back to article Era of the Pharaohs: Climate was hotter than now, without CO2

A new study has confirmed that at the time of the Pharaohs the world's climate was significantly hotter than it now is for thousands of years - and yet the seas don't appear to have risen, nor did the various other doomsday scenarios foretold by climate alarmists take place. The new research, funded by the US government's …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. jake Silver badge

    Personally,

    I've had boats moored up and down the Northern California coast for 40+ years. Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.

    I also have planting records from Great Grampa, Grampa, Dad & myself, dating back to 1875 (from Gilroy/MorganHill to Eureka). There has been zero change, decade to decade, in local weather.

    If you want to know where the "global warming" fearmongers are coming from, follow the money. For example, who is paying for Al Gore's $LARGE_JET and all the fuel it burns?

    1. LarsG
      Meh

      Re: Personally,

      Granted, but did anyone nip round to the low lying Pacific Islands and ask the inhabitants there if they thought they were losing a bit of beach?

      Somehow I don't think that Global communications were of such great quality in that time period that anyone else was asked if they had a problem?

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: "low lying Pacific Islands" (was: Re: Personally)

        Plates slump. Corps. of Engineers blast channels. Sand & coral isn't exactly a long-term foundation. Small islands in the Pacific aren't exactly a global thermometer.

        Global communications aren't all that important in this scenario ... Global sea levels[1] and local weather are. And, again from my perspective, nothing's really changed since Great Grampa planted his first greens, carrots & potatoes.

        [1] Water finds it's own level, regardless of tides. Eyeball mean lower low water & mean higher high water for your particular location. I'll bet you a wooden nickle that it hasn't changed appreciably since (real) records have been kept.

        1. David Pollard

          Re: "low lying Pacific Islands"

          Perhaps visual observation alone is misleading. Data from NOAA is available here, showing clearly a rise in Californian sea levels over the last few decades.

          http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.shtml?region=ca

          1. Chris Parsons

            Re: "low lying Pacific Islands"

            Stop it, stop it. We can't allow facts to be used in this argument.

          2. Marshalltown

            Re: "low lying Pacific Islands"

            Another point that is not properly addressed is that the planet is globally recovering from the Little Ice Age, for which we have more than adequate documentation to show that it was a global climatic event. The recovery _should_ be accompanied by sea level rise.

            I am extremely dubious of NOAA's tidal data at San Francisco, since in Sacramento, which is well inland, and which also experiences a tidal effect, has certainly not seen any foot plus of elevation in the maximum high tide. It is not at all unreasonable to suspect that the changes documented are the result of geological rather climatic effects. If you glance at the Crescent City data, the sea level is falling. Like the changes in the San Francisco data it is reasonable to argue for a geological as opposed to, or in combination with a climate effect. The entire coast is in geological motion. So just how would we separate crustal changes from sea level?

        2. Psyx
          Facepalm

          Re: "low lying Pacific Islands" (was: Personally)

          "Corps. of Engineers blast channels."

          Yeah; last time I wandered around the Pacific, you couldn't move for engineers blowing up channels that made sea levels rise. Or something.

          "Sand & coral isn't exactly a long-term foundation."

          It's been good for the last few million years. Why the sudden collapse?

        3. acnair

          Re: "low lying Pacific Islands" (was: Personally)

          Type your comment here — plain text only, no HTMLYes, I know what you are talking about. Once when I was out on the Pacific in my $100M yacht (funded by alternative energy VC funds), I saw the global thermometer bobbing in the water. I recorded the temperature and compared it against my Grampy's moleskin notebooks from yore. No change whatsoever.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Low lying inhabitant

        I am a low lying pacific inhabitant. I have seen no change in sea levels the last 50 years.

        But then again I am not trying to extort compensation cash for being drowned.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Low lying inhabitant

          is this some kind of parody?? Move over sea level measuring satellites and buoys. Grampa sitting in a chair on the porch watching the sea for 20 years and he hasn't seen it rise.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Low lying inhabitant

            I would trust grampa's first hand eye account over someones third hand guess.

            Have you personally verified that the data is correct and that it has been reported correctly?

          2. Steve Crook

            Re: Low lying inhabitant

            @NomNomNom Those satellites and buoys you refer to show that sea level rise has remained at a low constant rate for many decades and will have to increase rapidly over the next 5 decades if IPCC forecasts are to be met. Recent papers have also attributed a significant portion of seal level rise of the last 100+ years to irrigation run-off, and, while that cause is still anthropogenic, it has little to do with CO2.

      3. Marshalltown
        Thumb Down

        Re: Personally,

        Atolls are the result of volcanic islands *sinking*, due to both crustal motion away from an ocean ridge spreading center and to sea level fluctuations such as the drop and rise of global sea level during the Pleistocene. This is a fact of geology and is inevitable. Because atolls are low lying, and the chief means by which they stay - how briefly - above sea level is the action of storms and waves washing coral boulders and sand inland. Also there were outposts and colonies on a good many islands by the middle of the 19th century and any port also maintained a tide gauge. So, there are a surprising number of records from Oceania.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Personally,

      Thanks to you and Great Grampa, Grampa, we can all relax now.

    3. g e
      Holmes

      Re: Personally,

      It'd be fascinating to see if the doomsday message persisted if all financial motivation was removed from Warmology.

      Of course that's never gonna happen so people who essentially get paid for shouting about the end of the world will keep doing what they have to do to keep getting paid. Which is shouting about the end of the world. If you even tried they'd shout even louder till someone chucked them some money. Like a wind turbine manufacturer or something.

      Basic tenets of the modern world:

      1. If someone tells you something a _lot_ then always question how they stand to benefit from your believing them.

      2. If there's money involved you should distrust it in direct proportional to the amount of money stood to be lost/gained.

      1. El Andy

        Re: Personally,

        If there's money involved you should distrust it in direct proportional to the amount of money stood to be lost/gained.

        Ironically there's enormous amounts of money to be lost by the oil/gas industries if we move away from polluting fuel sources onto cleaner energy. So why you we trust their assertions that nothing is going to happen?

        1. AGR

          Re: Personally,

          As of about 4 or 5 years ago, the amount of pro-Warmist lobbying money floating around Washington DC was running at about 20-1 compared to anti-Warmist, most of that corporate (I'm not sure what the split is now….)

          Some of the biggest petitioners for warmist laws are industry. GE and Enron were the biggest under the Bush administration. GE because they had sunk a lot of R&D into light bulb and wind farm technology that couldn't be commercially viable without subsidies both direct (government grants) and indirect (laws requiring the use of their technology). Enron because their energy trading technology could be converted to trading carbon credits (just as all the other trading floors run by the various energy and oil companies have done since.)

          The oil and energy companies actually have a vested interest in making their product more scarce, and laws are as good as anything else at making that happen. And if they can get government grants and subsidy in the process, why not lobby for more? Big companies don't mind regulation…It's a barrier to entry for smaller leaner operations.

          It is not just hippies vs. the Man. The Man has a lot of vested interest in raising the spector of global warming, too.

          1. teebie

            Re: Personally,

            "As of about 4 or 5 years ago, the amount of pro-Warmist lobbying money floating around Washington DC was running at about 20-1 compared to anti-Warmist"

            That's an extraordinary claim, please provide a citation.

            1. AGR

              Re: Personally,

              Sorry, actually don't have the time to go look it up. I saw it in two different places and can't recall where. And I should clarify that it was about lobbyists and not campaign contributions.

              Having worked at an energy company, though, I can tell you that climate change legislation is looked at as an opportunity and not a threat.

              1. Psyx
                WTF?

                Re: Personally,

                "Sorry, actually don't have the time to go look it up. I saw it in two different places and can't recall where. And I should clarify that it was about lobbyists and not campaign contributions.

                Having worked at an energy company, though, I can tell you that climate change legislation is looked at as an opportunity and not a threat."

                You had the time to write a post and cite a statistic, but now don't have time to produce any evidence that you didn't just make it up. You're basically happy to use something in debate that you were proverbially told in a pub once as evidence?

            2. Marshalltown

              Re: Personally,

              You really need to start doing your own research. Check contributors to many of the major "warmist" movements. Also simply check the budgets of the biggest "green" organizations expended on "green" issues. "Big Oil" is a major contributor to a lot of such "green" initatives. They aren't stupid and they do expect that oil supply is going to be increasingly problematic. Increased "green" expenditures do several things. For one, electrical energy that is not derived from petrochemical supplies leaves those petrochemicals available for other purposes, like plastics, fertilizer and pesticides. Another is that "Big Oil" companies have diversified interests and simply selling gasoline is only one aim (and an aim with a visible termination). They sell not only fuel but basic materials and chemicals that arguably could be immensely profitable if the planet could be weaned off gasoline and diesel. And that is merely "Big Oil." The various national governments have spent immense amounts of tax money for green purposes.

      2. andrewj

        Re: Personally,

        Yes right, attack the messenger or their motivation if you can't attack the message. That's the real tragedy - how feeble-minded the debate has become.

        1. Tom 13

          Re: attack the messenger or their motivation

          I trust his grandpa more than I trust the climate fiddlers. Grandpa had one reason for recording temperatures and the rest: he wanted to know how well his plants were going to do. Getting the data wrong meant not knowing what adjustments to make based on his crop growth. His benefit came from getting the data right, not supporting this theory or that theory.

          And IF ocean levels were rising the way warmists say they are, local climate, even local geography couldn't overcome the effects.

    4. One Small Cog
      FAIL

      Re: Personally,

      "If you want to know where the "global warming" fearmongers are coming from, follow the money."

      So let me see - on one side of this debate we have the bulk of the scientific community and a bunch of well meaning hippes, and on the other we have the oil industry, the car industry, the airline industry, in fact pretty much all of industry, across the world, and you are trying to tell us that it is the warmists who we shouldn't trust because of their vested financial interests? I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. I have little doubt that if a research group wanted to persue a more skeptical line they would have absolutely no problem finding funding for it.

      It's absolutely fine to question the science, but attaching the motivation of the researchers, just because you don't like their results, makes it seem like you've run out of real arguments.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Personally,

        >So let me see - on one side of this debate we have the bulk of the scientific community and a bunch of well meaning hippes, and on the other we have the oil industry, the car industry, the airline industry, in fact pretty much all of industry, across the world, and you are trying to tell us that it is the warmists who we shouldn't trust because of their vested financial interests?

        That's a really good argument for distrusting the science on *both* sides. I have a really hard time believing anyone at the moment since a very large proportion of science is funded by people have a stack in the result.

        Unfortunately, a lot of the "science" on both sides of the argument are very unscientific and consist of a substantial amount of conjecture. That there is so much debate over such a long time and very little concrete result suggests to me that nobody really knows what the f*ck they're talking about.

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Personally,

      Subtext: I'VE GOT LOADS OF BOATS EVERYONE!

