enhanced by
Bookmark:
in who knows how many years of amusements reading warner i don't think i have ever agreed with him until now and thanks for the list of 9 mistakes from the inventor of the internet :-) -- had forgotten that Gore claim
Dear Craigenmaddie,
¿Do you suppose that Gore's award of the Noble Peace Prize is an attempt to position Gore to obtain the 2008 Democratic Nomination for the American Presidency by according him an impregnable 'moral position' which will enable him to take the nomination away from Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama?
Ardgowan
Mr Warner has made the same mistake as many other journalists. Throughout his judgement, on 17 occasions altogether, the judge was careful to say "errors", using quotes.
ie he made no judgement on them other than to say that they were alleged to be errors.
That having been said, while Global Warming is clearly a fact, and it is inconceivable that Man has no part in it, the extent of Man's role is not clear.
What I do know, and with a background as a former Director of an energy exchange, is that whatever the truth is of Global warming as a problem, the truth about the solution proposed by Gore and his buddies from Goldman Sachs and the rest of the "usual suspects" is that "deficit-based" solutions such as carbon credits and emissions trading cannot possibly work except to make these rich intermediaries even richer.
If these solutions could work, and thereby lower energy use and economic growth, then they simply would not be used.
GW is unusually ambiguous:
"Al Gore.... claims that Erich Segal's sugary Love Story was based on himself and his wife Tipper, despite the fact that she, unlike the Ali MacGraw character, is still robustly with us. Can you not hear Blair grinding his teeth in envy?"
At what? At Gore's hilarious claim or that Cherie's name is un-suffixed wit "RIP"?
So the majority of the world's scientists are wrong, yet Gerald is right?
For Mr. Warner to be making such accusations and unfounded arguments simply off Nobel's past and Gore's scientific base makes little sense. Whether or not there was "9 scientific errors" in An Inconvienent Truth makes little sense as to whether or not there is a serious problem.
I can't understand the logic behind people who deny that global warming is a serious issue when the winters and summers are clearly warmer than they were twenty years ago. Matched with the rising carbon dioxide levels, that seems to make a bold statement regardless of any other research. And you can't discount that the ice caps are melting.
Mr. Warner clearly needs to read up more on both sides of the debate.
Richardhino - The majority of the worlds scientists have never stated a case for man made global warming. This is a blatant lie put out by the IPCC in their summary for the politicians, so yes - Gerald is correct.The Ravenous Llama - Gerald Warners accusations are far from unfounded.Try reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming" by Christopher C Horner, you may have your eyes opened .As for Al Gore, he is a poorly qualified has been politician. Gerald could also have mentioned that Al Gore happens to own the company he buys his carbon credits from.
The film, "An Inconvenient Truth", was in fact a very "Convenient Untruth."
Al Gore and the IPCC have not shown that climate change is caused by man-made CO2.
But numerous scientific studies have shown that climate change is caused by our stormy Sun.
With kind regardsOliver K. Manuelhttp://www.omatumr.com
With kind regardsOliver Manuelhttp://www.omatumr.com
I begin to feel sorry for scientific illiterates like Gerald Warner, and the many others who demonstrate their lack of understanding of climate science in these threads.
Concern about and evidence for global warming is not going to go away: it will intensify, as will measures to mitigate the effects. The future, therefore, for those like Gerald Warner who believe the nonsenses churned out by global warming denial industry is one of continuing paranoia, frustration and kicking against the pricks of reality. That is not a happy future for anyone.
Yesterday's thread in the Scotsman, following the Al Gore Nobel prize story, abundantly illustrates that ignorance and paranoia, and no doubt today's contributions will do also. Having said that, there was one valid point being made yesterday (it was also made in the thread following the Scotsman's 'Save our Seas' campaign), and it is this:
There is a danger that the (legitimate) concern over global warming draws attention away from other causes of environmental and social degradation. Yesterday's thread, for example, included a valid point, quoting Prof. Paul Reiter, about the spread of disease bearing mosquitoes by means other than climate change. Global warming is the new(ish) kid on the block as far as environmental threats are concerned, but we should not forget the others: habitat destruction, invasive species, pollution and over-hunting, that have been with us for much longer.
As for Gerald, I think ... no, perhaps I've said enough.
'Try reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming" by Christopher C Horner, you may have your eyes opened .'
I would never read anything which used such a meaningless expression as 'politically Incorrect' in the title.
I am aware however that there is a lot of money to be made from prejudiced idiots who wilfully ignore what the majority of the world's scientists are saying about global warming.
Maybe i'll write a book myself!
Oil hit $84 last week on the back of growing concerns over supply. Climate change may or may not be a problem and it may or may not be caused by human activity.
