As the myth of Man-Made Global Warming becomes increasingly exposed for the paper tiger it is, what are the long terms effects for the public's trust in science as a whole?
I do worry that the small number of either deluded, band-wagon jumping or media junkie scientists who are standing alongside the Gore pulpits adding their sychophantic "Amens!" are doing great damage to the future of ordinary people's trust in the scientific community.
It is up to the majority of scientists who are sitting on the fence to stand up and very vocally declare their lack of faith in AGM and the wild speculation and wishful thinking which passes for nearly all of the "evidence" claiming that man-made global warming is a fact when it is no such thing.
AGM is the Creationism of the Left. Sadly some scientists desiring to look trendy/PC have jumped on the bandwagon - when it all goes tits up (the public cynicism is already growing) I shudder to think that all faith in science will be the ultimate and terrible price to pay for Al Gore's reelection stunt.
As the myth of Cosmoclimatology becomes increasingly exposed for the paper tiger it is, what are the long terms effects for the public's trust in science as a whole?
I do worry that a small number of either deluded, band-wagon jumping or media journalist and pseudoscientists are happy to pick up on a PR stunt by a scientific journalist and a renegade scientist because it's controversial an not because it bears any relation to reality. Suggesting controversy where none really exists is doing great damage to the future of ordinary people's trust in the scientific community.
It is up to the all true scientists to stand up and very vocally declare the reality of climate change, the impacts it is having now, and the very real damage to many of the poorest societies that it will inflict in the coming decades.
AGM is not some creation of a left-wing conspiracy. Sadly some lobbyists who no longer have streams of money from tobacco manufactures have jumped on the climate change denier bandwagon to secure their next pay-checks - when it all goes tits up (the public's understanding of the impacts of climate change is already growing) I shudder to think what the potential fines that Exxon-Mobil will suffer once the litigous Americans move on from suing tobacco companies.
Totally agree Pandamania,when it all go,s tits up they will blame George Bush no doubt. Until recently many people i spoke to really had no idea that "Man made" Global warming wasnt a proven fact,or that it is mainly based on models <<< Guess work, that is easily manipulated. The scary thing is that many people are starting to put science in the same boat as politics. The whole thing will turn around i believe when joe public starts to feel the pain of the waste and the cost. They will demand money\tax is spent on the effects of warming,not trying to lower man made C02 that will have no worthwhile cooling effect or help anybody apart from the vote seekers as it is now.
Steve_M, there is not one jot of evidence that proves the AGW. Not one. All it relies on is the fact that the Earth has been going through a natural warming cycle like many times before and CO2 has risen a bit at the same time. Why has the warming slowed down but CO2 goes up rapidly, explain that AGW? Antartica cools, explain that AGW? Litle Ice Age, MWP etc, etc. Cosmoclimatology is the only way we have at present of explaining these events.
The sad thing is AGW is impossible to disprove. All that will happen in in a few years is that they will revise their climate 'models' to explain why we have stopped warming. Or take credit that by pushing the world into an economic slow down they have averted disaster.
Cosmoclimatology rules. Expect Henrik to be awarded a Nobel some day for this gift to the world.
Steve_M, there is not one jot of evidence that proves the AGW. Not one. All it relies on is the fact that the Earth has been going through a natural warming cycle like many times before and CO2 has risen a bit at the same time. Why has the warming slowed down but CO2 goes up rapidly, explain that AGW? Antartica cools, explain that AGW? Litle Ice Age, MWP etc, etc. Cosmoclimatology is the only way we have at present of explaining these events.
No, it relies on very basic physics of transmission of radiation through the atmosphere and is confirmed by the fact that observations match what is expected. The warming has not slowed, Antarctica has warmed in the last 100 years, LIA and MWP were tiny changes over centuries compared to what has happened over the last 30 years. Greenhouse gas theory correctly predicts a host of changes in the structure of warming, cosmoclimatology does not.