    6. Steve Knox
      Facepalm

      Re: Personally,

      I've had boats moored up and down the Northern California coast for 40+ years. Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.

      Publish your data. (I'm assuming here that you've taken meticulous measurements, and haven't just been looking over the side of the boat and thinking "yep, looks the same as yesterday.")

      I also have planting records from Great Grampa, Grampa, Dad & myself, dating back to 1875 (from Gilroy/MorganHill to Eureka). There has been zero change, decade to decade, in local weather.

      Local weather : climate :: register : CPU

      Finally, (all together now) ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS NOT DATA!

      If you'd taken your sea level measurements (assuming you have them) and collated them with measurements from others worldwide, then you'd have some relevant data.

      If you'd collected your planting records, along with those of farming communities worldwide for periods of 300 years or more, then you'd have some data to work with.

      Oh wait.

      That's what climate scientists have been doing for the past several decades.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Personally,

        > Finally, (all together now) ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE IS NOT DATA!

        True enough.

        But in a hundred years when the satellites and the models are telling us that the sea levels have risen by a metre, and some guy who lives on the coast reports that "Nope, the sea is still in the same place it was before" what then?

        I get what you're saying, but just because someone with authority is telling you that you're wrong, and you are quite obviously right, you have to call bullsh*t.

        We'll see.

        1. Steve Knox
          Boffin

          Re: Personally,

          But in a hundred years when the satellites and the models are telling us that the sea levels have risen by a metre, and some guy who lives on the coast reports that "Nope, the sea is still in the same place it was before" what then?

          (1) A hundred years from now, we'll both be in our graves.

          (2) More to the point, you're presuming that what will happen is what you are arguing will happen, which brings your argument full circle.

          I get what you're saying, but just because someone with authority is telling you that you're wrong, and you are quite obviously right, you have to call bullsh*t.

          (3) Who is saying jake is "obviously right"? He made a claim of observation, as an implicit layman, which doesn't coincide with the claims I have seen from the experts. Now, authority in se is not a sound logical justification, but said experts provide their data and analysis, and despite my request, jake has yet to provide his. A claim with evidence outweighs a claim without evidence.

          We'll see.

          (4) No, we won't. See (1).

          1. MadChemist
            Stop

            Re: Personally,

            well... I don´t know about you, Steve, but personally, I plan to be around in 100 years from now. They can do amazing things with 3D bio-printing today, and in due time, most if not all organs and bodily structures will be replaceable. So unless your brain rots, or you have an unfortunate accident, we may stand a good chance of enjoying a longer and more active life than any human in history... apart from our children of course, who stand an ever better chance with each passing year.

        2. Andydaws

          Re: Personally,

          "But in a hundred years when the satellites and the models are telling us that the sea levels have risen by a metre"

          Actually, about 15cm.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Trends_in_global_average_absolute_sea_level,_1870-2008_(US_EPA).png

    7. James Micallef Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Personally,

      "I've had boats moored up and down the Northern California coast for 40+ years. Sea level hasn't changed."

      Of course, if you're in the boats, you can't see the sea level change, you need to be on land for that

    8. Alan Brown Silver badge

      Re: Personally,

      Further up the coast, apparent sea level changed abruptly one day in 1964.

      It was changing previously, but too slowly to register ([plates buckle - and pop). The same thing is happening right down the western seaboard of the USA to somewhere south of the OR/CA border - which is why a lot of people are quietly waiting to see what happens when Cascadia pops.

    9. chrspy
      Megaphone

      Re: Personally,

      "Follow the money"? If you "follow the money" that is funding the "warmist deniers" it leads straight back to the fossil fuel industry, the Koch brothers, EXXon etc... If you want a conspiracy theory, that surely is the one to go for?

      Apart from Gore, who Repubs naturally hate, can you show me any scientist - you know, the ones who do the the real work trying to determine whether or not it is actually happening - who is making money from the "warmist" theories? The last time saw figures about 93% of scientists who had any claim to be experts in this field thought that there was a cause for concern. Would you drive over a high bridge if that percentage of structural engineers said it was likely to collapse?

    10. eulampios

      Re: Personally,

      If you want to know where the "global warming" fearmongers...

      Let's see, take another big "global warming fearmonger" -- NASA. And who is sponsoring them? BTW, this source claims the following about the Arctic:

      Since 1979, the ice volume has shrunk by 80% and in just the past decade the volume declined by 36% in the autumn and 9% in the winter.

      This could be perfectly "normal", but it could scare a hell out of you, if you're, for instance, a polar bear or another species that might not be here by tomorrow...

    11. Anonymous Coward
      Headmaster

      Re: Personally,

      Yeah well your just making this up.

      Every time I swim out to sea, and try to stand up, I know the oceans have gotten deeper, because I can't touch my bottom.

      So your Great, great great and not so great, grampas, were all probably pot smoking communists like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.

      1. 27escape
        Happy

        Re: Personally,

        Its not that the oceans have gotten deeper, its that you have gotten shorter

    12. Michael Dunn
      Joke

      Re: Personally,

      I've had boats moored up and down the Northern California coast for 40+ years. Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.

      Yes, I'm sure the water comes up to the same mark on every one of those boats as it always did!

    13. Blizno

      Re: Personally,

      If you want to know who is funding the global-warming denier movement, follow the money.

      Fossil fuel industries rake in TRILLIONS of US$ per year.

      Al Gore and all climate research grants are nothing compared to the obscene - and ever increasing - profits reaped by the FF industries.

      Follow the money.

  2. Richard Boyce
    Thumb Down

    Elevation changes

    Care is needed when judging sea level relative to land that's changing in elevation from time to time in response to earthquakes.

    Alexandria has a history of such changes. I think much of the harbour was lost in AD 365 due to a reduction in elevation.

    1. MacroRodent Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: Elevation changes

      Yes. In fact there are plenty of ancient ruins now under water in the Mediterranean. by contrast, here in Finland much of the coast line does not really have to worry about rising sea level, because the ground has been gradually rising since the last ice age, as much as 9mm per year in some locations! In the time of the Pharaohs, a lot of the current Finnish territory was under the water, warm climate or not.

      1. Lars Silver badge

        Re: Elevation changes

        There is more on post-glacial rebound around the world on Wikipedia.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound

    2. Mike Richards Silver badge

      Re: Elevation changes

      Alexandria was a particularly poor choice of Lewis' because sea levels there are very variable caused by (amongst other things), abstraction of fresh water from the aquifers, the compaction of the Nile Delta and especially the area slumping into the Med following the 365CE Cretan earthquake.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Headmaster

      Re: Elevation changes

      But that's real science. You can't make up figures to support either side of the argument if we admit we "don't know yet, we need to do more science before we can correlate sea level and land elevation so as to track it far into the past". Much better to pretend we can correlate a single atom of carbon from a sample and call it "data" to support our theories... ;)

  3. P_0

    Sea level hasn't changed. At all. Not according to my observation.

    Yes, but don't forget poor old Maldives, where the government has to hold cabinet meetings underwater, and people have to snorkel to work.

    1. The Axe

      Pure marketing gimmick. Perfect way to get more money to compensate for "climate change" caused by us western capitalist pigs.

      1. Dr Stephen Jones

        I think he was being sarcastic.

        Google for "Male International Airport" and the new beachfront developments there to see what the Maldives really expect from global warming. The government is stimulating a property boom at sea level:

        http://www.hdc.com.mv/

        They do not expect to drown very soon.

        1. Lars Silver badge
          Joke

          @ Dr Stephen Jones

          That is all about an ambitious land reclamation project they have started and if it wasn't I suppose it's better to sell as long as there is something left to sell.

        2. The Axe

          /sarc

          I know that P_0 was being sarcastic, but I was thinking about the poor deluded fools who wouldn't be able to pick up that nuance. ;-)

        3. Northumbrian

          "The government is stimulating a property boom at sea level: They do not expect to drown very soon."

          Au contraire. If you want the economy to flourish make things with built-in obsolescence. Sea front properties which will be destroyed in 10 years by rising sea levels, means that in 10 years you'll need to build new sea-front properties which in turn ...

          David Cameron is missing (yet another) trick for economy-growing measures.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Facepalm

            They are not missing opportunities here at all. If the Thames Barrier is really about keeping the sea out, then they are silly in building in the flood risk areas in London. It's not say it's because they don't expect it to be flooded, but that they don't care.

            No idea about the rest of the world, but if they build a barrier, does that not mean there is real sea/land movement in the London area?

            1. Marketing Hack Silver badge
              Boffin

              I believe I heard something about Southeastern Britain slumping/subsiding anyway

              I can't recall where, but I heard something about Ken and East Anglia subsiding some anyway, due to normal plate movements and actual physical "rebound" from the last ice age up in Scotland (raise one end of a solid surface floating on a malleable substrate, and the other end wants to sink into the substrate some.

              Wish I could be more scholarly and give you a citation, but I can't recall the article beyond "Hey, that's kind of interesting".

  4. ISYS
    Alert

    Easy modelling

    Just run the stats through SimCity and see what the outcome is...

    1. LarsG
      Unhappy

      Re: Easy modelling

      Yes but if like me you have tried to play the game for three days without success, the sea rise modelling will be too late as it will already have happened.

    2. OliverJ
      Devil

      Re: Easy modelling

      I wish I could do that, but I can't connect to EA's servers! We are doomed... doooomed!

  5. John Hawkins

    Climate is changing...but it always has.

    Which is pretty much what the paper seems to say. A particularly interesting sentence I found in the paper was the observation that "In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900 – 1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard 5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios."

    So we've gone to effing cold to relatively balmy in just a 100 years. Bring it on I say; 9 degrees Celsius below freezing this morning after some mild, sunny weather last week. Make the most of it before the next Ice Age rolls in.

  6. Cipher

    A switch from the 1970's

    When scientists the same left leaning politics as today predicted another Ice Age.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/3213/Dont-Miss-it-Climate-Depots-Factsheet-on-1970s-Coming-Ice-Age-Claims

    The second URL debunks the current revisionist nonsense that the New Ice Age wasn't a widespread theory back then. No less than NASA, and the National Academy of Sciences predicted as much.

    To show you how politics supplants science these days, consider:

    New York Times: Obama's global warming promoting science czar Holdren 'warned of a coming ice age' in 1971 – September 29, 2009 – By John Tierney – Excerpt: In the 1971 essay, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide,” Dr. Holdren and his co-author, the ecologist Paul Ehrlich, warned of a coming ice age. They certainly weren't the only scientists in the 1970s to warn of a coming ice age, but I can't think of any others who were so creative in their catastrophizing. Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age. (See also: Obama Science 'Czar' John Holdren's 1971 warning: A 'New Ice Age' likely – September 23, 2009)

    Add to this the fact that the excuse for the lack of raw data from the University of East Anglia was blamed on the fact that they didn't have room for the raw data when they moved to larger quarters with more and bigger computers, more filing cabinets, more shelves, etc. To think that Real Scientists would ever put their raw data into the ash can at all, much less for the pathetic reason given, is incredible.

