Posts by Tads 62 publicly visible posts • joined 13 Feb 2012
Scientists have never said it wasn't warmer in the past when there was less CO2 than now. There were other reasons for that warming. None of those reasons exist now, and the CO2 does. I'm sure people lacking critical thinking skills will fall for this new Lewis attempt at misleading the public but most will go yawn - he's at it again.
That's crap, AGW scientists have never been caught falsifying research to my knowledge. If you mean the poorly named Climategate, all the data was proved correct and the scientists exonerated. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2010/0707/Climate-scientists-exonerated-in-climategate-but-public-trust-damaged
... we're cooling down to an ice age. That by definition means it was warmer in the past, and makes the warming we're currently seeing all the more incredible. What hasn't happened in living memory is anything like the CO2 concentrations we see now - CO2 concentrations are higher than any time Man roamed the earth. Ocean acidification caused by CO2 also new during our tenure as as big a threat as warming alone.
What part of "Computing is a Science" did you fail to read in my last post. Do you know any computing science degrees that fail to examine the OSI networking model in excruciating detail, including the kludge that is TCP/IP and it's brothers UDP, ICMP etc.
If you think TCP/IP is "technical", good luck to you. Since I'm fairly sure you're nothing but a climate denier troll, good riddance while I'm at it.
"It" has not warmed in over 10 years? What is "it" then?
Earth has warmed statistically significantly in the last 10 years and the only graph deniers seem able to find not showing warming is a hacked up lower atmosphere temp records being pushed through models designed to plot earth and sea temps as well as atmosphere temps.
When you include all required measurements (land, ocean, air) warming is incontrovertible.
I think from the number of trite phrases cobbled together to form one meaningless whole this again has to be a troll.
This is not the way to win friends and influence people. From the frame of mind I'm in when I read these articles advertisers would really not want their wares linked to such extremes of digust. Lets just say next time I see a HTC in another setting I'm likely to sneer without realising why :)
Human motivation is not at all about greed. To a point it is about enough to survive. After that point it is about being able to attract a mate. After that it is about being accepted by your chosen social circle. Humans are driven to feel useful and needed, that is as much as basis for working as any other. The unemployed suffer depression because they feel useless, not because they feel greedy.
Everything Libertarians think they understand about humans is an outgrowth of their own stunted personalities and lack of belonging in any meaningful sense. To them, money is all that can matter because money is all they can reliably gain and control.
"A high population density for thousands of years by means of cultural devices, such as vegetarianism. (and a rigid caste system?). The hippy movement did seem to favour personal spiritual development over conspicuous consumption of resources."
What? Indians are vegetarians because they're too poor to afford meat. The same lack of wealth leads to large families (can't afford contraception) which perpetuates the lack of wealth in the end as families have too many mouths to feed, clothe, and send to school. This is all a hippy conspiracy now rather than poverty and market economies leaving people to fail and die?
This whole thing had better be one big troll or my opinion of right wingers is going to lose so many points it will be lower than ice measurements in Greenland.
You can take the ice report used as the basis for this article (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) and do the following:
"Ice arch too thin to hold back sea ice, weakened by Global Warming arch breaks inundating Bearing Strait with excessive ice!"
As plucked straight from arse as is the original Page article.
In fact scientists and energy organisations are saying Global Warming is tracking far worse than we had hoped and anticipated. Dangerous warming happens between 2-4 degrees and we were hoping to peg it to 2-3. Now it seems we're on track for 5 or 6 minimum which is in the catastrophic range. Softening LOL, we only wish. Kiss your precious economies goodbye, most economic projections of 4 degrees are not compatible with organised let alone "free" markets.
Why were there two links to Greenpeace statements in this so called article but none to the source of the so called science being discussed? Glad to see Reg have given up on fact altogether in climate reporting and make no pretence of doing anything except going straight for smearing actual science and nature organisations
Hilarious, how can you say digging centuries worth of dead dinosaur carbon from deep underground storage and burning it is not "interfering with the natural processes of the planet". Doing something ABOUT global warming us out for you because it is "unnatural" but burning coal and oil in the first place isn't. Ahh deniers, never change.
Do spiders dig up hydrocarbons and burn them? Where do comments like this even come from, the irrelevant misdirection page in the climate denier comment troll handbook?
They're certainly not funny or clever. Try harder trolls.
Reminds me of nothing more than when the deniers favourite line was "Scientists say there has been no statistically significant warming since 1992/5 (the goalposts move depending on which denier you talk to)." and spinning that truth to mean there WAS no warming and that science agreed.
So now with a few more years data warming *IS* statistically significant, THIS article will be the basis of their new line. Denier spin - "Scientists say there is no statistical link between all these weather disasters and oddities and global warming!" Yet again they are right, but it's only a matter of a few years before this tired and trite misuse of sciences truth will also fail them.
Hobbes is right. The paper is stating that there isn't enough statistical evidence and too many other confounding factors to state current weather disasters and extreme weather can certainly be attributed to climate change. The list of confounding factors alone is huge.
This is good science. Those taking it as "proof" of anything anti-AGW are laughable. It's saying there is no proof many extreme weather events are caused mostly by AGW, not that proof will never exist.
