Scientists predict a century of global cooling

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/05/report-scientists-predict-a-century-of-global-cooling/

Report: Scientists predict a century of global cooling


http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/2013-11-12T003247Z_1_CBRE9AB01IQ00_RTROPTP_4_AUSTRALIA-e1386261719380.jpg

This report was published in the middle of last year but I thought i'd post in light of this story - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10546128/Worlds-climate-warming-faster-than-feared-scientists-say.html - being published in the Telegraph this morning where scientists have stated that the climate is warming faster than feared.


Better start investing in some warm clothes because German scientists are predicting that the Earth will cool over the next century.

German scientists found that two naturally occurring cycles will combine to lower global temperatures during the 21st century, eventually dropping to levels corresponding with the “little ice age” of 1870.

“Due to the de Vries cycle, the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the ‘little ice age’ of 1870,” write German scientists Horst-Joachim Luedecke and Carl-Otto Weiss of the European Institute for Climate and Energy.

Researchers used historical temperature data and data from cave stalagmites to show a 200-year solar cycle, called the de Vries cycle.

They also factored into their work a well-established 65-year Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle. Global warming that has occurred since 1870 can be attributed almost entirely to both these factors, the scientists argue.

According to the scientists, the oft-cited “stagnation” in rising global temperatures over the last 15 years is due to the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle, which lasts about 65 years. Ocean oscillation is past its “maximum,” leading to small decreases in global temperature.

The de Vries solar cycle is currently at its “maximum,” explaining why temperatures have risen since 1870, but leveled off after 1998. However, this means that as solar activity starts to decrease, global temperatures will follow.

“Through [the de Vries solar cycle's] influence the temperature will decrease until 2100 to a value like the one of the last ‘Little Ice Age’ 1870,” the scientists wrote.

Most scientists argue that human activity — mainly burning fossil fuels — is driving global temperatures higher as more greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. In response, governments from countries around the world have agreed to limit temperature rises to two degrees Celsius by 2100. Most of this effort focuses on cutting each nation’s reliance on fossil fuels.

Scientists, however, have been increasingly turning against the global warming consensus and arguing that the world is actually in line for a colder century.

Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University argues that the world is set for global cooling due to rapidly falling solar activity.

“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Lockwood] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,” the BBC reports. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”

Solar activity is one line of evidence scientists have used to find global cooling. Low sunspot activity has been linked with colder periods in human history, like the “Little Ice Age” during the 1600s, while higher levels of sunspot activity have been linked to warmer periods.

“When we have had periods where the sun has been quieter than usual we tend to get these much harsher winters,” Sunderland University climate scientist Dennis Wheeler told the Daily Express.

Last year, Russian scientists argued that the world could soon plunge into another Little Ice Age based on solar activity, heralding a new “Little Ice Age.”

“After the maximum of solar cycle 24, from approximately 2014 we can expect the start of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055,” wrote Habibullo Abdussamatov of the Russian Academy of Science.

“So the warming we saw, which lasted only from 1978 to 1998, is something that is predictable and expectable,” said Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University. “When the ocean changed temperatures, global cooling is almost a slam dunk. You can expect to find about 25 to 30 years yet ahead of us before it starts to warm up again. It might even be more than that.”

What did I say hey? That it was a load of absolute rubbish (and I used to believe it when I was about 10 and happened also to love disaster films) and the main reason why it was complete tripe is that the temperature was found to have dropped over the past decade ALONG with the fact that any dunce could work out that humans are a tiny dot compared to the effects and influences of the giant ball of fuel called the Sun along with the Earth's complex weather systems. That's why they renamed it from global warming to climate change - and sometimes even today I see it referred to as 'sustainable development' which is just another way for greedy governments to steal more money from the taxpayer to 'prevent the end of the world'. Oh so noble, and all for your own benefit - of course.

A lovely bit of irony this week though, apparently (and there's all news reports out there on this) a ship with scientists on 'investigating' global warming has become stuck in Antarctica due to unprecedented levels of snow and ice which have trapped the ship. As this whole thing continues to die away as it's exposed for what it is, I thought that was a nice little finishing touch - especially in light of the warning scientists have given this week (again - see Telegraph article I linked to above) that we're all going to die faster than first thought. :P

Thoughts?

[Vodafone]

Your journalism totally isn't bias or anything.

[Kardan]

I thought it was well known that about 95% of environmental scientists think that climate change is due to humans, and the other 5% thinks its complete bollocks. You got a report from that 5% :P

Of course, the Earth won't get hotter and hotter each year, but the general trend is that it is climbing ever so slowly, and that has to be put down to Human influence in my opinion.

