open Democracy News Analysis - The Great Global Warming Swindle, - Comments

ILJAY on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

ILJAY — Sat, 26 May 2007 05:46:58 +0100

Dave, it is you who is in denial. Climate changes, always has and always will. Get over it, there is no proof that it is your fault. There is no evidence that current warming is caused by CO2 - none. Only consensus. If you can provide me with some proof I promise to look at it. There are other scientists of very high caliber that disagree: John Christy (ex IPCC), Roy Spencer, Paul Reiter (ex IPCC), Indur Goklany (IPCC), Timothy Ball, Philip Stott, Yuri Izrael, Joel Kauffman, Vincent Gray (IPCC reviewer), Christopher Landsea (ex IPCC), Nir Shaviv, Reid Bryson, Tim Patterson, Jan Veizer, Roger Revelle (Al Gore's alleged mentor) and many many more. I am getting tired of this exchange. Only the time will tell. It is easy to be a AGW believer when the climate is doing what you want it to (well, sort off - the temperatures have been in a slight decline since 1998). If this cooling trend continues into the next decade the whole malaki will be out of the window. Let's wait and see. I leave you with the blog entry from David Evans who devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. He explains why he used to believe in AGW theory prior to 2000 and what evidence that came out since made him change his mind: http://tinyurl.com/3dbbrb Perhaps have a read of this site as well. Even a bright 15 year old with Internet access can work it all out pretty well. She also predicted the end of drought in Australia by studying the ENSO patterns. She's done a better job than CSRIO and IPCC combined despite their multi million dollar funding: http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/

David Wood on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

David Wood — Fri, 25 May 2007 17:15:00 +0100

> The term "real climate scientists" comes from the > Real Climate's own blurb. Um, that's just what I called them, I didn't take it from their blurb, so that is pure coincidence. > There are plenty of other > "real climate scientists" that have different > opinions. Take Richard Lindzen from MIT for example: > http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/ Ah yes, the trump card for deniers. However he's one significant voice, amongst many many others who support the IPCC. You seem to think I don't know any of this... And now you trust the IPCC report, when you don't in any other circumstances?

ILJAY on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

ILJAY — Sun, 20 May 2007 03:52:02 +0100

Dave, realclimate.org was actually set up by Mann and Co. to defend the hockey stick. There is no question in anyone's mind about the objectivity of the site. The term "real climate scientists" comes from the Real Climate's own blurb. There are plenty of other "real climate scientists" that have different opinions. Take Richard Lindzen from MIT for example: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/ US National Academy of Sciences have looked into the Hockey Stick controversy and concluded that climate reconstructions are unreliable for the period before 1600. This means that it can only be claimed with certainty that the current decade is the hottest in 400 years. Not a difficult feat knowing that the Earth went through the Little Ice Age during the same period. Of course it should be warmer! Wegman report was even stronger in its criticism of Hockey Stick. The summary of the controversy is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy Quite tellingly, Hockey Stick graph is missing from the IPCC's 2007 report. Hans von Storch has recently published his critique of Hockey Stick in "Science" (you know, the "real science journal" "real scientists" read): http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/05/the_decay_of_the_hockey_stick.html

David Wood on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

David Wood — Sat, 19 May 2007 23:50:44 +0100

> Dave, if you want to get petty and talk about > credibility of the film, be my guest. It's hardly petty in the context of this thread! What else woudl you want a thread entitled 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' to be about? > But I will just > ask again, how in this light should we view UN's > endorsement of the Hockey Stick graph without > actually checking it. > > http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1513#more-1513 Perhaps you should check some real climate scientists on the myths and realities of the hockey stick graph first: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stickquot/

ILJAY on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

ILJAY — Tue, 15 May 2007 08:03:42 +0100

I would be very interested to see how Iljay and others can spin this one. Actually the guys from www.climateaudit.org, the same bunch that destroyed the Hockey Stick, have already done a pretty good job on this one. So I am not going to bother. I particularly like: Climate scientists didn't bother checking the Hockey Stick, but they are showing great diligence in going through The Great Global Warming Swindle. The same scientists didn't speak out much about Al Gore's sci-fi project Inconvenient Truth when he exaggerated sea level rises by about a factor of 20 or failed to mention that ice core records show that temperatures increases first and CO2 levels follow. Carl Wunsch didn't complain that anything he said was misrepresented, he complained that the film doesn't match his stance on the GW issue. Big difference. Dave, if you want to get petty and talk about credibility of the film, be my guest. But I will just ask again, how in this light should we view UN's endorsement of the Hockey Stick graph without actually checking it. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1513#more-1513