The main reason warming predicted in past decades has not been observed is that that the oceans have unexpectedly absorbed close to 40% of global CO2 emissions. That leaves the other 60% in the atmosphere creating the warming we have seen to date.
The earth does try to self balance as does any relatively closed ecosystem, however we are still pumping out too much of the stuff for the planet to usefully manage. The extent of the oceans capacity to clean CO2 from the air is unknown but once rising acid levels start killing off ocean plants and animals (plankton is already showing signs of disruption as carbonic acid interferes with its reproductive capacity) the ocean will return stored carbon with a vengeance as plants and animals die and rot. Oceans contain the majority of life on the planet, so when that starts happening we're all screwed.
Climate deniers don't realise that we wish they were right. The planet would not be in danger, humans won't take millions of other species down with them, and we're not rushing headlong towards extinction while whistling dixie and saying "It all might be ok!".
We got to be so successful by recognising threats and managing them. It seems the one danger we can't beat is the enemy within.
Surely if you ask this from the climate change scientists, you're prepared to ask the same from the climate denial scientists. When they can prove that what they're saying is correct with the same accuracy, predictions before observations etc, people ive their opinions credence and not before.
Science for one, science for all, right.
"According to the article, Arctic ice loss was at its highest level in 2007.
Which is another way of saying that Arctic ice levels have been <i>increasing</i> since 2007."
No. For starters, the amount of loss has to depend on how much there is to lose - how much ice was lain down in winter. Less ice created in winter due to warming leaves less ice to melt. Overall the amount of sea ice has been in steady decline summer or winter. It's only the rate of loss that changes, not the loss overall.
So observations should happen before the fact now? Brilliant, you've disproved special relativity and should be out making millions and inventing time travel not plying the climate deniers trade on supposed science blogs.
There is a method allowing climate observations to be proposed before the fact, they're called "climate models". You'd say they were junk as well I expect and get to whinge either way :)
Global warming is statistically significant, you know it is as well as I posted this link to you on another thread. You ignore any proof or evidence you're presented and just keep trotting out lies. Classic climate denial comment troll. Wrong, doesn't care. Get paid per comment perhaps?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
He's provided fodder for the climate skeptics to trumpet "The planet will heal itself!" which oh look they already have in comments on this thread.
I'm thinking poor Lewis needs the validation of being someone "special" to the climate denier camp, they love themselves a tame journalist they can funnel their biased stories to and would reward him with lots of time, care and attention. I hope you get beer and hookers out of it as well Lewis, mwah.
The models are valid because they can be run backwards and forwards with the data provided and they produce results that match with reality, ie our observations. They made need tweaking in the future as other factors (perhaps cloud height) come into play, but for now they're authoritative. Anyone saying different is selling something.
Begging the question indeed :) All the journals -including university ones - the world over are excluding one poor discriminated against section of researchers just because they don't have a personal relationship with the editors. Or else they're being excluded because they don't meet the standards of proper science? Your call.
"One is a scientific theory versus a religious viewpoint, the other is an ongoing debate with much data still to be collected and analysed." <- no it is NOT an ongoing debate. This is the bit people keep missing. The outcomes, the models etc will keep changing as new data is collected and analysed and new theories develop about where AGW will lead, but the fact of AGW is not in any doubt. 97% of climate scientists agree AGW is here and happening. http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
I notice you conveniently left the "year 2000 bug" government conspiracy that never came to fruition off your list. Every other denial supporting site includes it in their ranty list of government terrorism designed to keep us fearfully paying taxes etc. I expect you realise your audience here consists mostly of people who were paid large amounts and spent bucketloads of time and effort making sure 2000 problems never happened, and you'd trigger even more derision than you have with this conspiracy theory hocus pocus.
Scientists don't cherry pick. The overall temperature of the planet has never decreased and only increased in the periods measured. In fact you can only get pauses in warming if you view a cherrypicked subset of data, like land temps only, or northern hemisphere temps only. The correlation of global datasets including oceans show a clear and uninterrupted warming trend.
Newflash sherlock: Almost all scientists get into it hoping to do work that changes the world. Climate scientists ARE geologists, chemists, physicists etc. You cannot change the science with wishful thinking about the motives of scientists, and your "opinion" of their character is frankly irrelevant. Gnash your teeth all you like but until the anti side comes up with an actual scientific argument it's all so much politics.
I noticed that also, the graph in the article shown prettily trending upwards is the NUMBER of oil wells, not the amount they pump. It's basically meaningless except as a pictorial effort at supporting the articles premise . It says nothing about the actual levels of extraction/production.
Rubbish. This very article is touting the brilliance of humanity at improving what we can do with what we have. I love the way that slow economic growth just suddenly leads to death btw. You might like to elucidate on how that works (lol).
We are no different from other animal populations and if we grow in ways that are predicated on unsustainable resource use when those resources become unavailable (and I mean economically unavailable btw) there will be social and economic upheaval of the sort that will ruin most things we cherish about our way of life. I don't know about you but I like my life and would like to offer the same standard of living to my kids.
I for one welcome our new Greenie Overlords. They might just set us on track to still be around in another 1000 years without having to resort to subsistence level hiding in caves.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