[Ardemax]

Maybe this might help http://www.reddit.com/r/science/search?q=flair%3A%27Env%27&sort=top&restrict_sr=on

Feel free to go through as many pages as you like

[The Don]

I thought it was well known that about 95% of environmental scientists think that climate change is due to humans, and the other 5% thinks its complete bollocks. You got a report from that 5% :P

Of course, the Earth won't get hotter and hotter each year, but the general trend is that it is climbing ever so slowly, and that has to be put down to Human influence in my opinion.

Yep

http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Powell-Science-Pie-Chart.png (http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science-one-pie-chart)




http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png

A 2013 survey of 3984 abstracts from peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2011 that expressed an opinion on anthropogenic global warming found that 97.1% agreed that climate change is caused by human activity. (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/)

Not to mention that the first scientist quoted in that article (Horst-Joachim Luedecke) has been frequently debunked by the people he claims to associate with (http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/meldungen/2010/m20100830_klimawandel.html).


Mr. Liidecke, residing in Heidelberg retired professor of physics and computer science of the University of Applied Sciences of the Saarland and spokesman for the private club EIKE (eV European Institute for Climate and Energy), has in it the result of anthropogenic (ie man-made) greenhouse gas emissions induced global warming disputed. This is based on misleading, the results of decades of research in the field of environment and climate contradictory assertions, which unfortunately keep popping up in the media. The Institute of Environmental Physics, Heidelberg University is committed to reject these theses publicly. We would like to emphasize that there is no connection between Mr. Liidecke and the University of Heidelberg is. Mr. Liidecke features a familiar mix of arguments on that says, in essence, that it was either give no warming, or if it does, this nothing to do with CO 2 to have to do. It is sometimes even denied that the humanity of the CO 2 -caused increase in the atmosphere. We have such arguments, which individually are neither valid nor in the aggregate, decided back. Since they have already been widely refuted, we do not here on a detailed discussion and content ourselves with a brief essence of our research results.

I would also like to point out that the "European Institute for Climate and Energy" isn't quite what the name seems to suggest, it is in fact simply an association of sceptics, and certainly not a credible source, let alone one to be taken seriously. But then again, Dan doesn't seem to listen to the 90% or so of rational scientists who all agree that climate change is caused by human activity.

Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-warming-unprecedented-in-last-44000-years&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_BS_20131025)

Climate Change Is Altering Rainfall Patterns Worldwide (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-is-altering-rainfall-patterns-worldwide&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_ENGYSUS_20131115)

Climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/14/climate-change-evolution-species-adapt?CMP=twt_gu)

2012 was hottest year in U.S. history (http://www.naturalresourcestoday.info/2013/01/noaa-2012-was-hottest-year-in-us-history.html)
Direct Source (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klgp_qDiRhQ

[FlyingJesus]

I'm quite warm I don't even have socks on

[Sieglinde]

not sure whether this is good or bad

[-:Undertaker:-]

Your journalism totally isn't bias or anything.

So anything out of something other than the BBC is biased? I'll let you in on a secret too - the BBC is biased aswell.


Yep

Unless you have read those reports you cannot say whether or not they support AGW which is the real term for global warming/climate change. The vast majority of scientists admit global warming exists, the debate is over whether man causes global warming or to what extent.


Not to mention that the first scientist quoted in that article (Horst-Joachim Luedecke) has been frequently debunked by the people he claims to associate with (http://www.uni-heidelberg.de/presse/meldungen/2010/m20100830_klimawandel.html)

A lot of scientists who dismiss AGW are hounded out of the profession and threatened, and it's not surprising given that a lot of funding to science departments comes from global warming. Governments and companies are only going to pay for what they want to hear. Personally I prefer to take what the pro-AGW people say in private - such as the Climategate I incident where emails from the pro-AGW University of East Anglia were leaked where a senior department head was caught saying (in private) that there has been no warming -


"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Or this.... which is related to your 'WELL WHY ARENT ANY PEER REVIEWED'


"Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL."

Or this...


"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Caught out yet none of them lost their jobs and the scam continues. It did however dramatically change how the media view global warming and thankfully the entire scam is starting to fall apart.


I would also like to point out that the "European Institute for Climate and Energy" isn't quite what the name seems to suggest, it is in fact simply an association of sceptics, and certainly not a credible source, let alone one to be taken seriously. But then again, Dan doesn't seem to listen to the 90% or so of rational scientists who all agree that climate change is caused by human activity.