    The ClimateGate emails prove that data was destroyed when the public began to question their nonsense:

    The University of East Anglia had flouted the rules in its handling of an FOI request in May 2008.

    Days after receiving the request for information from the British climate change scientist David Holland, Jones asked Prof Mike Mann of Pennsylvania State University in the United States: "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4? Keith will do likewise.

    "Can you also email Gene [Eugene Wahl, a paleoclimatologist in Boulder, Colorado] and get him to do the same ... We will be getting Caspar [Ammann, also from Boulder] to do the same."

    It is bullshit people... Designed to alter the political landscape and make the elites, i.e. Gore, richer...

    1. Jim Bob

      Re: A switch from the 1970's

      In real science, hypothese are based on the best available data. If the data changes then so does the hypothesis. Reading your own text, those scientists claiming a new ice age were already aware of human induced forcing of temperature rise but, at that time, deduced that cooling was the dominant trend. A few decades later, these scientists now assert that their original hypothesis was based on incomplete data and, in fact, warming is the dominant trend. This is how science works - any scientist that never changes their mind based on new evidence is not really a scientist.

      On a different note, I find it interesting thet the JG|U graph defines a mean cooling across the graph. If that is true, and there has been a mean cooling since the Little Ice Age, where the f*&ˆk is my wooly mammoth?

      1. Yag

        Re: A switch from the 1970's

        "In real science, hypothese are based on the best available data. If the data changes then so does the hypothesis."

        Indeed. But the issue is not the switch from a cooling trend to a warming trend, but the switch from "Ice age incoming" to "we'll all drown".

        "This is how science works - any scientist that never changes their mind based on new evidence is not really a scientist."

        Exactly. This is why sentences like "the science is settled" does not sounds right.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: In real science, hypothese are based on the best available data

        In real science yes, but the Warmist/Coolist eco-religions were never about real science.

        I remember read article based on that 'science' in my Ranger Rick magazines as an impressionable kid and worrying about how we were going to adapt. I also remember reading articles in those same magazines about how we were going to be out of clean water by, oh about 2000, and Oil was certainly going to be all used up by now and more expensive than gold. So we needed to switch to wind, solar, geothermal, and hydo-electric RFN.

        Only the alarmist cause has changed, the drive is still to switch us to those RFN. That tells me it was never about science in the first place.

    2. NomNomNom

      Re: A switch from the 1970's

      "The second URL debunks the current revisionist nonsense that the New Ice Age wasn't a widespread theory back then. No less than NASA, and the National Academy of Sciences predicted as much."

      A new ice age wasn't a widespread theory back then. It is historical revisionism to claim otherwise (along with your revisionism about climategate).

      A literature review of papers in the 70s found more papers predicted warming than cooling.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-said-about-global-cooling.html

      You'd have us believe that in the 70s there was as much of a consensus for global cooling as there is today about global warming? That flies in the face of the evidence. There was no consensus about a new ice age.

      You are also confusing matters. Scientists in the 70s realized that Earth would soon exit the current interglacial and enter a new glacial ice age, but this was a prediction on timescales of thousands of years, not decades. Scientists still today accept that the Earth will enter a new glacial period within thousands of years.

      1. TheOtherHobbes

        Re: A switch from the 1970's

        Well yes. But he used the word 'leftist.'

        So that proves he knows what he's talking about, and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: A switch from the 1970's

      "Add to this the fact that the excuse for the lack of raw data from the University of East Anglia was blamed on the fact that they didn't have room for the raw data when they moved to larger quarters with more and bigger computers, more filing cabinets, more shelves, etc. To think that Real Scientists would ever put their raw data into the ash can at all, much less for the pathetic reason given, is incredible."

      If you think that, you've never spent much time in a University. As someone who worked at UEA (not in Climate Science!) I can assure you the levels of incompetence seen there on a daily basis can more than adequately explain precisely the kind of stupidity that was demonstrated in such a public fashion. If anything the climate change deniers have done many in UEA a massive favour by distracting the discussion away from staff incompetence and focusing instead on ridiculous conspiracy theories that nobody really took seriously. The end result being that most of the stupidity continues to this very day.

      (AC because I think I'm possibly still prohibited from discussing this whole topic)

      1. Stevie Silver badge

        Re: UEA levels of incompetence

        Fergit! Will I *never* be forgiven that business with the concentrated sulphuric acid? It happened in '76 ffs, and the only one remotely endangered was me. The bottle was empty long before it landed at the feet of those two lab demonstrators, at which point 90% or more of its admittedly high launch velocity had been mitigated by air resistance and drag, and I was the only one who suffered hearing loss from the explosion. And that got better. Sort of. Eventually.

        Proper Science isn't safe, nor is it quiet. You want safe and quiet, don't be a chemist. Specifically, don't be a chemist near me when I'm being one.

    4. James Micallef Silver badge
      Thumb Down

      Re: A switch from the 1970's

      "Although they noted that the greenhouse effect from rising emissions of carbon dioxide emissions could cause future warming of the planet, they concluded from the mid-century cooling trend that the consequences of human activities (like industrial soot, dust from farms, jet exhaust, urbanization and deforestation) were more likely to first cause an ice age"

      we eliminated or reduced a lot of industrial soot, dust from farms etc but haven't eliminated or reduced CO2, so there isn't and contradiction between the 1970s position and the current one. Of course that still does not mean that either of them are correct, or not.

  7. Silverburn
    Flame

    It's all a load of...

    ...bollocks.

    All of it. Both sides.

  8. Andy Roid McUser
    Holmes

    if high temps had no impact...

    Then where are the pharoaoh's, Romans or medieval folks now then ???

    This science lark is easy. Case closed and I won't be entertaining 'fact' based arguments..

  9. Ragequit
    Facepalm

    Meh...

    Even if there is 'radical' climate change in the next 100+ years it's going to be so gradual that we'd have to raving idiots to be unable to adapt. We're talking about sending a mission to Mar's and we can't use any of that know how to adapt to comparatively minor changes? Sure it's on a much larger scale but if nothing else the article proves humans have managed through a volatile climate for a long time. All life for that matter and life tends to be a big producer of gases.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Meh...

      Yeah, I'm sure we'll be able to move the 90% of the human race who live in cities next to the sea at the last minute.

      How long do you think it would take to move, say, London, from being at an "at risk" location?

      1. Psyx

        Re: Meh...

        "How long do you think it would take to move, say, London, from being at an "at risk" location?"

        More time that it would take to -say- a big barrier across the Thames to stop it flooding.

        Ultimately mankind is really good at shelving long-term problems and looking after our immediate issues, and really good at employing the multi-billion dollar alternative to fixing leaks with gaffa tape and chewing gum, 5 minutes before the deadline.

        So that's what we'll do. If there's a higher sea-level, we'll just build some walls and carry on regardless. We'll be blind to any long-term effects until they emerge. It's a good policy to take if things don't go wrong, but quite a gamble if they do. I think it's led by our of sense of mortality. Why worry about two hundred years time?

        For a species so intent on spawning kids, we're really bad at considering much longer-term than a two generations down the line. We -as a species- simply do not want to compromise ANYTHING in our lives against the risk of long-term consequences.

        "We're talking about sending a mission to Mar's and we can't use any of that know how to adapt to comparatively minor changes?"

        I think the concern is that the small changes will lead to more rapid, larger ones. A mission to Mars is also a quick-hit and a financial grain of sand in comparison to the money that mankind would have to spend to break its fossil fuel addiction and love of cutting down trees.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Meh...

          What could possibly go wrong? Just ask the people of New Orleans.

          1. Pat 4

            Re: Meh...

            "Just ask the people of New Orleans."

            You mean the people who live in a bowl shaped area, near a heavy hurricane region, at an altitude below sea level and who think there's nothing wrong with that?

            Those people?

            1. NomNomNom

              Re: Meh...

              Londoners?

              You mean those people from the 21st century who lived in a large city near sea level next to a big river, at a time when sea level was known to likely continue rising?

              Those people?

            2. Psyx
              Thumb Up

              Re: Meh...

              "You mean the people who live in a bowl shaped area, near a heavy hurricane region, at an altitude below sea level and who think there's nothing wrong with that?

              Those people?"

              You forgot to mention living on a river which radically changes its course every now and again, but which has been prevented from doing so by masses of concrete for the last hundred years.

            3. John Savard Silver badge

              Re: Meh...

              How about the black Americans who chose to live in the one major city in the U.S. where they didn't have to live in fear of harassment by the local police department? That was what was lost, because the Federal Government wilfully failed to spend the pittance required to keep its levees in proper repair.

              Don't condemn people for their choices who really didn't have a choice.

      2. P. Lee Silver badge
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Meh...

        > How long do you think it would take to move, say, London, from being at an "at risk" location?

        The problem is unlikely to be the length of time to move. The problem is that all that valuable real estate will disappear and the rich will be forced to buy land off those pesky poor people who live inland.

        Well, it would be a problem if there wasn't an emergency leading to nationalisation of land and then its sell-off a few years later, as well as tax subsidies to cushion the blow...

        1. Psyx
          Stop

          Re: Meh...

          "The problem is unlikely to be the length of time to move. The problem is that all that valuable real estate will disappear and the rich will be forced to buy land off those pesky poor people who live inland."

          Umm... the rich people still own the land inland. I don't know where you get the idea that 75% of the UK *isn't* owned by 'old money'.

    2. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: Meh...

      The people who are really at risk are the world's poorest people, living in small tropical countries. When the world gets warmer, and their harvests fail, they're not going to have a lot of options, and they don't even have a lot of options now.

      Sure, people living in the rich industrialized countries can likely adapt over the timescales involved before they have any real problem.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The earth had a lot more trees on it then to hold the moisture. This is basic geography, try not jumping to conclusions for a sensational headline next time.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Next time think before you post?

      Then all the more reason why the earth should have been cooler...by your exact reasoning.

      Next time think before you post?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "It's interesting stuff, anyway - and doesn't really seem to support the agenda its authors might support"

    Have you asked them if they support an agenda ? Or even asked them to comment on the conclusions you've drawn from their research ?

    It would be like journalism.

  12. Katie Saucey
    Coat

    Obvious conclusion..

    Pyramids control the climate, therefore build more enormous pyramids. Also if that nut on The History Channel is correct (as some ancient astronaut theorist believe), we just need to wait for the aliens to show back up.

    I think the above will be my standard response to any AGW conversation with fanatical friends, co-workers, etc. today, should save a lot of hot air wasted on topics such as wind turbines and my terrible gas guzzler.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It's pathetic.

    There are STILL people out there who won't accept reality?

    We know Lewis Page is an ill informed zealot - about everything really, but even in the comment there is still idiocy.

