Greenpeace protestor gets her ass handed to her

[kinboshi]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1246404/Scientists-exaggerated-impact-climate-change-says-Governments-chief-advisor-John-Beddington.html?ITO=1708&referrer=yahoo

"Scientists have exaggerated the impact of climate change and need to be more honest about how difficult it is to predict, the Government’s chief scientific adviser said today."

"Professor John Beddington also said experts should be less hostile to sceptics who question man-made global warming, and he condemned those who refuse to publish full report data, adding that public confidence in climate science would be boosted by greater honesty about its uncertainties.

Professor Beddington was speaking in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) admission that it had made a mistake by claiming that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035."



"And so the whole global warming conspiracy continues to unravel and the truth is slowly but surely exposed.

There will soon be a lot of vicious zealots who will be just a touch embarrased about this and their rabid hostility to anyone who had a different point of view."

- Steve, Coleshill, 27/1/2010 10:34

Steve from Coleshill and others need to distinguish between the words 'sceptic' and 'denialist'.

A sceptic will question a theory, and look for evidence to back up either side of the debate.  The idea here is to be objective and react to the evidence accordingly.  Then form an opinion based on the evidence and the accuracy and validity of it.

A denialist is one who for whatever reason has decided to accept a particular viewpoint, and will ignore any evidence that opposes their view, will launch ad hominem attacks rather than provide any actual evidence to support their view, or will cherry-pick from what they read and only consider reading or using that which supports their initial point.  They are wholly subjective.

[thetank]

We need the world to end soon or I'm going to look silly.

[kinboshi]

We need the world to end soon or I'm going to look silly.

It'll help ease your mind over the recession if it does...

[sovietsong]

It seems colder this year than last. We will all be ok.

[thetank]

Although isn't the whole thing that you get bigger extremes of temperatures and both ends?

Hotter summers and colder winters going hand in hand. I'll take some of the former before we all die plz dealer.

[bolt pp]

It seems colder this year than last. We will all be ok.

I watched some expert on the news saying that we were in a natural downswing that occurs every 100 odd years for a few years irrespective of whether or not global warming exists and it takes a bit of of the averages of the summer every year and we're about to come out of it in the next couple of years so the summers will get back to being scorching

[kinboshi]

One irrelevant argument about global warming is that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in the past, and therefore why worry about it happening again (never mind what is causing it).

The reason it's an issue is because of the speed of climate change is relatively rapid (it's noticeable within several human generations rather than over periods of thousands or millions of years), and that there are now 7 billion humans on the planet and more and more are living in areas that will be affected by small changes in climate.  Yes, the world will go on regardless.  But maybe not for human civilisation as we know it.

It's not all bad.  Norfolk will probably be one of the first places to vanish if the sea levels rise dramatically...

[kinboshi]

It seems colder this year than last. We will all be ok.

I watched some expert on the news saying that we were in a natural downswing that occurs every 100 odd years for a few years irrespective of whether or not global warming exists and it takes a bit of of the averages of the summer every year and we're about to come out of it in the next couple of years so the summers will get back to being scorching

Are we talking about the UK here?  There are lots of other places in the world experiencing dramatic changes in their climate - either very hot summers or colder and more brutal winters.  We're a very small island amongst the global backdrop.

[bolt pp]

It seems colder this year than last. We will all be ok.

I watched some expert on the news saying that we were in a natural downswing that occurs every 100 odd years for a few years irrespective of whether or not global warming exists and it takes a bit of of the averages of the summer every year and we're about to come out of it in the next couple of years so the summers will get back to being scorching

Are we talking about the UK here?  There are lots of other places in the world experiencing dramatic changes in their climate - either very hot summers or colder and more brutal winters.  We're a very small island amongst the global backdrop.

I'm not sure, they were explaining why we havnt seen the truest effects of global warming in the past few years(probably was for this area thinking about it) because we are in this 100 year cycle downturn thing that lasts for about a decade and that we're about to come out of it so it would no longer suppress the real effects of global warming.

[thetank]

One irrelevant argument about global warming is that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in the past, and therefore why worry about it happening again.

The earths history is also littered with fun times that some of your scientist like to call "mass extinction events"

I'm not worried, I'm insured with the AA

[kinboshi]

One irrelevant argument about global warming is that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in the past, and therefore why worry about it happening again.

The earths history is also littered with fun times that some of your scientist like to call "mass extinction events"

I'm not worried, I'm insured with the AA

Me too for my home insurance.  They were by far the cheapest.  Not had to make a claim yet though, so can't comment on their service levels or anything like that.