How have you come to the 90% figure? Have you interviewed all scientists and asked them what their opinion is? No. Nobody has. But here's a huge list you probably didn't know about of scientists who disagree with AGW - http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54

None of which you'll ever hear on the BBC, which is one of the reasons why broadcaster David Bellamy is never seen on the BBC anymore simply because he dare disagree with the consensus on global warming.


Arctic Warming Unprecedented in Last 44,000 Years (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=arctic-warming-unprecedented-in-last-44000-years&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_BS_20131025)

Climate Change Is Altering Rainfall Patterns Worldwide (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-is-altering-rainfall-patterns-worldwide&WT.mc_id=SA_CAT_ENGYSUS_20131115)

Climate change is happening too quickly for species to adapt (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/14/climate-change-evolution-species-adapt?CMP=twt_gu)

2012 was hottest year in U.S. history (http://www.naturalresourcestoday.info/2013/01/noaa-2012-was-hottest-year-in-us-history.html)
Direct Source (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/)

Or this - http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/01/01/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-stats-for-2013/


http://sunshinehours.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/antarctic_sea_ice_extent_2013_day_365_1981-2010.png?w=1024&h=682


(the unfunny bill maher)

Bob Lutz wipes the floor with them. This is my favourite climate debunking (three parts) using both UN/IPCC and official data.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08SVnB_PBNQ

[-:Undertaker:-]

I thought it was well known that about 95% of environmental scientists think that climate change is due to humans, and the other 5% thinks its complete bollocks. You got a report from that 5% :P

Of course, the Earth won't get hotter and hotter each year, but the general trend is that it is climbing ever so slowly, and that has to be put down to Human influence in my opinion.

So what caused past climate changes before we had the Industrial Revolution?

And again, how did you come to that conclusion of 95%?

[Sian]

the earth goes up and down temperature wise, this does not surprise me.

[The Don]

Unless you have read those reports you cannot say whether or not they support AGW which is the real term for global warming/climate change. The vast majority of scientists admit global warming exists, the debate is over whether man causes global warming or to what extent.

That's a really poor argument. That type of thinking can be applied to literally anything. Me having not read nearly 4,000 research papers doesn't make the source any less credible. If we follow that line of thinking, and you're suggesting those statistics are a lie, Why can't the same also be said for anything you provide? Have you read all the reports Mockton mentions? In fact, if we follow that line of thought, how do we know the reports themselves aren't made up? Saying "well have you read it" doesn't make it any less true, I can find many sources, there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that human-caused climate change is real. Now, are you prepared to actually discuss the fact that most scientists agree on it? If not please stop wasting my time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png

Here's a quote from the United States National Research Council...


here is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations. * * * Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities




A lot of scientists who dismiss AGW are hounded out of the profession and threatened, and it's not surprising given that a lot of funding to science departments comes from global warming. Governments and companies are only going to pay for what they want to hear.

What's more likely, either majority of scientists are all part of some elaborate conspiracy to get some of that sweet tax money for funding, or a small percentage are shills paid off by big oil companies? Common sense suggests the latter.



Personally I prefer to take what the pro-AGW people say in private - such as the Climategate I incident where emails from the pro-AGW University of East Anglia were leaked where a senior department head was caught saying (in private) that there has been no warming

"A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming." (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm)




Caught out yet none of them lost their jobs and the scam continues. It did however dramatically change how the media view global warming and thankfully the entire scam is starting to fall apart.

Ergh, see above...




How have you come to the 90% figure? Have you interviewed all scientists and asked them what their opinion is? No. Nobody has.

Can you not remember that big pretty graph I posted for you earlier? Ignoring something doesn't make it go away, Dan.

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/C02_TCP_social_media_image_97.jpg




But here's a huge list you probably didn't know about of scientists who disagree with AGW - http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=54


What's your point? Here's a huge list of scientific ORGANISATIONS which endorse the consensus.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK



None of which you'll ever hear on the BBC, which is one of the reasons why broadcaster David Bellamy is never seen on the BBC anymore simply because he dare disagree with the consensus on global warming.


Or because they're not credible?

Nice try Dan, but skipping essential points of an argument doesn't make yours any stronger.

[Vodafone]

I agree strongly with "The Don". I live in Australia, where in 2013 all records were broken, for the hottest day on record, hottest week, hottest month, and it was the hottest year since records began.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-confirmed-as-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20140103-308ek.html

What future does Australia have though when all three Environmental bodies were dismantled when the ignorant conservative government came into power.

David Karoly, a climate scientist at the University of Melbourne, said 2013 was "an unprecedented year" for Australia not least because it came in a period without an El Nino weather pattern over the Pacific. The so-called El Nino-Southern Oscillation - which typically warms up eastern Australia in particular - remained in neutral through the year, and continues to do so.
‘‘These record high temperatures for Australia in 2013 cannot be explained by natural variability alone," Professor Karoly said. "This event could not have happened without increasing greenhouse gases, without climate change."