    We're screwed people, because of people like you. We have already guaranteed runaway with the warming that's baked in and the permafrost, methane releases. Hundreds of millions of people will die because you didn't want to take action two decades ago.

    It's a sickness, to throw away human civilisation because you wanted your hummer.

    1. Pat 4

      Re: It's pathetic.

      AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH we're ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!

      Eventually...

    2. Psyx
      Stop

      Re: It's pathetic.

      "We're screwed people, because of people like you. "

      If you've got two or more kids, it's actually people like you...

      1. Martin Budden Bronze badge
        Boffin

        Re: It's pathetic.

        I think you mean three or more kids. Two is below the replacement rate: if the world's fertility rate was 2.0 the population would be gradually shrinking due to childhood deaths.

  14. P_0

    There are STILL people out there who won't accept reality?

    We know Lewis Page is an ill informed zealot - about everything really, but even in the comment there is still idiocy.

    Don't be so melodramatic. Of course the AGW scares are exaggerated. Almost nobody outside the echo chamber of the Guardian, realclimate and a fast diminishing circle of civil servants with public money to burn, believe this gibberish anymore.

    We're screwed people, because of people like you. We have already guaranteed runaway with the warming that's baked in and the permafrost, methane releases. Hundreds of millions of people will die because you didn't want to take action two decades ago.

    And you carbon footprint is...? Presumably you have excused yourself from industrial civilization and hunt for rabbits wearing a loin cloth? No. Didn't think so.

    It's a sickness, to throw away human civilisation because you wanted your hummer.

    Nobody is throwing away anything. We are just going through one of humanity's many fatalists, prophetic scares. It isn't the first. It won't be the last. I know a lot of people like to think of themselves as Noah, preparing for the deluge, but seriously, come down from your half-built ark and join the industrial debauchery. Churn out some CO2, turn on your PC... oh wait you already did.

  15. Magnus Ramage
    Thumb Down

    FFS!

    What's this anti-scientific nonsense doing on a technology website? For shame!

    1. Ally 1
      Trollface

      Re: FFS!

      Trolling us and getting a shedload of views and comments? It's fun to watch

    2. Avian
      FAIL

      Re: FFS!

      When did healthy debate become "ant-scientific"?

      Maybe you need to check your understanding of science, suppression of debate is usually the province of religion and other mythology.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: FFS!

        You think Lewis indulges in 'Healthy debate'?

        LOL.

        This is part of the reason I stopped caring. Not that I don't think pumping billions of tons of crap into the air is a terrible, terrible thing, I just don't think anyone on this planet will ever look far enough beyond their own short-term interests to do anything about it, so I'm just going to enjoy the ride.

        1. Rune Moberg Silver badge
          FAIL

          Re: FFS!

          "billions of tons of crap into the air"

          The sad part is that all this focus on CO2 (food for the plants -- a required component for most, if not all, life on this planet) diverts attention away from the real pollution (NOx, SO2, particles, etc).

          Case in point: Politicians in Norway favored diesel some years ago because diesel cars emit less CO2. The result is more serious respitory health issues in the larger cities.

          1. John Savard Silver badge

            Re: FFS!

            Back in the '60s, the "real pollution" was the problem. Today, as the ozone hole shows, pollution is no longer just a local problem. We can upset the balance of the planet, and too much CO2 is doing exactly that. The solution is non-polluting nuclear power, with more use of electric trolley buses.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: FFS!

          Being dead after a hunderd years means automatically that only the short term matters. I'll be as dead in a hunderd years as in a billion, so AFAIAC, people dying because of climate change is as bad as people dying because the Sun stopped shining. Not my problem.

          1. David Hicks
            WTF?

            Re: FFS!

            "Not my problem."

            Grandkids are of no interest to you then AC?

            Nor leaving a habitable world behind for those that come after?

            Fair enough if you're comfortable with that I suppose.

  16. JimmyPage
    Mushroom

    A little clicky linky

    here

  17. Panicnow

    Face the Facts, get over it

    A) All the fossil fuel we can economically dig out of the ground we'll burn. Regardless

    B) Global oscilations in crop productivity per capita happens.

    C) Distribution of valuables are "grossly unfair" ( A view held by you poor people in particular)

    Conclusions:-

    1) Build resilience in your (food) system or you or your descendants starve.

    2) Party while you can

    1. John Savard Silver badge

      Re: Face the Facts, get over it

      No. The FACT is that not ONE CHILD is to go hungry if the marshalled global resources of technology can prevent it. Economics has nothing to do with it, because the government can use its big stick to collect as much taxes as are needed to eliminate world hunger (forever, since the government can also use its big stick to tell people how many children they may have).

      So you may have a point, but you don't get to evade moral responsibility when you have a choice. So if you insist on having the freedom to put cheap gas in your car, it's your fault when people starve in Burma or wherever due to global warming.

  18. JeffinLondon

    Now all you warmists clam down just a bit. No one is saying the climate hasn't changed. Of course it has. The questions are of course what are the causes (natural v man made) and where does it go from here (i.e., are the feedbacks positive or negative or what?)?

    While you all fulminate, this is a fascinating take from a completely different angle:

    http://youtu.be/vpTHi7O66pI

  19. James Pickett

    @FFS!

    "anti-scientific nonsense"

    You mean nonsense that undermines your currently held convictions?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: @FFS!

      @James - I think the word you were looking for was "conventions".

  20. James Pickett

    @Jake

    "according to my observation"

    You're mistaking mere evidence for computer-enhanced pronouncements from the Church of Climatology. Don't you know that software models trump empirical data these days?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: @Jake

      No, he's mistaking his amateur observations, as far as I can tell in a single location or locality, for something which is rigorous and would be accepted by meteorologists.

      How was his equipment calibrated

      How often was it calibrated

      Who read it (different people read meters differently, believe it or not.)

      How often was his equipment replaced

      How does he know that the equipment was in the same place every time he measured (land/buildings move)

      How does he know that he measured at the same point of each tide

      Did he measure high/low point

      It goes on and on. Basically someone who isn't trained can't just read a weather station or other meteorological equipment and get an accurate answer. Many think they can though.

  21. IGnatius T Foobar Bronze badge
    Megaphone

    CO2 is not a pollutant

    Man-made global warming is a hoax, has always been a hoax, and will always be a hoax. Anyone who claims to be a climate scientist is actually a politician. They're looking for an excuse to slap big taxes on energy.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: CO2 is not a pollutant

      Do the order of claims in your comment reflect the order of your reasoning? ie backwards?

      That is to say did you start off believing man-made global warming is a hoax? Then were you faced with the awkward situation that climate scientists accept man-made global warming? Perhaps not wanting to claim climate scientists know less than you about climate you've had to conclude they know it's a hoax too, so you've had to go down the path of calling them liars.

      Which begs the question why would they lie. So you've come up with a motive involving taxes. Although I believe you've missed explaining step 3:

      1. You are a politician

      2. Claim to be a climate scientist

      2. Get Big taxes on energy

      3. ????

      4. Profit?

  22. JeffyPooh
    Pint

    "The Most Dangerous Equation" on small sample size applies to the axis of time too...

    In short, larger sample sizes (or longer integration periods) tend to smooth out the peaks. Humans have wasted many billions with the misguided 'small schools' movement.

    "The Most Dangerous Equation" *must* be taken into account (formally) by the 'Warmists'.

  23. Tim99 Silver badge
    Pint

    OK, This is just click-whoring

    OK Lewis, we know that it is all a conspiracy, and that the nasty science people are in league with the UN, the Illuminati and the lizard people; to get us all to pay more taxes to implement a dastardly plan of world domination by conspiring to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

    May I respectfully submit to El Reg that we have a new icon called the TW*T where the * can be either an "A" or and "I", or even better we call it the TWAT-TWIT (or maybe the TWIT-TWAT) that we can use it to identify similar articles - The troll or extraterrestrial explanation icons really will not do for such drivel.

    For this post I'm using the beer icon, because I really need one after reading it.

  24. IronSteve

    Who knows eh?

  25. Craigness
    FAIL

    BEST - warmist?

    It's not the worst case of bias in the article, but BEST was started by a denier - they even got funding from the Kochs and a good write up from Anthony Watts! The BEST project analyzed as much data as it possibly could and concluded that there was no global conspiracy and the scientists got it right. Even the "zealots" are correct. They are not "warmists" they are scientists.

    1. P_0

      Re: BEST - warmist?

      It's not the worst case of bias in the article, but BEST was started by a denier - they even got funding from the Kochs and a good write up from Anthony Watts! The BEST project analyzed as much data as it possibly could and concluded that there was no global conspiracy and the scientists got it right. Even the "zealots" are correct. They are not "warmists" they are scientists.

      The BEST project hasn't changed anyone's mind. I think they finally got peer reviewed recently, but regardless, nobody in the real world cares (i.e. not in climatology). As much as people like to call anyone who doubts the "science" behind AGW as "deniers", it really doesn't matter - because we won. You just don't realize it yet. I'd give it a couple more years of wind and solar subsidies before govts start panicking, or reneging on deals (ala Germany, which pays hand over fist in its solar scam). Even the Cameron-Clegg "greenest govt ever", will be slapping up gas generators as quick as a flash once the UK's massive power problems become apparent.

      Whether the "deniers" are wrong or not, it doesn't matter. Occasionally the obvious fact seems to slip through the AGW crowd, for example during the Copenhagen, Cancun, Rio climate conferences, where nothing whatsoever gets agreed, but the very next day we see in the Guardian the same old columnists telling us the next conference is the Big One - the last chance to save humanity. FFS Copenhagen was supposed to be the last chance. How many last chances do we get?

      Please read this article and take a step back to see what a parody the AGW movement has become:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/climate-change-abolitionists

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: BEST - warmist?

        "Whether the "deniers" are wrong or not, it doesn't matter."

        Beg to differ. The difference between catastrophe and non-catastrophe kind of hugely matters.

        Although if you are saying that the deniers have no influence on world events, I beg to differ too. While impotent now, deniers did initially aid and abet the crippling of early international emission treaties, at a time when the West had enough influence to have pushed them through. Which has now left the West in an impotent position unable to influence the new big Eastern emitting countries.

        Deniers have taken quite the gamble. I am afraid whether deniers win that gamble or not will not be dependent on whether the UK installs a few gas power stations, but what happens to the climate.

        1. P_0

          Re: BEST - warmist?

          Beg to differ. The difference between catastrophe and non-catastrophe kind of hugely matters.

          But that's part of the issue here. What is this catastrophe? It's some far off, ill-defined forever morphing mixture of floods (which we've had since the dawn of time), hurricanes (ditto), sea level rise (still ditto). This far off never-happening catastrophe is part of why the AGW proponents are looked on suspiciously. While every "extreme" weather event apparently has the finger prints of Global Warming all over it, the lack of any defining catastrophic event means that the AGW proponents want us to hand our collective destiny over to them until they gaze into their crystal balls.. er.. models, and pronounce the danger averted.

