[Closed] 'No such thing as climate change'

Do you know what is meant by "long term trend" IRC?

Deniers also need to look up the difference between energy and temperature. It gets pointed out to them over and over again in these threads yet it's ignored. Funny how deniers do a lot of ignoring.

There is a few deniers on this thread. Denying the pause/halt in global warming over the last 15 years. Even the MET Office say it has happened.

Why not take a look at the graph I just posted? Why have you arbitrarily picked the last 15 years as being a significant period I wonder?

Show me anyone who has used the term pause in relation to anything except temperature?

Long term trend? Well the long term trend since the 19th century is about 0.8C If that trend continues global warming isn't a problem.

The last 15 years have been a pause that the models didn't predict. How much longer has it got to go on before the models are wrong?

Why not take a look at the graph I just posted? Why have you arbitrarily picked the last 15 years as being a significant period I wonder?

The MET Office thought it was significant enough to discuss.

Long term trend? Well the long term trend since the 19th century is about 0.8C If that trend continues global warming isn't a problem.

Only if it's a linear function, which it isn't.

The MET Office thought it was significant enough to discuss.

Yes and note that they also say that it doesn't effect long term trends.

irc - you do realise that all these 'arguments' you're making have been thoroughly debunked many many times?

What makes you think you know better than the vast majority of the world's scientists?

Here you go IRC. Knock yourself out. Written by a - woo - climate scientist, as opposed to blokes on a mountain biking forum.

[url= http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/ ]http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998/[/url]

irc - you do realise that all these 'arguments' you're making have been thoroughly debunked many many times?

What makes you think you know better than the vast majority of the world's scientists?

[img] [/img]

The last 15 years have been a pause that the models didn't predict. How much longer has it got to go on before the models are wrong?

Are the models aiming to predict variations on such a fine scale? I doubt it. Wait 50 years see how well they match.

irc - Member

Long term trend? Well the long term trend since the 19th century is about 0.8C If that trend continues global warming isn't a problem.

er... it'll be a massive problem.

The last 15 years have been a pause

see my last post.

Tom_W1987 - Member
Medicine isn't physics, they don't have phase I through to III trials and never will. They develop models and then try to match it to observable reality, so far these models have been pretty accurate.

Obviously not, and no they haven't. 🙄

Unless of course you are suggesting that we wait 100 years to check to see if our models are correct before we make a decision, which of course would be completely **** idiotic.

Did I say that? No, I said exactly the opposite. Act now, but be prepared to revise opinion.

Seriously hope you're not a doctor, or worse a biologist. I could deal with a doctor having a low intellect....

Hey everyone! There's a badass over here! 🙄 Twit.

I assume you mean MMGW as opposed to climate change,

Seeing as I wrote "climate change, primarily caused by [b][u]anthropogenic activity[/u][/b], that's exactly what I meant. Do try to keep up at the back...

The problem with discussing complex things like climate change with people like irc is that there is no way deniers have the will (or even capacity) to change their stance. Consequently, when the discussion ends, they'll still think they won and are correct because their own position was unchanged

I suppose you could say that about those who agree that humans are changing the climate, but the difference is that all the data is on their side, whereas irc demonstrates a trait of wilful ignorance by cherry-picking one year.

And bigndaft, ask who benefits as much as you like. I answered quite clearly on my earlier post. It's not m fault you failed to read it.

I arrived at a position of agreeing with the scientific consensus on climate change by reading peer reviewed scientific papers and a broad range of the reputable press.

It was notable while at university that my engineering professors also agreed with the scientific consensus. I noticed this because I went to university partly to become part of the solution, working as an engineer in the hydro-electric industry.

I may sound self righteous and smug, but there you go!

I do believe people who deny ACG are up there with flat earthers and creationists.

picking a single year as the benchmark for measuring any climate change shows a pathetic level of understanding.

I didn't, I asked for an answer to the question

the data shown in the graph shows an anomaly year and a step change rise in the mean level that the "cyclic" variation then moves around but there is a plateau in the rise

what is interesting is why this could be happening, is it CO2 related or other factors.

Hence the question

Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted. And there has been no statistically significant rise in the surface temperature. Does that increase, decrease or leave unchanged your confidence that the scale of warming will be as high as previously thought?”

is actually a reasonable one and one that any curious person would want to ask, but as pointed out in the sketch the argument is so polarised that to ask the question is to become a "denier"/ heretic

Peter Lilley may get paid by the oil men, Tim Yeo gets paid by the renewables industry "cui bono" still applies

and the witness did not answer the question nor accept that there has been a "pause"

Have the concentrations of co2 in the atmosphere home up by a third since that time?

Why should I believe what some politician says anyway? The same Peter Lilley who gets paid £70,000 a year by the oil industry? Where's his evidence for this?

epa graph here (to 2008) [img] [/img]

Why are you asking us complex modelling questions and not the climatologists? You afraid of the answer?

so as STW is always the font of all knowledge I opened it out to the forum 😉

Obviously not, and no they haven't.

Errr....errrrrrrrrrr.......*looks at feet shiftily*

Oh I'm sorry, what's this....a paper in the esteemed journal Nature that does exactly that... well this can't be on....you said they hadn't.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1788.html

Lilley's question is pretty loaded*. Any reasonable person can see that. His background leads that reasonable person to infer that he's actually just making a point with the question. If he has a point to make, then let him make it with rationale and peer reviewed articles to back himself up. He can do that can't he?

Oh...