Pollution doesn't affect the environment one bit, it's all "lies".

[karter]

Pollution doesn't affect the environment one bit, it's all "lies".

Uhhhhh what

I think you meant climate and not environment.......

[Daltron]

I've always thought people who try to dismiss climate change as happening or human induced to be a little unstable mentally..

My opinion has not changed.

[Ardemax]

http://i.imgur.com/epstfA5.jpg
Posted by Anonymous to Twitter. I think it's quite a good point.

[GommeInc]

I think scientists should make up their minds. They debunked global warming and opted for climate change, then they go back on their original report saying it is global warming after that fiasco - then you get researchers in the UK being caught falsifying reports (which was reported in The Guardian, through the BBC all the way through the political level making its way into Parliament). I find the debate tedious at best, when annual reports suggest little warming has happened, and many suggest it's down to natural occurrences and not man - because once you leave an ice age what do you get? Warmth... heat... Also isn't history littered with sudden heat spells which were completely unexplained? I can't help but follow what historians have to say - not scientists who seem to change their opinion every year.

[-:Undertaker:-]

That's a really poor argument. That type of thinking can be applied to literally anything. Me having not read nearly 4,000 research papers doesn't make the source any less credible. If we follow that line of thinking, and you're suggesting those statistics are a lie, Why can't the same also be said for anything you provide? Have you read all the reports Mockton mentions? In fact, if we follow that line of thought, how do we know the reports themselves aren't made up? Saying "well have you read it" doesn't make it any less true, I can find many sources, there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement that human-caused climate change is real. Now, are you prepared to actually discuss the fact that most scientists agree on it? If not please stop wasting my time.

But you haven't read the reports supporting it either. Neither of us are scientists, much less data analysts - that's why Monckton is so convicing even when he uses the UN's own data models to show that even if global warming was man made and even if the UN's predictions are correct, then the best course of action is to do nothing and simply adapt to any changes.

Now that to me sounds like a far more rational argument rather than embarking on taxation and regulation which, if followed through, will destroy western economies. The link I post to your paragraph below also addresses the 97pc claim you make.


What's more likely, either majority of scientists are all part of some elaborate conspiracy to get some of that sweet tax money for funding, or a small percentage are shills paid off by big oil companies? Common sense suggests the latter.

Actually the pro-global warming scientists and bodies recieve far more in oil funding than the climate sceptics do. But to answer this along with the above claim that the majority of scientists agree with global warming aka the "97% argument" James Delingpole provides rebuttals in this article to both argument, full of links - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100227804/97-per-cent-of-climate-activists-in-the-pay-of-big-oil-shock/


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/10/Jonova.gif

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100109539/who-funds-the-climate-alarmists/


"A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming." (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm)

Ergh, see above...

Sounds to me like a cop out. The only reason why these claims were found out was because of the emails being hacked by Russian hackers - had they not hacked these oh so truthworthy scientists, then none of it wouldn't have got out. They got caught out telling lies and you can read everything they said online.


Can you not remember that big pretty graph I posted for you earlier? Ignoring something doesn't make it go away, Dan.

Been debunked, see -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/10324738/The-ice-is-not-melting-yet-still-the-scaremongers-blunder-on.html

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100227804/97-per-cent-of-climate-activists-in-the-pay-of-big-oil-shock/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100234054/if-you-still-believe-in-climate-change-read-this/



What's your point? Here's a huge list of scientific ORGANISATIONS which endorse the consensus.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

My point is that there are many scientific organisations and scientists who disagree with the so-called climate consensus and believe it to be either overblown or totally false. I could post lists of these types of organisations, indeed I did with the Manhattan Delcaration list.


Or because they're not credible?

Who says so? In other words, a whole bunch of scientific organisations, environmentalists and scientists disagree with AGW... yet they aren't credible just because they don't fit into your belief system or that of the BBC. Right, okay.


Nice try Dan, but skipping essential points of an argument doesn't make yours any stronger.

All you've done is post graphs and links from debunked arguments. Next you'll be posting the (debunked) hockey stick graph and shouting "LOOK LOOK I TOLD YA SO". Yawn.


I agree strongly with "The Don". I live in Australia, where in 2013 all records were broken, for the hottest day on record, hottest week, hottest month, and it was the hottest year since records began.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/2013-confirmed-as-australias-hottest-year-on-record-20140103-308ek.html

What future does Australia have though when all three Environmental bodies were dismantled when the ignorant conservative government came into power.

What future does Australia face as a result? a prosperous one.


I've always thought people who try to dismiss climate change as happening or human induced to be a little unstable mentally..

My opinion has not changed.

Labelling opponents as mentally unstable is probably the lowest trick in the book.


I think scientists should make up their minds. They debunked global warming and opted for climate change, then they go back on their original report saying it is global warming after that fiasco - then you get researchers in the UK being caught falsifying reports (which was reported in The Guardian, through the BBC all the way through the political level making its way into Parliament). I find the debate tedious at best, when annual reports suggest little warming has happened, and many suggest it's down to natural occurrences and not man - because once you leave an ice age what do you get? Warmth... heat... Also isn't history littered with sudden heat spells which were completely unexplained? I can't help but follow what historians have to say - not scientists who seem to change their opinion every year.

Indeed, an ounce of common sense would suggest looking back at past climate flucuations and coming to the rational decision that the Earth's climate has changed, does change and always will change. Even as recent as back in Roman Britannia, grapes were grown as far north as Scotland - something that is unthinkable now.

One of my favourite quotes has always been the one from former British PM Harold MacMillan -


"We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts."

Interestingly, the BBC's Andrew Neil (presenter of the Daily Politics) has been arguing and questioning the AGW consensus recently on Twitter (highly unusual for a BBC man) and here's some of what he's posted -


Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 6 Jan

#c4news reported that Polar Vortex freezing USA result of global warming. But didn't present scrap of evidence. What is the evidence?


Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 30 Dec

Given well documented growth in Antarctic sea ice extent why did climate scientists and science journos on board not anticipate problems?


Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 29 Dec

Some seem to think the boat is trapped in Antarctic sea ice because weather abnormally bad. No. 1. It's summer. 2. Sea ice growing for years


Bishop Hill ‏@aDissentient 29 Dec

The Antarctic sea ice data is here http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png … @Glinner. I think you may owe @afneil a very humble apology.


Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 29 Dec

Frankly, funding of climate science/warmists/sceptics/deniers/whatever is a sideshow. What matters are the facts and research, whoever funds


Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 29 Dec

Many green lobbies funded by big oil/business inc. Green Alliance? How much does Greenpeace get from big energy?


Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 29 Dec

Big oil and big business have spent millions funding global warming science, very little on sceptics or deniers pic.twitter.com/TPmBVPwYqC

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bcq4q_7IIAEOZ_K.jpg


Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 24 Dec

Guardian story claiming climate sceptics have £1bn in funds turns out to be nonsense. Even academic behind study disassociates himself.


Andrew Neil ‏@afneil 24 Dec

Whatever rights or wrongs of global warming, it is fantasy to suggest sceptics have more than wee fraction of funds at disposal of warmists

Don could do with reading a few of those. Well done Andrew Neil - and interestingly enough, some of the abuse he had back in response to him JUST asking question was the same kind of abuse I had from Daltron in this thread. How strange.

[wixard]

can someone tldr undertakers arguments of why global warming doesn't exist for me
just curious but don't want to invest time in reading the thread

[-:Undertaker:-]

can someone tldr undertakers arguments of why global warming doesn't exist for me
just curious but don't want to invest time in reading the thread

Basically the sums they have put forward don't add up (IPCC data etc) along with the fact that if you look back at history, there have been many cycles of cooling and then warming... long before we were driving cars and leaving lights switched on. In short - climate changes and always will do long after we are gone.

In regards to cycles, personally i've always thought the huge ball of burning fuel aka The Sun would have the biggest impact on the Earth's temperature :P -

http://thesuntoday.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/EarthVSun-April62011.001.png

[Kardan]

can someone tldr undertakers arguments of why global warming doesn't exist for me
just curious but don't want to invest time in reading the thread

All quotes from Undertaker:


What did I say hey? That it [Global warming] was a load of absolute rubbish (and I used to believe it when I was about 10 and happened also to love disaster films) and the main reason why it was complete tripe is that the temperature was found to have dropped over the past decade ALONG with the fact that any dunce could work out that humans are a tiny dot compared to the effects and influences of the giant ball of fuel called the Sun along with the Earth's complex weather systems.


So what caused past climate changes before we had the Industrial Revolution?


Indeed, an ounce of common sense would suggest looking back at past climate flucuations and coming to the rational decision that the Earth's climate has changed, does change and always will change. Even as recent as back in Roman Britannia, grapes were grown as far north as Scotland - something that is unthinkable now.

Basically, Undertakers arguments revolve around the argument that certain places are colder now than usual, or revolve around money and economics and stuff...

- - - Updated - - -


Basically the sums they have put forward don't add up (IPCC data etc) along with the fact that if you look back at history, there have been many cycles of cooling and then warming... long before we were driving cars and leaving lights switched on. In short - climate changes and always will do long after we are gone.

In regards to cycles, personally i've always thought the huge ball of burning fuel aka The Sun would have the biggest impact on the Earth's temperature :P -

http://thesuntoday.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/EarthVSun-April62011.001.png

Because that picture is so accurate :P

http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/tba/chapter-one/sun-moon-earth.jpg

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because that picture is so accurate :P

Uh that's because they've brought it closer to show the size difference. Either way, it's huge and we are tiny. Just remembered this anyway, some may find this a laugh. A warmist vs Monckton -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

[Daltron]

Don could do with reading a few of those. Well done Andrew Neil - and interestingly enough, some of the abuse he had back in response to him JUST asking question was the same kind of abuse I had from Daltron in this thread. How strange.

Sorry. I didn't realise I was hurting you, i'll stop making comments about your view on global warming.

[Kardan]

Uh that's because they've brought it closer to show the size difference. Either way, it's huge and we are tiny. Just remembered this anyway, some may find this a laugh. A warmist vs Monckton -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvufOvneJMk

Indeed, but we're not next door to it :P

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

That page has a lovely CO2 graph... And your response will be something like 'We had cycles of global warming before the industrial revolution' - we did, but as you can see from the CO2 levels, that was a lovely cycle, untampered with by human influence - now that humans are pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, look at the levels rise.

Yes, the Earth has cycles of warming and cooling, as you say, that's naturally going to happen - but now, our influence is starting to become greater than the natural cycle - we can either try to stop that, or listen to people that have your opinions, and just carry on and ignore the evidence. What happens? Well, data suggests the Earth will heat up...

[-:Undertaker:-]

Indeed, but we're not next door to it :P

http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

That page has a lovely CO2 graph... And your response will be something like 'We had cycles of global warming before the industrial revolution' - we did, but as you can see from the CO2 levels, that was a lovely cycle, untampered with by human influence - now that humans are pumping tons and tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year, look at the levels rise.

Yes, the Earth has cycles of warming and cooling, as you say, that's naturally going to happen - but now, our influence is starting to become greater than the natural cycle - we can either try to stop that, or listen to people that have your opinions, and just carry on and ignore the evidence. What happens? Well, data suggests the Earth will heat up...

And this is a lovely graph too.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eFe1uJSP03o/S1CZXBqbS8I/AAAAAAAAAa0/DGXic_CisbE/s1600/central-england-temperatures.jpg

Or this presentation where Professor Ian Clark points out that C02 doesn't *always* cause warming and that infact the temperature of the Earth is linke to solar activity instead.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM#t=231

All different graphs can be produced on both sides, and even using dodgy data techniques such as the IPCC uses (see the Monckton Congressional hearing). I would prefer to use common sense - like the fact that we've had past warming and cooling periods before humans were even around and certainly before we had the Industrial Revolution. I could also make the point about how strange it is that despite China and India pumping out huge increasing amounts of CO2 since 1990 onwards, the temperature over the past decade has cooled and not warmed.

As for the second part, you say we can carry on and ignore the evidence yet the only evidence your side have put forth have been computer models and predictions whereas I have facts such as the temperature in decline along with growing sea ice on my side - which the scientists have just got stuck in. So who really is ignoring the evidence? I would suggest you.

Furthermore, even if the models did turn out to be correct then a warming of global temperatures would be beneficial as would be an increase in CO2 as food productivity would increase and any disadvantages could be offset by adapting to the climate change, ie raising sea barriers. On top of that, again in the Monckton slides, halting warming (if we assume it is happening as projected) by virtually closing down our economy would make little or no difference.

So my stace is the practical one. That is, judging by history we are not having an affect. That we should look at what is actually happening as opposed to what is predicted to happen by computer models. If the models turn out to be correct and thus the UN's own figures are correct, then the only economical and sensible solution would be to adapt rather than try to fight what you cannot fight.

[The Don]

Lol that list of 'scientists' (bachelors in geology which is often required to go into the oil industry) is made up mostly of oil CEOs and executives, hardly scientists. I randomly googled 5 names off the list and 4 happened to work for big energy companies, extremely bias and definitely not academically scientists.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lol that list of 'scientists' (bachelors in geology which is often required to go into the oil industry) is made up mostly of oil CEOs and executives, hardly scientists. I randomly googled 5 names off the list and 4 happened to work for big energy companies, extremely bias and definitely not academically scientists.

So do many of the AGW people - as well as many having jobs in 'green industries' aka recieving large paychecks from the taxpayer in subsidies for windfarms etc. As Andrew Neil made the point of.

[The Don]

But you haven't read the reports supporting it either. Neither of us are scientists, much less data analysts - that's why Monckton is so convicing even when he uses the UN's own data models to show that even if global warming was man made and even if the UN's predictions are correct, then the best course of action is to do nothing and simply adapt to any changes.

But the point is that somebody else has read those reports, unless of course you're suggesting they are lying, which brings me back to the point of that being applicable to literally anything you disagree with. Unless you have reason to believe that they are false, there's no reason to not treat them as true.


Now that to me sounds like a far more rational argument rather than embarking on taxation and regulation which, if followed through, will destroy western economies.

It's hardly destroying western economies, stop sensationalising everything.


The link I post to your paragraph below also addresses the 97pc claim you make.

Ah, skimming over the 97% part because it completely obliterates any credibility to your argument. The list you provided isn't full of scientists, in fact a lot of them don't have degrees (not sure how they are scientists then?) and a large portion of them are linked to big oil companies, like I previously mentioned. Let's take some names from the list and see what we find...

List (http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=1)

1. David Archibald

A Geologist for Summa Development Limited and Associated with the Lavoisier Group, which receives funding from the coal and oil industry.
Lavoisier Source (http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-change-by-date.php) (scroll down to his article) Source 2 (http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/07/04/257904/climate-science-doubt-political-ends/)

2. Leon Ashby
A Dairy Farmer from South Australia (not exactly an academic scientist)

3. Timothy F. Ball
Scientific advisor (http://www.desmogblog.com/timothy-f-ball-tim-ball) to Exxon-Funded Friends of Science (http://www.desmogblog.com/oil-companies-funding-friends-of-science)
Another Source (http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/10/30/01926.html)

4. E. Calvin Beisner
Ah, an extremist christian nut (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/E._Calvin_Beisner) who uses the concept of stewardship as a denial tactic (http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/the-cornwall-declaration-on-environmental-stewardship/)

Many people believe that “nature knows best,” or that the earth—untouched by human hands—is the ideal. Such romanticism leads some to deify nature or oppose human dominion over creation. Our position, informed by revelation and confirmed by reason and experience, views human stewardship that unlocks the potential in creation for all the earth’s inhabitants as good.

Wow, such science.

5. William M. Briggs
Debunked here
(http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/02/01/william-m-briggs-has-misunders/)

6.Robert M. Carter
Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message" (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientist-denies-he-is-mouthpiece-of-us-climatesceptic-think-tank-20120215-1t6yi.html)

7.Paul Chesser
Speaker at the think tank 'Hearland' (http://www.desmogblog.com/paul-chesser) which has received over $700,000 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006.
Page 3 has $30,000 Donation listed (at the bottom) amongst the receipts (http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4385)
Link to all the rest (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41)

8.Roy Cordato
Background in Music and Economics (not climate science) and has links to Heartland (http://heartland.org/roy-cordato) (previously mentioned big oil funded company)
Starting to see a pattern here....

9.Richard S. Courtney
Numerous links to Heartland (http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney)

10.David Legates
Links yet again to Heartland Institute, and also CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute) which has links to Exxon, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, as well as countless others. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_4.html)

That's just 10 "Scientists" from that list which you provided. Now that your source has been debunked, could you please provide a more credible argument to explain why majority of scientists agree that climate change is real? I ask again once more, what's more likely, Thousands of scientists are part of some elaborate conspiracy (which one would think to have been exposed by now since so many parties would be involved) or a few are shills paid off by big oil (see my above list for just a few examples)


Actually the pro-global warming scientists and bodies recieve far more in oil funding than the climate sceptics do.
Gonna need some citations for that right there Dan.



But to answer this along with the above claim that the majority of scientists agree with global warming aka the "97% argument" James Delingpole provides rebuttals in this article to both argument, full of links - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100227804/97-per-cent-of-climate-activists-in-the-pay-of-big-oil-shock/


James Delingpole is an idiot and has been debunked extremely well here (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/25/207397/delingpole-meltdown-on-bbc-climate-scienc/)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wmuhKzYp4s


No, Delingpole hasn’t got the time or the expertise to actually read the science, only the time to make up stuff

Any other response to this point?


Sounds to me like a cop out.
Based on what? Your gut feeling? "sounds like a cop out" isn't a suitable response (without backing it up) in a debate, Dan.


The only reason why these claims were found out was because of the emails being hacked by Russian hackers - had they not hacked these oh so truthworthy scientists, then none of it wouldn't have got out. They got caught out telling lies and you can read everything they said online.

