Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[ericofarabia]

Go on then, I'll bite... why?

 

Are they all Ex pats?

 

I thought Global Warming was 100% down to Farting Cows, I saw it on Harry Enfield (Lee & Lance vegetarian sketch)

[buctootim]

Very pretty copy and pasting GM. There was no need though, the list was given in the report. As you say, this isn't a peer reviewed paper - just a review of 132 peer reviewed papers. Bart Simpson reviews Einstein, Newton, Fleming, Crick & Watson if you like. You should do one yourself, its easy.

 

Anyway, more usefully - here's the link to a rather more credible rebuttal.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

[Guided Missile]

Anyway, more usefully - here's the link to a rather more credible rebuttal.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

...and a far more credible rebuttal to your rebuttal here...

[buctootim]

...and a far more credible rebuttal to your rebuttal here...

 

Seriously? A critique by an ex assistant physics professor who was fired by Harvard for making unjustified and unfounded criticisms of others work - and who hasnt published since his firing in 2007? That's the best you can come up with?

 

http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=5497111

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl

http://backreaction.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/lubo-motl.html

[Verbal]

Not only am I a f*** sight smarter than the PhD's working for me, I am also a f*** sight smarter than you, Hokie Kokie.

 

You see, this isn't a f***ing peer reviewed paper, publishing research findings, but a review of peer reviewed papers, publishing research findings. As such, you could publish it in Popular Mechanics and it would be just as credible, because it depends on the quality of the research papers it is reviewing. These happen to be the research papers reviewed:

 

1. Robinson, A. B.,Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999 Journal of American Phy-sicians and Surgeons 3, 171-178.

2. Soon, W.,Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999) Cli mate Res. 13, 149-164.

3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Sci ence 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_au thor/keigwin1996/ 4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Sci ence 308, 675-677. 5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.

F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Bound ary-Layer Me te o rol ogy 92, 3-26.

6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geo phys i cal Res. 106, 31717-31727. 7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Re gional, and National CO2 Emis- sions. In Trends:A Com pendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dio ide Information Analysis Center,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm 8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.

9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.

10. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html and NASA GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt.

11. Soon, W.,Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003)Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.

12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.

13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.

14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.

15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.

16. Newton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) 33, 2006GL027234.

17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) In ternational Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/high lights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_re cov er ing_from_LIA_R.pdf

18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.

19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.

20. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli mate/re search/cag3/na.html

21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.

22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1697-1700.

23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Sci ence 293, 474-479.

24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geo physical Res. 111, 2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/au thor_ar chive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/

25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Ma rine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94. http://sealevel.col o rado.edu/

26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, History, and the Modern World, Methuen, New York.

27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equi lib rium Therm. 32, 1-27.

28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A., Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.

29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112, 2005JD006881. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.

30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.

31. Christy, J. R. (1995)Climatic Change 31, 455-474.

32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.

33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.

34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.

35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.

36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001)Na ture 411, 290-293.

37. Jiang, H.,Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Ge ol ogy33, 73-76.

38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.

39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C. A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.

40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995)As tro phys i cal Jour nal 438, 269-287.

41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Na ture 446, 646-649.

42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831. 43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T. (2006)Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.

44. Hammel, H. B., andLock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.

45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1999 Nature 393, 765-767.

46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003)Nature 424, 165-168.

47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003)Nature 424, 168-170.

48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007)Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.

49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.

50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) 33, 2006GL027142.

 

Seriously? So smart are you that in copying, pasting and dumping you've produced a forest of broken links. Funny that.

[Frank's cousin]

Seriously? So smart are you that in copying, pasting and dumping you've produced a forest of broken links. Funny that.

 

It's hilarious that GM actually believes that if he shouts loud enough, pretends to have some authority and intellect, anyone would actually believe his 'unbiased' so far up the arse of the Right at the party Right BS.

 

For someone who has a science degree, you must have missed those lectures, lab sessions etc when they discussed true scientific method and also how best to review a paper.... See most folks including 99% of scientists will acknowledge that with climate, climate change, whether man has accelerated this and to what extent, whethr this impact is simply absorbed by natural geological fluctuations - there is not sufficient evidence to draw any conclusions that have enough evidence to become established theory.

 

Therefore, I suggest that acting to try and reduce the 'potential negative' impact of mans contribution, is NOT politically motivated but common sense... If nothing happens, great, no sweat, if it does well at least we tried... Also having been to China, I suggest the day-to-day standard of living breathing in that industrial **** pumped out could be improved.... But hey such whacky behaviour would impact on the ability for a few to make **** loads of cash... It would cost industrial polluters money ...and that is not attuned with your political afflictions... It's you and your twisted and somewhat stunted view (a sign of a more limited intellect) that is biased and driven by your political path.... And with every post on this thread you illustrate that with even more zeal... It's actually quite funny.

[Frank's cousin]

Verbal, hope you can see who the above was aimed... Unfortunately don't have the edit function.

[Guided Missile]

Seriously? A critique by an ex assistant physics professor who was fired by Harvard for making unjustified and unfounded criticisms of others work - and who hasnt published since his firing in 2007? That's the best you can come up with?

