Michael Bull, ‘that guy’ is confused and attacks strawmen of his own creation. The tropical hot spot attack is old fodder for sceptics. Nothing new there. Real climatologists raise their eyebrows and sigh that another would-be-sceptic is making a fool of themselves again, write a brief piece explaining what is going on, and then get back to some real work.
It amazes me how much time and effort Christian’s will put into disproving Global Warming when the real peer-reviewed science is pretty much as settled as human knowledge can be. (And thanks Gordo, I’ll of course acknowledge that they don’t predict the future but draw up risk-mitigation scenarios.)
(edit to add)
Also Michael, I loved this bit.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
None, that’s right. If you put Co2 molecules in a spectrometer and zap them they DON’T show repeatable, testable, falsifiable results indicating refraction of longwave energy in all directions, scattering heat back down to the earth as well as off into space. Ohh.... wait....
Where does scepticism come from? As far as I can tell there’s no theological reason I can see that makes Global Warming a somehow taboo or impossible threat. A ‘chat’ with a conservative dude I know in ministry recently revealed that he rejected Global Warming because he thought we were talking about the end of the world, and of course God’s in control of that.
Nah! That’s a strawman! Global warming is nothing so grand, just anything from a Great Depression through to the end of this civilisation. But that’s nothing out of the ordinary, civilisations are a dime a dozen. We shouldn’t be theologically surprised if ours goes the way of the 26 great civilisations in the past that have risen and then collapsed. IF (and this is by no means inevitable) ours did, oh well, it’s just too bad. We’ve worked really hard for this collapse IF we go that way.
It would probably be a whole bunch more destructive a collapse than any civilisation before it — look at how destructive we’re being while we’re at our pinnacle? Species extinction like never before, global warming, ‘peak everything’, it just goes on and on. But none of this is incompatible with our theology of human nature.
“Then they said 2070, and then they said 2050 and then they said 2030,” said Robie Macdonald, a leading Canadian oceanographer on board the Louis.
“Not only do I see the change, but it’s like they’re moving the goalposts toward me and it’s an amazing thing,” he said.
“There’s a group that makes a very strong case that in 2012 or 2013 we’ll have an ice-free [summer] Arctic - as soon as that. It’s astounding what’s happened,” said Dr Ted Scambos, a glaciologist from the snow and ice data centre.
Welcome back! Yeah, should be interesting. Just as an update, I haven’t ranted about the end of civilisation for a while. That last rant of mine was just for the benefit of some right-wingers that attack the “end of the world” strawman.
Ask the list — I’m usually much more optimistic these days. :-) I really do believe that dieoff is not inevitable.
The folks who live up that way aren’t so fussed, mind you: This was from an interesting article in the New York Times on 18 July this year by Nathan Myrhvold:
I’d like to say that global warming was evident during my visit, but that is not really the case. Indeed, Salik tells me that he and most Greenlanders are pretty skeptical about it. The local fishing industry used to be based on arctic prawns, but the sea temperature has changed just enough that the prawns are much further north, so now they fish for cod.
But, as Salik points out, this cycle has happened several times in living memory. The same with the glaciers: yes they are retreating, but at least in his area, they have yet to reach the limits that the locals remember them. Objective measurements do show that climate change is happening. Nevertheless I was amused that the locals don’t seem to think it is such a big deal.
Thanks for that Alan, if anyone hasn’t clicked on it the link has some really beautiful shots of Greenland and is a general chat about Greenland, not really a climate piece at all.
As they say, a “little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing” and I’ll answer the Greenland locals below, but I guess the overall comment is that YES, there will be some winners from global warming, there really will. But if we are to believe what the settled climatology tells us, for the vast majority of people and natural systems on earth it could become quite calamitous if left unchecked.
Now, back to those glaciers. We need to see it in the context of the climate events of the last few centuries. Remember “Global Dimming”? That weird cooling that occurred mid-century as, paradoxically, Co2 levels rose… but dirty coal belched out sulphur particulates, that rose faster? That appears to have had an interesting side effect on the glaciers.