          For the past 20 years we've been deluged with horror stories about what will happen in the far off future. Just like a horror movie franchise it get's boring after a while, and starts to be a parody of itself.

          You talk about this catastrophe with an ominous tone, but there is nothing ominous about it.

          Although if you are saying that the deniers have no influence on world events, I beg to differ too. While impotent now, deniers did initially aid and abet the crippling of early international emission treaties, at a time when the West had enough influence to have pushed them through. Which has now left the West in an impotent position unable to influence the new big Eastern emitting countries.

          I don't think "deniers" are impotent. I mean honestly, even if Obama had been idiotic enough to sign any agreement at Copenhagen which allowed China to get away without significant, or observable emission cuts, it would have never, ever have gotten through congress. It still won't. The issue is, I think both "denier" and "warmist" camps have lost followers, mainly due to apathy. Real people don't care (of course they'll say they are concerned if you ask them in a poll, just like you ask someone if they are concerned about BSE. They'll say "Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Yeah, I'm a little worried.". Of he goes to the supermarket to buy some steaks...).

          Maybe it's just me, but in everyday life I don't know anyone who talks about this anymore. 2009 you could get articles on the front of the Telegraph website with scare stories. Now only the Guardian and the Independent (to its 2 or 3 readers) seem to bother. And even then it's mainly Monbiot's whinging. This is exactly how the "deniers" won. Let's face it. There was never and is never going to be a day when the climatology establishment does an about face and decides AGW isn't true. It just won't happen. What will happen is funding will dry up (let's see EU and US budgets in the next few years...), AGW proponent climatologists retire and/or lose their fire. There is always going to be some AGW proponents because the supposed problem is a never ending crisis.

          Deniers have taken quite the gamble. I am afraid whether deniers win that gamble or not will not be dependent on whether the UK installs a few gas power stations, but what happens to the climate.

          Not only the UK. Most major industrial countries. IMHO the biggest mistake by the environmentalists (I mean that in the general sense not AGW proponents - I actually support energy conservation, recycling and becoming energy independent) was to dismiss nuclear. If only they accepted it as a necessity in the event of a fossil fuel cutback, CO2 emissions could be much reduced by now. Oh well.

          1. Michael M

            Re: BEST - warmist?

            You seem to be under some illusion that Climatologists are the only group putting forward AGW when in fact I am not aware of a single professional body of scientists or engineers who dispute AGW.

            An example from the Institute of Civil Engineers: "The science is clear: Climate Change is a reality. Engineers must now be in engaged in responding to the challenges and threats which Climate Change poses to our built environment."

            1. P_0

              Re: BEST - warmist?

              You seem to be under some illusion that Climatologists are the only group putting forward AGW when in fact I am not aware of a single professional body of scientists or engineers who dispute AGW.

              An example from the Institute of Civil Engineers: "The science is clear: Climate Change is a reality. Engineers must now be in engaged in responding to the challenges and threats which Climate Change poses to our built environment."

              Irrelevant. How does this change anything I said. Everyday people, including everyday civil engineers don't give a crap. That's the bottom line. And what the professional body thinks and what its members think are two different things. If the Chartered Institute of Underwear Embroiderers want to take a stance on AGW I say go for it. Just don't expect the universe to care.

              Do you honestly, hand on heart, think the general populace still care much about this topic?Here's a recent poll: http://www.globescan.com/commentary-and-analysis/press-releases/press-releases-2013/261-environmental-concerns-at-record-lows-global-poll.html It seems globally, interest in the movement is waning.

              Even Google trends shows the path (OK, so not the most accurate indicator) is downward http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=%22global%20warming%22%2C%20%22climate%20change%22%2C%20&cmpt=q

              Here's one recent Guardian article which is about as close as that paper has ever got to realizing what's happening: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/01/100-months-apocalypse-warnings

              And I think there was another article on the register recently showing people don't care.

              When I said the "deniers" have won, this is what I meant. Apathy reigns supreme. Now other environmentalist groups are starting to attack the AGW crowd, due to the latter's obsession with making everything run on wind power.

              The scientific debate has passed into the realms of the abstract and archaic. It's the worst kind of Ivory Tower academia.

              Everyday people just don't care. And that's the bottom line.

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: BEST - warmist?

                "Everyday people just don't care. And that's the bottom line."

                Are you arguing that the importance of issues is determined only by a poll of what everyday people think?

                No, this is not correct. Everyday people don't care about a lot of things - they are too busy to - but they expect their elected representatives to be on the ball and see dangers coming and avert them. Once something bad does happen the everyday people get very angry that nothing was done. Think the economic crisis. Or the horsemeat scandal, or even Jimmy Saville.

                We can expect people not to care until disaster unfolds. Issues like the economy or food testing only become high priority concerns to the masses only some disaster wades in on their everyday life.

                So you are essentially arguing that because disaster hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't. Or something. It isn't clear what you are trying to extrapolate from public opinion.

                1. P_0

                  Re: BEST - warmist?

                  Are you arguing that the importance of issues is determined only by a poll of what everyday people think?

                  Importance is a relative word.

                  No, this is not correct. Everyday people don't care about a lot of things - they are too busy to - but they expect their elected representatives to be on the ball and see dangers coming and avert them. Once something bad does happen the everyday people get very angry that nothing was done. Think the economic crisis. Or the horsemeat scandal, or even Jimmy Saville.

                  None of the examples you cites require the large scale deindustrialization of society, and the complete change in our lifestyles. If Warmists want to keep CO2 levels below whatever number they choose (is it still 400ppm?), everybody has to make a big effort. And that doesn't mean cycling to work and eating less meat (horse or cow), it probably means not having a job because there won't be any demand, because there won't be any industry. So when people don't care, they're hardly going to budge are they? The climate change conference circuit goes round in circles, because we have an unstoppable force (warmist crusading) up against an immovable object (most people and their politician's lack of desire to change their lifestyles). No matter how many conferences they have this won't change. WHich is why warmists have lost.

                  So you are essentially arguing that because disaster hasn't happened yet, therefore it won't. Or something. It isn't clear what you are trying to extrapolate from public opinion.

                  My point is that people don't care. And won't care, and you could say they don't care because their way of life depends on them not caring. And if people don't care, all these BEST reports and articles don't mean much. Nothing is changing. CO2 emissions are still going up after years of endless, futile conferences.

                  Another point I'd like to make is that people who profess to care don't, in my experience, actually care. (I mean groups like 350.org oh how was the arctic holiday guys?, etc, and Monbiot, and NASA's Hansen etc)Although I think they like to think of themselves as cassandras, whose warnings go unheeded but will be proved right in the end, to me they don't seem to be cutting back on their CO2 that much? You may think I'm being facetious but I'm not. If they truly believed this then they would go live in the woods or find some other way to get their carbon footprints to next-to-zero, set an example to the rest of us. In a post-carbon world when productivity and demand for consumer goods falls flat we need to know how we are supposed to survive. This isn't the 17th century - there's a lot more of us

                  . And yet Gore seems more interested on building his investment portfolio. Surely imminent doom will make his investments worthless. For that reason I can't believe a word that man says. That is why warmists are always trailed by the faint whiff of bull**** everywhere they go.

                  1. NomNomNom

                    Re: BEST - warmist?

                    You made two arguments:

                    1) people don't care [about climate change]

                    2) [Solution to climate change requires] large scale deindustrialization of society.

                    #1 is true of a lot of genuine longterm threats that should be acted upon (eg global pandemic or asteroid strike) and so I am unclear what you want #1 to tell me. It can't mean the theat isn't genuine or shouldn't be acted upon, else I would have to accept nothing should be done about asteroids, etc either.

                    You raised #2 to single out climate change from the other longterm threats as being the reason not to act on it while acting on the others. #2 is a separate argument in it's own right. Argument #1 doesn't depend on it, so I am still left wondering what you think #1 should be telling me.

                    I don't think is necessary for a great number of people to care about a subject in order for society to act on it. Nor do I think people will act in certain ways if they genuinely believe something should be done about longterm threat. That would require extraordinary focus given the distractions of day to day life.

                    A post-carbon world is inevitable so it better be possible.

                    1. P_0

                      Re: BEST - warmist?

                      2) [Solution to climate change requires] large scale deindustrialization of society.

                      What solution do you know of that doesn't require deindustrialization?

                      #1 is true of a lot of genuine longterm threats that should be acted upon (eg global pandemic or asteroid strike) and so I am unclear what you want #1 to tell me. It can't mean the theat isn't genuine or shouldn't be acted upon, else I would have to accept nothing should be done about asteroids, etc either.

                      I'm telling you, that genuine or not the threat isn't being acted upon and won't be acted upon for the reasons I mentioned. My original point way back up the thread was that warmists have lost. This is what I am explaining to you. You can do with that information what you wish.

                      You raised #2 to single out climate change from the other longterm threats as being the reason not to act on it while acting on the others. #2 is a separate argument in it's own right. Argument #1 doesn't depend on it, so I am still left wondering what you think #1 should be telling me.

                      I am not singling out AGW over other threats. I'm telling you that nothing is going to happen. You use the word "act", as though there is some collective will of the people to do something about this problem. I am explaining to you that this will isn't there. As I said, nobody cares. That is my point.

                      I don't think is necessary for a great number of people to care about a subject in order for society to act on it. Nor do I think people will act in certain ways if they genuinely believe something should be done about longterm threat. That would require extraordinary focus given the distractions of day to day life.

                      A post-carbon world is inevitable so it better be possible.

                      I don't know who you think is going to act. CameronClegg's "Greenest government Eva!" is pretty ambivalent about the whole windmill thing, building loads of em and then letting Caudrilla drill for shale. Germany is getting worried about it's own renewable subsidies. All over the world the green bubble has popped. The political classes are losing their appetite to act (a lot of it is to do with no money in the coffers). So when you say "society should still act", I don't know who you are talking about. Generally people don't care, politicians are at most ambivalent. Who is supposed to do anything?

                      What do you really think will happen from here on? Of course there will be conferences the IPAA will vomit up a new report. But not much in the way of serious decarbonization will happen.

                      Oh and a post carbon world (well in the next couple of centuries anyway) is not inevitable. Good news today, the Japanese figured out a way to drill the sea bed for methane hydrates. :)

                      Happy reading: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9924836/Japan-cracks-seabed-ice-gas-in-dramatic-leap-for-global-energy.html

                      1. NomNomNom

                        Re: BEST - warmist?

                        Even if nothing in climate prompts it, there is every chance an international agreement to limit CO2 emissions will be made in coming years. An international agreement to put an international price on carbon emissions, or to start locking up undeveloped fields. So far talks have been blocked by bickering and difficulties of negotiating such an agreement, as well as being hindered by special interests who wish to water down or block any potential solution.