Wipe the dribble from your lips and read the link again. It actually concerns a paper by Prof. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton, which you can read here and a response to this paper from your hero, Michael McCrackpot which you can read here.

The link walks you through what a poor grasp of physics and chemistry many of your "climate experts" have, but their entrenched positions are understandable. Happer's job at Princeton relies on him being a world class theoretical physicist and McCrackpot's job largely relies on there being man made climate change.

 

...and your post? Try harder and read things more carefully. You let me down, you let this website down, but more importantly, you let yourself down...

[Guided Missile]

It's hilarious that GM actually believes that if he shouts loud enough, pretends to have some authority and intellect, anyone would actually believe his 'unbiased' so far up the arse of the Right at the party Right BS.

 

For someone who has a science degree, you must have missed those lectures, lab sessions etc when they discussed true scientific method and also how best to review a paper.... See most folks including 99% of scientists will acknowledge that with climate, climate change, whether man has accelerated this and to what extent, whethr this impact is simply absorbed by natural geological fluctuations - there is not sufficient evidence to draw any conclusions that have enough evidence to become established theory.

 

Therefore, I suggest that acting to try and reduce the 'potential negative' impact of mans contribution, is NOT politically motivated but common sense... If nothing happens, great, no sweat, if it does well at least we tried... Also having been to China, I suggest the day-to-day standard of living breathing in that industrial **** pumped out could be improved.... But hey such whacky behaviour would impact on the ability for a few to make **** loads of cash... It would cost industrial polluters money ...and that is not attuned with your political afflictions... It's you and your twisted and somewhat stunted view (a sign of a more limited intellect) that is biased and driven by your political path.... And with every post on this thread you illustrate that with even more zeal... It's actually quite funny.

Frank, as usual, your rambling post is so illiterate and the spelling and grammar so poor, that I haven't got a clue as to whether you are insulting me, the Chinese or it is just an ironic post claiming I have a limited intellect, while demonstrating the extremely limited extent of your own...

[OldNick]

I think man does have an influence on the earths climate, but only in a small way.

I have asked but have yet to have a reply , are you going on foreign holidays, do you watch partake in motor racing and do you walk to work etc. Nobody as yet has answered.

 

It is all very well proclaiming about climate change and expect governments to do something, but you have to vote with your feet. I don't see much voting from here

[Guided Missile]

Seriously? So smart are you that in copying, pasting and dumping you've produced a forest of broken links. Funny that.

Sorry about that, always tough cutting and pasting small fonts from a pdf. Try the google option if you really want to destroy the science they contain. I've read a few of them and it is interesting stuff...

[Guided Missile]

And for my last post on this thread, I will borrow a quotation from Professor Happer's paper, which, I think, is apt:

 

A quotation from the second edition of Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds: “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one.”

[Frank's cousin]

Frank, as usual, your rambling post is so illiterate and the spelling and grammar so poor, that I haven't got a clue as to whether you are insulting me, the Chinese or it is just an ironic post claiming I have a limited intellect, while demonstrating the extremely limited extent of your own...

 

Admittedly, you have a certain wit, but please don't confuse that with intellect... Or Spelling errors or not you would have quite clearly understood the post. Your problem GM is your misguided arrogance... Your history of suggesting you 'know it all', is comedy gold so keep it up.

 

Big it words and smart arse put downs don't make an intellect. You have repeatedly demonstrated yours is misguided and limited by your refusal to keep an open mind, on a subject where the only true and unbiased scientific conclusions demand you keep one. That much should be obvious to anyone who has studied a science degree.

 

By the way, I got mine from St Andrews as well - a good one at that, so obviously I must be able to speak with the same authority as the 'hockey stick' chap you seem to have adopted as the oracle on this....

 

Why not simply admit you are politically biased in this matter when it's so obvious to any reader ? True science (and yes there are plenty of examples where science has taken the silver from industry or political pressure groups that have influenced their research) acknowledges the limitations of existing knowledge and data... Common sense dictates that ignoring the potential negatives is as ignorant as it is shortsighted. Your inability to reason and view this objectively is what marks you down as politically motivated and ignorant of the fundamentals of scientific research.

 

You must be extremely naive if you believe Cameron's motivations is driven by anything other than placating the industrial supporters, or the current fiscal problems... One thing it is not driven by is any scientific evidence. As mentioned by many, the evidence is unclear, so the wise, unbiased and common sense approach is to act based on worst case scenarios - not to ignore it in the interests of those with economic agendas...

[Guided Missile]

As mentioned by many' date=' the evidence is unclear, so the wise, unbiased and common sense approach is to act based on worst case scenarios - not to ignore it in the interests of those with economic agendas...[/quote']

In other words, let's spunk a few billion of taxpayers money, just in case the worst case scenario happens. If ever there was a demonstration of political opinion overriding scientific rigour, that post demonstrates it.

 

What was your degree in, Frank? Knitting?

[badgerx16]

... Prof. William Happer, a professor of physics at Princeton, ......

