Man-made climate change is done for. Dead.

[Quasievil]

Polly want some sugar?

BWAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH

nope had some.

Im over it anyway, the world will continue to be fucked over by those that want our money, if not with this scam, it will be the next one or a combination of them.
End of the day we as individual citizens of this planet will progressively be fucked over by powers to be with cronies in their pockets.

If it wasnt for money and the ability to generate it, this whole saga would not even exist

[Badjelly]

Bill Bryson is a small-minded cock who will make points at the expense of the "truth" (established fact is probably a better term)....

Maybe, but in my opinion A Short Of History of Nearly Everything is a great book, in the way it gives an impression of the variety and scope of natural science and the way the different threads are tied together. I don't recall the section on anthropogenic climate change particularly. It wasn't a big part of the book.

[mashman]

Facts that we know:

We know that the models that have been built are flawed. Building any system is trickly, even a website, let alone trying to model a living breathing planet! Can't remember who said it on here, but one HUGE fuckin volcano eruption makes the whole argument moot!

It's just another money grabbing scheme. Why don't we print more money and just get on with it... The US printed $700 billion to bail out businesses etc... and got shafted, because large business is all about ROI, no need to give it to those that need it, just keep the money and pay the board their billions of dollars of bonus!!! Crisis over!!!

[SPman]

Do you get the feeling, that the whole climate change thing is heading down the Evolution/creation road........................and big business is prepping societies for the next big fleecing, regardless of the rights, wrongs, truths or lies!

A bit like ACC really....get everyone arguing over who caused it, strike fear into the hearts and minds of the population at large, ignore adapting to the changes that are happening, and devise (particularly in NZs case) money making strategies for the big business arseholes that are screwing over the planet, at the expense of the greater populace in the first place........

[Badjelly]

Facts that we know:

We know that the models that have been built are flawed. Building any system is trickly, even a website, let alone trying to model a living breathing planet! Can't remember who said it on here, but one HUGE fuckin volcano eruption makes the whole argument moot!

You're long on assertion and short on detail or (I am guessing) understanding of WTF you're talking about.

There were several large volcanic eruptions in the last century. The global climate models did a good job of reproducing their effect on global temperature. Still, that's obviously impossible, so it must be just a conspiracy, eh?

I suspect a really HUGE volcanic eruption would be enough to cool the planet down for a couple of decades. (How much and how long? I dunno. I'll have to look up the scientific literature. Or perhaps Ian Wishart has all the answers. But I'm a teensy bit sceptical about him.) Come to that, if a really BIG asteroid hits us it could wipe out all life on Earth. But until then, let's just try to do the best we can, shall we?

[mashman]

You're long on assertion and short on detail or (I am guessing) understanding of WTF you're talking about.

Definitely both, the detail causing the assertion... does it mean i am wrong?

There were several large volcanic eruptions in the last century. The global climate models did a good job of reproducing their effect on global temperature. Still, that's obviously impossible, so it must be just a conspiracy, eh?

Why would i say such a thing, as you've pointed out it's one hell of an assertion! My reason: Plenty of high level climatologists are questioning the base data. How can you successfully model any system if your base data is wrong. YOU CAN'T as the ACC!!!!!!!

I suspect a really HUGE volcanic eruption would be enough to cool the planet down for a couple of decades. (How much and how long? I dunno. I'll have to look up the scientific literature. Or perhaps Ian Wishart has all the answers. But I'm a teensy bit sceptical about him.) Come to that, if a really BIG asteroid hits us it could wipe out all life on Earth. But until then, let's just try to do the best we can, shall we?

Aye, toooooooootally fooked

I AM WILLING TO BE PROVEN WRONG, until then i have to stick with my position don't i, or is there any space left in the sand for me to bury my head (not levelled at you BadJelly)

[Swoop]

It takes only one reviewer, dedicated to the truth, to cry fault and cause a journal to loose face, credibility and impact.

I can assure you that if the CRU researchers are found to be even suspected of actual scientific misconduct - then their careers are over and even their political puppeteers will have no use for them since their credibility has been destroyed.

Unfortunately the simple truth remains. Money.

Also, if anyone is found to be "out of synch" with a group of reviewers, that person is regarded as a "voice in the wilderness" and their opinions dismissed/overruled.

As Dr Frankenfurter stated, you can "remove the cause, but not the symptom". The individual may cop some flack and be disregarded, but the system remains unharmed and will continue to pollute the academic gene pool for further generations to exploit...



BTW. "Loose" is a nut that hasn't been tightened up.
"Lose", is different.

[carbonhed]

Even George "moonbat" Monbiot is honest enough to acknowledge the damage :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ate-scientists

[Badjelly]

Here's hoping i've got the quoting right...

You're long on assertion and short on detail or (I am guessing) understanding of WTF you're talking about.

Definitely both, the detail causing the assertion... does it mean i am wrong?

If I understand your response, no the fact that you're long on assertion and short on detail does not mean you're wrong, but it means that when you make a statement like "the models are fucked" or whatever it was, it's second-hand. You don't really understand how the models are being used or what reasons there are for believing they're right or wrong. And it's not surprising you wouldn't know that, as it's a complicated business. But, if you take any halfway reasonable model of the atmosphere-ocean system and run it for the last century (the 20th, I mean) with the best estimates of various forcings (sun, greenhouse gases, aerosols, including volcanic aerosols) you can reproduce the observed trajectory of global temperature. So that gives you some confidence. Furthermore you just can't construct a model that describes the climate in a realistic way (eg correct annual cycle) that isn't sensitive to CO2.