David Wood on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

David Wood — Mon, 14 May 2007 10:38:14 +0100

>> I would consider Sir David Attenborough to be a > rather popular and mainstream commentator on GW - yet > I still find his > [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article8 > 5953.ece] ideas perverse in the extremes [/url]. Sorry I couldn't access that piece so I have no idea what you consider perverse... >Or > how about this bunch of [url=http://www.vhemt.org/] > misanthropic environmentalists [/url]? According to > these people, having a baby is only > [url=http://www.vhemt.org/biobreed.htm#wrongpeople] > proof of a mental disorder [/url]- and besides, > babies damage the environment, don't they? Ok, they > may be a bit extreme, but not as extreme as some in > the environmental movement. A bit extreme? They are either a surreal joke or complete nutters and so far out of the fringes of kookdom that I can't believe you have referenced them in a serious discussion as if they represented anything but themselves... straw man no.1 > > How about the animal rights activist > [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/ > 754291.stm] Jon Ablewhite [/url] who thought it was > perfectly fine to dig up and interfere with the dead > corpse of Gladys Hammond - for what? All in the name > of the rights of guinea pigs who have no voice? Such > eco-worriers have a degraded view of humanity. I am sorry, but what so animal rights extremists have to do with the mainstream environmental movement? Or even the environmental movement more generally? In fact I don't think you'll find any sane person who'd support this... Straw Man No.2. > The proposition that there are too many people on the > Earth is a stance made from the point of view of > little in the way of hard evidence, yet we hear it > all the time. So, let's start from first principles then. What is your basic problem with this idea? Do you think there can never be (either empirically or morally) any limits on human numbers or human consumption at all? What's the basis for this assertion - come on, let's have a real discussion, rather than this pale rhetoric... > Long after Thomas > Malthus ideas have been redundant and discredited, > neo-Malthusians like Stern and Sachs are > regurgitating the same old myths with next to nothing > in the shape of real evidence to substantiate such > claims. Malthus had his own agenda (which was largely shaped by an obsession with sex and how to prevent it)... but your claims seem equally empty here. This is all rhetoric. If you are complaining about a lack of evidence, where's yours? > David Miliband Hardly an environmentalist of any kind - he's a Labour Party minister... you are really struggling here. Straw Man No.3. > When it comes to people and numbers, environmentalist > can only imagine one type of arithmetic - minus. For > them, inanimate objects have acquired far more > importance than even life or death struggles like > war. War, as a human problem is relegated to second > place - trees, oceans, mountains and deserts have > more intrinsic value. That is exactly the kind of silly rant of which I was complaining. Where's the content? For example, here's the evidence that environmentalists don't think war is important - I think you'll find that the environment and peace movements have always been deeply inter-related, and that one of the main reasons why resource issues are of such concern is that they generate conflict. You are just huffing and puffing at your own straw men. If you want some serious discussion, you'll have to do better and start taking your own advice by providing some serious evidence, or at least be prepared to put the bases of your own beliefs upfront for discussion with the same support you expect from others. Believe it or not, you cannot assume that yours is not the default or 'common sense' position...

Courtney Hamilton on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Courtney Hamilton — Thu, 10 May 2007 15:37:45 +0100