[rex008]

One irrelevant argument about global warming is that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in the past, and therefore why worry about it happening again (never mind what is causing it).

The reason it's an issue is because of the speed of climate change is relatively rapid (it's noticeable within several human generations rather than over periods of thousands or millions of years), and that there are now 7 billion humans on the planet and more and more are living in areas that will be affected by small changes in climate.  Yes, the world will go on regardless.  But maybe not for human civilisation as we know it.

It's not all bad.  Norfolk will probably be one of the first places to vanish if the sea levels rise dramatically...

But think about it. How do they know it's rapid compared to past changes? The further back you try and investigate temperature, the more unreliable and long term are the average temperatures you work out. So you can say between 10m and 11m years ago, it was 3 degrees cooler than now. But you can't say between 10400600 and 10400500 it warmed up by 4 degrees and between 10400500 and 10400400 it cooled down by 5 degrees. There is absolutely no way that can be determined. You can just about get vaguely accurate annual temperatures from tree rings for a few thousand years (and even prove it's warmed up if you pick the "right" trees), then your average starts being taken over 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, pretty rapidly.

So sorry, but saying it is rapid is bollox. There is absolutely no way of knowing if it's more rapid than changes over a couple of decades 10m years ago. It's guesswork and politics, not science.

[sledge13]

One irrelevant argument about global warming is that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in the past, and therefore why worry about it happening again (never mind what is causing it).

The reason it's an issue is because of the speed of climate change is relatively rapid (it's noticeable within several human generations rather than over periods of thousands or millions of years), and that there are now 7 billion humans on the planet and more and more are living in areas that will be affected by small changes in climate.  Yes, the world will go on regardless.  But maybe not for human civilisation as we know it.

It's not all bad.  Norfolk will probably be one of the first places to vanish if the sea levels rise dramatically...

But think about it. How do they know it's rapid compared to past changes? The further back you try and investigate temperature, the more unreliable and long term are the average temperatures you work out. So you can say between 10m and 11m years ago, it was 3 degrees cooler than now. But you can't say between 10400600 and 10400500 it warmed up by 4 degrees and between 10400500 and 10400400 it cooled down by 5 degrees. There is absolutely no way that can be determined. You can just about get vaguely accurate annual temperatures from tree rings for a few thousand years (and even prove it's warmed up if you pick the "right" trees), then your average starts being taken over 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, pretty rapidly.

So sorry, but saying it is rapid is bollox. There is absolutely no way of knowing if it's more rapid than changes over a couple of decades 10m years ago. It's guesswork and politics, not science.

  100% spot on there Rex.

[kinboshi]

One irrelevant argument about global warming is that the earth has warmed up and cooled down many times in the past, and therefore why worry about it happening again (never mind what is causing it).

The reason it's an issue is because of the speed of climate change is relatively rapid (it's noticeable within several human generations rather than over periods of thousands or millions of years), and that there are now 7 billion humans on the planet and more and more are living in areas that will be affected by small changes in climate.  Yes, the world will go on regardless.  But maybe not for human civilisation as we know it.

It's not all bad.  Norfolk will probably be one of the first places to vanish if the sea levels rise dramatically...

But think about it. How do they know it's rapid compared to past changes? The further back you try and investigate temperature, the more unreliable and long term are the average temperatures you work out. So you can say between 10m and 11m years ago, it was 3 degrees cooler than now. But you can't say between 10400600 and 10400500 it warmed up by 4 degrees and between 10400500 and 10400400 it cooled down by 5 degrees. There is absolutely no way that can be determined. You can just about get vaguely accurate annual temperatures from tree rings for a few thousand years (and even prove it's warmed up if you pick the "right" trees), then your average starts being taken over 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, pretty rapidly.

So sorry, but saying it is rapid is bollox. There is absolutely no way of knowing if it's more rapid than changes over a couple of decades 10m years ago. It's guesswork and politics, not science.

I'm saying that it may have happened, but like you pointed out if no one is around then it didn't matter (as the effects wouldn't have affected millions or billions of people as they weren't around then).

So really there are two questions. One - is the climate changing rapidly now compared to say the last 500-1000 years?  Then the next question is focused on if there is a marked change recently, is it caused by human activity?

I'm not a climatologist, but the arguments and evidence put forward by those agreeing with the AGW view is more compelling to me than the other side.  Surely the 'other side' have a far greater vested-interest (the oil firms and those who rely on their riches for their own wealth and power) in the debate than those who are providing evidence leaning towards AGW?

[Laxie]

Not bothered if we melt or freeze, but can we ban Boshi in the meantime please?