The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. However, since 1980 a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions will have potential impact on water supplies. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and subtropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative evidence for the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century.
BTW Luke, nice finds… but I have to say that it’s about time this conspiracy left the ranks of the bloggers and hit the SMH mainstream.
When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action, engaging in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists. Christians should be outraged at Exxon’s behaviour!
The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In the space provided by doubt, billions of dollars in sales could continue. Delay and doubt were crucial products of its PR campaign.
In May, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon Mobil acknowledged it had been doing something similar. It said it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.
Exxon’s decision came after a shareholder revolt by members of the Rockefeller family and big superannuation funds to get the company to take climate change more seriously. Exxon (once Standard Oil) was founded by John D. Rockefeller.
Brad Miller, chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, last year said Exxon’s support for sceptics “appears to be an effort to distort public discussion”. The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes which house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain’s premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005, Exxon distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups which “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change”. Its protests helped force Exxon’s recent retreat.
It amazes me how much time and effort Christian’s will put into disproving Global Warming when the real peer-reviewed science is pretty much as settled as human knowledge can be.
into a time capsule under the house and check it out every so often, along with these graphs, though to be fair I note some wriggle room in that “pretty much as..”.
Couple of good articles from the (un)real (non)peer reviewed Dr Carter and Dr Jensen.
Also, I’ve got hold off Nigel Lawson’s “An Appeal to Reason”, though that might have to wait awhile because I’m girding myself up for an foray into atheism.
I note Luke’s real peer reviewed scientist Mr Cubby quoting another real peer reviewed scientist (Chris Mitchell, head of the CSIRO’s Climate, Weather and Ocean Prediction group) saying:
“It looks as though the population believes climate change is serious and there seems to be momentum behind the issue, and there are some people who don’t like that,”
.
This real peer reviewed scientific observation is apparently based on The Australian’s real peer reviewed poll demonstrating 96% of the population believes climate change is wholly or partly caused by humans.
This may be naive, and oversimplifying the issue but; I imagine our atmosphere like a huge ceiling over the earth which sustains life, and protects us from space. The Earth was comparibly cleaner a few centuries ago.
If we sit in a room and fill it with smoke and pollution, how healthy will we all be. Is there something to be inferred from this analogy?
Automobiles are growing in number. Factories are growing in number. People are growing in number. Pollution is increasing. How can this make our atmosphere good to live in?
Trees are being cut down world wide. The water is being polluted daily, more and more damage is being done to the Earth. And, people are mainly interested in making money, finding somewhere to live, and to breed.
What is the answer? People must find a way to slow down this degradation.
And, scientists, as mentioned, are looking after their own interests, as well as discovering facts.
Hi Ken,
my uncle-in-law studies particulates in the air around Melbourne and yes, it is a very serious business. The Internal Combustion Engine has a lot to answer for. Strictly speaking Co2 is not toxic, but of course refracts longwave energy back to the earth. Yet the particulates are incredibly damaging to lung health.
So unless we want to live in a city that looks like Beijing I suggest we do 2 things: get rid of the Internal Combustion Engine, and something you suggested, the great unmentionable ‘P’ word. (That which shall not be named).
Generally for Australia to solve it’s ‘P’ issues we just have to limit immigration and tinker with the baby bonus (and maybe a few other economic parameters). Then we’ll go back to below replacement, which is the only way to have a sustainable society. I don’t think this will happen simply because our whole political system is so dependent on bribes… ahem, I meant ‘donations’ to our political parties from the big developers. The HIA starts to sweat every time immigration drops.