Going round in roundabouts, completely miss the source I provided? The one where it shows it has been dismissed countless times as it was taken grossly out of context. Or are we now not debating upon fact? Or have you got some sources which counter the ones I provided earlier?





Been debunked, see -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/10324738/The-ice-is-not-melting-yet-still-the-scaremongers-blunder-on.html

ok, so the only mention of the 97% argument in this article is

The air is already thick with familiar claims and counterclaims, President Obama quotes yet another laughably silly paper trying to make out that “97 per cent of scientists” support the IPCC “consensus”
Other than calling it 'silly' I see no other mention of it in the article, so please tell me how simply calling something you disagree with as silly is equal to debunking it...



http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100227804/97-per-cent-of-climate-activists-in-the-pay-of-big-oil-shock/

Same article as before, Debunked up above....


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100234054/if-you-still-believe-in-climate-change-read-this/

Same guy, exact same premise and requires the exact same response which i've already provided, since the guy who is slandering the 97% argument admits in the source i've provided that he didn't actually read any of the papers. Try harder Dan.



My point is that there are many scientific organisations and scientists who disagree with the so-called climate consensus
Nope, the list you provided isn't full of scientists, many are mathematicians, lawyers and there's even a farmer on there. Again, the overwhelming majority of scientists all agree, providing lists full of big oil shills doesn't somehow counter this.


I could post lists of these types of organisations, indeed I did with the Manhattan Delcaration list.

Debunked above.



Who says so? In other words, a whole bunch of scientific organisations, environmentalists and scientists disagree with AGW... yet they aren't credible just because they don't fit into your belief system or that of the BBC. Right, okay.
*yawn* see above, there's not a 'whole bunch' of academic scientific organisations, and the few that are, are also the underwhelming majority, and more often than not have ties to energy companies that bribe them.


All you've done is post graphs and links from debunked arguments. Next you'll be posting the (debunked) hockey stick graph and shouting "LOOK LOOK I TOLD YA SO"

I've been providing actual sources for my arguments which is a whole lot better than relying on my gut feeling and downright refusing to believe the evidence i'm provided (without reason).

[FlyingJesus]

You can still grow grapes in Scotland

[Kardan]

And this is a lovely graph too.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_eFe1uJSP03o/S1CZXBqbS8I/AAAAAAAAAa0/DGXic_CisbE/s1600/central-england-temperatures.jpg

Or this presentation where Professor Ian Clark points out that C02 doesn't *always* cause warming and that infact the temperature of the Earth is linke to solar activity instead.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDKSkBrI-TM#t=231

All different graphs can be produced on both sides, and even using dodgy data techniques such as the IPCC uses (see the Monckton Congressional hearing). I would prefer to use common sense - like the fact that we've had past warming and cooling periods before humans were even around and certainly before we had the Industrial Revolution. I could also make the point about how strange it is that despite China and India pumping out huge increasing amounts of CO2 since 1990 onwards, the temperature over the past decade has cooled and not warmed.

As for the second part, you say we can carry on and ignore the evidence yet the only evidence your side have put forth have been computer models and predictions whereas I have facts such as the temperature in decline along with growing sea ice on my side - which the scientists have just got stuck in. So who really is ignoring the evidence? I would suggest you.

Furthermore, even if the models did turn out to be correct then a warming of global temperatures would be beneficial as would be an increase in CO2 as food productivity would increase and any disadvantages could be offset by adapting to the climate change, ie raising sea barriers. On top of that, again in the Monckton slides, halting warming (if we assume it is happening as projected) by virtually closing down our economy would make little or no difference.

So my stace is the practical one. That is, judging by history we are not having an affect. That we should look at what is actually happening as opposed to what is predicted to happen by computer models. If the models turn out to be correct and thus the UN's own figures are correct, then the only economical and sensible solution would be to adapt rather than try to fight what you cannot fight.

That graph shows nothing. We're talking about GLOBAL warming, not central England warming.

Heck, that graph compares temperatures in central England to global levels of CO2 - that graph is absolutely bollocks! You might as well show me a graph linking CO2 levels of Japan and the number of Dogs living in Iceland - would probably mean the same thing as that graph does.

And would you like to provide a source for your statement that 'The global temperature over the last decade has decreased' - because all the sources and data I'm looking at show an increase of global temperature in the 2000s.

And judging by history, humans are having an impact. Look at the data for CO2 levels, they've just shot up since 1950 and haven't done anything like that for the rest of recorded history - so I'm not sure where you're getting this 'Judging by history' stuff from, since we can only look at the last 200 years or so of data.