 

And NOT a climate specialist :

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/William_Happer_blog.htm

( https://www.skepticalscience.com/happer-spencer-global-warming-continues.html )

"William Happer is a Princeton physicist and Chairman of the Board of Directors at the right-wing fossil fuel-funded think tank George C. Marshall Institute. Although he has not published any climate-related research in his scientific career, Happer nevertheless seems to enjoy making his opinions about climate science known, as we have previously examined here and here. Unfortunately, Happer does not seem interested in taking the time to ensure that those are informed opinions."

 

 

GM, back to you.

[Guided Missile]

And NOT a climate specialist :

 

Media Fail: John Cook’s Atom Bombs

June 22, 2013 at 10:28 am

News stories citing and quoting a single individual (a self-described non-climate-scientist) make declarations about climate change and atomic weapons.

J

T

According to his official biography at Australia’s Queensland University, John Cook is a researcher/postdoctoral fellow. He is the creator of the misleadingly-titled SkepticalScience.com website (it’s a ferocious defender of non-skeptical climate thought).

Over at The Conversation website, Cook’s profile says he earned a bachelor of science back in 1989. Although he currently holds three positions with two different Australian universities – adjunct researcher, adjunct lecturer, and climate communication research fellow – no other academic degrees are listed. We’re advised that his current research interests are in “Psychology And Cognitive Sciences.”

Those of us unfamiliar with Australian academia are left scratching our heads. If Cook has completed a Masters and a PhD why doesn’t his bio say so? If he hasn’t, how can he be a postdoctoral fellow?

Between 1995 and 2010, Cook was the creator of a popular web-based comic strip. In 2011, the Australian museum recognized the contribution Cook’s SkepticalScience website has made to the “Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge.” Cook pocketed $10,000 and can now claim to have won a prestigious Eureka Prize.

I invite you to visit the official web page where the awarding of that prize is announced. It begins in this oh-so-scientific manner:

 

Read more here...

 

The guys a wacko and you obviously haven't a clue.

[Jonnyboy]

Why does GM boast about having a degree but belittle those with advanced degrees like PhDs. Very contradictory.

[saintbletch]

• I acknowledge that there is an extremely small contribution by the human race to climate change. 100%
  
• I believe that the evidence exists right now. 100%
  
• I believe that the contribution now and in the foreseeable future is insignificant and will thus not adversely affect our climate. 100%
  
• I believe that the response to this insignificant contribution, caused by the environmental lobby, if taken seriously by government will cause the human race economic and social problems. 100%
  
• I believe that the world governments will unwind the burden imposed on the electorate, by this unelected faction, starting with Japan, then the UK, then the rest of the world. (China and Russia never really bought into it) 100%
  
• I hope Russia will jail the rest of Greenpeace and then start on Friends of the Earth. 100%
  

 

Fair enough.

 

You've obviously put a lot of effort into researching the subject to reach such unequivocal conclusions.

[saintbletch]

Not only am I a f*** sight smarter than the PhD's working for me, I am also a f*** sight smarter than you, Hokie Kokie.

 

You see, this isn't a f***ing peer reviewed paper, publishing research findings, but a review of peer reviewed papers, publishing research findings. As such, you could publish it in Popular Mechanics and it would be just as credible, because it depends on the quality of the research papers it is reviewing. These happen to be the research papers reviewed:

 

1. Robinson, A. B.,Baliunas, S. L., Soon, W., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999 Journal of American Phy-sicians and Surgeons 3, 171-178.

2. Soon, W.,Baliunas, S. L., Rob inson, A. B., and Robinson, Z. W. (1999) Cli mate Res. 13, 149-164.

3. Keigwin, L. D. (1996) Sci ence 274, 1504-1508. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_au thor/keigwin1996/ 4. Oerlemanns, J. (2005) Sci ence 308, 675-677. 5. Oerlemanns, J., Björnsson, H., Kuhn, M., Obleitner, F., Palsson, F., Smeets, C. J. P. P., Vugts, H.

F., and De Wolde, J. (1999) Bound ary-Layer Me te o rol ogy 92, 3-26.

6. Greuell, W. and Smeets, P. (2001) J. Geo phys i cal Res. 106, 31717-31727. 7. Marland, G., Boden, T. A., and Andres, R. J. (2007) Global, Re gional, and National CO2 Emis- sions. In Trends:A Com pendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dio ide Information Analysis Center,Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm 8. Soon, W. (2005) Geophysical Research Letters 32, 2005GL023429.

9. Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1993) J. Geophysical Res. 98, 18895-18906.

10. Na tional Cli matic Data Center, Global Surface Temperature Anomalies (2007) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html and NASA GISS http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt.

11. Soon, W.,Baliunas, S., Idso, C., Idso, S., and Legates, D. R. (2003)Energy & Env. 14, 233-296.

12. Idso, S. B. and Idso, C. D. (2007) Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.

13. Groveman, B. S. and Landsberg, H. E. (1979) Geophysical Research Letters 6, 767-769.

14. Esper, J., Cook, E. R., and Schweingruber, F. H. (2002) Science 295, 2250-2253.

15. Tan, M., Hou, J., and Liu, T. (2004) Geophysical Research Letters 31, 2003GL019085.

16. Newton, A., Thunell, R., and Stott, L. (2006) 33, 2006GL027234.

17. Akasofu, S.-I. (2007) In ternational Arctic Research Center, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/high lights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_re cov er ing_from_LIA_R.pdf

18. Teller, E., Wood, L., and Hyde, R. (1997) 22nd International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies, Erice, Italy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, UCRL-JC-128715, 1-18.