Let's have a look at cosmoclimatology. In 1998 there was a paper which showed an almost perfect match between clouds and GCR. Then it got criticised in 2004 because it the match required the use of two datasets that were not compatible. Also clouds didn't increase till six months after the cosmic rays increased, and there were arithmetic errors that disproved the theory.
Svensmark reacted to the criticism, not by claiming that his paper was right, but by claiming that the data was the best available at the time, so he wasn't being dishonest. So well done, his theory "proves" that cosmic rays match up with rubbishy inaccurate cloud data (if you ignore the arithmetic errors and the bits that don't match).
Never mind that as soon as the paper was published the match started to diverge. Easy, he changes his theory so it is low cloud, not total cloud that matches cosmic rays. Once again, he gets a startling alignment between satellite observations of low cloud amount and solar cycle length. How come, when satellites have to view low cloud through the high cloud above, and it is well known that analysis of satellite cloud data is very tricky indeed? Should he not be more suspicious of the perfect fits he gets all the time?
Steve_M, there is not one jot of evidence that proves the AGW. Not one.
Billy Bumbly-
Every Scientific Academy in the world has signed a Joint Statement to the effect that Global Warming is proved and we should do something about it.
- and then we have you.
No thanks mate - I'll listen to the scientists when I want to know about science. If you want to stick your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand that's up to you. I hope it makes you feel safer...
Every Scientific Academy in the world has signed a Joint Statement to the effect that Global Warming is proved and we should do something about it.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
Warming certainly is proved,but Manmade GW isnt, get it ??????????????
Going to try not to be nasty here. ALonDonThinG, what do you think the extra greenhouse gas emissions created by man do? Do you think they simply float around, trying not to disturb anything, or do they, as the vast majority of the scientific community have accepted, have a warming effect on the climate?
I believe firstly there arnt enough manmade Gases to have a meaningfull effect on global warming, either now or in the next few hundred years,by which time we will of advanced from using oil etc anyway. I believe that rise,s in C02 follow warming. I believe the earth had cycles of warmer and cooler climate before man added his carbon. I do believe that AGW is a political issue dressed up in paid for science, eagerly jumped on by the likes of the Greenham common brigade and intersperced with the usual leftwing suspects. I think we should spend money and effort on the results of warming and not trying to control it by reducing our small contribution of C02. I do not believe we will lower C02 by much anyway. I dont fear warming either,if you live on this planet you have to be adaptable and we are. Therefore in my eyes manmade or not GW is something we have to accept,until we start to cool again.
So why should i care where our SMALL amount of C02 goes ?? When the next cooling phase comes around maybe our "small" contribution of C02 will make it a little bit slower,lol will you then be pleading for us to burn oil again ??????
Here we go again... - instantly without even paying attention fully, anyone who doubts AGW is not real are treated like they deny any kind of global warming is happening.
ALonDonThinG has hit on something I encounter all the time. When I say to somebody "there is no proof for man made global warming" they look at me and say "oh come now of course there is global warming everyone agrees!" - this is how utterly propagandised the AGW concept is. In that it's always caused by humans.
That people have unconditionally been accepting that Global Warming cannot have been caused by anything else other than mankind.
As soon as you start explaining to them that you know Global Warming is happening, but that there are other more likely causes they instantly come around to the notion that AGW is not gospel truth afterall.
Which just goes to show you how much of a paper tiger the notion of man-made global warming is and how the only thing keeping it going is the endless "repent mankind for your sinful ways" propaganda.
There is an automatic and unconditional assumption that any discussion focussed on the issue always begins and ends with - "humans are the only problem". This not debate - it's DOGMA.
You cannot blame people for thinking that AGW is the only game in town as the other scenarios are simply not Hollywood enough in that they can't be made into superficially soul-searching movies 'full of heart' which will have loads of CGI and some ham actor at the end making a profound speech about "you reap what you sow..."
The idea that the sun could be causing natural climate change is just too mundane for the sensationlist news media, Hollywood and also sadly for camera-needy scientists who are causing terrible damage to the public's confidence in the scientific community by playing the Gore card to the hilt as soon as a camera or microphone is placed in front of them.
