How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby 23 » Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:45 pm

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1458206/
The great global warming collapse.

Image

(excerpted)

None of this is to say that global warming isn't real, or that human activity doesn't play a role, or that the IPCC is entirely wrong, or that measures to curb greenhouse-gas emissions aren't valid. But the strategy pursued by activists (including scientists who have crossed the line into advocacy) has turned out to be fatally flawed.

By exaggerating the certainties, papering over the gaps, demonizing the skeptics and peddling tales of imminent catastrophe, they've discredited the entire climate-change movement. The political damage will be severe. As Mr. Mead succinctly puts it: “Skeptics up, Obama down, cap-and-trade dead.” That also goes for Canada, whose climate policies are inevitably tied to those of the United States.

“I don't think it's healthy to dismiss proper skepticism,” says John Beddington, the chief scientific adviser to the British government. He is a staunch believer in man-made climate change, but he also points out the complexity of climate science. “Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can't be changed.” In his view, it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors. How much the public will keep caring is another matter.
"Once you label me, you negate me." — Soren Kierkegaard
User avatar
23
 
Posts: 1548
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:57 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Howling Rainbows » Sat Feb 06, 2010 5:49 pm

I believe that to be a fairly astute quote you just posted, 23. If climate change is a dangerous certainty, the current methods of selling that certainty make a mockery of the situation and cheapen the debate.

quote:
In his view, it's time to stop circling the wagons and throw open the doors.

The secrecy surrounding the algorithms and methodology is naturally disturbing, as it should be.

quote
How much the public will keep caring is another matter.

The public isn't necessarily the problem as they can be railroaded into almost anything, by hook, crook, or force. The issue that stalled the supposed solution, which is carbon trading, collapsed because agreement between participating nations could not be reached. The pieces of the pie were too small to suit some of the players and they balked.

Signifigant climate changes that cause dramatic long lasting effects to animal and plant populations typically occur in periods of years calculated by the thousand. To say that the last seven decades have been warmer is like saying, within the next 100 minutes something bad might happen, and the last seven minutes seem kind of spooky.

When asked how the scientists calculate spookiness some of them have flatly refused to divulge their methods. Science is meant to be set in an open field to be purposely shot at, in an effort to see if holes develop. If it survives the peer shootout then perhaps it is a valid theory.

In this situation I see scientists hiding the baby, for fear it will become bruised. It causes me to wonder if the reason for secrecy is because it isn't strong enough to survive in the elements on its own strength. I always found this fact disturbing.

When people hide things, it is because they are hiding something. I think people deserve to see if the cat in the bag is alive or dead.
User avatar
Howling Rainbows
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 4:46 pm
Location: shadows
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:07 am

THE GREAT CLIMATE CHANGE RETREAT

THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.

Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
The admission comes as new research casts serious doubt on temperature records collected around the world and used to support the global warming theory.
Researchers said yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.
The revelations will be seized upon by sceptics as fresh evidence that the science of global warming is flawed and climate change is not man-made.


Also this, and for some reason it does not surprise.
British Council gets in on the climate act

In recent years, however, on the initiative of Lord Kinnock when he was its chairman, the British Council has been hijacked to promote the need for action on climate change. In answer to a Freedom of Information request, we can now see some of the curious ways in which the British Council has been spending our money.

More than £3.5 million has gone on recruiting a worldwide network of young "climate activists" in over 70 countries to engage in climate change propaganda – what Marxists used to call agitprop – and to pressure their politicians to join the worldwide struggle. Under a programme called Challenge Europe, £1.1 million has been paid out to fund young "climate advocates" in 17 countries across Europe, including Britain itself. But £2.5 million has been spent on a more ambitious project to recruit a global network of 100,000 activists in 60 countries across the world, led by 1,300 young "International Climate Champions", to participate in "international peer networks, both in person and online, to share ideas, projects and experiences".
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:45 am

BenD wrote:
UK Daily Telegraph wrote:THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn.


Ho hum, RightThink media misrepresents the science again, another cheer goes up from the megapolluters and their "poor me, big bad greenie conspiracy" parrots.

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

PJ: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm


Don't bother with details Ben, the Tory press willl tell you everything you need to copynpaste.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Feb 15, 2010 4:49 am

I didn't even bother with posting that wintler - whats the point?

Give it 5 years and it'll be Piers the frog faced slimeball all over again...
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:15 am

Hi friend Wintler2, it does seem to me from the BBC excerpt you posted that Phil Jones is agreeing that there has been no statistcally-significant global warming since 1995,

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

PJ: Yes, but only just.
:roll:
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:30 am

Yes but what does that actually mean?
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Feb 15, 2010 5:39 am

Joe Hillshoist wrote:Yes but what does that actually mean?

Hi Joe, it means that Phil Jones is reluctantly admitting to the BBC journalist that in his scientific opinion, from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming!
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:18 am

Ben D wrote:
Joe Hillshoist wrote:Yes but what does that actually mean?

Hi Joe, it means that Phil Jones is admitting to the BBC journalist that in his scientific opinion, from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming!


..over the relatively very short period of that particular statistical analysis. As Phil Jones points out. To RightThink media like Daily Telegraph that equals a headline (which you reproduced with no qualification) "THERE has been no global warming for 15 years". Cherrypicking the data is what its called, a classic tactic beloved of the 'smoking is good for you' school of propaganda. You (BenD) know this but you wont admit it, so i'll ask you not to refer to me as 'friend', cos i expect better of my friends.