19. Soon, W. (2007) private communication.

20. U.S. National Climatic Data Center, U.S. Department of Commerce 2006 Climate Review. http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cli mate/re search/cag3/na.html

21. Landsea, C. W. (2007) EOS 88 No. 18, 197, 208.

22. Landsea, C. W., Nicholls, N., Gray, W. M., and Avila, L. A. (1996) Geophysical Research Letters 23, 1697-1700.

23. Goldenberg, S. B., Landsea, C. W., Mesta-Nuñez, A. M., and Gray, W. M. (2001) Sci ence 293, 474-479.

24. Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J. C., and Holgate, S. (2006) J. Geo physical Res. 111, 2005JC003229. http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/au thor_ar chive/jevrejeva_etal_gsl/

25. Leuliette, E. W., Nerem, R. S., and Mitchum, G. T. (2004) Ma rine Geodesy 27, No. 1-2, 79-94. http://sealevel.col o rado.edu/

26. Lamb, H. H. (1982) Climate, History, and the Modern World, Methuen, New York.

27. Essex, C., McKitrick, R., and Andresen, B. (2007) J. Non-Equi lib rium Therm. 32, 1-27.

28. Polyakov, I. V., Bekryaev, R. V., Alekseev, G. V., Bhatt, U. S., Colony, R. L., Johnson, M. A., Maskshtas, A. P., and Walsh, D. (2003) Journal of Climate 16, 2067-2077.

29. Christy, J. R., Norris, W. B., Spencer, R. W., and Hnilo, J. J. (2007) J. Geophysical Res. 112, 2005JD006881. http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.

30. Spencer, R. W. and Christy, J. R. (1992) Journal of Climate 5, 847-866.

31. Christy, J. R. (1995)Climatic Change 31, 455-474.

32. Zhu, P., Hack, J. J., Kiehl, J. T., and Bertherton, C. S. (2007) J. Geophysical Res., in press.

33. Balling, Jr., R. C. (1992) The Heated De bate, Pacific Research Institute.

34. Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991) Science 254, 698-700.

35. Baliunas, S. and Soon, W. (1995) Astrophysical Journal 450, 896-901.

36. Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001)Na ture 411, 290-293.

37. Jiang, H.,Eiríksson, J., Schulz, M., Knudsen, K., and Seidenkrantz, M. (2005) Ge ol ogy33, 73-76.

38. Maasch, K. A., et. al. (2005) Geografiska Annaler 87A, 7-15.

39. Wang, Y., Cheng, H., Edwards, R. L., He, Y., Kong, X., An, Z., Wu, J., Kelly, M. J., Dykoski, C. A., and Li, X. (2005) Science 308, 854-857.

40. Baliunas, S. L. et. al. (1995)As tro phys i cal Jour nal 438, 269-287.

41. Fenton, L. K., Geiss ler, P. E., and Haberle, R. M. (2007) Na ture 446, 646-649.

42. Marcus, P. S. (2004) Nature 428, 828-831. 43. Hammel, H. B., Lynch, D. K., Rus sell, R. W., Sitko, M. L., Bernstein, L. S., and Hewagama, T. (2006)Astrophysical Journal 644, 1326-1333.

44. Hammel, H. B., andLock wood, G. W. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2006GL028764.

45. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (1999 Nature 393, 765-767.

46. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2003)Nature 424, 165-168.

47. Sicardy, B., et. al. (2003)Nature 424, 168-170.

48. Elliot, J. L., et. al. (2007)Astronomical Journal 134, 1-13.

49. Camp, C. D. and Tung, K. K. (2007) Geophysical Research Letters 34, 2007GL030207.

50. Scafetta, N. and West, B. J. (2006) 33, 2006GL027142.

 

OK, it's taken me a while, but I've finally finished reviewing all 130+ pieces of research.

 

I've reached the conclusion that global warming exists. I have found significant evidence to support my hypothesis that it is caused by the farts of the ever increasing population of intellectual pygmies.

 

These emissions have raised the nitrogen levels in the upper atmosphere which in turn has resulted in an increase in global temperatures and a corresponding increase in unicorn sightings.

 

You may not agree with this conclusion, but it cannot simply be dismissed as it is my review of peer reviewed papers, publishing research findings.

[badgerx16]

 

......... you obviously haven't a clue.

 

Well you seem to know the square root of f()ck all, you're just a playground bully gob****e !

 

( It is very much like arguing with an idiot - you've dragged me down to your level, and are attempting to beat me with experience ).

Edited 23 November, 2013 by badgerx16

[Jonnyboy]

OK, it's taken me a while, but I've finally finished reviewing all 130+ pieces of research.

 

I've reached the conclusion that global warming exists. I have found significant evidence to support my hypothesis that it is caused by the farts of the ever increasing population of intellectual pygmies.