Speaking of media, is it just me of did the Man-Made aspect of the recent ICCP gig seem to go out of it's way NOT to scream "man made!!!" every five seconds like they have always done in the past?
Here we go again... Roll Eyes - instantly without even paying attention fully, anyone who doubts AGW is not real are treated like they deny any kind of global warming is happening.
That people have unconditionally been accepting that Global Warming cannot have been caused by anything else other than mankind.
Similarly, you appear to have made the assumption that the AGW position is that man is the only cause of climate change.
Man is not the only cause of climate change. The sun contributed to warming during 1910-1945. Volcanoes caused cooling from 1880-1910. Previous bouts of warming/cooling (before the SUV was invented) have been influenced by the Milankovitch cycles, likely with a strong feedback caused by changes in albedo and release/absorption of CO2 from a warming/cooling ocean.
Man has also had a measurable influence on the climate in the last 100 or so years, and the primary cause of the last 30 years' warming is very likely anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
how the only thing keeping it going is the endless "repent mankind for your sinful ways" propaganda.
Of course there is the other characterisation that we "believe" the theory with some sort of religious fervour, that we feel the need to enforce new morals of an environmental kind, and that we view Al Gore as some sort of high priest.
Pandamania, so your views aren't misrepresented again, perhaps you could state them (preferably without the confusing rhetorical flourishes )
Originally posted by Steve_M: LIA and MWP were tiny changes over centuries compared to what has happened over the last 30 years.
1 What has been the rise in temperature since 1850, which is roughly when the CO2 in the atmosphere started increasing?
2 Although it's perhaps not as hard evidence as you (and I) would like, you don't seem to mention things like the Romans growing wine in Northern England, newly uncovered glaciers revealing pases that had been use before, melting permafrost revealing that forests had grown there previously etc.
These things all suggest that there have been other warm periods - and indeed, periods that were warmer than currently.
Going back to the title of the thread, I think the hysteria doesn't do much good for science. The reason for this is that the whole debate has become politicised.
There are strengths and weaknesses in the AGW theory, which could very reasonably be debated. These seem to be ignored.
1 What has been the rise in temperature since 1850, which is roughly when the CO2 in the atmosphere started increasing?
Met Office data suggests about 0.8C.
quote:
2 Although it's perhaps not as hard evidence as you (and I) would like, you don't seem to mention things like the Romans growing wine in Northern England, newly uncovered glaciers revealing pases that had been use before, melting permafrost revealing that forests had grown there previously etc.
Well they're growing wine there now. I think someone posted some sort of history of English wine on this forum recently to demonstrate that it is not unusual.
One of the interesting things I've learnt over the last few months is the extent of regional climate changes. So for example, when the Vikings were colonising Greenland, New Zealand was experiencing a 90 year cold snap - the coldest for a millennium. Even the holocene optimum when the far north was experiencing much warmer temperatures, appears cooler than now in terms of global temperature.
The warming we're experiencing now is global in extent (if less obvious in central Antarctica)
quote:
Going back to the title of the thread, I think the hysteria doesn't do much good for science. The reason for this is that the whole debate has become politicised.
I agree. Leave the science to the scientists and make political decisions based on the scientific consensus.
Yes, this whole Man-Made Global Warming fiasco will harm science for decades to come. It will take a long time for anyone to take scientists seriously after all this hysterical scare-mongering and quasi-religious end-of-the-worldism.
I wouldn't attempt to persuade the IPCC scientists to 'water-down' their prophesies for the planet - the more hysterical and shrill their pronouncements grow, the more ridiculous they reveal themselves to be.
Of course, this is all lapped up by the media too (proving GGWS's point on green journalists keeping their jobs). Visiting the Guardian's online 'Environment' section is increasingly becoming like watching Monty Python.
If all this wasn't such a sad reflection on just how undeveloped 21st century man is - despite believing himself to be advanced - it would be quite amusing.
