What Auntie Beeb doesn't tell you

http://www.statecollege.com/news/columns/can-america-last-only-if-we-use-the-lessons-of-the-past-792940/

A political essay by a rightwing bodybuilding American professional wrestler who quotes the bible on climate change is not going to convince me of anything.
What you really need to think about, baggy, is why Auntie Beeb would purpetrate such a megga deception? Who is supposed to gain from pretending there is a climate problem?
We don't need to talk about prediction now: climate change is happening all over the planet and can been seen to be happening.

That first bloke, Roy Spencer, is a NASA scientist and goodness knows what else. He must know a thing or two.
I can't make my mind up about this subject. My son says its happening, due to us. He's a meteorologist. He's coming home for the weekend and I'm going to show him that article. Should be interesting.
Mind you, the americans do love their cars.

wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/01/whats-up-next/#more-42538

Just because someone is a scientist in one field does not make them an expert in another. Look at Linus Pauling and the giant bee he got in his bonnet about vast doses of Vitamin C. Should have stuck with his Nobel prize in another field. But despite no evidence that he was right about Vit C some people say that there must be something in it.
There is something appealing about conspiracy theories isn't there?
I am debating with myself as to whether I think Mr Strauss-Khan is innocent or guilty (see news today). On the one hand we have the sordid tale and the DNA on her uniform and her serious injuries. To explain these away you would have to construct a movie plot involving a prostitute and a CIA thug. Both stories have a certain sordid appeal don't they but in different ways.

Occams razor is it ? the overwhelming likelihood is that the simplest story is the correct one.

No, doesn't necessarily make him an expert, but it does prove he's got a pretty good brain and not likely to spout any old stuff without doing his research. Not saying I agree with him. I don't know.

That Linus Pauling got two nobel prizes, one for Chemistry and one for Peace.

We wouldn't get anywhere with any research if people didn't have a go at it.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053361/

quotation taken from abstract of above paper:

" we found no evidence of consistent, system-wide decline in coral cover since 1995. Instead, fluctuations in coral cover at subregional scales (10–100 km), driven mostly by changes in fast-growing Acroporidae, occurred as a result of localized disturbance events and subsequent recovery"

Of course Jangly research is a good thing. Its just that sometimes scientists put their reputation behind a pet theory in another field. Not good for the reputation of science in my book. The internet is awash with dentists who are flogging cancer "cures" and the like.

The basic argument of these chaps seems to be that there are natural oscillations in the world climate and that we don't know how fast CO2 will cause warming. Ergo (and this is a big logical leap isn't it) we can carry on consuming fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow. ( Yee Har and God Bless the Bush family, Texaco etc. Amen)
The trouble is that this is not science as in experimental science. it is science as in disciplines like astronomy. They cannot do experiments to test your theories.
However there are an awful lot of very clever scientists who have convinced an awful lot of very clever government officials all over the world, that (weather aside) the temperature is rising, ice caps and glaciers are melting and that sea levels are going to rise. Which will, amongst other effects, inundate a few countries (Bangladesh property anyone? Maldives?) A temperature rise of a degree or two (weather aside) will have effects such as increased desertification in other countries. There is a huge consensus that we should try to reduce carbon output as it will lead to global warming (no, forget the extreme weather - it is a red herring ). We are stuffing carbon into the atmosphere that will not be removed. There is nowhere for it to go - apart from the bit that dissolves in the oceans and makes them more acidic). Many scientists think this process has been going on since we humans started chopping down trees and lighting fires. Look at the deforestation of NZ after the Maori's arrived for instance...

One of the key points about science is that debate is welcomed. There is no party line or three line whip. The outliers who disagree with the vast majority of scientists are welcome to put their ideas out there. Does not mean the outliers are actually right though, just because they are disagreeing with the majority view. And it worries me when they start to preach. Just like it worries me when smokers and vaccine deniers start to preach. I know they need to validate their outlying views but why do this by trying to persuade others who are outside the scientific community?
OK I need to put the sun umbrella up not and get off line.

joannenova.com.au/2011/07/david-archibald-global-warming-is-a-litmus-test-for-our-politicians/

Re Baggy's post: whats up next - essay by J Storrs Hall.
Its interesting to note that J Storrs Hall is funded by rhe American Petroleum Institute and others. Interesting, what!

Hmm. If you look here www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer (scroll down to affiliations and connections) there seems to be a (tenuous?) link with exxonmobil.

sppiblog.org/news/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace#more-5344

Baggy must spend a lot of time googling! You can prove anything on the internet: from the existence of UFO’s; to the African birthplace of Barak Obama; to the marvellous medical properties of a hundred times diluted poisonous substances. The majority of Americans believe they have seen an Angel; that the earth was created seven thousand years ago; and a great many Americans believe they have been abducted by aliens (probably true!). The current Republican favourite candidate for President of the US - Sara Palin mark 2 (I don’t want to remember her name its all too scary) believes that “scientists” have succeeded in putting a human brain into a mouse (not a few cells – a whole brain!).
Scientist come in all shapes and sizes (I know someone with a 3rd class sports science degree who calls himself a scientist) and there are many who are in the pay of the petrochemical industry and other multi and trans-nationals specifically for the purpose of dissing climate change.. One has to be very careful……….
There is also a band of climate change deniers who are using Freedom of Information and such like to badger real hardworking scientists for information - to such an extent that some of them hardly have time to pursue their proper work, being forced to make available thousands of hours of research and millions of statistics.
I would love to believe it wasn’t happening but it is no longer just a prediction, it is actually happening. So stop burying your head in the sand and have some concern for the future of your grandchildren.