It's not important.. Running out of liquid fuels is. Climate change, global warming is a diversion from real problem.
It is important if rising sea levels are going to wipe out large parts of our coastline!
With fuels, we are probably going to be able to find alternative sources of energy-a challenge, yes, but not an impossible one.On the other hand, it's arguable that preventing the results of climate change is beyond the ingenuity and will of human beings.
At the end of the year the government will have 'consulted' about a new generation of nuclear power stations?No doubt, the O.T.T. is in favour of another Windscale(Sellafield) nuclear fire which was never made public 50 years ago?Could the he possibly be caught between the rock of CO2 emissions and the extremely hard place of nuclear power as he has made it clear on previous occasions that renewables are not the answer?We have also had the recent English High Court judgement about inaccuracies in Al Gore's excellent documentary about global warming which the O.T.T. simply seeks to discredit in his parsimonious polemic only because he has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in conjunction with the United Nations Committee!I have no doubt that, in the highly unlikely event that had Thatcher ever been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for allegedly 'saving' the world from Communist domination, his reaction would have been the grovelling opposite!
W S Churchill Nobel Prize for literature surely no Doris Lessing there Gerald. However I am a little concerned by the "whores and comic singers" jumping on the bandwagon of climate change. These people who approve of showing Gore's film to our children would be better employed educating them properly first, to ensure that they will be able to make judgements for themselves.
Slioch, Scottish Highlands / 9:40am writes
"There is a danger that the (legitimate) concern over global warming draws attention away from other causes of environmental and social degradation."
Like the pollution of beautiful Scottish landcapes by huge windfarms and turbines, for example? Like the insane proposal to construct massive pylons (up to 211 ft high) from Beauly to Denny in a 137 mile chain that will be visible from outer space?
This project, it now emerges, may only be the first of several such white elephants, highly wasteful means of producing energy, if government targets are to be met.
17. Teemackell the Scribe
"Like the pollution of beautiful Scottish landcapes by huge windfarms and turbines, for example?"
Absolutely. There are rational reasons to be concerned about windfarms and transmission lines, but pretending that anthropogenic global warming is not happening and does not require urgent and sustained action to combat it is not amongst those reasons. That is why the idiotic pronouncements of nabodican and others about AGW may actually be counter-productive for the cause about which he/she appears to feel most strongly: that of windfarms. If someone so comprehensively demonstrates his/her ignorance and gullibility with respect to AGW, why should anyone take seriously anything they should say about windfarms?
There are legitimate reasons to oppose windfarms: denial of climate change is not one of them.
A quick search on Google shows that the judge identified several factual errors in the film but agreed with several of the main points. In particular, he accepted that “climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (‘greenhouse gases’)", that "global temperatures are rising and are likely to continue to rise", that "climate change will cause serious damage if left unchecked", and that "it is entirely possible for governments and individuals to reduce its impacts."
It would appear that these remarks were a little inconvenient from Mr. Warner's point of view, so he simply decided not to report them. If Al Gore's going to be nominated for a Nobel prize for hypocrisy then Gerald Warner might be able to give him a run for his money.
Slioch, Scottish Highlands / 11:52am writes,
"There are rational reasons to be concerned about windfarms and transmission lines, but pretending that anthropogenic global warming is not happening and does not require urgent and sustained action to combat it is not amongst those reasons."
Let us grant that global warming (I can't use GW, my personal shorthand for Gerald Warner) is anthropogenic, despite suspicions of the huge, global vested interests, business, political and scientific pushing that message. I remain at a loss as to your own view on windfarms. Are you for them or against them and/or the associated transmission infrastructure that threatens the Highlands?
20. Teemackell the Scribe
"I remain at a loss as to your own view on windfarms."
Thanks, Teemackell, for the interest.I decided, a little over a year ago, to get involved in the online debate about global warming, partly because it seemed to me to be of overwhelming importance, partly because it involves just the sort of science, involving Earth systems, that I find fascinating and wanted to learn more about. Also, because it is primarily a global rather than a local issue: I have been, and am still to some extent, involved in local issues in the Highlands, but felt I needed to spend some time looking at issues not so close to home.
I decided not to get involved with the windfarm debate, partly because of its local nature, partly because it would be a distraction - it is a very big subject, partly because so many other people were involved, and partly because I think there are strong arguments on both sides.
So my only contribution really is just to say, 'Don't use climate change denial to attack windfarm proposals: if you do, you deserve to be ridiculed.'
That's really all I want to say about my personal position.
Will anybody explain how the doubling of world population , the cutting down of half the world's rainforests and the quadrupling of the number of oil powered vehicles worldwide in the past 60 years has been compensated for by the natural fluctuations, and variations iin planetary ecological systems.