 

These emissions have raised the nitrogen levels in the upper atmosphere which in turn has resulted in an increase in global temperatures and a corresponding increase in unicorn sightings.

 

You may not agree with this conclusion, but it cannot simply be dismissed as it is my review of peer reviewed papers, publishing research findings.

 

[buctootim]

In other words, let's spunk a few billion of taxpayers money, just in case the worst case scenario happens.

 

Thats the premise the insurance industry is based on. You pay a small premium now to ensure a catastrophe doesn't wipe you out. You have any insurance GM, or just hope for the best?

[buctootim]

Lets summarise where we've got to. GM has neatly listed and cited for us the combined might of the climate sceptics marshalled against every recognised climate or atmospheric science organisation in the world - such rabid headbangers as NASA, the Met Office (part of the Ministry of Defence btw), the United Nations, OECD and the World Bank.

 

The leading scientific lights holding the beacon of truth against the liberal hysteria / conspiracy are:

 

Andrew Montford: A BSc in Chemistry 25 years ago and has worked as an accountant since

 

Four dead physics professors, the most recent of whom died aged 96 in 2003 and one live one. Prof Happer at Princeton is indeed a serious academic but his background has nothing at all to do with climate science.

 

Luboš Motl: A junior academic with no history of working in climate science. Harvard sacked him in 2007 for making unsubstantiated criticisms of others work. He has not held a university position since.

 

Dr Arthur Robinson: Has not worked at any established academic or scientific establishment since 1973. Founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine in 1981 which sounds grand until you realise it is basically an industrial estate warehouse in a town of 1,200 people. He is the person responsible for starting the 'scientific' petition supposedly signed by 30,000 academics against climate change hysteria. In fact most are just members of the public. The most recognised signatories are the Spice Girls (which indicates how long ago it was).

 

This is a picture of the Oregon Institute of Medicine and Science at Cave Junction in Oregon. The three 'faculty' members are stood outside.

http://www.oism.org/

Edited 23 November, 2013 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

Prof Happer at Princeton is indeed a serious academic but his background has nothing at all to do with climate science.

Physics has nothing to do with climate science...?

 

Bucky, you're a moron....

[buctootim]

Physics has nothing to do with climate science...?

 

Bucky, you're a moron....

 

Nice try. Happer: "we're interested in the mechanisms that limit the performance of optical pumping systems, such as atomic clocks, magnetometers, and laser guide-star adaptive optics systems."

[Guided Missile]

Meanwhile....

 

The Australia House of Representatives voted yesterday to repeal the nation’s carbon tax. The vote occurred just 18 months after the carbon tax took effect. Prime Minister Tony Abbott and members of his Liberal Party have made opposition to the carbon tax a key component of recent political campaigns. Abbott cast the Liberal Party’s victories in Australia’s September 7 elections as a referendum on the carbon tax. The legislation to repeal the carbon tax also includes provisions to abolish governmental climate change bodies such as the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. While the Australian House voted to repeal the carbon tax, Australia Environment Minister Greg Hunt declined to attend United Nations climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, this month, choosing instead to send a lower-ranking diplomat to the meetings.

 

"...they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

[Hokie]

There comes a point in a viva when you stop asking questions of the candidate and ask him to excuse himself from the room for the examination committee to discuss his case. GM is that rare failing student that doesn't realize how f*cked he is and leaves smiling when everyone else there is thinking, "F*ck me, how did he get this far?"

 

Either that, or I've been trolled. Do I bother? Okay, more fool me.

 

Review papers, as in actual review papers, are also reviewed. I'd suggest you look for ones that are in well regarded and indexed scientific sources, rather than published by political organizations, at least if you want to convince the scientifically literate. As such, the review paper you cite (Robinson, et al. 2007) is highly dubious as it is published by a the journal of a right-wing advocacy organization and is not included in scientific indices (Medline, Scopus, Web of Science). So, yes, it does matter where review papers are published. (Actually, despite your go at them, I'd consider Popular Mechanics to be an ok source for a popular review. I can't quickly find an editorial, but it looks from yet another desparate Google, that they also believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC).)

 

Anyhow, you then seem to think that listing all references from the questionable review is supportive of your premise. However, review papers will cite works that provide general background for the discussion and make claims that the author disagrees with in addition to making claims that the review author agrees with. So listing the 132 sources of this is not particularly convincing of anything. Picking a few, it seems doubtful that articles with titles such as "The recent expansion of Pluto’s atmosphere" speak much to ACC.

 

The peer review process is essential for a review paper, as authors often misread or misapply the references. A good reviewer will stop you as an author from saying "source A claims B", if that is not the case. I have no idea if Robinson, a trained Biochemist of some reknown (and some controversy) who also chairs the Oregon Republican Party, interprets the references correctly, either due to working outside his field or through outright political bias. Personally, I have a hard enough time keeping up with good science, without challenging myself with wading through the crap.

 

Anyhow, for you, GM, to imply that all these references deny or are agnostic regarding ACC is either dishonest or ignorant regarding science (or both). Perhaps you are smarter than me. In general, I would not claim to have the ability to say one way or the other. But from what I read here, you know next to nothing about the actual practice of science or scientific publishing, or you are on a wind-up.