> but > majority of those that drive the GW agenda are > neo-Malthusian fantasists whose massage is strongly > anti-human and anti-progress. "Oh, that's just so much crap. Again just cheap rhetoric and ideologically-driven posturing. You'd be much better off if you weren't so cynical and suspicious. You have no evidence for this statement, it's just a belief and one based on a very narrow idea of what constitutes progress and what it means to be human." David Wood. Just much crap? Cheap rhetoric? Ideologically driven posturing? Think again... I would consider Sir David Attenborough to be a rather popular and mainstream commentator on GW - yet I still find his ideas perverse in the extremes . Or how about this bunch of misanthropic environmentalists ? According to these people, having a baby is only proof of a mental disorder - and besides, babies damage the environment, don't they? Ok, they may be a bit extreme, but not as extreme as some in the environmental movement. They all have something in common; they assume that the interests of people are far less important than the health of an inanimate object. How about the animal rights activist Jon Ablewhite who thought it was perfectly fine to dig up and interfere with the dead corpse of Gladys Hammond - for what? All in the name of the rights of guinea pigs who have no voice? Such eco-worriers have a degraded view of humanity. The proposition that there are too many people on the Earth is a stance made from the point of view of little in the way of hard evidence, yet we hear it all the time. From Jeffery Sachs' lecture entitled 'Bursting at the seams' , to Sir Nicholas Stern's review, which states that greater 'effort is required to encourage lower rates of population growth' . Long after Thomas Malthus ideas have been redundant and discredited, neo-Malthusians like Stern and Sachs are regurgitating the same old myths with next to nothing in the shape of real evidence to substantiate such claims. Indeed, the UK Secretary of State for the Environment, David Miliband, cannot stop himself from repeating the mantra that if 'the world were to have the same living standards as we have in the UK, then we'd need three planets to support us'. However, where is his evidence for that? From Miliband's perspective, Africans cannot be expected to live like us over here in the future - it stands to reason from this point of view that Africans need to drastically reduce its population size before any real progress can be made. When it comes to people and numbers, environmentalist can only imagine one type of arithmetic - minus. For them, inanimate objects have acquired far more importance than even life or death struggles like war. War, as a human problem is relegated to second place - trees, oceans, mountains and deserts have more intrinsic value. If this isn't a form of anti humanism, then I'm afraid it is you Mr Wood who is in denial.

David Wood on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

David Wood — Thu, 10 May 2007 09:36:34 +0100

Back to the issue in question. Eigil Friis-Christensen, who was presented by the recent 'Great Global Warming Swindle' as a sceptic and supporter of their position has come out with a public complaint about the makers' fabrication of key data, in this case regarding the supposed correlation of climate change and solar activity: http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html It seems that the two biggest and most credible names in the prog (remember that most of the names were corporate PR hacks or non-scientists) have both now made complaints about misrepresentation and fabrication. I would be very interested to see how Iljay and others can spin this one. BTW, FYI - I am 35 years old. I also have a BA from Oxford in Modern History, an MSc in environmental studies (and a PhD in an unrelated field). I've also worked for NGOs working in environment, poverty reduction and disaster relief. This is relevent here because I asked you your age simply because you seemed to have so little grasp of the history of the global warming debate and how recently and reluctantly states have come to accept the scientific evidence, and how public opinion and attitudes to the environment have changed. I find it hard to beleive that someone who had either a clear memory or knowledge of the massive way in which science, atttiudes and politics of the environment have changed over recent years could say some of the things you did in all seriousness. There seems to be a real attempt to rewrite history to suit ideology rather than looking at what actually happened...

ILJAY on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

ILJAY — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 00:07:02 +0100

Oh Dave, such thin skin you have... Pity you run away from the rest of my post. I thought it was rather reasonable. Particularly since I pretty much overlooked the childish jibes about my age (maturity), evil ideology, not understanding the science, cutting and pasting, my primitive understanding of the world (it always seems to be only within the grasp of enlightened Left-wing types) and so on. To borrow a leaf from your own book, Dave: how old are you?

David Wood on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

David Wood — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:01:42 +0100

> Are you having a shit day or something? You sound > hysterical. This is often a sign of intellectual > weakness. Dear, oh dear. Sorry, Iljay but I will not be drawn into a low-level exchange of insults. Hysteria does seem to be your most common accusation at almost everything with which you disagree. You might want to consider why you feel the need to pathologise people who criticise your views and approach.