                        But even if that doesn't happen and governments fail to reach agreement, nature may very well still force the issue when something in climate suddenly destabilizes or a disaster occurs. This is the worst case scenario because it will throw countries into conflict and crisis. Having to sharply ditch fossil fuels, rather than gradually. The solutions governments will reach for - and which populations will accept - in this situation will be based on hysteria rather than reason. Much like the hysteria that followed 9/11 led to two wars and a clamp down on various freedoms. The other problem is the inertia of the climate. Expect nations to embark together on absolutely mad solutions at this point to make up for lost ground such as unstable geo-engineering schemes.

                        The further GHGs are allowed to climb, the higher the risk of something like this happening. You say there may not be a post-carbon world in the next few centuries, but that really just makes this kind of disaster almost inevitable. Because the world is going to need more energy as it grows in coming centuries. Either we don't have enough fossil fuels to meet this demand, in which case we will have to be in a post-carbon world, or we do have enough fossil fuels in which case CO2 levels will pass 1500ppm. We are unlikely to reach anywhere near that high without disaster unfolding. I suspect disaster lies somewhere between 500ppm and 1000ppm.

                        1. P_0

                          Re: BEST - warmist?

                          Even if nothing in climate prompts it, there is every chance an international agreement to limit CO2 emissions will be made in coming years.

                          You really think that? Not in a million years. You think China and India, which are slowly dragging their people out of poverty are going to voluntarily push them back, with co2 limits? Come on even the EU is starting to fudge its CO2 limiting programs with credits for energy intensive industries (i.e. the backbone of the economy). The most they will come up with at any conference is a mealy mouthed agreement to agree something at the next conference. And since we are in Obama's second term, and the political pendulum will almost certainly swing back to the republicans at the next election, the agreement would need to happen in the next 4 years.

                          An international agreement to put an international price on carbon emissions, or to start locking up undeveloped fields. So far talks have been blocked by bickering and difficulties of negotiating such an agreement, as well as being hindered by special interests who wish to water down or block any potential solution.

                          The bickering is that nobody wants to cut their co2 emissions, and apart from the EU, will not commit economic suicide unless everyone else does too. And the "special interests" are actually you and me, people who want steady supplies of electricity, central heating, jobs and food.

                          Come on, the Rio conference was a joke, a big fall from the grand, do-or-die drama of Copenhagen. IIRC most major leaders didn't bother showing up, just sent some negotiators into the mix.

                          Having to sharply ditch fossil fuels, rather than gradually. The solutions governments will reach for - and which populations will accept - in this situation will be based on hysteria rather than reason. Much like the hysteria that followed 9/11 led to two wars and a clamp down on various freedoms. The other problem is the inertia of the climate. Expect nations to embark together on absolutely mad solutions at this point to make up for lost ground such as unstable geo-engineering schemes.

                          Sounds fun, can't wait to read the novelization of this story.

                        2. This post has been deleted by its author

          2. This post has been deleted by its author

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @NomNomNom

          "Beg to differ. The difference between catastrophe and non-catastrophe kind of hugely matters."

          What catastrophe? Which version? The models are constantly revised and often down due to the complexity and complete lack of knowledge around the topic. The data all of this is based on is so short term with cherry picked historical data which is still being corrected for. So we have a lack of expertise with unpolished data and only very short term relatively reliable data which is still needing adjustments because of urban areas and location of the sensors (e.g. airports).

          I view this catastrophe the same way as I view death. Nobody knows because nobody has a clue. There could be a slight possibility I meet my maker or some deity however that does not mean the doomsayers are right at all. Because there are so many versions which are all based on so little fact that the end result is unknown. Maybe something will happen and maybe it wont. But telling me you know the answer already discredits you.

          So we can fall back to the gamble you speak of. With no real facts to work with you want to risk the worlds economy and kill people (which will be the result) on a blind faith event you think might happen. That is what you propose. To stave off a catastrophe which has no real support of happening or being under our control.

          1. NomNomNom

            Re: @NomNomNom

            "With no real facts to work with you want to risk the worlds economy and kill people (which will be the result)"

            Could I not say that with no real facts to work with you want to risk the worlds climate and kill people (which will be the result)?

            "I view this catastrophe the same way as I view death. Nobody knows because nobody has a clue."

            Then why do you fear economic catastrophe? What economic models are you using to divine the future?

            It seems you appreciate risk based on incomplete evidence when it comes to the economy, but you don't apply the same logic to the climate.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @NomNomNom

              "Could I not say that with no real facts to work with you want to risk the worlds climate and kill people (which will be the result)?"

              Factually no. Because there is no reliable fact to say this theoretical catastrophe exists beyond the minds of the fearful. However if you cripple economies you kill people as lack of money, energy, etc will actively harm people to the point of killing. A short example is the price of energy shoots up. The hospitals need energy but they need money for drugs, etc. So more of their money goes to propping up wind farms that dont work while people die.

              The fact is needed to prove something to happen, the disproving comes after. The first criteria has yet to happen yet you seem to think the unproven theory needs disproving. As I asked you before, disprove god.

              "Then why do you fear economic catastrophe? What economic models are you using to divine the future?

              It seems you appreciate risk based on incomplete evidence when it comes to the economy, but you don't apply the same logic to the climate."

              The evidence is based on actual, measurable criteria. For example what is the price of energy accounting for manipulations. The manipulations are without a doubt increasing the cost (subsidies) which are already affecting the consumers prices. This is factually measurable by the cost of producing the energy. And as it directly relates to the economy the logic actually exists.

              What is the chance of you being hit by a car? You can mitigate the chances somewhat by looking both ways, using crossings etc. It is measurable. Now tell me the chance of you dying because the god Apollo is unhappy with you so strikes you down. You are trying to tell me the second one. You are using an unmeasured set of hypotheticals and theoreticals and then telling me you have an absolute answer.

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: @NomNomNom

                "The evidence is based on actual, measurable criteria. For example what is the price of energy accounting for manipulations. The manipulations are without a doubt increasing the cost (subsidies) which are already affecting the consumers prices. This is factually measurable by the cost of producing the energy. And as it directly relates to the economy the logic actually exists."

                Similarly manipulations of GHG levels in the atmosphere are without a doubt increasing the greenhouse effect which are already affecting the climate. The question is how much and where is the breaking point.

                The same question exists for the economy. Try as you might you cannot prove the level of manipulation of the economy that will cause catastrophe, anymore than I can prove the level of GHGs that would also do so. But such a level must exist in both cases.

                But proof is not needed to substantiate threat in either case. You appreciate this with regard to the economy but not the climate.

  26. SPiT

    The reality of global warming

    The real problem here is that you are all arguing about the details. In a way Lewis Page is perfectly correct to treat the wide range of global warming fanatics with a degree of skepticism. The vast majority of "information" posted by both sides of the debate is at best meaningless crud but more typically distortion based upon prejudice. What currently gets categorized as global warming science is actually the equivalent of weather forecasting but without the short-term feedback for quality control that weather gives you. You find out about 5 day weather forecasting every 5 days. Attempts to forecast climate change details are going to be very difficult and fraught with error.

    What this means is that we don't know exactly what will happen or exactly when. This doesn't mean we know it won't happen, which is the typical anti-warming argument. To use an analogy, we are trying to work out whether it is safe to cross the road in thick fog. We can't see through the fog despite the best attempts of current science but we do have a more general theory that is solidly based that says traffic is coming. The warming fanatics are saying we are about to be run over, the anti-warming fanatics are saying that its safe to cross if you can't see anything coming. They are both wrong but I but caution seems more sensible than the gung -ho 'of course its safe' attitude.

    The real global warming science is based on sound Geological analysis and a broad confidence that if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere than it will get a lot warmer and sea level will rise and it will make a pretty big impact on human civilisation.

    For a good real issue with the predictive science element of the global warming story the best current example is the realisation that the models haven't correctly considered the impact of a reduced equatorial - polar temperature gradient and its impact on the jet stream and the apparent real consequences already seen for weather in the mid-latitudes. This is a perfect illustration of the weaknesses of current modelling and the desperate need to penetrate that fog and find out what is going to happen.

    We really don't know how scared we should be. The "it will never happen" brigade should perhaps be compared with the opposite extreme of some of the earlier predictions from James Lovelock of Gaia hypothesis fame (who has since changed his mind). These represent the extreme positions

    1. Psyx

      Re: The reality of global warming

      "To use an analogy, we are trying to work out whether it is safe to cross the road in thick fog."

      Yup. And placed in that situation - to continue the comparison - I've been given a bunch of statistics from both sides, telling me how safe/unsafe it is. You can't believe either set of stats because essentially we all know that we can make numbers sing and dance to whatever tune we like. Clearly both sets of information cannot be correct, no matter how certain either side is.

      All we have left is a choice of our own gut instinct saying "Do I risk crossing this road. The best case scenario is that I cross a road instead of having to walk half a mile to a footbridge, and the worst case is that I die."

      To me it's risk assessment. What we gain by not crossing is the certainty of not getting hit by a truck and getting mangled. What we gain by crossing instead of taking a longer route round is making a few sacrifices. Regardless of the veracity of the argument, to me it's not worth the risk of being hit by that truck, even if it's only 1% likely to occur. I'm sure that even the most belligerent of sceptics would assess that the chance of them being wrong could easily be 1% or more. Would you really get in a car with your entire family and drive it, knowing that there is a 1% chance of a fatal accident?

      It doesn't matter if -on weight of evidence- I think there is -at most- a 1% chance. That's too much for me to risk. It's not like not crossing the road and walking to a footbridge is going to be anything more than a minor inconvenience in life.

      1. P_0

        Re: The reality of global warming

        To me it's risk assessment. What we gain by not crossing is the certainty of not getting hit by a truck and getting mangled. What we gain by crossing instead of taking a longer route round is making a few sacrifices.

        What "few sacrifices" are these? The warmist industry want us to turn the clock back on industrial society.

        Regardless of the veracity of the argument, to me it's not worth the risk of being hit by that truck, even if it's only 1% likely to occur. I'm sure that even the most belligerent of sceptics would assess that the chance of them being wrong could easily be 1% or more. Would you really get in a car with your entire family and drive it, knowing that there is a 1% chance of a fatal accident?

        No not "regardless of the veracity of the argument". The veracity of the argument matters absolutely if you are doing a risk assessment, otherwise everything has a significant risk.

        Regardless, your analogy is weakened slightly by the fact that you are explaining it while sitting in your own car driving alongside a convoy of trucks. Unless, of course, you have a tiny carbon footprint and use next to no fossil fuel powered appliances or machines, directly or indirectly? I'm guessing you use central heating or air conditioning, washing machines (not those old washboards), computers etc?

        Lastly, your analogy leaves open the question of what not getting into the car entails? Does it entail bigger problems for me and my family (i.e. mass unemployment, power shortages, degradation of utilities etc?) Of course it does. Cutting back industrial civilization will mean unemployment, hunger, lower paid and menial jobs. Even the most belligerent warmist can see the problem.

