Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[Grim Reaper]

The T&Cs are very clear. If you want to challenge the above statement, abide by the rules.

Discussions about moderator or Administrator actions are welcome in email or local private messages, but should not be discussed in public forums. This is out of respect for the members and moderators or policy involved.

[MrPlum]

The Scientific Method...

"I have personally seen very strong social and professional pressures over the years. These include threats to my job, professional ostracism, public misrepresentations of my research and views, efforts to prevent me from speaking publicly and personal threats, many of which have been publicly documented." He advises that "anyone who wishes to participate in the public debate on climate change should do so knowing how the politics are played today -- dirty, nasty, destructive."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 71033.html

[STEVE G]

Want to Stop Climate Change? Take the Fossil Fuel Industry to Court
http://www.thenation.com/article/179459 ... ?page=0,0#

"In November 2013, American climate scientist Richard Heede, of the Colorado-based Climate Accountability Institute, published a paper with a revolutionary thesis. After nine years of researching the energy industry in dozens of countries, he concluded that nearly two-thirds of the world’s carbon dioxide and methane emissions dating back to the dawn of the industrial era were the responsibility of just ninety companies. Heede called them the “carbon majors.”"

"Some legal analysts believe that fossil fuel producers could be vulnerable to fraud or civil conspiracy charges if it can be legally proved that companies like ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal spent millions funding climate-change-denying organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the Greening Earth Society, while internally acknowledging that the science supporting anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) climate change was a settled issue. That could put Big Carbon in roughly the same position as Big Tobacco was in the early 1990s, when cigarette makers continued to cultivate public doubt about their product’s harmfulness long after they had accepted that it was addictive and deadly. As the tobacco suits lurched forward, documents—as well as some infamous congressional testimony—proved the industry’s bad faith, swaying public opinion against tobacco. It was that, along with the massive wave of lawsuits by all fifty state attorneys general, that helped persuade Congress to bring the cigarette makers under the federal regulatory umbrella."

[MrPlum]

After nine years of researching the energy industry in dozens of countries, he concluded that nearly two-thirds of the world’s carbon dioxide and methane emissions dating back to the dawn of the industrial era were the responsibility of just ninety companies.

This is good. I'm all for dealing with polluters at source instead of taxing and criminalizing everyone on the planet.

"Some legal analysts believe that fossil fuel producers could be vulnerable to fraud or civil conspiracy charges if it can be legally proved...

A Conspiracy Theory!

It would hardly be credible but definitely interesting, to see if they did take the corporations to court. The Rule of Law is a joke in the U.S.

... internally acknowledging that the science supporting anthropogenic (i.e., human-caused) climate change was a settled issue.

Have any of the oil companies acknowledged this, or is it hypothetical? Wonder if they relied on the bogus 97% consensus...

There has been no 'warming' for 18 years now. The whole issue is a dead duck. The U.S. has no credibility left abroad and there has been so much exaggeration and fear-mongering, at home, people don't believe it any more, ranking Global Warming bottom of their list of priorities.

Obama flogging a dead horse won't change their minds...

Obama’s Alarmist “Climate” Report Debunked by Scientists
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/envi ... scientists

[STEVE G]

Have any of the oil companies acknowledged this, or is it hypothetical? Wonder if they relied on the bogus 97% consensus...

Seeing as they have far larger budgets and employ more scientists than any climate research organisation, they're quite capable of working out the science for themselves.

[MrPlum]

Have any of the oil companies acknowledged this, or is it hypothetical? Wonder if they relied on the bogus 97% consensus...

Seeing as they have far larger budgets and employ more scientists than any climate research organisation, they're quite capable of working out the science for themselves.

Yes they are but that doesn't answer the question. If they haven't acknowledged, in internal documents, the science is settled, then talk of fraud is just throwing mud to see if some will stick.

How about the pot-calling-the-kettle-black Carbonazi camp? There have been many instances of fraud and outright deception. The hockey-stick graph. The Climategate emails. The '97% consensus' and the myriad of inflated claims that 'The end is nigh'. Anyone been charged with fraud?

Obama and his Communist gang, dreaming of the social control this issue will give them, are doubling down on a bad bet, while letting the 90 companies that are the main polluters, continue to pollute using carbon offsets.

I would be more than happy to see all the Oil Barons swinging from branches, for the murder and mayhem their desire to control hydrocarbon resources around the world has caused and is still causing but this scam won't really bring them to account.

'Big Oil' and now 'Big Carbon' have one thing in common.

Scoundrels the lot of them.

[STEVE G]

If there was a shred of realistic doubt in global warming science, oil companies would be suing people promoting it for harming their product.

