|
Hahaha ! Local paper ran a story about how a snow capped Snowdon has become a thing of the past - For the last three years it has had er...snow on the summit for long portions of the winter. So much in 08/09 that they had to delay building the new cafe on the summit for three months !
|
Delingpole is inter alia a professional climate change sceptic. Whatever else he is, he's not a statistician. His credentials in this subject are zero (no offence to our fellow contributor).
One swallow doesn't make a summer, and one snowy December doesn't say anything about climate change.
|
|
The climate has always changed, and will do long after humans are extinct.
|
>> The climate has always changed, and will do long after humans are extinct.
course it will, we wont be making CO2 when we are all dead.
|
Actually you will. And methane. For a few months anyway. :-)
John
|
I'm not sure that even now we make as much CO2 as the planet does on its own, let alone during major eruptions which can produce a year's ration in a few hours.
It's not really making CO2 that's the problem for us in the long run. It's using fossil fuels, which are finite, inefficiently.
|
>> It's not really making CO2 that's the problem for us in the long run. It's
>> using fossil fuels, which are finite, inefficiently.
>>
It's neither of the above, AC.
Population growth is what is going to wipe out the human race, unless some Mad Mullah gets his hand on the Big Button first.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Mon 27 Dec 10 at 15:38
|
>> Population growth is what is going to wipe out the human race,
Anomie RR? Touch of dyspepsia? Widespread today in these climes no doubt.
I didn't think we were talking about Armageddon. I thought we were talking about climate change and our efforts variously to fine-tune it for the good of humanity and exploit popular vertigo on the subject to screw the citizen and taxpayer.
Still, it's your thread my dear fellow. Make us excrete bricks by all means if that's the way you want it.
|
Or... tinyurl.com/22wgpqg
A late Christmas pressie RR :-)
John
|
>>
>> One swallow doesn't make a summer, and one snowy December doesn't say anything about climate change.
>>
We know that.
But the same "Experts" who were a few years ago telling us that we'd never see snow again and summer would mean permanent droughts are now telling us that the winters will be harsher with widespread snow and freezing conditions.
And we have to believe it because it's science, innit? Even though they seem to be making it up as they go along.
|
"And we have to believe it because it's science, innit?" Actually, no, I don't think it is. It is, to be kind, a projection, or to be less kind an opinion or a guess. And your guess is as good as mine, as the saying goes.
John
|
>> >> One swallow doesn't make a summer, and one snowy December doesn't say anything about climate change.
>> We know that.
No doubt you do, being a thoughtful type with an enquiring mind. Delingpole doesn't though, or chooses not to.
>> But the same "Experts" who were a few years ago telling us that we'd never
>> see snow again and summer would mean permanent droughts are now telling us that the
>> winters will be harsher with widespread snow and freezing conditions.
The world isn't the UK. If we lose the Gulf stream we're right up the creek. A major melt of Arctic ice will potentially reduce the salinity in the north Atlantic enough to stop it, at which point temperatures in western Europe will go down not up.
>> And we have to believe it because it's science, innit? Even though they seem to
>> be making it up as they go along.
Well, that's science for you. Maybe we should, after all, look to Delingpole with his degree in English Literature (a fancy name for what those properly educated in science or the useful arts call general knowledge ;-) ).
Anyway there's now a heat wave here. +3C, and thawing like billy-oh!
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 27 Dec 10 at 15:56
|
" one snowy December doesn't say anything about climate change"
But apparently the odd flood in Pakistan, or heat wave in California, or heatwave in Russia does?
And as for Delingpole's degree in English Lit - I guess that makes him less of a climatologist than Moonbat's degree in architecture? Wonder what (if anything) Al Gore has a degree in? Tell you what, let's get Pachauri to head the IPCC, he has a degree in Railway Engineering.
|
>> " one snowy December doesn't say anything about climate change"
>> But apparently the odd flood in Pakistan, or heat wave in California, or heatwave in
>> Russia does?
Not to me it doesn't, but I'm not as smug about my conclusions, or as free with claptrap, as Delingpole. The thing about anthropogenic climate change sceptics like him is that they unsceptically quote whoever agrees with them - in Delingpole's case, usually that Aussie mining bloke that he sucks up to.
>> And as for Delingpole's degree in English Lit
I'm merely pointing out that he doesn't appear to have any authority in the subject, and gratuitously throwing in my prejudice on the value of studying English Lit. ;-)
>> - I guess that makes him less
>> of a climatologist than Moonbat's degree in architecture?
Probably. Who Moonbat?
>>Wonder what (if anything) Al Gore has
>> a degree in? Tell you what, let's get Pachauri to head the IPCC, he has
>> a degree in Railway Engineering.
What has that to do with the price of fish?
|
>Delingpole is inter alia a professional climate change sceptic. Whatever else he is, he's
>not a statistician. His credentials in this subject are zero (no offence to our fellow
>contributor).
You make it sound as if there's something wrong with being a "climate change sceptic".
>I'm merely pointing out that he doesn't appear to have any authority in the subject,..
>Who Moonbat?
George Monbiot, a Gruinaud columnist who accepts every argument for anthropogenic climate change as readily as Delingpole ridicules it.
Kevin...