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Meaningless graph

    When will these 'scientists' stop producing meaningless graphs and show real life values?

    Anyone can produce a scary looking graph when they take a very limited range of values that magnify what they draw. What they should do is show the complete graph with origins at 0,0 then all those scary spikes are seen in reality.

    They will never do anything like that because it will show up their scam for what it is - a green money driven crusade.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Meaningless graph

      When will fools stop insisting graphs should be plotted with origins (0,0) thinking that this "shows reality"?

      Would they also demand biologists stop magnifying images of bacteria because it makes bacteria look bigger and more "scary" than they actually are?

      Magnifying the data is exactly what you want to do. Otherwise you can't see the details. Of course with climate deniers that's often their objective.

    2. Psyx
      WTF?

      Re: Meaningless graph

      "When will these 'scientists' stop producing meaningless graphs and show real life values?

      Anyone can produce a scary looking graph when they take a very limited range of values that magnify what they draw. What they should do is show the complete graph with origins at 0,0 then all those scary spikes are seen in reality."

      Hang on: You want a graph with the freezing point of water as the zero-level, and the boiling point of water as the maximum, because then none of the noticeable changes really matter?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Meaningless graph

      Excellent point! I shall immediately complain to the BBC that their weather coverage is completely meaningless since they persist in reporting temperatures in "centigrade", a scale deliberately conceived to exaggerate the trifling differences between seasons. When viewed in Kelvin with zero in its properly absolute position the paltry few percent of variance starkly reveals this most monstrously conceived and dangerous plot of the clothing warmists.

  28. Identity
    Coat

    Hmmm...warmer in ancient Egypt?

    Seems to me I remember hearing something about Atlantis...

    Mine's the wetsuit

  29. Jim O'Reilly
    Happy

    Heading for the history file?

    Is 'Global Warming' actually over?

    So many of the AGW myths have been punctured, I'm surprised the theory hasn't bled out already.

    Arctic ice is melting, but Antarctic ice is growing.

    Greenland glaciers might melt, but it will take 3500 years.

    Temperatures have risen, but cooler than medieval times (and Roman times) (and Egyptian times)(and 5000 years)

    Flooding will occur, but only in New Orleans and Holland.

    It's getting warmer, but not for the last 16 years.

    We have computer models! But they don't model the Sun effects!

    We have Al Gore! Enough said!

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Heading for the history file?

      There's a lot wrong with your list. Lets take your first item :

      "Arctic ice is melting, but Antarctic ice is growing."

      What myth is this supposed to bust? Are you saying arctic ice isn't melting because antarctic ice isn't?

      1. Jim O'Reilly

        Re: Heading for the history file?

        Antarctic ice is much bigger, and has much more impact on world climate than the Arctic. The Gulf Stream is driven by the Antarctic, for instance

  30. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    INFIDELS!

    Thou dost spread HERESY. For the right and holy Church of Global Warming™ LLC is not to be questioned. If the Cardinals of the CGW decide that you need to restrict your toilet paper use to 3 sheets per day so Cardinal Gore can have his heated swimming pool in Tennessee THEN SO BE IT.

    You all will now submit for re-indoctrination so that your incorrect views can be purged.

    1. Psyx
      Stop

      Re: INFIDELS!

      I don't want to have to use three sheets of arsewipe a day and eat only lentils.

      On the other hand, I think it's pretty stupid to breed three children when we have 7 billion people already, eat a pound of beef per day when half the world is starving, and use irreplaceable hydrocarbons to heat my house instead of putting a jumper on, or to travel half a mile to the shops instead of getting off my lazy arse and walking.

      Is it not unreasonable to consider the middle ground somewhere?

      1. Rukario
        Joke

        Re: INFIDELS!

        "...eat a pound of beef per day..."

        Middle ground: Eat bacon instead!

  31. Tom 7 Silver badge

    Any reason why the Johannes Gutenberg-Universität graph

    lacks any useful information about the Y scale?

  32. ecofeco Silver badge
    FAIL

    Spinning Bollocks

    Wow. that's some serious spin, there.

    Here's a quote from Marcott HIMSELF regarding the very same chart:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

    - To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a fifth of this historical period were higher than they are today. But the key, said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon State University, is that temperatures are shooting through the roof faster than we've ever seen.

    "What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago."

    1. MondoMan
      WTF?

      Re: flawed study

      A big problem with this paper is that the authors are trying to infer historical air temperatures from a set of natural structures that more or less indicate some aspect of the surrounding climate at the time they were formed.

      A simple test for whether or not this is working is to compare the inferred temp for the early 20th century with the actual thermometer records from the early 20th century. Sadly, it turns out that the natural structures used in the paper didn't record the elevated temps of the dust bowl era pre-WWII.

      Rather than giving up on their flawed method, the authors decided not to worry about that aspect, and then to double-down by splicing thermometer measurements onto the end of their natural-structures-based graph as if both were directly comparable. After all, it's a lot easier to make a hockey stick by splicing an angled blade onto a straight stick than to find a tree in the woods with such a sharp bend in it.

      There's no big conspiracy, just sloppy science by folks who don't know enough about statistics to keep themselves out of trouble.

    2. ecofeco Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: Spinning Bollocks

      Thumbs down for posting facts and pointing out the lie of the article itself?

      Oh dear... I'm crushed. How will I ever go on? *snerk*

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What is El Reg's agenda here?

    Yet another non-IT related post on El Reg about how global warming doesn't exist, or something.

    What's the point? That we should all be perfectly happy about the amount of energy we waste and pollution we produce? Surely regardless of these various technical squabbles, we should be aiming to reduce oil usage and carbon production, right?

  34. John Savard Silver badge

    Food Production, Not Sea Level

    The ancient Egyptian temperatures shown are not higher than current ones. And short-term spikes are visible in the graph up to 1500 years ago, which do not correspond to the current rise in temperatures, which (surprise!) coincides with a massive increase in fossil fuel use.

    Since CO2 levels work by decreasing the amount places cool off by at night, it will take time before the new equilibrium temperature they will inflict becomes the actual temperature. So expect a temperature anomaly of more than 0.6 degrees to come eventually. But no one is claiming that sea levels will rise catastrophically even when the temperature anomaly is 2 degrees.

    No. It's just that food production in many of the world's poorest countries in the tropics will be severely impacted.

    Yes, an economic collapse in the industrialized world wouldn't do anyone there any favors either - but we have a sensible choice, nuclear power, which means a booming economy as usual plus no global warming problem.

  35. Herby

    Please explan to me...

    The cause for the temperature rise on the Planet Mars. I seriously doubt that it is from human intervention. The reason for temperature fluctuation on our neighbor planet is probably the same for here on Earth. Oh, yes, it most likely NOT human caused.

    So, Blame the SUN, or something related, but not humans (or for that matter, other animals, or plant life). So, unless Al Gore is the SUN god, I will ignore him (regardless of what he believes he is).

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Please explan to me...

      There is no evidence of a temperature rise on Mars.

    2. Blizno

      Re: Please explan to me...

      The warming of Mars is unrelated to Earth's global warming. The sun has not increased its output, so something else caused Mars to warm.

      The sun has not increased its output, so something else is causing Earth to warm.

      We know what it is. Humans burning staggering quantities of fossil fuels.

      The science is clear and has been clear and well understood for decades. We are doing this. We are causing Earth's climate to change. The changes are just barely being felt now. They will get stronger and stronger year by year.

      We are doing this.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @Blizno

        I thought this science was settled? We have nomnomnom who is an absolute believer in the MMCC co2 we all gonna die religion and you sound just as certain in your belief in MMCC co2 theory. So why does he say mars is not warming and you say it is but its something else (specifics would be great please).

        This is a huge point that matters a lot to your theory. If mars is warming then nom is misinformed and your theory is on shaky ground as that 'something else' could realistically be affecting the earth. If mars is not warming then your claim that the science is clear and understood is wrong because you are calling on an unknown variable called 'something else' which isnt there.

        So based on your 2 comments the science either isnt clear and well understood because you think there is a 'something else' which warms mars but not earth which there isnt. Or the 'something else' that you havnt defined is warming mars but you refuse to account for it warming the earth.

        The only thing you agree on is that MMCC co2 theory must be right. But with different ideas about what is going on.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: @Blizno

          "So why does he say mars is not warming and you say it is but its something else (specifics would be great please)."

          I didn't say mars is not warming, I said there's no evidence it is.

          I would have thought the burden for specifics should have been on whoever claimed mars was warming in the first place! perhaps if that person had sought out specifics they would have discovered the idea mars is warming is a baseless myth.

          It's amusing to see climate skeptics insisting Mars has warmed. Mars a planet where we don't have a single temperature station. Then the same climate skeptics will complain bitterly about the robustness of the temperature record on Earth, despite it consisting of thousands of stations, satellites, etc.

          Not only this but skeptics also claim Mars is warming while other skeptics recently (wrongly) claim global warming stopped in 1998. So Mars is warming and Earth isn't, but we are supposed to think there's a common cause anyway? Oh. Never-mind that inconsistency.

          The myth that Mars is warming is based on an old NASA piece about snapshots of polar ice extent on Mars over a period of less than 10 years. And NASA even attribute that to dust storms, not the Sun.

          The only mistake Blizno has made is to take the skeptic claim at face value. Never do this. Never trust what they claim. But what Blizno did next is correct. He pointed out that solar activity has not increased (since the 50s) and therefore any warming on Mars since then could not be related to that on Earth anyway. It would have to be a different cause.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @NomNomNom

            You say: "I didn't say mars is not warming, I said there's no evidence it is."

            Blizno says: "The warming of Mars is unrelated to Earth's global warming."

            The words "The warming of Mars" implies it is. He sounds fairly happy to accept mars is warming. Not possibly but an accepting that it is. Especially how he then explains that it is unrelated to the earth warming and its something else which means he must accept it is warming. I dont know nor care, but if mars is warming then the reason for earth warming may not be so simple as crying CO2!!!

            "I would have thought the burden for specifics should have been on whoever claimed mars was warming in the first place!"

            To claim that mars is warming is for those who claim to prove it. And as Blizno accepts it is happening, you say there isnt evidence either way, your shared belief in MMCC co2 theory seriously relates to it and he claimed the science was clear and well understood.

            "The only mistake Blizno has made is to take the skeptic claim at face value. Never do this. Never trust what they claim. But what Blizno did next is correct. He pointed out that solar activity has not increased (since the 50s) and therefore any warming on Mars since then could not be related to that on Earth anyway. It would have to be a different cause."

            You now take the skeptic position of "Never trust what they claim". So if you will not trust what a skeptic claims why will a skeptic trust what you claim? This point is far more valid because we have you and Blizno absolutely certain in your positions, but yet a vastly important point you hold different views for. I have shown that this science is not clear and well understood because he would happily accept something so critical as mars warming while you state with certainty there is no evidence to know.