Originally posted by Roger58: Yes, this whole Man-Made Global Warming fiasco will harm science for decades to come. It will take a long time for anyone to take scientists seriously after all this hysterical scare-mongering and quasi-religious end-of-the-worldism.
I wouldn't attempt to persuade the IPCC scientists to 'water-down' their prophesies for the planet - the more hysterical and shrill their pronouncements grow, the more ridiculous they reveal themselves to be.
Of course, this is all lapped up by the media too (proving GGWS's point on green journalists keeping their jobs). Visiting the Guardian's online 'Environment' section is increasingly becoming like watching Monty Python.
If all this wasn't such a sad reflection on just how undeveloped 21st century man is - despite believing himself to be advanced - it would be quite amusing.
This is the most intelligent, well written post to date. Thank You, Roger58. I couldn't have said it better.
1 What has been the rise in temperature since 1850, which is roughly when the CO2 in the atmosphere started increasing?
Met Office data suggests about 0.8C.
So I don't think I'll panic just yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve_M: One of the interesting things I've learnt over the last few months is the extent of regional climate changes..... The warming we're experiencing now is global in extent (if less obvious in central Antarctica)
I think there are some areas which are cooling albeit slowly - the Southern USA, and Portugal/Northern Spain spring to mind (I haven't double checked)
I compared the ranges 1895-1905 and 1996-2006 against the 1895-2000 mean. The 1895-1905 data look warmer than 1971-2000 for Washington, Montana, New Mexico and a band NNE of New Mexico. Other areas look about the same or a bit cooler.
The comparison of the last 10 years though is very clear cut showing warmth everywhere apart from Florida and the states bordering Florida.
Interestingly, the period 1930-1950 comes out as being warm in the east and cool in the west where as 1970-2000 is cool in the east and warm in the west, and 1945-1970 (the period of global cooling) is very average indeed.
The upcoming Climate Awareness concert being organised by Al Gore really brings home how superficial and stupid this has all become.
What is the "Carbon Footprint" of Snoop Dog and his posse of Hummers...Madonna and Guy taking a break from slaughtering foxes in the English countryside in order to "save the environment"? - you could not make this stuff up if you tried.
I agree with Roger the Guardian columns are like something from Monty Python. The whole Man Made GLobal Warming hysteria, every aspect of it is total surrealism.
It's unfortunate really as when a real emergency comes along people will just ignore all scientists. They'll think back to Al Gore clapping Snoop Dog coming off stage after singing about 'bitches and hos' with the interjection of "save da earth ya all" and recall when scientist stopped being scientific and were caught up in it all.
I can just hear Al Gore now "I wanna thank all the rappers and rockers who are playing here today for supporting me and all the scientists to warn the world of global warming caused by mankind" *standing ovation*
Like I said, a PR disaster for the scientific community as a whole. The reputation of science is being gambled on superficial rubbish like this.
Originally posted by Pandamania: The upcoming Climate Awareness concert being organised by Al Gore really brings home how superficial and stupid this has all become.
What is the "Carbon Footprint" of Snoop Dog and his posse of Hummers...Madonna and Guy taking a break from slaughtering foxes in the English countryside in order to "save the environment"? - you could not make this stuff up if you tried.
In the spirit of 'Band Aid', can I be the first to suggest the Climate Awareness concert is called 'BAND WAGON'?
And, as there appears to be no shame in the selection of the line-up, it would be highly appropriate to the nature of the event to invite Gary Glitter to perform "D'you wanna be in my gang?" (maybe with the 2500 IPCC climate scientists lined up behind him doing backing vocals?)
Just because you haven't looked for any evidence doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. The evidence for AGW is strong, I suggest that you read the most thorough and comprehensive documents that exist on this subject if you doubt this. Try the third IPCC report:
podbod, I have the third IPCC report printed out and read through it. I saw nothing new from previous reports except this one was far less shrill and eye b
- instantly without even paying attention fully, anyone who doubts AGW is not real are treated like they deny any kind of global warming is happening. 
)