Last edited by: Kevin on Mon 27 Dec 10 at 19:10
|
>> >Delingpole is inter alia a professional climate change sceptic. Whatever else he is, he's
>> >not a statistician. His credentials in this subject are zero (no offence to our fellow
>> >contributor).
>>
>> You make it sound as if there's something wrong with being a "climate change sceptic".
Well, as I'm inclined to think it's worth worrying about it myself, even if all the answers are not known, I suppose that's fair. But my point was that JD never shuts up about it and appears to be dogmatic and uncritical.
>> >Who Moonbat?
>>
>> George Monbiot, a Gruinaud columnist
Oh, him. Right.
>>who accepts every argument for anthropogenic climate change as readily
>> as Delingpole ridicules it.
His articles have got up my nose on occasion, but he seems to have more bottom than JD. And to PhilW's question, he appears to have a science degree - not that I am claiming that makes him omniscient on CC. Do you really think he's as uncritical as JD? He seems to me to take a more forensic approach, maybe that's just my bias.
I don't suppose we'll all agree this time either.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 27 Dec 10 at 19:36
|
>Well, as I'm inclined to think it's worth worrying about it myself, even if all the answers
>are not known, I suppose that's fair.
But why is your worry about anthro. climate change more acceptable than Delingpole's worry that we are being taken for a ride and spending big bucks for nothing?
Scientific discovery has traditionally been based upon full and open disclosure of methods and data - something that we haven't seen in the climate change stampede.
Kevin...
|
>> But why is your worry about anthro. climate change more acceptable than Delingpole's worry that
>> we are being taken for a ride and spending big bucks for nothing?
1. It's my judgement based on what I believe to be true. No doubt you have an opinion too.
2. As AC says, the reckless use of fossil fuel looks like a problem either way, and the remedies are much the same - so being wrong is in a way failsafe. Asserting that ACC is a myth and being wrong looks like carelessness to me.
3. Delingpole is a nauseating, arrogant berk.
>>
>> Scientific discovery has traditionally been based upon full and open disclosure of methods and data
>> - something that we haven't seen in the climate change stampede.
If you say so.
There are vested interests on both sides, but the sceptic vested interests are much clearer to me. For a start, we save those "big bucks", right?
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 27 Dec 10 at 22:12
|
P.S. - Incidentally, I've just read the ten year old article that the Delingpole was mocking, and I quote it -
'Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.'
Can't really disagree ;-)
|
My feeling is that hard winters are back with us, at least for a few years.
IF I was a betting man (I'm not!) I'd put money on snow in winter for the next 3-5 years......
|
|
You could bet on snow the day the Grand National is run too - it has happened quite often in the recent past.
|
"I'd put money on snow in winter for the next 3-5 years."
Why?
|
>> "I'd put money on snow in winter for the next 3-5 years."
>>
>> Why?
>>
Purely a feeling in my bones.....
|
>> >> "I'd put money on snow in winter for the next 3-5 years."
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >>
>> Purely a feeling in my bones.....
Thats the thing about climate change, it changes. I wouldn't put money on anything weather wise.
|
The reality is that nobody has a complete model that can predict anything about climate change.
Anybody who points to a warm winter as proof of global warming, or a cold winter as a rebuttal of global warming, is frankly being ridiculous.
While we wait for a complete model (which will never come), the best we can do is look at long term trends based upon collected data.
Here is one for CO2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Now, of course, anybody can say that 400,000 years is much too short as any kind of proof that what it happening to CO2 levels is someway unique.
However, it may perhaps be compelling enough to suggest that, on the balance of probabilities, we are having an impact on CO2 levels.
Further, it may be reasonable to suggest that we should try not to raise such levels, because we don't know the consequences (whether it will make the planet warmer, or colder, or just kill off all the mushrooms).
To suggest that we shouldn't do anything because we can't absolutely prove that we are increasing CO2 levels and/or we can't absolutely prove that it will have a negative impact, seems too harsh to me.
Anyway, we should have nuclear fusion within 100 years, and then we just need to make sure that everything runs on electricity.
Of course, that will be the time that we figure out that our rampant output of CO2 has been counteracting a lethal drop in CO2 for the past few years...
|
SteelSpark said:
>> The reality is that nobody has a complete model that can predict anything about climate
>> change.
>>
>> Anybody who points to a warm winter as proof of global warming, or a cold
>> winter as a rebuttal of global warming, is frankly being ridiculous.
Exactly. Oil, coal and gas were laid down over millions of years as a result of vegetation trapping atmospheric CO2. We are releasing that CO2 back into the atmosphere over decades, which is surely going to have an affect. If people do not believe that life can dramatically influence the atmosphere, don't forget that the only reason that this planet has an oxygen rich atmosphere is because during the first billion years of evolution, anaerobic organisms created oxygen, thereby allowing oxygen breathing organisms to thrive.
I despair when egocentric journalists who spend precious little time researching climate change, and who more often than not have no scientific training, automatically assume that they know everything. I suppose for them criticising climate change is an exercise in textual analysis and literary criticism.
|
"the only reason that this planet has an oxygen rich atmosphere is because during the first billion years of evolution, anaerobic organisms created oxygen"
Ah, right, so I should worry about the next billion years?
I'm sure I'm misinterpreting what you mean but here's an entertaining few seconds of global warming being dumped on NE USA
vimeo.com/18213768#
|
One for us doubters - R.P.