Image
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/p ... 070104.gif


NASA wrote:2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began. ..
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Ben D » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:57 am

wintler2 wrote:
Ben D wrote:
Joe Hillshoist wrote:Yes but what does that actually mean?

Hi Joe, it means that Phil Jones is admitting to the BBC journalist that in his scientific opinion, from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming!


..over the relatively very short period of that particular statistical analysis. As Phil Jones points out.


Thank you for your reluctant acceptance too dear wintler2 of Phil Jones's scientific opinion that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995. :lovehearts:


To RightThink media like Daily Telegraph of course, that equals a headline ( Cherrypicking the data is what its called, a classic tactic beloved of the 'smoking is good for you' school of propaganda. You know this but you wont admit it, so i'll ask you not to refer to me as 'friend', cos i expect better of my friends.


Some red herrings in that lot me thinks, but in any event your request not refer to you as my friend will be respected. :cry:

Concerning the 2007 metoffice images, please understand that we are now living in the post climategate era and there are a number of official investigations taking place into possible unethical behavior on the part of some climate change scientists, Phil Jones amongst them, and unless you can show that this data is not based on any CRU input, they may be reasonably considered suspect for the time being. 8)
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 7:42 am

Ben D wrote:Thank you for your reluctant acceptance too dear wintler2 of Phil Jones's scientific opinion that there has been no statistically-significant global warming since 1995.

Which means we can be 94% confident that the planet has continued to warm since 1995.


Thats assuming PJ was using standard 5% meaning of statistical significance. Its hilarious of you to insist he's right, you might want to read the original BBC interview that the Daily Mail lifted and skewed.


BenD, 'Climategate' is merely a media buzzword for the blizzard of bullshit that billionaire media moguls have confected on behalf of their megapolluting advertisers.

'Post-climategate' is only significant for the drycleaners of slithering creeps like Andrew Bolt & Lord Monkton (seriously, would you leave your child alone with either of them?). Your billionaires may have won the media battle for now, but nature bats last, climate change continues, and your glorious victory is but a single passing turd in our progress up shit creek.

And please drop the 'dear' along with the 'friend', lest you remind me too much of those other slithering creeps.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:22 am

Do you know what that actually means tho? What he means when he says:

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level.


OK so what does what he just say about the odds of the result being due to chance?

(Which is what statistically significant stuff is ... You know - its only statistically significant (at 95%) if the result you can say that the chance of error is about .05%. Or something, its been years since I studied it.

Of course you can spin that as the warming not being statistically significant, but thats actually bollocks, its just means the odds of chance being the reason for the result are so low as to be impossible.

What he is actually saying is that the 0.12 deg C warming of the last decade is possibly due to chance, we can't say it isn't because its not statistically significant. But its "quite close" to those odds of it being to chance being insignificant to the point where you could ignore them.

IE Once something is "statistically significant" the odds of it happening by chance are low enough that the possibility can be ignored.

So there is a chance that the warming happened by chance, but that chance is so low, its "quite close" to being ignorable.

Of course in 5 years time people will be saying "Phil Jones said there was no warming."

Just like they keep saying:

John Houghton said "Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.''


Even tho he didn't.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby tazmic » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:07 pm

wintler2 wrote:you might want to read the original BBC interview that the Daily Mail lifted and skewed.

You mean the one where he said:

Phil Jones wrote:So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other. [~0.16C per decade: current warming is not exceptional]

I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

[Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?] No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.


Interesting. Did YOU read it?

wintler2 wrote:Which means we can be 94% confident that the planet has continued to warm since 1995.

:shrug:
"It ever was, and is, and shall be, ever-living fire, in measures being kindled and in measures going out." - Heraclitus

"There aren't enough small numbers to meet the many demands made of them." - Strong Law of Small Numbers
User avatar
tazmic
 
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby wintler2 » Mon Feb 15, 2010 6:18 pm

Basically correct Joe, but its 5% not 0.05% chance of erroneously rejecting the null hypothesis.

Its an interesting exercise to google "phil jones no global warming" and see the hundreds of media outlets pushing that line with no clarification or explanation of the very specific context & relatively short timespan PJ was asked about. FauxNews is enthusiastic of course, The Times, NYTimes, Wa.Post all in there too, with countless copynpaste RightThink blogs following after... similar mob to the one that got us into those lovely wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, by some amazing coincidence. Gives a nice idea of which side the billionaires are really on, whatever the 'global green conspiracy ' parrots (you still here BenD?) pretend.


tazmic wrote:Did YOU read it?


What is it with RightThink & smileys? You guys seem to think they're compulsory.
Yes i did read it. 2002-2009 is a ridiculously short period to look for a significant trend, as is obvious from its slight cooling being buried in the overall warming of the 95-09 period. I guess thats why scientists look for longer periods instead of trying to cherrypick dates.
"Wintler2, you are a disgusting example of a human being, the worst kind in existence on God's Earth. This is not just my personal judgement.." BenD

Research question: are all god botherers authoritarians?
User avatar
wintler2
 
Posts: 2884
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:43 am
Location: Inland SE Aus.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:32 pm

Yeah i just checked, a probability of .05 = 5%, its been a while, and I was thinking of something else, but still, if he's talking about a chance of error twice that of a statistically significant result its still only 10%, thats a 90% chance of being correct.

Or in this case of the warming not being due to chance.

I accept there's a long way to go before we understand the climate properly, and that there are far more serious issues facing us. (Last nights Australian story is a great example...)

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/

It'll be there for a week then look for it by the title: "Something in the Water".

At the Australian story website.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10616
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests