This isn't science - it's jumbo jumbo

By Nigel Lawson7:05PM BST 28 Sep 2013
The IPCC’s call to phase out fossil fuels is economic nonsense and 'morally outrageous’ for the developing world

On Friday, the UN published its landmark report into climate change, which claimed with “95 per cent” certainty that global warming is man-made.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, compiled by 259 leading scientists, warned that without “substantial and sustained reductions” of greenhouse gas emissions, the world will experience more extreme weather.

RELATED ARTICLES
IPCC report: Sceptics guide to climate change
IPCC report: global warming theory is 'junk science'
IPCC report: Experts debate global warming issues
However, critics have questioned the scientists’ use of computer forecasting, which, they say, has produced fatalistic scenarios that fail to take into account fully that atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the past 15 years.

Here, former chancellor Lord Lawson, now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank, gives his verdict on the report.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which published on Friday the first instalment of its latest report, is a deeply discredited organisation. Presenting itself as the voice of science on this important issue, it is a politically motivated pressure group that brings the good name of science into disrepute.

Its previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded that there were “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process”, and that “significant improvements” were needed. It also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence”.

Since then, little seems to have changed, and the latest report is flawed like its predecessor.

Perhaps this is not so surprising. A detailed examination of the 2007 report found that two thirds of its chapters included among its authors people with links to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and there were many others with links to other 'green’ activist groups, such as Greenpeace.

In passing, it is worth observing that what these so-called green groups, and far too many of the commentators who follow them, wrongly describe as 'pollution’ is, in fact, the ultimate in green: namely, carbon dioxide – a colourless and odourless gas, which promotes plant life and vegetation of all kinds; indeed, they could not survive without it. It is an established scientific fact that, over the past 20 years, the earth has become greener, largely thanks to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Be that as it may, as long ago as 2009, the IPCC chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri – who is a railway engineer and economist by training, not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist – predicted that “when the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say: 'My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’” This was well before the scientific investigation on which the latest report is allegedly based had even begun. So much for the scientific method.

There is, however, one uncomfortable fact that the new report has been – very reluctantly – obliged to come to terms with. That is that global warming appears to have ceased: there has been no increase in officially recorded global mean temperature for the past 15 years. This is brushed aside as a temporary blip, and they suggest that the warming may still have happened, but instead of happening on the Earth’s surface it may have occurred for the time being in the (very cold) ocean depths – of which, incidentally, there is no serious empirical evidence.

A growing number of climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that at least part of the answer is that the so-called climate sensitivity of carbon – the amount of warming that might be expected from a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (caused by the use of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas) – is significantly less than was previously assumed to be the case.

It is no doubt a grudging acceptance of this that has led the new report to suggest that the global warming we can expect by the end of this century is probably rather less than the IPCC had previously predicted: perhaps some 35F (1.5C) What they have not done, however, is to accept that the computer models on which they base all their prognostications have been found to be misleading. These models all predicted an acceleration in the warming trend throughout the 21st century, as global carbon dioxide emissions rose apace. In fact, there has been a standstill.

The true scientific method is founded on empirical observation. When a theory – whether embedded in a computer program or not – produces predictions that are falsified by subsequent observation, then the theory, and the computer models which enshrine it, have to be rethought.

Not for the IPCC, however, which has sought to obscure this fundamental issue by claiming that, whereas in 2007 it was 90 per cent sure that most of the (very slight) global warming recorded since the Fifties was due to man-made carbon emissions, it is now 95 per cent sure.

This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo. Neither the 90 per cent nor the 95 per cent have any objective scientific basis: they are simply numbers plucked from the air for the benefit of credulous politicians and journalists.

They have thrown dust in the eyes of the media in other ways, too. Among them is the shift from talking about global warming, as a result of the generally accepted greenhouse effect, to 'climate change’ or 'climate disruption’. Gullible journalists (who are particularly prevalent within the BBC) have been impressed, for example, by being told now that much of Europe, and in particular the UK, is likely to become not warmer but colder, as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions interfering with the Gulf Stream.

There is nothing new about this canard, which has been touted for the past 10 years or so. Indeed, I refer to it explicitly in my book on global warming, An Appeal to Reason, which first came out five years ago. In fact, there has been no disruption whatever of the Gulf Stream, nor is it at all likely that there could be. As the eminent oceanographer Prof Karl Wunsch has observed, the Gulf Stream is largely a wind-driven phenomenon, and thus “as long as the sun heats the Earth and the Earth spins, so that we have winds, there will be a Gulf Stream”.

So what is the truth of the matter, and what do we need to do about it?

The truth is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is indeed steadily increasing, as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, particularly in the faster-growing countries of the developing world, notably China. And it is also a scientific fact that, other things being equal, this will make the world a warmer place. But there are two major unresolved scientific issues: first, are other things equal?, and second, even if they are, how much warmer will our planet become? There is no scientific basis whatever for talking about 'catastrophic climate change’ – and it is generally agreed that if the global temperature standstill soon comes to an end and the world is, as the IPCC is now suggesting might well be the case, 1.5ºC warmer by the end of the century, that would be a thoroughly good thing: beneficial to global food production and global health alike.

So what we should do about it – if indeed, there is anything at all we need to do – is to adapt to any changes that may, in the far future, occur. That means using all the technological resources open to mankind – which will ineluctably be far greater by the end of this century than those we possess today – to reduce any harms that might arise from warming, while taking advantage of all the great benefits that warming will bring.

What we should emphatically not do is what Dr Pachauri, Lord Stern and that gang are calling for and decarbonise the global economy by phasing out fossil fuels.

Before the industrial revolution mankind relied for its energy on beasts of burden and wind power. The industrial revolution, and the enormous increase in prosperity it brought with it, was possible only because the West abandoned wind power and embraced fossil fuels. We are now – unbelievably – being told that we must abandon relatively cheap and highly reliable fossil fuels, and move back to wind power, which is both unreliable and hugely costly.

This is clearly an economic nonsense, which would condemn us to a wholly unnecessary fall in living standards.

But what moves me most is what this would mean for the developing world. For them, abandoning the cheapest available form of energy and thus seriously abandoning the path of economic growth and rising prosperity on which, at long last, most of the developing world is now embarked, would mean condemning hundreds of millions of their people to unnecessary poverty, destitution, preventable disease, and premature death.

All in the name of seeking to ensure that distant generations, in future centuries, might be (there is no certainty) slightly better off than would otherwise be the case.

Not to beat about the bush, it is morally outrageous. It is just as well that the world is unlikely to take the slightest notice of the new IPCC report.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10340408/Climate-change-this-is-not-science-its-mumbo-jumbo.html

Durham wrote:By Nigel Lawson7:05PM BST 28 Sep 2013
The IPCC’s call to phase out fossil fuels is economic nonsense and 'morally outrageous’ for the developing world

On Friday, the UN published its landmark report into climate change, which claimed with “95 per cent” certainty that global warming is man-made.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, compiled by 259 leading scientists, warned that without “substantial and sustained reductions” of greenhouse gas emissions, the world will experience more extreme weather.

RELATED ARTICLES
IPCC report: Sceptics guide to climate change
IPCC report: global warming theory is 'junk science'
IPCC report: Experts debate global warming issues
However, critics have questioned the scientists’ use of computer forecasting, which, they say, has produced fatalistic scenarios that fail to take into account fully that atmospheric temperatures have barely changed in the past 15 years.

Here, former chancellor Lord Lawson, now chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate sceptic think tank, gives his verdict on the report.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which published on Friday the first instalment of its latest report, is a deeply discredited organisation. Presenting itself as the voice of science on this important issue, it is a politically motivated pressure group that brings the good name of science into disrepute.

Its previous report, in 2007, was so grotesquely flawed that the leading scientific body in the United States, the InterAcademy Council, decided that an investigation was warranted. The IAC duly reported in 2010, and concluded that there were “significant shortcomings in each major step of [the] IPCC’s assessment process”, and that “significant improvements” were needed. It also chastised the IPCC for claiming to have “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence”.

Since then, little seems to have changed, and the latest report is flawed like its predecessor.

Perhaps this is not so surprising. A detailed examination of the 2007 report found that two thirds of its chapters included among its authors people with links to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and there were many others with links to other 'green’ activist groups, such as Greenpeace.

In passing, it is worth observing that what these so-called green groups, and far too many of the commentators who follow them, wrongly describe as 'pollution’ is, in fact, the ultimate in green: namely, carbon dioxide – a colourless and odourless gas, which promotes plant life and vegetation of all kinds; indeed, they could not survive without it. It is an established scientific fact that, over the past 20 years, the earth has become greener, largely thanks to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Be that as it may, as long ago as 2009, the IPCC chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri – who is a railway engineer and economist by training, not a scientist, let alone a climate scientist – predicted that “when the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken. People are going to say: 'My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’” This was well before the scientific investigation on which the latest report is allegedly based had even begun. So much for the scientific method.

There is, however, one uncomfortable fact that the new report has been – very reluctantly – obliged to come to terms with. That is that global warming appears to have ceased: there has been no increase in officially recorded global mean temperature for the past 15 years. This is brushed aside as a temporary blip, and they suggest that the warming may still have happened, but instead of happening on the Earth’s surface it may have occurred for the time being in the (very cold) ocean depths – of which, incidentally, there is no serious empirical evidence.

A growing number of climate scientists are coming to the conclusion that at least part of the answer is that the so-called climate sensitivity of carbon – the amount of warming that might be expected from a given increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (caused by the use of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas) – is significantly less than was previously assumed to be the case.

It is no doubt a grudging acceptance of this that has led the new report to suggest that the global warming we can expect by the end of this century is probably rather less than the IPCC had previously predicted: perhaps some 35F (1.5C) What they have not done, however, is to accept that the computer models on which they base all their prognostications have been found to be misleading. These models all predicted an acceleration in the warming trend throughout the 21st century, as global carbon dioxide emissions rose apace. In fact, there has been a standstill.

The true scientific method is founded on empirical observation. When a theory – whether embedded in a computer program or not – produces predictions that are falsified by subsequent observation, then the theory, and the computer models which enshrine it, have to be rethought.

Not for the IPCC, however, which has sought to obscure this fundamental issue by claiming that, whereas in 2007 it was 90 per cent sure that most of the (very slight) global warming recorded since the Fifties was due to man-made carbon emissions, it is now 95 per cent sure.

This is not science: it is mumbo-jumbo. Neither the 90 per cent nor the 95 per cent have any objective scientific basis: they are simply numbers plucked from the air for the benefit of credulous politicians and journalists.

They have thrown dust in the eyes of the media in other ways, too. Among them is the shift from talking about global warming, as a result of the generally accepted greenhouse effect, to 'climate change’ or 'climate disruption’. Gullible journalists (who are particularly prevalent within the BBC) have been impressed, for example, by being told now that much of Europe, and in particular the UK, is likely to become not warmer but colder, as a result of increasing carbon dioxide emissions interfering with the Gulf Stream.

There is nothing new about this canard, which has been touted for the past 10 years or so. Indeed, I refer to it explicitly in my book on global warming, An Appeal to Reason, which first came out five years ago. In fact, there has been no disruption whatever of the Gulf Stream, nor is it at all likely that there could be. As the eminent oceanographer Prof Karl Wunsch has observed, the Gulf Stream is largely a wind-driven phenomenon, and thus “as long as the sun heats the Earth and the Earth spins, so that we have winds, there will be a Gulf Stream”.

So what is the truth of the matter, and what do we need to do about it?

The truth is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is indeed steadily increasing, as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, particularly in the faster-growing countries of the developing world, notably China. And it is also a scientific fact that, other things being equal, this will make the world a warmer place. But there are two major unresolved scientific issues: first, are other things equal?, and second, even if they are, how much warmer will our planet become? There is no scientific basis whatever for talking about 'catastrophic climate change’ – and it is generally agreed that if the global temperature standstill soon comes to an end and the world is, as the IPCC is now suggesting might well be the case, 1.5ºC warmer by the end of the century, that would be a thoroughly good thing: beneficial to global food production and global health alike.

So what we should do about it – if indeed, there is anything at all we need to do – is to adapt to any changes that may, in the far future, occur. That means using all the technological resources open to mankind – which will ineluctably be far greater by the end of this century than those we possess today – to reduce any harms that might arise from warming, while taking advantage of all the great benefits that warming will bring.

What we should emphatically not do is what Dr Pachauri, Lord Stern and that gang are calling for and decarbonise the global economy by phasing out fossil fuels.

Before the industrial revolution mankind relied for its energy on beasts of burden and wind power. The industrial revolution, and the enormous increase in prosperity it brought with it, was possible only because the West abandoned wind power and embraced fossil fuels. We are now – unbelievably – being told that we must abandon relatively cheap and highly reliable fossil fuels, and move back to wind power, which is both unreliable and hugely costly.

This is clearly an economic nonsense, which would condemn us to a wholly unnecessary fall in living standards.

But what moves me most is what this would mean for the developing world. For them, abandoning the cheapest available form of energy and thus seriously abandoning the path of economic growth and rising prosperity on which, at long last, most of the developing world is now embarked, would mean condemning hundreds of millions of their people to unnecessary poverty, destitution, preventable disease, and premature death.

All in the name of seeking to ensure that distant generations, in future centuries, might be (there is no certainty) slightly better off than would otherwise be the case.

Not to beat about the bush, it is morally outrageous. It is just as well that the world is unlikely to take the slightest notice of the new IPCC report.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10340408/Climate-change-this-is-not-science-its-mumbo-jumbo.html

Mumbo Jumbo is right  (green)

I listened to some of an interview on this report and when the interviewer mentioned little or no increase in temperature over the last 15 years, is it, apparently its a natural blip El Nino etc. You don't say. I'm sure humans contribute to pollution and can and do mess up the world and other species habitat, like cutting down the rainforests which probably has more effect than carbon emissions but to say we solely responsible for changing an entire planets weather system seems to me a bit arrogant.

Flix wrote:I listened to some of an interview on this report and when the interviewer mentioned little or no increase in temperature over the last 15 years, is it, apparently its a natural blip El Nino etc. You don't say. I'm sure humans contribute to pollution and can and do mess up the world and other species habitat, like cutting down the rainforests which probably has more effect than carbon emissions but to say we solely responsible for changing an entire planets weather system seems to me a bit arrogant.

Exactly,  and over population.

Flix wrote:I listened to some of an interview on this report and when the interviewer mentioned little or no increase in temperature over the last 15 years, is it, apparently its a natural blip El Nino etc. You don't say. I'm sure humans contribute to pollution and can and do mess up the world and other species habitat, like cutting down the rainforests which probably has more effect than carbon emissions but to say we solely responsible for changing an entire planets weather system seems to me a bit arrogant.

I have to say I disagree, in the last 50 years for example there has been a dramatic increase of asthma sufferers and to give an example of this one of my Brothers who is a fitness fanatic had to start using an inhaler whilst in Hong Kong and the air pollution is so bad there, though now back in the uk does not need one. This is down to human pollution and it would be interesting to now if other conditions are due to this. There will be many counter arguments against Global warming which I find a very dangerous view to have to be honest. As we should never cut out the possibility that we may be creating and causing damage to our planet that would be irreversible. Yes much of the works is down to predictions, but they should not be dismissed out of hand as there is clear evidence that the planet is changing and we are seeing massive weather changes also. I really would not like to reach a point where we have people keep dismissing something out of hand when theories are presented that we get to a point where we are f**ked     because to me this is about the major fuel companies and those who gain to make massive profits from them being the most anti as seen. Fossil fuels will not last for ever and we should be looking for alternatives and not dismiss again out of hand as I say these theories because people are more interested in wealth.

Flix wrote:I listened to some of an interview on this report and when the interviewer mentioned little or no increase in temperature over the last 15 years, is it, apparently its a natural blip El Nino etc. You don't say. I'm sure humans contribute to pollution and can and do mess up the world and other species habitat, like cutting down the rainforests which probably has more effect than carbon emissions but to say we solely responsible for changing an entire planets weather system seems to me a bit arrogant.

Hi Flix

There is a complete differene between responsible use of the earths resources and recycling and the climate change scam

Didge - diseases such as asthm increasing in preven e have nothing to do with pollution - we were more polluted years ago. It's to do with declining immunity response due to over use of bacterial products around the home and antibiotics. Put simply, our systems don't cope with bugs anymore because they don't have to and it's having a healthy state with bugs in us which leads us to having a better immunological response!

Durham wrote:Hi Flix

There is a complete differene between responsible use of the earths resources and recycling and the climate change scam

Didge - diseases such as asthm increasing in preven e have nothing to do with pollution - we were more polluted years ago. It's to do with declining immunity response due to over use of bacterial products around the home and antibiotics. Put simply, our systems don't cope with bugs anymore because they don't have to and it's having a healthy state with bugs in us which leads us to having a better immunological response!

Hi Durham

Yes it has been linked:

In recent years, scientists have shown that air pollution from cars, factories and power plants is a major cause of asthma attacks. And more than 159 million Americans -- over half the nation's population -- live in areas with bad air. A research study published in 2002 estimated that 30 percent of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the nation $2 billion per year. And studies also suggest that air pollution may contribute to the development of asthma in previously healthy people..

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp

Which as seen happened to my brother who was always healthy and is again now back in rural Britain

The fact is those who are most skeptics of climate change are those within the fossil fuel industries or have ties to them, which is understandable why they would be the most anti against this as they would be the ones with the most to lose. Even the Telegraph article did not really debunk the latest data that has been released but made dismisses claims based on what it feels the predictions are going to be wrong based on they were once wrong before. That is not showing it is mumbo jumbo in the slightest, all it shows is scientists have to keep researching there methods.

I listened to the discredited extory now UKIP criminal cretin Neil Hamilton bleating about this on question time, in his opinion its all a scam.

I suppose the very fact that little will occur in our lifetime is the reason why many are superficially sceptical, or just can't be arsed with it, and nature always seems to adjust the balance when one species gets out of control.

It is an interesting fact that 98% of these scientists are certain that global warming is man-made, quite a scary scenario.

Its highly ironic that a disgraced British extoryMP, who took cash for questions, is now accusing the green lobby of a scam, what are they scamming? the oil industry has been scamming the people for centuries!

Didge wrote:Hi Durham

Yes it has been linked:

In recent years, scientists have shown that air pollution from cars, factories and power plants is a major cause of asthma attacks. And more than 159 million Americans -- over half the nation's population -- live in areas with bad air. A research study published in 2002 estimated that 30 percent of childhood asthma is due to environmental exposures, costing the nation $2 billion per year. And studies also suggest that air pollution may contribute to the development of asthma in previously healthy people..

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/fasthma.asp

Which as seen happened to my brother who was always healthy and is again now back in rural Britain

The fact is those who are most skeptics of climate change are those within the fossil fuel industries or have ties to them, which is understandable why they would be the most anti against this as they would be the ones with the most to lose. Even the Telegraph article did not really debunk the latest data that has been released but made dismisses claims based on what it feels the predictions are going to be wrong based on they were once wrong before. That is not showing it is mumbo jumbo in the slightest, all it shows is scientists have to keep researching there methods.

Hi didge the data there is 10 years old - surely we are less polluted now! Not saying it is not a contributor - merely a contributory factor alone!

The whole idea of computer models has to be debunked! The be failed time and time again and a computer relies on human input. As you've suggested, humans are inherently biased based upon their own beliefs!!

The world has always got hotter and colder over many centuries.....this is nothing more than human hogwash and arrogance!

Didge wrote:I have to say I disagree, in the last 50 years for example there has been a dramatic increase of asthma sufferers and to give an example of this one of my Brothers who is a fitness fanatic had to start using an inhaler whilst in Hong Kong and the air pollution is so bad there, though now back in the uk does not need one. This is down to human pollution and it would be interesting to now if other conditions are due to this. There will be many counter arguments against Global warming which I find a very dangerous view to have to be honest. As we should never cut out the possibility that we may be creating and causing damage to our planet that would be irreversible. Yes much of the works is down to predictions, but they should not be dismissed out of hand as there is clear evidence that the planet is changing and we are seeing massive weather changes also. I really would not like to reach a point where we have people keep dismissing something out of hand when theories are presented that we get to a point where we are f**ked      because to me this is about the major fuel companies and those who gain to make massive profits from them being the most anti as seen. Fossil fuels will not last for ever and we should be looking for alternatives and not dismiss again out of hand as I say these theories because people are more interested in wealth.

I agree with pollution being a problem and I agree with responsible use of resources, I think we have a duty to manage our lives in the very best way possible for our sake, for other species and for the planet as a whole and among those responsibilities is managing the human population, I know we can't go around culling people although thinking about it we are with wars, unfortunately, from the planets point of view, post war the numbers lost tend to be replaced very quickly. I was reading up on the population of Britain through the years and it was roughly 43 million before the second world war and immediately after it was again around 43 million. I would love to see a better system of business come about one not wholely driven only by profit, which is why I like small businesses making enough to pay their workers and themselves and invest back into the business as required but that's a pipe dream now and a bit naive perhaps. Considering what Britain used to be called, one of the descriptions I don't mind - a nation of shop keepers.

Durham wrote:Hi didge the data there is 10 years old - surely we are less polluted now!  Not saying it is not a contributor - merely a contributory factor alone!

The whole idea of computer models has to be debunked! The be failed time and time again and a computer relies on human input. As you've suggested, humans are inherently biased based upon their own beliefs!!

The world has always got hotter and colder over many centuries.....this is nothing more than human hogwash and arrogance!

Just because a pattern has not fitted the sequence so far does not mean it is debunked in any shape or form, it shows calculations were wrong, which again leads back to further research. On the article it states that air is cleaner than it has been for 15 years but the air pollution still affects people and as seen in places like Asia the pollution is much higher. As I said we have seen a vast increase in sufferers over the years and this is just one illness. I agree with you Durham that the world's climate has gone through a serious of climate changes and who knows maybe we are in fact heading back into an ice age, my point though is not to dismiss out of hand what the vast majority of scientists agree, by doing this we do this at our own peril.

Flix wrote:I agree with pollution being a problem and I agree with responsible use of resources, I think we have a duty to manage our lives in the very best way possible for our sake, for other species and for the planet as a whole and among those responsibilities is managing the human population, I know we can't go around culling people although thinking about it we are with wars, unfortunately, from the planets point of view, post war the numbers lost tend to be replaced very quickly. I was reading up on the population of Britain through the years and it was roughly 43 million before the second world war and immediately after it was again around 43 million. I would love to see a better system of business come about one not wholely driven only by profit, which is why I like small businesses making enough to pay their workers and themselves and invest back into the business as required but that's a pipe dream now and a bit naive perhaps. Considering what Britain used to be called, one of the descriptions I don't mind - a nation of shop keepers.

Interesting points Flix and agree and we did have a baby boom after the war. At some point the population issue needs to be looked at sooner than later by the world leaders, if not sooner really as it which reach a point where the size of the population will not be sustainable, where in some places this already exists. Though places like Africa which are still developing will eventually produce a massive farming industry, but this will only be a short term fix if the population continues to spiral out of control. I don't mean to be horrible here but normally nature has a way of control with pandemics, which I certainly don't want any to appear, but again but scientists do believe we are long overdue one

Didge wrote:
Just because a pattern has not fitted the sequence so far does not mean it is debunked in any shape or form, it shows calculations were wrong, which again leads back to further research. On the article it states that air is cleaner than it has been for 15 years but the air pollution still affects people and as seen in places like Asia the pollution is much higher. As I said we have seen a vast increase in sufferers over the years and this is just one illness. I agree with you Durham that the world's climate has gone through a serious of climate changes and who knows maybe we are in fact heading back into an ice age, my point though is not to dismiss out of hand what the vast majority of scientists agree, by doing this we do this at our own peril.

Fair and balanced post didge

 

The rise in asthma and such conditions are also thought to be a result of us being too clean and not having our immune systems developed by exposure to relatively harmless bacteria, surely Britain's air being less polluted should mean less such conditions but it doen't appear to be the case. With China belching out coal fuelled polution and opening more coal fired power stations every week I think we've a long to go yet even with this there's been no rise in world temp for 15 years.

Flix wrote:The rise in asthma and such conditions are also thought to be a result of us being too clean and not having our immune systems developed by exposure to relatively harmless bacteria, surely Britain's air being less polluted should mean less such conditions but it doen't appear to be the case. With China belching out coal fuelled polution and opening more coal fired power stations every week I think we've a long to go yet even with this there's been no rise in world temp for 15 years.

15 years is just a blink in the eye in terms of time when it comes temperature changes Flix and again just because there has been no global rise within the last 15 years does not mean it is not going to happen, so I agree it make take many years, but what is more important is that if we can prevent any lasting affects now. It may well be that we will sit pretty as will our children, but that is not looking to the future really, because we don't want to be in a position where we could have done something and then it is too late. Yes there are many reasons for asthma, but this does not mean many are also not affected or have contracted this by pollution of which many have

Durham wrote:Fair and balanced post didge

 

Thanks buddy, not often we disagree and always enjoy your posts!

Admitedly it takes times for the effect to happen so in the next 15 to 30 years what will it be like if the scientists are right given the pollution the developing nations are pumping into the atmosphere now and for the next generation or two, while some here struggle to pay for energy and keep themselves warm and we may not be able to keep the lights on. By the way our two sets of wind turbines have hardly moved this week.

Didge wrote:

Flix wrote:I listened to some of an interview on this report and when the interviewer mentioned little or no increase in temperature over the last 15 years, is it, apparently its a natural blip El Nino etc. You don't say. I'm sure humans contribute to pollution and can and do mess up the world and other species habitat, like cutting down the rainforests which probably has more effect than carbon emissions but to say we solely responsible for changing an entire planets weather system seems to me a bit arrogant.

I have to say I disagree, in the last 50 years for example there has been a dramatic increase of asthma sufferers and to give an example of this one of my Brothers who is a fitness fanatic had to start using an inhaler whilst in Hong Kong and the air pollution is so bad there, though now back in the uk does not need one. This is down to human pollution and it would be interesting to now if other conditions are due to this. There will be many counter arguments against Global warming which I find a very dangerous view to have to be honest. As we should never cut out the possibility that we may be creating and causing damage to our planet that would be irreversible. Yes much of the works is down to predictions, but they should not be dismissed out of hand as there is clear evidence that the planet is changing and we are seeing massive weather changes also. I really would not like to reach a point where we have people keep dismissing something out of hand when theories are presented that we get to a point where we are f**ked      because to me this is about the major fuel companies and those who gain to make massive profits from them being the most anti as seen. Fossil fuels will not last for ever and we should be looking for alternatives and not dismiss again out of hand as I say these theories because people are more interested in wealth.

the increases in asthma and allergies could perhaps be associated with the almost puritanical assault on 99% of household germs by those that have lost sight of the fact that we have lived with those germs since time immemorial and we even need those germs to build out immune systems.
Hong kong and other places are localised pollution they are not a global phenomenon. If you live in a active volcano you would probably need an inhaler too.
the climate change global warming nonsense is a backdoor way for wealth redistribution and tax collecting by governments.
IF it was a real problem then every country, developing or not would have to cease CO2 emissions.
CO2 is good for the planet. Change is even better, change drives evolution.
The simple fact is that the church of climatology is just that a religion where belief is more important than facts.

scrat wrote:I listened to the discredited extory now UKIP criminal cretin Neil Hamilton bleating about this on question time, in his opinion its all a scam.

I suppose the very fact that little will occur in our lifetime is the reason why many are superficially sceptical, or just can't be arsed with it, and nature always seems to adjust the balance when one species gets out of control.

It is an interesting fact that 98% of these scientists are certain that global warming is man-made, quite a scary scenario.

Its highly ironic that a disgraced British extoryMP, who took cash for questions, is now accusing the green lobby of a scam, what are they scamming? the oil industry has been scamming the people for centuries!

where on earth do you get the figure of 98% of scientist agree. Is that 98% of scientist who's grants are dependent on climate change studies. what is it with labour and falsifying figures.

Didge wrote:

Durham wrote:Hi didge the data there is 10 years old - surely we are less polluted now!  Not saying it is not a contributor - merely a contributory factor alone!

The whole idea of computer models has to be debunked! The be failed time and time again and a computer relies on human input. As you've suggested, humans are inherently biased based upon their own beliefs!!

The world has always got hotter and colder over many centuries.....this is nothing more than human hogwash and arrogance!

Just because a pattern has not fitted the sequence so far does not mean it is debunked in any shape or form, it shows calculations were wrong, which again leads back to further research. On the article it states that air is cleaner than it has been for 15 years but the air pollution still affects people and as seen in places like Asia the pollution is much higher. As I said we have seen a vast increase in sufferers over the years and this is just one illness. I agree with you Durham that the world's climate has gone through a serious of climate changes and who knows maybe we are in fact heading back into an ice age, my point though is not to dismiss out of hand what the vast majority of scientists agree, by doing this we do this at our own peril.

if a model predicts something and the empirical data does not match the model, who is wrong,the model or the real world data?
you seem to think localised pollution problems can be extrapolated to the whole world.