If they cannot show where the compensation has taken place, then those who understand the science will show them effects that have been identified which together confirm the inbalance that the activities of mankind are having on world climate.
It is that simple.
Those, such as Mr Warner, who through the pages of this newspaper continue to propagate scepticism about climate change, should address this central question of compensating mechanisms. If they personally lack the ability and knowledge to do this " simple thing "( ! ) , then they should admit that the whole subject is something on which they, personally, are insufficiently informed to hold any valid opinion at all .
It seems to me that GW and GWB share more than just a couple of initials! Go stick your head in the sand Gerald. Just don't leave it there for too long. The rising sea levels will get you!
Al Gore and the IPCC have NOT shown that man-made (anthropologic) CO2 causes global warming (AGW).
The Climate Audit group has uncovered one error after another in the sloppy database on which AGW rests.
http://www.climateaudit.com
Further Al Gore and the IPCC have ignored well-documented scientific evidence that periodic changes in Earth's climate are caused by changes in our heat source -- the Sun.
Their claim that climate change can be explained by measurements on Earth is like a diet plan that measures the patient's weight, while ignoring the patient's food intake!
High precision, space-age measurements on the solar photosphere, meteorites, planets, comets, the solar wind, and solar flares since 1960 have clearly shown that shown that our Sun is a magnetic plasma diffuser that moves lightweight elements, like Hydrogen and Helium, to its surface.
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/The_Suns_Origin.pdf
These low-density elements cover the Sun's dense Iron-rich mantle that encases an exceedingly high-density neutron star at the solar core.
Climate changes are caused by shifts in the solar inertial motion (SIM) as the Sun travels in an epitrochiod-shaped orbit about the centre-of-mass (barycentre) of the solar system [Journal of Costal Research, SI 50 (2007) 955-968].
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf
The jerky and irregular orbit of the Sun over a period of about sixteen 11-year solar cycles is illustrated in Figure 1, on the second page of the article (page 956).
Changes in our climate are linked with changes in magnetic activity at the solar surface (e.g., sunspots and solar eruptions) because sudden acceleration
Oliver K. ManuelEmeritus ProfessorNuclear Chemistry
Of where, pray?
The most ridiculous thing about Warner is that he seems to think that Al Gore IS the green movement rather than just one of many,many voices within it-and not necessarily the most credible either.
Some of the charges against Gore may well be true, but Warner seems to be pursuing a personal vendetta against Gore rather than making any intelligent points about environmentalism.
I personally don't look to Al Gore for guidance on this matter, but rather the great majority of the scientific community who are quite clear about the reality of global warming, climate change, and man's role in it.
24. Oliver Manuel
You have linked to the wrong climateaudit site. The one I presume you were after was:
www.climateaudit.org
that is hosted by Steve McIntyre.
Steve McIntyre is a mining engineer affiliated with the George C Marshall Institute, which received $630,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005. I wonder why? Could it be that ExxonMobil reckons that the more it promotes climate change scepticism, such as that churned out by climateaudit.org, the longer it will be able to keep its profits chugging over at a healthy level?
Slioch, Scottish Highlands / 7:59pm 14 Oct 2007 writes
" Oliver K. Manuel Emeritus Professor Nuclear Chemistry
Of where, pray?"
University of Missouri-Rolla is the answer.
Founded in 1870, it is described online as "Missouri’s premier technological research university" it becomes Missouri University of Science and Technology on Jan. 1, 2008. This is a reputable establishment and Professor Manuel is the real deal a scientist of standing who stands outside the AGW consensus. He is not alone.
I am rather disappointed you are not more forthcoming as to your personal views on windfarms. Mine will be clear to you. Even accepting the AGW consensus , the windfarm response is a nonsense.
"That's really all I want to say about my personal position." smacks of an a la carte approach to joined up problems and, with respect, diminishes your credibility.
29 LT
For what are you thanking them precisely ?
Warner's irresponsible piece uses many misleading arguments which are clearly rebutted by the website of Britain's foremost scientific institution, the ROYAL SOCIETY, whose past presidents include Sir Christopher Wren, Samuel Pepys and Isaac Newton.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229
For a rebuttal of Oliver Manuel's misleading argument that it is all to do with the sun, see Misleading Argument number 6:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6233
Well done to Chris Cook, Richardinho, Slioch, Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties, Upbeat and Guru Gordon for their excellent contributions. Keep up the good work.
28. Teemackell the Scribe
The reticence about my personal position is just that: my personal position. Don't confuse that with my views on various subjects.
However, I take the view that these threads provide ample evidence of people who are forthcoming as to their views on various subjects, without much evidence that they know what they are talking about. There is a limited amount of time available for such things and I think it is better to concentrate on one particular area, so at least one has more chance of being able to say something based on knowledge and evidence.