 

Oh, and OldNick, since no one has replied: I do fly, on occasion, when needed for work and holiday. I also usually drive to work, although I also occasionally walk as well. If that makes me a hypocrite, I won't argue the point. However, I'd say the truth (or lack thereof) of ACC, is not affected by my personal choices. The fact that I don't contribute to Oxfam, does not prove children are not starving in Africa, but merely that I'm a tit. Further, I find litter disgusting, and support fines for littering, rather than just a plea that anyone who objects to litter stop and those that don't keep on. Does that help?

[Verbal]

Physics has nothing to do with climate science...?

 

Bucky, you're a moron....

 

Good grief! An awful lot of physics has absolutely nothing to do with climate science. It's pretty amazing that this needs to be said to a supposed "scientist".

 

The other thing I find really quite odd about your stance is that you proclaim your "beliefs" with a "100 percent" certainty. Actual peer-reviewed climate science is neither about beliefs (in that quasi-religious, unshakeable sense you imply) nor absolute certainties (surely a mark of a bad scientist - your PhDs must be rolling their eyes in horror). Much of climate science is probabilistic, or works with estimates of best- or worst-case scenarios to produce predictions. You on the other hand seem to demand, and to have discovered, the ersatz-science proof of perfect data.

 

As your hopefully much better-informed PhDs will tell you, that's a mirage.

[OldNick]

Oh, and OldNick, since no one has replied: I do fly, on occasion, when needed for work and holiday. I also usually drive to work, although I also occasionally walk as well. If that makes me a hypocrite, I won't argue the point. However, I'd say the truth (or lack thereof) of ACC, is not affected by my personal choices. The fact that I don't contribute to Oxfam, does not prove children are not starving in Africa, but merely that I'm a tit. Further, I find litter disgusting, and support fines for littering, rather than just a plea that anyone who objects to litter stop and those that don't keep on. Does that help?

Hokie, I appreciate your honest reply. I desperately hope global warming is man made and that we can reverse it, as I cherish my grand-daughters future.

I have read the passionate posts by the people who believe it is man made, but then am surprised that those same people have not changed their lives and habits. I assume the lack of replies would suggest that there are many warning us of foreboding but I when the push comes to shove they don't have the real belief and character to follow their convictions. It is easy to sit and preach and then do nothing to change their own lives, but then expect the government to do something instead.

I see the generation coming through talking the big game but when push comes to shove they don't do anything. I was at school during the power strikes, the constant threat of 'oil will run out in 20 years' paper and sugar shortages, and still turn the light out when I leave the room. The young now, drive everywhere ,expect cheap air travel and buy throw away furniture clothes etc. it is all mealy mouthed, let others take the pain action.

Ps I don't think you are a tit,but very honest and realise your shortcomings

[Guided Missile]

GM is that rare failing student that doesn't realize how f*cked he is and leaves smiling when everyone else there is thinking, "F*ck me, how did he get this far?"

Not realizing how f*cked I am, is exactly the reason I have got this far.

[aintforever]

Hokie, I appreciate your honest reply. I desperately hope global warming is man made and that we can reverse it, as I cherish my grand-daughters future.

I have read the passionate posts by the people who believe it is man made, but then am surprised that those same people have not changed their lives and habits. I assume the lack of replies would suggest that there are many warning us of foreboding but I when the push comes to shove they don't have the real belief and character to follow their convictions. It is easy to sit and preach and then do nothing to change their own lives, but then expect the government to do something instead.

I see the generation coming through talking the big game but when push comes to shove they don't do anything. I was at school during the power strikes, the constant threat of 'oil will run out in 20 years' paper and sugar shortages, and still turn the light out when I leave the room. The young now, drive everywhere ,expect cheap air travel and buy throw away furniture clothes etc. it is all mealy mouthed, let others take the pain action.

Ps I don't think you are a tit,but very honest and realise your shortcomings

 

I, like most people, do the odd token thing like walk down the shop, turn the TV onto standby etc but fact is I know whatever I do will make no difference whatsoever. In my opinion, the only way we can make a difference, as individuals, is to vote in a government that is serious about acting on it. The problem is the rate population is growing and countries like China and India developing I would say anything we do as a nation, or even in Europe will make little difference except set an example.

 

The greenhouse effect is scientific fact, the only debate is not if man has effected the climate but by how much. There is a fair chance that the negative feedbacks are enough to minimise the impact and the Earth will reach an equilibrium or that the cooling sun means that man made forcing actually works as a positive for us. I'm no expert but I'm of the opinion that the current solar inactivity is masking man's impact and when it flips the other way we could be in serious trouble.

[Jonnyboy]

Not realizing how f*cked I am, is exactly the reason I have got this far.

 

?

That's what he just said.

[Sheaf Saint]

I have asked but have yet to have a reply , are you going on foreign holidays, do you watch partake in motor racing and do you walk to work etc. Nobody as yet has answered.

 

I last took a foreign holiday in 2010 when I got the Eurostar to France.

I do drive for work (my job necessitates it) but I have made sure I have been given the most economical vehicle possible that still allows me to do my job. I also avoid using my car wherever possible for private use, which I am able to do because I have a lot of facilities within walking distance of my home and have excellent public transport links

I have been a fan of motor sport in the past (not so much any more) but the demands of competition mean that racing car manufacturers are always looking to make their engines as fuel-efficient as possible, and these technological advances help the motor industry on the whole, so I don't have much of a problem with that, although I accept the carbon footprint of, for example, an F1 team over a season must be pretty huge when you factor in flying their equipment all over the world.

I have switched my electricity supplier to one that supplies 100% from renewables

I recycle every bit of rubbish I possibly can, and I put what little food waste I generate into compost

I drive my girlfriend mad with my constant nagging at her for putting the heating on when it's not necessary

I have cold showers most of the time, to save electricity (and water, because I don't tend to stay in them too long!)

I eat a lot of vegetarian food because my girlfriend is veggie

 

Does this satisfy you?

Edited 23 November, 2013 by Sheaf Saint

[Guided Missile]

I assume the lack of replies would suggest that there are many warning us of foreboding but I when the push comes to shove they don't have the real belief and character to follow their convictions.

I drive a big f*** off Range Rover around town, because it's safer for me and my passengers (especially when I've been drinking) and is good for intimidating other drivers. For long runs, I prefer my SL, because it's fast and very stable at speeds over 100 MPH. I like long haul holidays, particularly when the weather's sh !t in the UK and like going back to the US, where people are not total pussies like most of the people on this thread (yes, I'm talking about you, Bexy). I buy sh !t I don't need like most people, but don't really lose any sleep about it, because my house is so f*** ing big, I can hoard everything I own.

I really doubt that my actions will really cause anyone any pain, but hey, apart from the odd drink driving, last time I looked, excessive consumption is what this economy needs. In a hundred years, we will all be dead, and I don't give a sh !t about my great grandchildren, anyway. Their lives will be a f*** sight better, than the start I had in life, when they inherit the fortune I made polluting the planet....

[Jonnyboy]

I drive a big f*** off Range Rover around town, because it's safer for me and my passengers (especially when I've been drinking) and is good for intimidating other drivers. For long runs, I prefer my SL, because it's fast and very stable at speeds over 100 MPH. I like long haul holidays, particularly when the weather's sh !t in the UK and like going back to the US, where people are not total pussies like most of the people on this thread (yes, I'm talking about you, Bexy). I buy sh !t I don't need like most people, but don't really lose any sleep about it, because my house is so f*** ing big, I can hoard everything I own.

I really doubt that my actions will really cause anyone any pain, but hey, apart from the odd drink driving, last time I looked, excessive consumption is what this economy needs. In a hundred years, we will all be dead, and I don't give a sh !t about my great grandchildren, anyway. Their lives will be a f*** sight better, than the start I had in life, when they inherit the fortune I made polluting the planet....

 

Its safe to say that I wouldn't be bothered if you hit a tree while drink driving and snuffed it.

[Jonnyboy]

Seems we've reached the crux of the "Guided missile issue."

 

Basically he's one of these who fundamentally only cares about himself. All this I believe in all the climate sceptic ****** is a reaction to suggestions he might want to limit his self indulgence.

[Guided Missile]

We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.

[badgerx16]

We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.

 

@ Charles MacKay 1841 : "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds".

 

At least give him credit.

[Jonnyboy]

No, just most of us do actually "give a sh*t" about our future great grand children.

[aintforever]

I don't give a sh !t about my great grandchildren

 

What a w@nker.

[trousers]

Why is there an insatiable desire (on both sides) to 'win' this debate? Can't both opinions live side by side each other?

[saintbletch]

Why is there an insatiable desire (on both sides) to 'win' this debate? Can't both opinions live side by side each other?

 

Ebony and Ivory...

 

Can't we all just get along?

 

I guess the issue for many is the fact that Guided Missile's Range Rover will be killing their grand children at the same time it's killing Guided Missile's.

 

Also, it appears the Guided Missile is simply aping Clarkson for some form of comic effect.

 

You've got to respect someone who has the mental capacity to study the data and reach their own conclusion.

 

But when that person tries to win you over with poorly argued rationale supported by dubious supporting material, then you sort of suspect that either the debater lacks intellectual rigour or he's yanking your tail.

 

 

I think that Guided Clarkson is yanking my tail.

[Saint George]

Why is there an insatiable desire (on both sides) to 'win' this debate? Can't both opinions live side by side each other?

 

Because a few years back, one side declared "the debate over as there was a now a consensus"....Yup they really did

[OldNick]

I last took a foreign holiday in 2010 when I got the Eurostar to France.

I do drive for work (my job necessitates it) but I have made sure I have been given the most economical vehicle possible that still allows me to do my job. I also avoid using my car wherever possible for private use, which I am able to do because I have a lot of facilities within walking distance of my home and have excellent public transport links

I have been a fan of motor sport in the past (not so much any more) but the demands of competition mean that racing car manufacturers are always looking to make their engines as fuel-efficient as possible, and these technological advances help the motor industry on the whole, so I don't have much of a problem with that, although I accept the carbon footprint of, for example, an F1 team over a season must be pretty huge when you factor in flying their equipment all over the world.

I have switched my electricity supplier to one that supplies 100% from renewables

I recycle every bit of rubbish I possibly can, and I put what little food waste I generate into compost

I drive my girlfriend mad with my constant nagging at her for putting the heating on when it's not necessary

I have cold showers most of the time, to save electricity (and water, because I don't tend to stay in them too long!)

I eat a lot of vegetarian food because my girlfriend is veggie

 

Does this satisfy you?

it was not about satisfaction it is about the preaching and if those same people were trying to do their bit. The governments can do some things but if people are not interested then it is impossible to police. We live in a soft society where hardship cannot be tolerated by the masses. If it was a case that we had to use our computers /phones / cars for only a couple of hours a week for pleasure there would be meltdown. I suspect that to turn around the damage we are told is happening that would be the very minimum we need to do. We want our cake and eat it

[OldNick]

I drive a big f*** off Range Rover around town, because it's safer for me and my passengers (especially when I've been drinking) and is good for intimidating other drivers. For long runs, I prefer my SL, because it's fast and very stable at speeds over 100 MPH. I like long haul holidays, particularly when the weather's sh !t in the UK and like going back to the US, where people are not total pussies like most of the people on this thread (yes, I'm talking about you, Bexy). I buy sh !t I don't need like most people, but don't really lose any sleep about it, because my house is so f*** ing big, I can hoard everything I own.

I really doubt that my actions will really cause anyone any pain, but hey, apart from the odd drink driving, last time I looked, excessive consumption is what this economy needs. In a hundred years, we will all be dead, and I don't give a sh !t about my great grandchildren, anyway. Their lives will be a f*** sight better, than the start I had in life, when they inherit the fortune I made polluting the planet....

Many a true word said in jest ,me thinks

[Frank's cousin]

In other words, let's spunk a few billion of taxpayers money, just in case the worst case scenario happens. If ever there was a demonstration of political opinion overriding scientific rigour, that post demonstrates it.

 

What was your degree in, Frank? Knitting?

 

hahahaha - 'few billion tax payers money' - you sound like some sad uninventive Mail hack wth sensationalist headlines basd on total ******. What you seem incapable of recognising is that irrespective of the continuing need for further research to establish the level and potential impact of man on the climatic fluctuations, investment and research into alterantive energy sources, despite the current KWh cost comparison, is a no brainer... we aint going to have fossil fuels ad infinitum... 'knitting' ? poor very poor. From your interpretation of 'vigorous and robust scientific review (much more elequently arse kicked by Holie and Bletch) its clear you leaned feck all from yours.

 

.... given the huge amount of Venture capital investment in alternative cleaner energy sources, it also suggests your powers of business acumen leave something to be desired.

[Guided Missile]

hahahaha - 'few billion tax payers money' - you sound like some sad uninventive Mail hack wth sensationalist headlines basd on total ******.

 

"Climate Change Mitigation Will Cost Between £44bn to £63bn annually by 2030" – UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2009.

 

What a bargain, Frank, or are you a defective spambot? Hard to tell, really...

[Hokie]

"Climate Change Mitigation Will Cost Between £44bn to £63bn annually by 2030" – UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2009.

 

What a bargain, Frank, or are you a defective spambot? Hard to tell, really...

 

Hmmm. Is that worldwide, Europe, or UK costs? Constant dollars or inflation adjusted to 2030? Is that a US billion (10^9) or British billion (10^12)?

 

Ironically, assuming a billion is a thousand million--which seems likely unless its been translated, that's very roughly about the cost the US was spending per annum during the Iraq War.

[Guided Missile]

Ironically, assuming a billion is a thousand million--which seems likely unless its been translated, that's very roughly about the cost the US was spending per annum during the Iraq War.

So, you'd rather have Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the deaths of 50-100,000 Kurds, (including an attack on the town of Halabja with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more), who threatened to annihilate half of Israel with chemical weapons and who was responsible for a war with Iran, in which hundreds of thousands died, rather than the chance of a slightly warmer planet.

 

You and Frank, dumb and dumber...

[Guided Missile]

Oh, and for the anoraks, the projected cost of mitigating climate change is from this document:

 

Table 2: UNFCCC estimate of additional annual investment need and financial flow needed by 2030 to cover costs of adaptation to climate change (billion dollars per year in present- day values)

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]Sector[/TD]

[TD]Global cost[/TD]

[TD]Developed countries[/TD]

[TD]Developing countries[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Agriculture[/TD]

[TD]14[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Water[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]2[/TD]

[TD]9[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Human health[/TD]

[TD]5[/TD]

[TD]Not estimated[/TD]

[TD]5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Coastal zones[/TD]

[TD]11[/TD]

[TD]7[/TD]

[TD]4[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Infrastructure[/TD]

[TD]8 – 130[/TD]

[TD]6 – 88[/TD]

[TD]2 – 41[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Total[/TD]

[TD]49 – 171[/TD]

[TD]22 – 105[/TD]

[TD]27 – 66[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

Source: UNFCCC (2007)