ILJAY on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

ILJAY — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 08:30:45 +0100

Dave, Are you having a shit day or something? You sound hysterical. This is often a sign of intellectual weakness. You seem to be unable to respond to any of my arguments without making emotional appeals and repetitively questioning my credibility and my ideological deposition. Strangely when dealing with IPCC you say things like: "Scientific results do not fit ideologies - that should tell you more about the dangers of ideology than science." Yet when I ask absolutely fair dinkum question about IPCC's level of understanding of climate forcings (as stated in their own report), my ideology is all that matters. It is just you reading into the fact that global warming has become, by necessity, a major topic of research, the idea that the research must have been created in order to create generate that funding. Very interesting? Let's imagine for a second that it is proven that Sun is behind the current warming trend. Now, we can't do much about the Sun, can we? What do you think will happen to the funding for GW-related research and IPCC itself? They were something like 6000 people at the latest UN climate summit in Kenya. One of my mates works on greenhouse gas projects with the EPA. Would anyone spend money on researching say impact of GW on polar bears knowing full well that even if the impact is devastating, there is nothing us humans can do about it. I think not, do you? And therein lies the self-interest of climsi community to make not global warming but ANTHROPOGENIC GW the dominant hypothesis. Referring back to the same graph IPCC's level of understanding of the Sun's impact by IPCC's admission is LOW, yet they had enough balls to say they are ever more confident that the Sun has nothing to do with recent climate change. Easy with the Doomsday rhetoric there... that's hardly the language of credible argument. Sorry, Dave but such is the language of IPCC. "Climate change threatens billions" according to the latest IPCC report. I can see Armageddon coming on any minute now. Except I don't, it's always happening some place else like Tuvalu, Alaska or Antarctica. Again this is rhetoric and ignorance. If science produces results you don't like this doesn't make it 'bad'. Stop being a knobhead, Dave. The science is weak, because it is weak, not because I don't like it. I used to believe in GW until I decided to evaluate it critically. For most AGW proponents it is the article of faith and ideology. It also tends to attract the left-wing types in droves, as is perfectly taps into their middle-class guilt. You know: we kill the planet, we murder Africans, the terrorists want to kill us because we are so horrible, we are the cancer of the Planet. And so on. While we are on the subject of science, perhaps you know the answer to these; soon as you say it is so solid: Do we know the average temperature of the planet? What is it? Do we know what the ideal average temperature of the planet should be? Is planet?s temperature always stable or does it fluctuate? Did Earths climate change in the geological past? How do we know that even if we do all that scientists ask us to do the climate will not just change anyway? I don't notice the public being that bothered at all actually. Not half bothered enough in fact. That's because they are not half as gullible as the scientist would like them to be. They already survived the population time bomb, running out of all resources, Acid rain, Y2K, bird flu and so on. I would argue that public has a lot of common sense, while academia loves to flirt with fashionable theories. And the whole point of the IPCC is to provide sound scientific bases for policy proposals and therefore avoid media hype and whatever the public may think. Of course, of course, Dave. They are very shy: "I hope this report will shock people, governments into taking more serious action as you really can't get a more authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work.? As shy as they come. It seems to me that you are still struggling with a rather nineteenth century idea of what constitutes human progress (like our friends the RCP). Dave, I am not sure what you are getting on here but it seems that you have a rather poor understanding of how the world works. You may like art and books, others may like fast cars and easy women. Not everyone has the same idea. I like reading, my wife likes shopping. You like chess; I like beer and pork scratchings. The world is a complicated place, your idea of progress may not be your neighbour's idea, yet you see fit to comment on what you think the aspirations of the world should be. Who made you the spokesman for humanity? You love trees, I love wood chopping. You cannot legislate nor impose morality, Dave. I was born in the Soviet Union and know exactly where such delusions lead. It's quite bizarre that you manage to spin it as if it were a human duty to consume more... Did I actually say anything of the sort? Don't put words in my mouth please, Dave. It's interesting that you think things are distant... plenty of changes already are occuring and visibly so, even to the untrained eye. Dave, changes occur all the time, get used to it. Not all change is bad. More critically change, even a bad one is not in itself a proof that it is our fault. I am getting old and I will die one day. That is really bad, I don't like the idea, but I can't do much about it, can I? The proposition here is not that the climate is changing, this is hardly controversial, but that it is our fault through CO2 emissions. This is far from proven. You seem awfully committed to the absolute certainty of your beliefs. No true, Dave. All it would take is some solid evidence, not dubious CO2 climate correlations, not far from perfect climate models and not simplistic morality tales of bad humans polluting and killing the planet.

David Wood on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

David Wood — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:37:26 +0100

> has everyone forgotton something?????? ... > Each 'respiration' produces 6 atoms of carbon > dioxide. Now i don't know the weight of CO2, but i'm > pretty sure that as humans, only, we produce one heck > of a lot of CO2 just by being here, and what about > the other animals?! Oh, no! Quickly... why don't you tell the IPCC of your startling insight? I'm sure they'll be really pleased to hear from you as I am sure no climate scientist has ever considered the fact that animals breathing produce CO2. And, oh no! We are using up all the oxygen too... we'll all suffocate... Sorry, to be so sarcastic, but was it really worth signing up here just to post that?

