000 year periodic cycles.
its a conspiracy man.........
What does "natural" mean?
Its too short a time to reach any conclusion in comparison to 100,000 year periodic cycles.
Why, explain this to me?
Well, have you got evidence and data to back up that what we are seeing now hasn't happened before? How do you know that the CO2 levels over this incredibly short period of time in the grand scheme of things aren't just tiny little spikes? Are we at the top of the curve and over the next 50000 years about to head back down again.
I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying that you can't categorically say you are right and hence why we are going round and round in circles.
There are many many many times more qualified scientists 'concluding' that the weight of evidence points towards man made GW than there are actual qualified scientists 'concluding' the opposite.
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Consensus
Right!
You muppet! 🙂
can you explain what natural means and then what a natural cycle is?
Mark - wrong.
AA - read previous posts and graph.
I was trying to think of [relatively] modern instances of where the wider opinion of scientists have got something big wrong
I can only think of the long held belief that Pitdown man was the missing link
any others?
I am saying that you can't categorically say you are right and hence why we are going round and round in circles.
Ah the "perfection fallacy". One of my favourite logical fallacies that one. Nothing in science can be proven to that extent, it doesn't make it wrong. For example, Newtons laws of motion aren't 100% correct as they don't work for at very high velocities. Should we now stop using the laws that he discovered inspite of the fact that they describe the world we around us very very well?
Nothing in science is ever really 100% and will never be no matter how much you may wish it to be.
Hainey... I've given you a reference to my interpretation.. Can you supply one to support your opinion?
🙂
hainey,
Your posts are becoming more and more pointless. Any number of people on here are prepared to debate with you in a rational (non hysterical - as you keep accusing all and sundry of being) way, but you just don't engage do you?
One minute you say that natural cycles explain everything and that the data you trust comes from ice core samples. The next minute you say that the data might be all wrong. We really are back to the moon/cheese argument.
You have to decide what evidence you do trust.
I would be quite interested to know what would it take to convince you that there is a link between CO2 and climate change?
Just as a matter of interest, do you think there might be a link between smoking and lung-cancer?
I've read your previous posts and looked at your graphs (which were interpreted differently by those who drew then). At no point do you explain what natural means or describe what a natural cycle is.
Wikipedia? - Yes good accurate source! 😯
wikipedia? whats that got to do with anything?
Smoking and Lung Cancer - yes
Moon made of cheese - no
Well mark posted a link to Wikipedia
oh I see, well, the IPCC believe climate change is man made, every national scientific body that has made its position clear has agreed with it. Very few in comparison dont agree, that is fact.
Z11 very interesting posts, made me have a good think. Thanks.
[i]I don't have time to read through[/i] - Ignorance is bliss eh Hainey. Why read and think when you can demonstrate your ignorance so effectively with no effort at all. Wikipedia might be agood starting point for someone with concentration difficulties and limited time that needs a simply written synopsis. Have you noticed you're the only one with LOL after your posts?
Edukator - yawn.
I am sure you have all read this published by the Biogeography department at the University of London:
“Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something.
Smoking and Lung Cancer - yesMoon made of cheese - no
Right, me too. But what made you accept that one of these things is true and the other not, when we can't PROVE (in your terms) either of them?
Since you aren't ever going to produce references to support yourself I'll keep going..
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/opinion/27doran.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
Never mind wikipedia.. (but never the less scroll down the wiki article and start doing some actual reading of the hundreds of references to the data and articles that make up the context of the wikipedia entry).. this link above is just one.. But it is a shining example of how MGW deniers rank waaaaay higher up the league table of incompetent data analysers than any of the MGW supporters do. Crikey.. even oil companies accept the fact that MGW is the more likely reality.
Of course, the entire argument over natural/unnatural cycles, CO2 levels, unprecedented changes in temperature, graphs, diagrams, pie charts, scientific consensus etc. remains completely irrelevant if the data on which the calculations are founded is shite!
if the data is bollocks, then you're all arguing over angels on a pinhead, and I've not seen anyone challenge my assertions that the cheese you're all gobbling up may very well be tainted! 😀
Rightplace:
The money in the oil business dwarfs the money available in carbon credits and the like - and yet even the oil companies see the writing on the wall.Look at oil company advertising - they are all telling us how green they are and that they are moving into renewables...
And you think it would not be in oil companies interests to promote oil as a valuable resource thats running out? Seen the oil prices over the last couple of years? valuable resource, low supply, more economic engines, price per barrel goes up.
The answer to the first questions is Yes and the other question are posed in such a way that the only answer can be no Hainey.
Cut down tropical forest and you will reduce humidity. Predictable change in response to human intervention.
If you can think of a linear predictable change in any system good luck to you - I challenge you to think of one - you'll fail, even the steel spring in your fork has an elastic limit and failure point. However, lots of systems including climatic response are predictable, it's just that the system does not respond in a linear manner.
Engage your brain on the rare occasions you take the trouble to read stuff Hainey, it doesn't take a genius to sort the wheat from the chaff and the science from the pseudo science and propaganda.
Mark,
I still disagree, i can do a wikipedia search for climate change skeptics who list there issues with IPCC data. And this is just the ones who are willing to stand up and be counted and not have their research stripped away from them.
Z11
a) Yes, we have (challenged your assertions).
b) Even without historical data it is possible to look at how CO2 plays a part in the climate. If there was no historical data we would still have to try and account for current climate change.
ha ha ha, well done hainey Phill Stote or something cant remeber the name, he knows about as much about climate change as I do, which is pretty much **** all. He was a botanist, did some good stuff on chalk grassland. He has never published anything in a peer reviewd journal about climate change. And it wasnt published by Biogeography department at the University of London it was most likely in the Times. Hes an emeritus professor, do you know what that means?
Z11
Sorry, you edited while I was answering. Maybe best to wait 15 minutes between posts? 🙂
Anyway,
And you think it would not be in oil companies interests to promote oil as a valuable resource thats running out? Seen the oil prices over the last couple of years? valuable resource, low supply, more economic engines, price per barrel goes up.
I don't see Saudi Arabia (largest oil producing nation) promoting oil as a valuable scarce resource. Quite the opposite. In fact I don't see any oil companies promoting it that way - all of their current greenwashing is due to climate change arguments NOT peak-oil arguments.
as an aside do you know what biogeography is and how related it is to climate change?