Then for solving the ‘P’ issue worldwide, there’s plenty Christians can campaign for with a clear conscience, like freshwater, basic nutrition, shelter, education (especially for women), economic security in retirement, basic healthcare and of course access to family planning services (normal ethical contraceptives and medical procedures). These basic ingredients for the world’s poor would only cost 5% of the world’s military budget (Professor Ian Lowe), and would provide human dignity, prevent starvation, radically alter economies around the world, bring in a demographic transition and enable a sustainable ‘P’.
Poor = more,
‘Able’ = stable.
David P, if you want to discuss some particular aspect of global warming you are having trouble with can you please submit a concise summary of your thoughts? (Spam warning otherwise).
Carter is a prominent global warming sceptic and has consistently opposed the consensus view on global warming [1]. A March 2007 article by Sydney Morning Herald environmental reporter Wendy Frew said that “Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.” [2] While Carter is a frequent commentator on climate change, he has no published peer reviewed papers providing evidence to discredit the climate change consensus.
if you want to discuss some particular aspect of global warming you are having trouble with can you please submit a concise summary of your thoughts?
Hi Dave,
May I draw my response from the Australian High Court lawsuit brought by Darryl Kerrigan and represented by a legal team led by Lawrence Hammill. Details of this famous case can be seen in the Aussie documentary “The Castle”.
As Darryl passionately said : “It’s just the vibes. It’s just the vibes”.
“It’s the law, it’s the constitution, it’s the vibe of the thing!” Ahh, those were the days.
But my point still stands. Just linking to bodgie sceptics indicates more about the ‘vibe’ of the person doing the linking than it does Global Warming. For instance, Carter’s piece contained the usual cherry picking, misinformation, and outright lies. If even I can see through his junk, how annoyed do you think serious climatologists must be that he even gets published in the paper, let alone that people then link to his rubbish all over the net.
EG: of cherry picking. In David P’s link Carter asserts:
Fourth, the specific claim that carbon dioxide emissions are causing temperature increase is intended to convey the impression that the phase of gentle (and entirely unalarming) global warming that occurred during the late 20th century continues today.
Nothing could be further from the truth, in that all official measures of global temperature show that it peaked in 1998 and has been declining since at least 2002.
There’s a bald faced lie in paragraph 1. The planet has not seen warming this far and this fast in millions of years. There is nothing gentle about it.
The Cherry picking in paragraph 2 needs a false assumption cleared up.
The argument relies on a misunderstanding I call the “exact correlation straw-man”. In other words, some people assert that Co2 rises will always cause an EXACTLY commensurable rise in temperature. Wrong. Real climatologists (which Carter obviously isn’t) see Co2 as one of many powerful forcings. They discuss sulfur particulates causing Global Dimming, Milankovitch Cycles, the Southern Oscillation index, volcanoes, methane and Nitrous Oxide, albedo, black charcoal, and many other forcings.
It is a complete straw man attack to suggest that climate will always change in a gentle, predictable increase in temperatures EXACTLY according to the gentle, predictable increase in Co2. We need to measure ALL the other forcings to understand what is happening.
So Carter uses the “exact correlation straw-man” to suggest that since 1998 temperatures have been falling. Wow, and dozens of climate institutes around the world with hundreds of climatologists all missed this startling fact? This really came as a surprise to their models, and causes them sleepless nights?
What rubbish! 12 of the last 13 years have been the hottest on record, and 2005 was as hot as 1998 (on record it missed by a hundredth of a degree but is actually within the bounds of instrument error). So first the suggestion that 1998 was the hottest year on record is just not true.
Second, even if it was that is also consistent with IPCC models which account for the fact that 1998 was a particularly strong El Nino year! So within the normal progression of Co2 induced higher temperatures 1998 was nudged a ‘blip’ higher by a strong El Nino. Choosing to see all the years since 1998 as ‘cooler’ while ignoring the decade-long trends is cherry-picking the source data, only picking the bits the sceptic wants to see. Does Carter mention El Nino? No — he’s either ignorant or outright lying, paid off like so many other scientists in the ‘sceptic’ camp. Who knows where else Exxon have sent their millions?