David Wood on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

David Wood — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 06:29:32 +0100

> So? Just putting the label 'political' on > something does not make it a terrible thing, or > invalidate the science which these bodies > summarise. > > No? GW is a multi-billion dollar industry. Lucrative > careers have been made by many on the back of the GW > doomsday cult. The issue goes away and plenty of > people will be out of jobs and even disgraced. Look, this is not evidence of anything. It is just you reading into the fact that global warming has become, by necessity, a major topic of research, the idea that the research must have been created in order to create generate that funding. It doesn't matter if it was worth trillions, you still couldn't logically read back from this that the money was the reason for the scientific results. I do wonder how old you are. I say this because I remember a time not so long ago when scientists researching this area were regarded as a bit on the edge of things, when the media thought it was all a bit crazy and governments had absolutely no interest. The research was not created by campaigners or business people or states, but by honest scientific work, and it continues to be. Your cynicism about the motives of people involved is simply that and most of you other language - 'doomsday cult' etc. is simply rhetorical analogy and pretty worthless. The reason things have changed is because the scientific results have become more convincing. Of course the whole thing could still be shown to be partially or completely wrong by further research - that's science for you. But if, as you claim, you are truly someone who appreciates the benefits that science and technology have brought humanity you have to accept things you don't want to hear sometimes that science is telling you - assuming you don't have a god-like view of everything, which I am pretty sure you don't. Scientific results do not fit ideologies - that should tell you more about the dangers of ideology than science. > This > is quite well illustrated by comparing reality vs. > rethoric of the latest IPCC report. Despite 2007 > report being less alarming than 2001 report, it is > billed as the most alarming yet. This sounds like you've cut'n'pasted it from some website... > The "impartiality" of IPCC was further illustrated > when R.K. Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, told Reuters: > "I hope this report will shock people, governments > into taking more serious action as you really can't > get a more authentic and a more credible piece of > scientific work. So I hope this will be taken for > what it's worth." This is the sort of stuff > reminiscent of Colin Powell's performance in the UN > prior to Iraq war. ... as does this. But again, so what? The Chairman of the IPCC is confident of the credibility of the science in the report! Tell us something surprising next time, will ya? > There is no proof of > doomsday, there can be no proof of doomsday, yet we > must prepare for the doomsday. And why exactly? You > are just reinforcing my point that the science is as > weak as it comes. Easy with the Doomsday rhetoric there... that's hardly the language of credible argument. I thought you might just be overstating your case for effect, but you really don't understand science at all if you think proof will be forthcoming... what is your understanding of the nature of positive proof when it relates to complex systems? I'm interested if you think you have some alternative idea of the way that the entire basis of scientific research should work. Perhaps you should write to some major journals to tell them... > I noticed how you ignored my charge that out of 12 > forcings mentioned in 2001 report only one has high > level of scientific understanding. Only one! In 2007 > report they separate various greenhouse gasses > removed a couple of negative forcings. Hey presto: > two out of nine have high level of understanding. Two > out of nine! This is solid stuff. Would you trust a > pilot that knew how to use only 22% of controls in > the cockpit? That's just an analogy and like most arguments by analogy works by shifting attention away from the issue itself. This is a conservative statement of the state of knowledge. You'd expect that if you understood the way scientific research works. It is only big news if you don't. We always need more research... > At last something we can both agree on, Dave. Still I > want to do this for the right reasons, not because I > am shit scared of the sky falling on my head, as the > case is now. Don't be silly. See, this is the problem with your kinds fo arguments - you think there has to be one ideologically right reason for things to be done, i.e.: your own. > Bad science Again this is rhetoric and ignorance. If science produces results you don't like this doesn't make it 'bad'. > has already produced bad > public hysteria and this cannot serve as the basis > for sound polices. It's funny... see, I don't notice any public hysteria. I don't notice the public being that bothered at all actually. Not half bothered enough in fact. And certainly, of those people taking action, they seem to be doing it in a rather low-key fashion. The shrill responses seem to come rather from those who exaggerate and claim that there is 'hysteria'... And the whole point of the IPCC is to provide sound scientific bases for policy proposals and therefore avoid media hype and whatever the public may think. Of course the public may decide to vote one way or another in democracies and we just have to deal with that too. I don't notice any radical 'green' policies