            And if the believers cant get the story straight then "Never trust what they claim" will be the default position for skeptics. And the rest of us on the fence will still believe that neither side has the answer.

            1. NomNomNom

              Re: @NomNomNom

              "He sounds fairly happy to accept mars is warming. Not possibly but an accepting that it is."

              Because a skeptic told him it was. You are basically arguing that because a skeptic fooled someone with a false claim about warming on Mars, therefore we can't trust MMCC (but we can trust skeptics??)

              "And the rest of us on the fence"

              Oh please. You are not on the fence. If you were you'd be more concerned about the false/baseless claim about mars warming than the fact someone fell for it. You'd be attacking the skeptics in this case, rather than what you are doing which is desperately trying to attack us.

              Furthermore statements like this: "your shared belief in MMCC co2 theory seriously relates to it and he claimed the science was clear and well understood." reek of desperation to find an excuse to deny MMCC. In reality Mars does not "seriously relate" to MMCC at all.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: @NomNomNom

                "Because a skeptic told him it was. You are basically arguing that because a skeptic fooled someone with a false claim about warming on Mars, therefore we can't trust MMCC (but we can trust skeptics??)"

                Well said. Someone told him something which may be true, may not be true, yet he accepted it on face value. He is so certain in MMCC co2 theory but is willing to accept something as true even if it would adversely impact the theory he believes in. It is the fact that he would accept something which badly damages the theory he believes in so strongly. This is a guy who claims the science is clear and well understood, but then he disproves that statement. MMCC may be possible. MMCC co2 theory might be plausable. But not when advertised with such uncertainty and mistake. It is similar to the regular cries that we have x days to save the world. Who can believe it?

                "Oh please. You are not on the fence. If you were you'd be more concerned about the false/baseless claim about mars warming than the fact someone fell for it. You'd be attacking the skeptics in this case, rather than what you are doing which is desperately trying to attack us."

                I am concerned by the groups demanding huge and damaging change based on shaky foundations. If the people claiming mars is warming wanted to destroy global economies I would be ripping them apart. But like people who hold many other beliefs I dont care because they dont affect me. The fact that you see this as desperately trying to attack you shows how personal this belief is to you. So strong is your belief that you dont seem to question for the facts. And us on the fence are more interested in facts, and we will obviously question people who want to damage our lives because they think they have an answer.

                "Furthermore statements like this: "your shared belief in MMCC co2 theory seriously relates to it and he claimed the science was clear and well understood." reek of desperation to find an excuse to deny MMCC."

                Before the answer came the question. Many answers are easily spoken but when questioned the answers fall apart. If someone gives you an answer which seems unreasonable you should ask more questions. When the answer is 'something' did it you know there are more questions. When you stop asking questions you believe. So if you think it is wrong for me to question such certain statements then you must be happy with belief. But I am not. I am interested in truth.

                Ask why so many predictions have failed. It shows the answer isnt known. It doesnt mean stop trying to find the answer, but it does mean they dont have the answer. But you can of course believe they do. But thats a belief again.

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: @NomNomNom

                  "It is the fact that he would accept something which badly damages the theory he believes in so strongly"

                  It doesn't damage the theory at all. Neither according to him or me. It's irrelevant to it. You seem to be presuming that if Mars was warming it means the cause of warming on Earth and Mars must be the same. That's not only false but as I have repeatedly pointed out there is no evidence Mars is warming anyway.

                  "This is a guy who claims the science is clear and well understood, but then he disproves that statement."

                  I rather think he was talking about the science as it relates to Earth. Not science as it relates to Mars. If you want to be this pedantic and off-topic you could do better by citing the fact he doesn't know the temperature of the 2nd moon of the 3rd planet orbiting alpha centuri and then announce that therefore argue the science is not settled.

                  "I am concerned by the groups demanding huge and damaging change based on shaky foundations. If the people claiming mars is warming wanted to destroy global economies I would be ripping them apart."

                  Then you are not on the fence. You are definitely on the climate skeptic side of the fence. You are unconcerned at groups demanding unprecedented rates of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere. Your concern works only one way. The fact you used such terms as "religion" to describe MMCC and throw around strawman that we "want to destroy global economies" suggests even more you are entrenched on that side of the fence - and have been for quite some time.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: @NomNomNom

                    "It doesn't damage the theory at all. Neither according to him or me. It's irrelevant to it."

                    That is a dangerous statement if you want to convince others. Saying that other objects in the area are warming up but has no relation to earth is blind without reason. Especially when solar activity is known to affect earths (and other objects in the area) temperature. Fact is he accepted that mars was warming (I am not arguing if it is) but then claimed 'something else' to be responsible. That is why I asked him to specify what else that is, because he is so sure. He is certain. So certain that I ask for the reason.

                    If you are right that there is no evidence that mars is(nt) warming then he will believe anything without question. So he is not reliable. If he is right then he needs to define what 'something' is and how it doesnt relate to earth. That would make you wrong and so less believable.

                    "I rather think he was talking about the science as it relates to Earth. Not science as it relates to Mars."

                    You may think that but he was talking about clear well understood science which is so certain of MMCC. And yet he would accept there are other planets affected by solar temperatures but dismiss them as something else. Either he wasnt specific or he will accept any theory (yet dismiss for the belief of MMCC). Surely you should want to wait for his answer too?

                    "Then you are not on the fence. You are definitely on the climate skeptic side of the fence. You are unconcerned at groups demanding unprecedented rates of CO2 increase in the Earth's atmosphere. Your concern works only one way. The fact you used such terms as "religion" to describe MMCC and throw around strawman that we "want to destroy global economies" suggests even more you are entrenched on that side of the fence - and have been for quite some time."

                    Sorry to have upset your beliefs but I am only interested in facts. If asking questions to get to the facts is sceptic instead of on the fence (looking for truth) then I guess you will have to label me as such. Just as non-believers of some religions were called heretics. Because you believe and I dont share that. My concern is for my existence and those I care about (as most people do). I dont want poor energy sources at excessive cost to harm me and mine. So when you claim that your belief is correct and demands this, I ask you for reasons. If your reasons are not solid enough I will not believe them. I am yet to believe the MMCC co2 theory is correct. Mostly because it keeps falling over. I await the day it is fixed or proven wrong. The time when it becomes truth, not belief.

                    So I am on the fence until science can answer the questions. When science knows the truth, or even a good enough idea to mean something.

                    1. NomNomNom

                      Re: @NomNomNom

                      "That is a dangerous statement if you want to convince others."

                      Enough of the concern trolling.

                      "Saying that other objects in the area are warming up but has no relation to earth is blind without reason."

                      Enough of the revisionism. He provided a reason.

                      "Especially when solar activity is known to affect earths (and other objects in the area) temperature. Fact is he accepted that mars was warming (I am not arguing if it is) but then claimed 'something else' to be responsible."

                      He already addressed this. His reason was: "The sun has not increased its output, so something else caused Mars to warm."

                      Please address that. Stop ignoring it. Stop pretending he gave no justification for his claim that it wasn't the Sun.

                      "That is why I asked him to specify what else that is, because he is so sure. He is certain. So certain that I ask for the reason."

                      He doesn't have to know an actual cause. He gave a reason why he thought it wasn't the Sun. A reason you haven't acknowledged. If his argument is correct and it's not part of a common link with the Earth then the relevance to MMCC disappears. What happens on mars is then only relevant to mars, not Earth, or MMCC.

                      As for reasons why a planet can warm or cool over a period other than solar output, eg orbital changes specific to that planet and weather specific to that planet.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: @NomNomNom

                        "Enough of the concern trolling."

                        I am not telling people we all gonna die unless we do x, think of the children.

                        "He already addressed this. His reason was: "The sun has not increased its output, so something else caused Mars to warm.""

                        Yes he said something else. But something else is a generic no idea. Dark matter for example is a generic term for measurable effects. Something else is the generic term for anything/nothing. Otherwise we have nothing to worry about because the theoretical warming you worry about is something else.

                        "He doesn't have to know an actual cause. He gave a reason why he thought it wasn't the Sun. A reason you haven't acknowledged. If his argument is correct and it's not part of a common link with the Earth then the relevance to MMCC disappears. What happens on mars is then only relevant to mars, not Earth, or MMCC."

                        Awesome. So what is it? Something else is too generic to explain range or effect. According to you there isnt evidence that mars is warming because we dont have enough/reliable measurements.

                        It is not trolling to ask why such certain science is so fuzzy on the specifics. Especially when its clear and well understood. When this is the level of discussion it cant be hard to see why I am on the fence.

                        1. NomNomNom

                          Re: @NomNomNom

                          "It is not trolling to ask why such certain science is so fuzzy on the specifics."

                          Because it's Mars FFS. How many temperature stations do we have on Mars?

                          Using that as an excuse to deny knowledge available about Earth is pathetic.

  36. Madboater

    Does it matter?

    If the world is warming, cooling, changing the point is our current civilization can not survive in its current form, we need to adapt, either due to climate change, or population change or due to the fact that now we can not cope with the climate that we have experienced in the past. While we are changing, shall we cover all our basis tho?

  37. Brandon 2
    Facepalm

    call me a science denier

    ... or a skeptic, but correlation does not imply causation. I wish I could ram this into the brain of every human alive. They'd be a lot less gullible when politicians or anyone else with an ulterior motive speaks about statistics, safety, security, global warming, etc.

  38. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Horses for courses

    I've a radical suggestion: Register, report IT news, and leave science news to, say, New Scientist. How about it?

    1. Psyx
      Pint

      Re: Horses for courses

      Unfortunately, when you do that one side of the debate doesn't get to participate any more.

  39. Richard Wharram

    Pharoahs? 5,000 to 10,000 years ago?

    Leaving aside the issue that there weren't any pharoahs until the 19th dynasty and assuming the term is being used colloquially to mean 'king of the two lands', upper and lower Egypt, then 5,000 years ago takes us right back before the Old Kingdom. Before the pyramids. Certainly before Cleopatra.

    It just doesn't compute!

  40. Potemkine Silver badge

    Another deceptive article

    This one should serve as an example for wikipedia's article on fallacies... An example, starting with the first sentence: "A new study has confirmed that at the time of the Pharaohs the world's climate was significantly hotter than it now is for thousands of years - and yet the seas don't appear to have risen, nor did the various other doomsday scenarios foretold by climate alarmists take place". The see level actually rose of 120m from 18000 to 8000 BP when the climate began to be hotter, looking at the graph displayed - nothing important, it just made Great Britain and Ireland become Islands...

  41. kbutler.toledo
    Trollface

    Alexandria Not under water?

    Seems I remember NatGEO vids of underwater exploration of the "Old Alexandria"

    Also seems I remember Africa is moving northward into Europe, pushing the land Upward.

    Anybody confirm this?

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020