No problems here
At least we'll still be able to read about the disasters on El Reg, as Lewis will be fending them off by standing at the door asserting they can't be happening, because AGW is a scam.
413 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Feb 2008
"The question then becomes - why do so many people who have not critically analysed the data with a trained and experienced eye decide that those who have are wrong?"
There's a good research paper on this here, by Stephan Lewandowsky et al from the University of Western Australia. It was originally published in Frontiers of Psychology, but they withdrew it when some of the anti-AGW propagandists cited in it threatened to sue. The University stands by the research and now hosts the paper online.
In summary: "much of science denial takes place in an epistemically closed system that is immune to falsifying evidence and counterarguments".
· CO2 is a greenhouse gas the effect of which increases with its concentration in the atmosphere.
· The concentration of CO2 has increased from about 315ppm to 400ppm in the past 50 years.
· This has resulted in less heat being returned to space, ergo the planet is warming up.
I regard this stuff as very basic physics. What about you, Squander Two?
"the average global temperature has not risen in seventeen years"
You can't have been paying attention when you were briefed with which memes to concentrate on in the build-up to the release of this IPCC report. Even ignoring the fact that the heat is not just going into the atmosphere, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.
"If these guys (or any of the other climate change bods) wants our attention - or even more: for someone, somewhere to actually DO something, they need much more than wishy-washy risks and dangers. They need numbers, dates, times and places. Who will die - specifically - their names please, when and what will the photos look like on the news reports. Who will have to pay. Which wars will break out and how much civil unrest will there be - and in which towns - and did they for for our party."
Therein lies the success of the propagandists denying AGW. They keep upping their demands for proof as the proof gets every more undeniable. I doubt they'd concede, even if they were having to paddle through floods to their charitable foundations and think tanks.
Judging by the comments here and elsewhere, it's clearly unsettling for those with a certain agenda that major corporations are publicly accepting that global warming is a serious concern and are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. The CEO of Apple even told investors complaining about their policy of building and using renewable sources of energy that it was the right thing to do, and they should sell their stock-holding if they didn't like it. It would be far more sensible to get out of fossil fuels, because those corporations are going to have to leave much of their products in the ground.
"Our findings reveal that Pine Island Glacier has experienced rapid thinning at least once in the past, and that, once set in motion, rapid ice sheet changes in this region can persist for centuries."
Good to have Lewis, with his deep understanding of climate science, reassure us that we haven't triggered an irreversible change that will result in sea levels rising by metres from all that melting ice.
A couple of Lenovo PCs I bought recently to replace XP came with Windows 7 installed and Windows 8 on DVDs. Having tried Windows 8.1 with ClassicShell and seeing it was similar enough to using Windows 7, I decided to bite the bullet and upgrade the Lenovos. The process of installing Win 8 from Lenovo's DVDs, then using Windows Update to go to Win 8.1 took about 3 hours for each PC! However, the users, who've been on XP for years, have said they much prefer the new environment, so I'm glad I did it.
I'm still trying to understand why Edward Snowden was employed by Dell while he was working for the NSA, according to the Guardian ( http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/01/edward-snowden-intelligence-leak-nsa-contractor-extract ). This raises questions as to how closely Dell is working with the NSA.
"The question may arise as to whether government clients may push back on having Chinese Lenovo kits in their data centres due to "national security" concerns."
That thought crossed my mind, before purchasing some Lenovo PCs and ThinkPads, but I dismissed it with the thought that if any back doors were discovered in their hardware they would be toast, so are unlikely to risk it.
Well, the sensible approach would be to accept that what the overwhelming majority of climatologists are saying is right, then have a political debate about how to tackle it. The stupid approach is to deny the science because its implications are financially, politically and socially inconvenient.
You'd have to come from Mars not to realise that clinging to orthodoxy is the essence of the problem that Snowden has unearthed. The intelligensia of East Germany didn't defeat the Stasi, because they could never create a mass movement from people who spied on each other. It might turn individual dissenters into terrorists (which would be twisted to legitimise the surveillance), but how on earth could opposition to an overbearing state grow under such intense monitoring?
Thanks for the heads-up about that interview . Dr. Campbell makes a powerful, if obvious point, which is unfortunately irrelevant. No amount of scientific proof will convince politicians to take action while the AGW denial propaganda continues to make it a vote loser. As the stock market valuation of fossil fuel companies is based on their known reserves, and the science implies that most of those reserves must be left in the ground, the propaganda isn't going to let up any time soon. We're easy prey to it because, like Dr. Campbell, we don't want it to be true.
@AC: "what does the corporation get for paying the tx ? Health Care, nope, corporations don't use the NHS, Education, nope, and so on."
So who paid to educate their workforce and to provide the infrastructure to enable them to get to work? Multinational corporations using these tax avoidance schemes are parasites.
One in four London properties, collectively worth around £250bn, are at risk of flooding, according to official assessments of the dangers now facing homes in England and Wales. Ten of the top 25 most at-risk local authority areas across England and Wales are now London boroughs, and that's before sea level rises by 1 metre.
"Remain impossible? hell where have you been the last ten years?"
Observing from the sidelines, where it is obvious that the biggest culprit has blocked every proposal to legislate to reduce GHG emissions. Until the US leads the way, the rest of the world is reduced to making token gestures. However, the effectiveness of corporate lobbing of Congress means they're not going to move until public opinion forces them, hence all the propaganda to spread doubt and uncertainty about the science.
"Fine go ahead with it, but please climate skeptics don't blame the scientists when the media start producing headlines based on incorrect statements in unfinalized drafts."
That's the whole point of the exercise: accentuate the uncertainty and doubt, so that it remains politically impossible to take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
My point was that it's always possible to cherry pick the science you report on, to further an agenda. Here's a video (so you should be able to understand it), which doesn't cherry pick:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U
You may not be so confident that there is no urgency to reduce emissions fast after watching that. Alternatively, here's the reason why it's vital to keep pumping out the CO2:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/carbon-problems-financial-crisis-hutton
Probably not, but he does have an obvious agenda. In pursuit of that agenda, a wave of propaganda was unleashed after the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to make it politically impossible to constrain greenhouse gas emissions. That's been so successful that we now have the predicted extremes of weather that leave us short of energy.
Facts, facts, facts. Don't bore me with facts. Facts are just a minor inconvenience to AGW deniers. All they have to do is sow doubts about them and they make it politically impossible to take action to curb greenhouse gas emissions. After all, it wouldn't do to leave all those valuable fossil fuels unexploited.