getting that many votes as it happens. > There is only one good way to do > this: a broad international commitment on R&D into > clean energy. That's essential of course, but you can't wait for this commitment to occur - private corporations, individual states are going to have to force this along. > But all we get are ambitious populist > CO2 reduction targets that will not be met, higher > taxes, increased calls for protectionism more > government regulation, and general insistence that we > use less, make do, mend and generally lower our > inspirations. I am struggling to see how you portray these as 'populist' - again, I wonder how old you are and how much you know of the history of the environmental movement and its general lack of acceptance until recently. The popularity, such as it is, is very recent and quite mainstream rather than radical in terms of ecological ideas. In addition, why do you associate what I presume you mean as aspirations, with 'more'. We're entering an age in which economic growth will depend less and less on creating more material things and more on symbolic and informational goods. It seems to me that you are still struggling with a rather nineteenth century idea of what constitutes human progress (like our friends the RCP). Progress consists of the progressive fufilment of a multitude of aspirations, not least of which are things like increasing peace, equity, and so on. Efficiency, which in economics has always been the other major goal, consists precisely of doing more with less. So that too is progress. It's quite bizarre that you manage to spin it as if it were a human duty to consume more... > but > majority of those that drive the GW agenda are > neo-Malthusian fantasists whose massage is strongly > anti-human and anti-progress. Oh, that's just so much crap. Again just cheap rhetoric and ideologically-driven posturing. You'd be much better off if you weren't so cynical and suspicious. You have no evidence for this statement, it's just a belief and one based on a very narrow idea of what constitutes progress and what it means to be human. > The global > temperatures have been flat or declining since 1998. Blimey, there's conclusive proof for you! Not... > If this trend continues the same ignorant masses that > are now demanding the war on gasses will turn against > the UN and will never trust another scientist again. No-one is demanding a war on gasses! And I am sorry, but the ignorant masses are certainly not. The mass of scientifically illiterate people are in my experience are not particularly interested in any of this... > What do you think will happen in 10 years when > disaster doesn't come? Or in 20 years when it will > still be as distant as it is now? Don't you think > there will be some questions? Don't you think people > will want to know why scientists were telling us they > were sure, while they didn't have much idea about 80% > of climate forcings or why did they oversold this > incomplete weak science as definitive proof? I am sure we will all be doomed then, doomed I tell you! For someone who is so much against the spreading of doom, you seem to be remarkably good at doing so when it suits you! It's interesting that you think things are distant... plenty of changes already are occuring and visibly so, even to the untrained eye. The thing is that human beings are quite self-delusional and will fit all sorts of things into an ideological pattern, the black-hole of belief eventually sucks rationality in. We get used very quickly to living with the unusual, the emergency - large ice-sheets crack, glaciers retreat etc. but is that 'normal' or not? People will walk past someone who falls over in the street, but that doesn't mean the person didn't fall over... I prefer to stick with evidence whether that tells me what I would like to hear or not. I will be very happy indeed if the evidence starts to demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change is not happening, or is not as bad as predicted etc. Who wouldn't be? I would hope that no credible researcher would be so ideologically committed to an idea that they were closed to the possibility of them being wrong. The main difference between you and me as far as I see it, is that I am happy to be wrong individually if that means greater collective knowledge and progress. I am not sure that you are prepared to be wrong. You seem awfully committed to the absolute certainty of your beliefs. And that I am afraid is probably where you problem with science lies, even whilst you claim to support it. >And > trust me, this is exactly what is going to happen. Why should I 'trust you'? You come on with no evidence, with no credibility, with a lot of rhetoric, attacking a body which has plenty of evidence and credibility, that you condemn precisely for their demand that we trust them and all you can offer ultimately is 'trust me instead'. Message was edited by: David Wood

danlindleydesign on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

danlindleydesign — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:18:14 +0100

has everyone forgotton something?????? C6 H12 06 + 6O2 => 6 CO2 + 6H2O + 36ATP Every breath that 6,525,170,264 people are taking is producing CO2. thats 900 breaths in an hour per person, lets do the math... 900 breaths per hour is 21,600 breaths per day (on avg) or 7,884,000 breaths per year, per person. so thats 51,444,442,361,376,000 breaths on avg each year in the world. Each 'respiration' produces 6 atoms of carbon dioxide. Now i don't know the weight of CO2, but i'm pretty sure that as humans, only, we produce one heck of a lot of CO2 just by being here, and what about the other animals?! ~ dan