I think it's always a good idea to be able to see both sides of an issue, whatever it is, so that you can make your own mind up. Open debate is always best but it assumes an ability to think critically. Those people who believe weird unproven things do not have that ability. Perhaps that says something about their level of education. I'm all for freedom of information myself, especially when it is taxpayers' money paying for the research. Scientific facts should always be confirmable by someone else and they need data for that. Most scientists are more than happy to have their hypotheses tested by anyone who wants to.

carbon; perhaps some of us would listen more to your views if you posted more on other issues as well. I've always been very aware or the environment and wanted to safeguard the future for my children and grandchildren, but have never before felt to 'lectured' by someone. It almost makes me want to shrug my shoulders go 'whatever' and walk away from the issue. There are far too many issues going on, including huge corporations that make money out of energy whatever the cost to the envirinment. Try writing to them. We're doing our best in the ways that we can.

Ha! Ha! Don't worry about CC's silly digs, hellypelly. She's good for a laugh repeating the same tired old mantras ad nauseam. The planet is doomed! We're all going to die! And Baggy likes nuclear power because her dad helped a couple of Czech students in 1968. Daft to fall back on silly jibes. Only people who don't have a argument do that.

It was reading James Lovelock's book "The Revenge of Gaia" in the year it came out (2006) that made me think again and some more about nuclear power. I hadn't been put off by the increasingly dubious antics of the anthropogenic global warming scam at that time. On p103 Lovelock says:
The persistent distortion of the truth about the health risks of nuclear energy should make us wonder if the other statements about nuclear energy are equally flawed.

Remember, this guy is as 'green' as they come. If you're bothered by anthropogenic global warming (i.e. increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere as the main driver of climate change), then it makes quite a lot of sense to look for another source of energy that doesn't add to that problem. As it happens, I'm not worried about CO2 because I think climate is far more chaotic and complex than warmists give it credit for. As it happens, I used to be totally opposed to nuclear power, but I read stuff on both sides of the debate and decided it was worth pursuing (also that it would be pursued anyway; might as well be a realist). I'm still concerned about nuclear waste but it looks as if that will be less of a problem in future.

Hi, carbon, hope you are well. I guess it didn't occur to you that Honsa was happy to eat British lamb because he knew the health scares about radiation were 'bovine manure'? As a nuclear physicist he was putting his mouth where his knowledge was, so to speak.

I think we are having a classic example of sincerely-held argument spilling over into diatribe. Constant hectoring leads to people switching off -literally and metaphorically.

Crimson, so you'd listen more to my views if I posted my ideas on knitting perhaps? Or UFO's perhaps?

I love to debate, but you do sometimes hector us carboncareful. And posting things from the internet does not always advance arguments. It depends on the source. There are sites out there that disagree with the germ theory of disease for instance and probably tens of thousands that think evolution is a lie.
Yes I have posted links myself elsewhere but try to discipline myself to stick to well documented stuff like the Office of National Statistics. Otherwise it is just someone else's opinion.
I think the argument about weather patterns is a red herring. Sunspots and natural fluctuations are a red herring. Gaia etc is a red herring.
No one knows wheat will happen to climate in localised areas or even huge oceans.
Are the icecaps melting? Are sea levels rising. This has to be bad news in itself. Do we or do we not think carbon emissions are a contributing factor. Well the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion thinks they are. All else is distraction.

I've been on several forums; people join because they have a common interest..sport, gardening etc. They then go on to discuss other topics [much as one would do with a 'real life' friendship]. You feel your way slowly within a framework of getting to know that person. I don't know you at all, carbon, other than I have always cared deeply about the environment, the future of mankind and this beautiful world that we live in [we are the only creatures that inhabit this planet that go out of our way to destroy it]. As someone that shares your viewpoint in so many ways can you explain why I find you so intimidating? This is a fantastic forum; we all have different viewpoints about so many things, but the chemistry is great; good karma all round. I just want it to stay that way..but I won't be lectured to.

JessM but its not me that keeps posting things from the internet. I'm just the one who is being wound up by (sometimes crazy) stuff other people post from the internet. I have in fact been criticising these websites not posting them. Perhaps you are confusing me with the posters? Please have a look back at this thread and you will find that it is other people, not me, who have been posting things from the internet - at least seven and none of them from me.

However, having said that, I have just come across something on the net that I think is a very good explanation of climate change and what it means. So, with apologies to JessM, here it is:
http://ecoswitch.com/the-global-warming-and-climate-change-controversy/
Of course nobody is compelled to read this, it is your choice.