I'd suggest he can go on the list of folk who struggle with the difference between temperature and energy. Every thread throws up a few more.

*as is, say, usage of words like "devout" by deniers.

how many Chinese coal/gas fired power stations have been commissioned since 1997?

Typical response. Constantly snipe never answer.

Peter Lilley asked: “Since 1997, the amount of CO2 emitted by mankind is a third of all CO2 that mankind has emitted.”

Again - you claimed it, you must back it up. Where's your evidence? For all I know you and your mate Lilley may be right. Or may be wrong. I'm willing to change my mind based on evidence. Where is it?

I have found, since we're doing unsubstantiated graph stuff, the real reason for global warming...

[img] [/img]

*as is, say, usage of words like "devout" by deniers.

I'm not a denier, I just think there is a reasonable question being posed. If the climate scientists can't answer it that's one thing. If they won't it's something else. So which one is it?

as an aside:
I was looking at some old local pictures in one of those photo books you get for towns. It showed the 1940 winter when they got 6' of snow. Then it was weather, now it would be climate change.

I'm not a denier, I just think there is a reasonable question being posed. If the climate scientists can't answer it that's one thing. If they won't it's something else. So which one is it?

I'm not racist but....

I was looking at some old local pictures in one of those photo books you get for towns. It showed the 1940 winter when they got 6' of snow. Then it was weather, now it would be climate change.

Get angry with the media.

EDIT: as is usage of the word "devout" [s]by deniers[/s].

Happy?

as an [s]aside[/s] irrelevance

Who knew anything about this shit in 1940?

BignDaft:

Who benefits?

[img] http://prepgenie.com.au/gamsat/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jp g" target="_blank">http://prepgenie.com.au/gamsat/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/What-If-Its-A-Hoax.jp g"/> [/img]

That do it for you, or is it too difficult to read with your head in the sand?

Typical response. Constantly snipe never answer

Again - you claimed it, you must back it up.

Where's your evidence? For all I know you and your mate Lilley may be right. Or may be wrong. I'm willing to change my mind based on evidence.

Where is it?

That do it for you, or is it too difficult to read with your head in the sand?

big n daft - do you think that we, as humans, should clean up our act a bit and stop making such a mess of the place?

big n daft - do you think that we, as humans, should clean up our act a bit and stop making such a mess of the place?

Because if so, we might finally be getting towards the obvious answer to your own question on who benefits.

As an aside I see a lot of similarity in tactics between the deniers of climate change and the anti-vaccination crowd.

Debate on Newsnight now

"Politicians misusing the science" - what a shock and that's not from a sceptic/denier

Tom_W1987 - Member

Errr....errrrrrrrrrr.......*looks at feet shiftily*

Oh I'm sorry, what's this....a paper in the esteemed journal Nature that does exactly that... well this can't be on....you said they hadn't.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1788.html

I haven't read it yet, but if your interpretation is correct then that is fantastic, and I wholeheartedly retract what I said.

Unfortunately, a cursory google reveals a criticism of the paper here, which does not sound quite so rosy:

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/how-accurate-are-climate-models/

Have you read the paper? Does the criticism ring true, or is it nonsense? If so what specifically is incorrect?

big n daft - do you think that we, as humans, should clean up our act a bit and stop making such a mess of the place?

The answer to that question is about 4 pages back 😉

But we don't really want to do it, we don't tax aviation fuel, we put up wind turbines that destroy the deep peat carbon stores they are built on and never offset the embedded carbon to make them. We go for token visible gestures rather than getting to grips with the problem.

But it would be dull world if you couldn't change your iPhone every 18 months. 😉

Unfortunately, a cursory google reveals a criticism of the paper here, which does not sound quite so rosy

This is unfortunately a perfect example of how the conversation gets detailed, either intentionally or by accident. On the one hand, you have a scientific paper published in one of the most respected peer reviewed outlets. On the other is a bloke's opinion published on the web.

The two are not of an equal weight. If the bloke who wrote the web page had a credible argument, he could raise it in a letter to the editor, and have it scrutinised properly.

zokes - Member

This is unfortunately a perfect example of how the conversation gets detailed, either intentionally or by accident. On the one hand, you have a scientific paper published in one of the most respected peer reviewed outlets. On the other is a bloke's opinion published on the web.

The two are not of an equal weight. If the bloke who wrote the web page had a credible argument, he could raise it in a letter to the editor, and have it scrutinised properly.

I agree with what you said actually, and of course, the paper naturally carries massively more weight behind it. I didn't mean to derail anything, just saw the points and wondered if they were valid.

On the subject of credibility, this paper seems to be a reply to counter what the IPCC said shortly before (about revising their predictions are the models failed to match observations) which was where my original comment about models came from.

Retro83 the "criticism " does not ring true it describes the modeling of climate change as "fortuitously accurate " in predicting temperature to 2012. Ie correct but "I still think their wrong ", and in reallying on temperature alone ignores the first law of thermodynamics.

What do you do though?

Ive a 1 litre car it does 65 mpg - apparently the carbon produced by making it was worse than running my old car for another 50 years
My house is uber insulated have new boiler etc still uses a gazillion carbons a year
Recycle loads and am mindful if waste , eating meat makes me a climate monster

So what do you do?

Joolsburger run your old car don't eat meat buy energy from a renewable source, those ate the fatuous answers. Make it clear to politicians that green policies are important and just as we can all share the burden of economic cuts to save bankers we can all share the burden of trying to deal with climate change.