ILJAY on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

ILJAY — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:13:32 +0100

Being a working researcher, I am the last person to resort to ad hominem arguments when it comes to science. Accusing me of this will not wash. Actually, I don't have to accuse you. You do a pretty good job to illustrate the point yourself. So? Just putting the label 'political' on something does not make it a terrible thing, or invalidate the science which these bodies summarise. No? GW is a multi-billion dollar industry. Lucrative careers have been made by many on the back of the GW doomsday cult. The issue goes away and plenty of people will be out of jobs and even disgraced. This is quite well illustrated by comparing reality vs. rethoric of the latest IPCC report. Despite 2007 report being less alarming than 2001 report, it is billed as the most alarming yet. The "impartiality" of IPCC was further illustrated when R.K. Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, told Reuters: "I hope this report will shock people, governments into taking more serious action as you really can't get a more authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work. So I hope this will be taken for what it's worth." This is the sort of stuff reminiscent of Colin Powell's performance in the UN prior to Iraq war. Perhaps you need to learn something about science before you make a claim like this, or at least be more careful with your language. If you are waiting for proof of something in this regard or in any science relating to complex systems you will wait forever. Wow Dave! Inspired stuff. There is no proof of doomsday, there can be no proof of doomsday, yet we must prepare for the doomsday. And why exactly? You are just reinforcing my point that the science is as weak as it comes. Not only have I read the summary, I've read much more than that. I wonder what puts you in a position of expertise that can trump all of this work? Do tell us... I noticed how you ignored my charge that out of 12 forcings mentioned in 2001 report only one has high level of scientific understanding. Only one! In 2007 report they separate various greenhouse gasses removed a couple of negative forcings. Hey presto: two out of nine have high level of understanding. Two out of nine! This is solid stuff. Would you trust a pilot that knew how to use only 22% of controls in the cockpit? We need to move a decisive move forward to cleaner, cleverer, more efficient, more widely-available, more customisable, more personal technologies. At last something we can both agree on, Dave. Still I want to do this for the right reasons, not because I am shit scared of the sky falling on my head, as the case is now. Bad science has already produced bad public hysteria and this cannot serve as the basis for sound polices. There is only one good way to do this: a broad international commitment on R&D into clean energy. But all we get are ambitious populist CO2 reduction targets that will not be met, higher taxes, increased calls for protectionism more government regulation, and general insistence that we use less, make do, mend and generally lower our inspirations. You may be sensible enough to yearn for the continuation of technological age, as I do, but majority of those that drive the GW agenda are neo-Malthusian fantasists whose massage is strongly anti-human and anti-progress. GW issue can damage the credibility of science and the UN more than any issue in the past. The global temperatures have been flat or declining since 1998. If this trend continues the same ignorant masses that are now demanding the war on gasses will turn against the UN and will never trust another scientist again. What do you think will happen in 10 years when disaster doesn't come? Or in 20 years when it will still be as distant as it is now? Don't you think there will be some questions? Don't you think people will want to know why scientists were telling us they were sure, while they didn't have much idea about 80% of climate forcings or why did they oversold this incomplete weak science as definitive proof? And trust me, this is exactly what is going to happen. People cannot be fed propaganda year after year and be expected to believe it.

The Great Global Warming Swindle,

ILJAY — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 22:36:25 +0000

On Thursday 8 March at 9pm GMT British Channel 4 will screen a new controversial documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The film's main argument is simple - Global Warming has become such powerful political force that alternative views and explanations are suppressed. The film hears from a number of prominent scientists that dispute the link between CO2 and climate. It also looks at the impacts of CO2 restrictions on the world's poorest people. This wonderful quote comes from James Shikwati, Kenyan director of the Inter Region Economic Network: "The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy, but for us we are still at the stage of survival.I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway network, it might work, maybe, to power a small transistor radio." Read the rest of this post...