Comments on: Implications of recent climate science controversies http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/ Wed, 16 Nov 2016 01:37:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: David Torp http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10041 Sat, 20 Feb 2010 14:00:23 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10041 Plenty of hot air here about nothing – maybe you’re the cause of the claimed warming.

Soooo lets see if I’ve got this right, 10,000 years ago there was an ice age, and since then it got warmer and seems to be continuing. (And this has apparently happened before) Scary stuff! So we’ve also had some isolated stuff where it occasionally gets locally cold, snow, wet,… hang on, I’m seeing a weather pattern here.

And every time a report comes on somewhere in the world saying, “hottest year in 50 years”, or “coldest in however long”, has anyone thought to ask well why weren’t people running around saying the sky is falling 50 years ago when apparently it was hotter. The weather will continue to shift one way or the other like it or not. glaciers will continue to melt etc.

]]>
By: Bob Gunn http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10039 Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:57:58 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10039 What a conflict in data . The use of fear to draw attention to the problem. No quarantee that actions demanded will have any effect on the supposed problem. It is like the “sierra club” mentality has to be obeyed without reguard to the hardship it creates. We need to identify problems and take reasonable action to resolve them. The “cap and trade” crowd is nothing but a fast buck group that if left to their desires will cripple the economy, throw people out of work and make some rich people richer while the suppossed problem will never be solved. You can not solve a problem that does not exist!

]]>
By: Mr X http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10026 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:02:53 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10026 I believe in Santa as well.

]]>
By: David Clive http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10025 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:34:13 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10025 Mr Hunt seems totally out of step with both the science and public opinion. He obviously hasn’t seen Phil Jones’ recent interview with the BBC in which he admitted that there had been no global warming since 1985 – totally confounding alarmists climate models and rendering them useless. As Phil Jones agrees, the “Science is NOT settled” so the sooner Mr Hunt concentrates on the science and the evidence, and stops evangelising about “the gravest issue confronting humanity in the twenty first century”. the better This is science and not religion!

]]>
By: Matthew Stringer http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10023 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:09:18 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10023 If AGW isn’t true then this is good news, the tens of $TRILLIONS wouldn’t need to be spent to ‘de-carbonise’ the world, developing countries won’t be denied the cheap energy fossil-fuels brings allowing them to develop. We won’t have our quality of life massively curbed by an unelected UN-style global government. We won’t see businesses become uncompetitive as they struggle to pay carbon taxes and we can point the fingers at town planners who build on floodplains and blame the climate when homes flood. When it’s hot, wet, dry, windy we’ll accept that it’s just the weather and it happens from time to time just as we do when it snows. The huge sums of public money spent on inefficient wind farms and carbon offsetting schemes can be directed to something that works instead. The likes of Al Core & Dr Pachauri will have to go back to being politicians rather than make their $billions selling carbon offsetting/trading schemes to governments, the IPCC wouldn’t need to pretend there’s a consensus or base their assessments on the views of non-scientists or have the CRU cherry-pick data to ‘hide the decline’ or write climate models that fail to predict anything. We’d remember that for most of this planet’s history it has been completely free of ice and the fact that it currently has some that is melting isn’t anything new. We’d accept that the climate changes and we simply have to adapt as and when required.

No it would be good news indeed, so why are so many journalists, politicians and public figures so desperately keen to cling to the notion that we’re all going to die and accept all these warmist claims with blind faith rather then investigate them?

]]>
By: Steve Numero Uno http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10022 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:03:43 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10022 RE: “Contrary to belief in some quarters, the leading models that forecast global climate temperature in decades ahead are reliable and this is strongly supported by satellite data.”

There are distinguished scientists who might very well take issue with that statement. For example consider the following remarks from one such group (reference below):

“The Earth’s climate system is highly nonlinear: inputs and outputs are not proportional, change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual, and multiple equilibria are the norm. While this is widely accepted, there is a relatively poor understanding of the different types of nonlinearities, how they manifest under various conditions, and whether they reflect a climate system driven by astronomical forcings, by internal feedbacks, or by a combination of both.”

Reference: Jose A. Rial and 10 other authors, 2004, Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds Within the Earth’s Climate System, Climatic Change, Vol. 65, pp. 11-38.

]]>
By: god http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10020 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:30:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10020 smell the cows ??

]]>
By: thomas ormiston http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10019 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:43:05 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10019 climate change is just a new raft of tax pushed out by government and guess what?its dead in the water.Anyone can plainly see that we have fluctuations on all levels of physical geography and we have been getting warmer for 10,000 years.This panic in diff. directions is getting to be a joke and it will end with funding getting pulled.Too long we have had people in Universities all there working life doing absolutely nothing except looking proud and superior

]]>
By: Tim http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10016 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:28:32 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10016 So we have:

“what might be the gravest issue confronting humanity”

Or it might not – as yet we haven’t any varifiable data that this is even an issue. Wasn’t the original hypothesys that brought GW into the lime light something on the grounds that by the year 2000 CO2 forcing will out weigh all other GW forcings. This has not happened (“the warming rates for all 4 periods [1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1975-1998 and 1975-2009] are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other” -Professor Jones) ergo initial hypothesys is false hence no “gravest issue confronting humanity”.

and:

“One of the key challenges for scientists and indeed politicians is communicating the reality of climate change to global publics in an accurate and intelligible way.”
No the key challenge for scientists is science. Science; where the scientific method disproves hypothesys like the one above.

“Contrary to belief in some quarters, the leading models that forecast global climate temperature in decades ahead are reliable and this is strongly supported by satellite data.”

All models are wrong but some are useful – E.P Box.
Last set of satellite data available merely highlights El Niño and La Niña events. The 30 years worth of data is far to short to determine worthwhile trend analysis (except to show where a rise in CO2 does not have a corresponding rise in temperature).

I haven’t the time to list all the other misconceptions and misinformation within the above article – I have to earn a living – I have no lovely grant that relies on AGW to be true or investments wrapped up in AGW mitigation companies (yes I’m talking to the BBC – http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx )

]]>
By: Grant MacDonald http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2010/02/18/implications-of-recent-climate-science-controversies/comment-page-1/#comment-10015 Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:58:36 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/?p=6016#comment-10015 “For instance, over the last decade, while the earth’s land surface has been warming overall”

Err, this is not true. Over the last decade, global temperatures have fallen. There seems to be no disagreement over this, even with UEA and Nasa.

“public understanding of climate change and truly tackle the menace it poses”

The menace posed seems to be coming from politicians such as the person who wrote this somewhat biased piece.

]]>