Didge wrote:

Flix wrote:The rise in asthma and such conditions are also thought to be a result of us being too clean and not having our immune systems developed by exposure to relatively harmless bacteria, surely Britain's air being less polluted should mean less such conditions but it doen't appear to be the case. With China belching out coal fuelled polution and opening more coal fired power stations every week I think we've a long to go yet even with this there's been no rise in world temp for 15 years.

15 years is just a blink in the eye in terms of time when it comes temperature changes Flix and again just because there has been no global rise within the last 15 years does not mean it is not going to happen, so I agree it make take many years, but what is more important is that if we can prevent any lasting affects now. It may well be that we will sit pretty as will our children, but that is not looking to the future really, because we don't want to be in a position where we could have done something and then it is too late.  Yes there are many reasons for asthma, but this does not mean many are also not affected or have contracted this by pollution of which many have  

but according to the curch of cliateology we have had numerous dire warnings that the world is doomed in 10, 20, 30 years or so.
Lets not forget they were claiming the himalayan glaciers would be gone in 25 years some years back. as usual the real life data does not back up the model.
Sea levels were supposed to have risen significantly, again they haven't.

the people can only shout wolf so many times before they should rightly be ignored.
We should have been overrun with wolves if the zealots are to be believed.

CAROLINE LUCAS: Well look, 98% of scientists who study this are absolutely agreed that climate change is caused by humans and it’s getting much, much worse. That is going to be at the centre of this next inter-governmental panel on climate change report, that comes out next week. And yes, the science is complicated and you talk about the ice sheets getting broader, they might well be getting broader but they’re also getting thinner; so each time one makes one statement, there’s another one to counter it. But the point is this, that those scientists who know their stuff inside out are saying that it’s getting very much worse and that means that we need to be taking action now. And when you’ve got a Chancellor who says things like, you know, we won’t save the planet by putting Britain out of business, that is such a misunderstanding of what we face because what we should be doing is putting a massive investment in green energy, energy efficiency and that’s not a diversion from tackling the deficit, it’s actually about creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, up and down the country and tackling the deficit at the same time.

scrat wrote:CAROLINE LUCAS: Well look, 98% of scientists who study this are absolutely agreed that climate change is caused by humans and it’s getting much, much worse. That is going to be at the centre of this next inter-governmental panel on climate change report, that comes out next week. And yes, the science is complicated and you talk about the ice sheets getting broader, they might well be getting broader but they’re also getting thinner; so each time one makes one statement, there’s another one to counter it. But the point is this, that those scientists who know their stuff inside out are saying that it’s getting very much worse and that means that we need to be taking action now. And when you’ve got a Chancellor who says things like, you know, we won’t save the planet by putting Britain out of business, that is such a misunderstanding of what we face because what we should be doing is putting a massive investment in green energy, energy efficiency and that’s not a diversion from tackling the deficit, it’s actually about creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, up and down the country and tackling the deficit at the same time.

if you hadn't started by quoting caroline lucas people may have listened.
She is a watermelon and nothing she says can be taken as fact. Now where do you get the figure of 98% of scientists support man made climate change, or even better where does she get it.

Caroline Lucas

    

Flap Gallagher wrote:if a model predicts something and the empirical data does not match the model, who is wrong,the model or the real world data?
you seem to think localised pollution problems can be extrapolated to the whole world.

Not at all, it could be that all they have wrong is timings nothing more and all you are doing is dismissing something because you do not even understand the effects let alone understand global warming. The reality is with people like yourself it will be people in the future cursing you because of your naivety and how they will suffer because you thought you knew better than scientists who do know what they are talking about and thus stopped the chance for everyone to do something for the future.
15 years is nothing in the scale of time for global warming, thus it calls for the scientists to look again and adjust details because the evidence is there for global warming something which is what many fail like your self to disprove. If you only hold to where they have not predicted right so far on the last 15 years, is really very moot, because if it happens in the next 100 years they would have been very right but only wrong on the scale of time. So your only defense is of time so far and not of time to come.