[MrPlum]

If there was a shred of realistic doubt in global warming science, oil companies would be suing people promoting it for harming their product.

18 years with no temperature rise doesn't cause any doubt?

[kendo]

If there was a shred of realistic doubt in global warming science, oil companies would be suing people promoting it for harming their product.

18 years with no temperature rise doesn't cause any doubt?

Mr Plum I don't know how long it is since you left Portsmouth and yes global warming is .... Maybe whatever..... they choose to drip feed you stats.
Even in my twenty years of working dockside outlandish and freak weather is becoming more common and less predictable our climate is definitely changing and not just going through circles .
I work in all weathers and we have to stop in high winds and fog, nothing more than the past few years.

Kendo.

[MrPlum]

None of the 'reliable' models predicted this. So much for their credibility.

Even in my twenty years of working dockside outlandish and freak weather is becoming more common and less predictable our climate is definitely changing and not just going through circles.

Your lifespan is too short, you are observing local, not global weather and the climate has always changed. What matters is not that it is changing but whether it is due to human activity. Still no proof of that.

The IPCC has already said there is no substantive evidence extreme weather events are linked to global warming, which is why they use the term 'likely', in their reports. That is not science but playing with words. 'Nature' conceded the same... 'Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.' http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428

Although fear-mongers hype these 'extreme' weather events, the reality is there have been worse periods in the past.

Trillions of dollars, population control and enormous sums from taxes and fines are up for grabs, if they can swing this scam. Individual governments, like Australia, may succeed in imposing taxation but the rest of the world is no longer buying it.

[MrPlum]

This is one for Steve, I think, where Ross Mckitrick does a pretty good job of explaining why the climate models, which are fundamental to predicting what warming to expect, are diverging from what is actually happening. A wry observation is that when the climate modellers had past data (pre-computer age) to feed into the model, their models aligned with past observations. They got it 'right'. But when they don't have the data to 'tweak' and are looking forward, they got it wrong. This is supported by a statement from one of the climate modellers,

'If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario.'

So what are some of the possible reasons to explain this discrepancy?

1. The ocean is absorbing more heat than expected
2. Changes in Pacific wind patterns
3. Poor coverage of the Arctic surface
4. Declining stratospheric water vapour

The point?

We were told THE SCIENCE IS "SETTLED" over a decade ago.'

Why else is the reliability of models so important? Because the IAM, (Integrated Assessment Models) from which the cost of carbon, etc.. are derived, are tied to the models and not to empirical data. If the sensitivity to CO2 has been overstated, which is the claim, then the models will need to be recalibrated and the estimates of doom and gloom revised downwards.

One Harvard analyst stated...

“[The] models are so deeply flawed as to be close to useless as tools for policy analysis. Worse yet, their use suggests a level of knowledge and precision that is simply illusory, and can be highly misleading.”

[STEVE G]

This isn't a court case, you can't find a flaw in climate modelling and then say that because of it global warming is not happening.
And the oceans are getting warmer.

[MrPlum]

This isn't a court case, you can't find a flaw in climate modelling and then say that because of it global warming is not happening.
And the oceans are getting warmer.

The climate modelling question is not about warming but the alleged causes of warming. Watch the presentation. It will make more sense if you do.

[PeteC]

Inserting this here just for general info:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featur ... php?src=fb

The Carbon Cycle

Carbon dioxide and the carbon cycle has been all over the news today. But what is carbon dioxide anyway? Where does it come from? How much carbon resides in the atmosphere versus the ocean and ground? And how does carbon move through the environment over short and long time spans? There are lots of nuances, but this diagram of the fast carbon cycle offers a good overview. It shows the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, and red are human contributions in gigatons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon.

[MrPlum]

Thanks Pete. Nice to have other contributors.

It should be clear by now that, even though warming has taken place (still coming out of the Little Ice Age) and CO2 might contribute a small amount, that catastrophic 'man-made' Global Warming is a gross exaggeration. Jumping on a fairly normal and predictable climate cycle (there have been 23 periods of warming and cooling since 1480AD, lasting about 30 years each) and hyping it into a pressing planetary threat, requiring trillions in taxes and social control, is a pretty neat idea. Tap into the world's anxiety about environmental pollution, then ride the wave. The classic Trojan Horse.

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' does a pretty good job of exposing the agenda but I think Dr Don Easterbrook's testimony to a Congressional Committee, is even better. (No. He isn't backed by 'Big Oil'). He is a quiet assassin, taking apart the AGW propaganda and showing how there is little to worry about. At least as far as the climate is concerned. In the process, he exposes the complicity of once-respected agencies.