There were several large volcanic eruptions in the last century. The global climate models did a good job of reproducing their effect on global temperature. Still, that's obviously impossible, so it must be just a conspiracy, eh?

Why would i say such a thing, as you've pointed out it's one hell of an assertion! My reason: Plenty of high level climatologists are questioning the base data. How can you successfully model any system if your base data is wrong.

There's been a lot of questioning of the surface temperature record, but it's stood up to the scrutiny. Even if you decide the HadCRU record is tainted because the people who maintain it are reluctant to release their base data, there's also the GISS record which is pretty open, I believe. And when occasionally they discover a minor error they fix it, tell everyone about it and estimate its effects.

YOU CAN'T as the ACC!!!!!!!

Actually, though doubtless the ACC has been a bit loose with the figures, I suspect their basic assertion is correct: that motorcycle accidents are expensive out of proportion to the number of registered vehicles. But I haven't been brave enough to say this on this site.

[avgas]

There is a hall of shame for "naughty scientists" and if you get in it you'll most likely never ever work in your field again.

Sad but true.
Why sad you say? Well fact of the matter is that some people will never be let off the tight leash. Poor old Lorentz is still ignored in teaching, among all those that followed him. Even though he was found to be correct.
Yet we quite happily accept his results if they come from a black box and don't involve so called 'fringe' science (No I'm not talking ghost etc).

I would also be curious what HP and IBM invest into science these days, as I almost never see them do anything with science these days - doesn't fit with the profits so I'm told. Yet they were one of the drivers in the 70's.

[James Deuce]

Maybe, but in my opinion A Short Of History of Nearly Everything is a great book, in the way it gives an impression of the variety and scope of natural science and the way the different threads are tied together. I don't recall the section on anthropogenic climate change particularly. It wasn't a big part of the book.

Blimey, I'm not allowed an opinion after actually meeting the chap more than once, am I? I enjoy his writing tremendously. I think you'd be a bit shocked at how little regard he has for his audience.

[Hans]

The one thing I find really interesting:

Climate change science is a predominantly Anglo-saxon domain.
From experience most scientific communities in non-english speaking countries generally don't believe in AGW or couldn't give a rodent's rectum about the whole thing. The populations also generally don't believe it.

Anyone have any idea why?

My personal take on this is, that the propaganda in these countries hasn't been so heavy, but I'd genuinely like to hear your opinions on this. Assuming your are willing to believe the assertion I make. I think the assertion is just as valid as when I say that the majority of kiwis believe in AGW, even though they might not be clear on why they believe it.

[Quasievil]

You don't really understand how the models are being used or what reasons there are for believing they're right or wrong. And it's not surprising you wouldn't know that, as it's a complicated business.

It hasn't been complicated for the scientists reporting to the IPCC, simply get data, leave the information out that doesnt work in your argument and your done.

Hockey stick graph for example.

Now with serious evidence pointing to the fact that most data has been "toyed" with shows that the ETS scam has been embraced by some scientists
in particular those scientists who advise the IPCC and the UN.

All the rest of the scientific arguments that you pro guys a spewing out is kinda redundant as your arguments are based on the same research which has been toyed with by the above mentioned.

What you should be concerned with is now what mandate has the government got to push this ETS LIE through (as we speak) thats all that matters to me.

History shows us Science often works for the evil and again this seems to be the case.

[avgas]

I think the assertion is just as valid as when I say that the majority of kiwis believe in AGW, even though they might not be clear on why they believe it.

Someone was foolish enough to tell us we were the greenest place on earth.
Probably came from a big city like Shanghai or New York

[mashman]

Here's hoping i've got the quoting right...
If I understand your response, no the fact that you're long on assertion and short on detail does not mean you're wrong, but it means that when you make a statement like "the models are fucked" or whatever it was, it's second-hand. You don't really understand how the models are being used or what reasons there are for believing they're right or wrong. And it's not surprising you wouldn't know that, as it's a complicated business. But, if you take any halfway reasonable model of the atmosphere-ocean system and run it for the last century (the 20th, I mean) with the best estimates of various forcings (sun, greenhouse gases, aerosols, including volcanic aerosols) you can reproduce the observed trajectory of global temperature. So that gives you some confidence. Furthermore you just can't construct a model that describes the climate in a realistic way (eg correct annual cycle) that isn't sensitive to CO2.

I don't understand how the models work, but 15 years of coding against databases give me an understanding of how the models are generated . I write code for a living, lots and lots of code that interfaces to data in a database. If one of my parameters is wrong, then all of my data is wrong. That can put a company out of business when the report comes out.

I'm not questioning their findings (not directly anyway), long on assertion and lack of detail really doesn't go far... i'm questioning the fact that some of the scientific community seem to think that missing out 1 thing effects the whole system (I understand why). Some of the scientists in the emails are saying this. Some of the scientists don't want to hear it because that would make them wrong, have their credentials called into question blah blah blah!

There's been a lot of questioning of the surface temperature record, but it's stood up to the scrutiny. Even if you decide the HadCRU record is tainted because the people who maintain it are reluctant to release their base data, there's also the GISS record which is pretty open, I believe. And when occasionally they discover a minor error they fix it, tell everyone about it and estimate its effects.

I don't doubt it, but a minor error that has been there for how long? Many of the theories stated for various parts of the system rely on wha's gone before them!

We can agree to disagree, i have no problem with that. I just know from bitter experience that when you change anything that is a parameter or data related, it breaks everything that is derived from the initial data. And i hate it when that happens as it can add days/weeks/months on to my workload, all depending on the size of the project. But that's just from my experiences with DB's, it's either the code or the data... most business just buy in a new software package and blame the old one for not holding the data in the way they would like.