Thanks for the info. on Prof. Manuel - I had since gleaned that from the other papers he posted. I must say I find his (incorrect) reference to climateaudit does not inspire confidence in him, but that may be an unduly hasty response.
27. Slioch
You are right. Thanks!
The correct link to the Climate Audit group that uncovered all the errors in the AGW database is:
31. HuwPeach
Sorry. The reference you cite,
assumes that the Sun is a homogeneous ball of Hydrogen and does not address the main issues:
A. Climate changes are caused by shifts in the solar inertial motion (SIM) as the Sun travels in an epitrochiod-shaped orbit about the centre-of-mass (barycentre) of the solar system [Journal of Costal Research, SI 50 (2007) 955-968].
See Figure 1, on page 956 of this article.
B. Sudden acceleration and deceleration of the Sun shift the position of the Sun's high-density core relative to the solar surface.
Solar activity arises from deep-seated magnetic fields [J. Fusion Energy 21 (2002) 193-198],
http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-superfluidity.pdf
Hence, cyclic changes at the solar surface are linked with changes in Earth's climate.
None of this would occur if the Sun were a ball of hydrogen.
With kind regards,Oliver K. ManuelEmeritus ProfessorNuclear Chemistryhttp://www.omatumr.comhttp://www.ballofiron.com
Sorry! I repeated the same mistake.
http://www.climateaudit.org
NOT,
With kind regards,Oliver
#34 Oliver Manuel
It seems to me what you are postulating is a mechanism whereby changes in solar output (in terms of energy, particles and fields) might be explained. You may or may not be correct in the mechanisms you suggest - I certainly couldn't comment.
However, what the Royal Society post was stating (along with many other sources) is that such changes from the sun, as observed from Earth and from satellites, cannot account for changes in the Earth's climate (specifically heat content of atmosphere + oceans) for the last forty years, but that these changes in climate are most consistent with models that take into account changes in the CO2 (+CH4, N2O, CFC) content of the atmosphere.
Just for the record: Do you accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (that is, absorbs IR radiation that would otherwise be lost to space from the Earth's surface), and that concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have increased from c.278ppmv in 1750 to c.383ppmv at present and that during recent times are increasing at the highest rate during that period?
#31 HuwPeach
What "excellent contributions" have GuruGordon and Richardinho made other than to be in agreement with your side of the argument.
Your prejudices are showing...
Global warming is real. It also is ONLY 1/2 of ONE degree in 35 years.
And, for the last nine years of that 35 years, global warming has stopped: There has been no increase since the El Nino year of 1998. Which wasn't even the warmest year of the century (the mid-thirties were hotter than the late 1990's), nor the warmest year since 1000 AD, nor the warmest years since the last 100,000 year cycle.
1/2 of ONE degree is ALL global warming can show. Nor are "scientists" uniformly supporting the AGW propaganda: even before the latest hype began (to fund Enron-sourced carbon caps and carbon trading by Gore and his Washington/European politicians) more than 20,000 scientists and engineers signed a letter urging that Kyoto be rejected.
Fortunately, the Senate voted 95-0 to reject it. Perhaps one of the last rational things that body did.
Ice melting? No: Both Greenland and Antarctica are gaining ice mass and seeing a net rise in ice levels in the interior. But that doesn't make nice "hate Bush" TV propaganda.
Coral bleaching and getting harmed by CO2 acidifying the ocean? Nope. Corals grow just in a wide range of pH, they change the local reef pH by over 1 point from noon to midnight in shallow water by photosynthesis, are NOT harmed by extreme Ph, and grow BETTER (like all plants actually) in times of higher CO2.
Ocean levels rising? By (perhaps) 1-1/2 inch (30 mm) in 100 years. Anything more than that is hype and fear-mongering. Actually, ocean levels have fallen very slightly the last few years as more ice and snow have fallen in the interior of Antarctica - DESPITE what the AGW extremists are "predicting"...
But, then again, NO prediction by ANY AGW extremist or scientist/propagandist has come true. Not ONE of their computer simulations has matched real world data. Now, in the near past, nor in far past. But cloud cover-magnet fields - cosmic radiation models (th
#37. Robert A Cook PE
Your post contains many errors. By a quick count I came to 17 errors of fact.
I have neither to time now to point them all out to you, nor the confidence that you would take any notice if I did.
I challenge you to show any statement is incorrect.
39. Robert A Cook PE
As I said, I have very little time at present, so I must be brief. But you ask for one error to shown to you.
Referring to global warming you state, "the mid-thirties were hotter than the late 1990's"
That is not even remotely true.See:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
or you can look up the NASA data if you prefer, here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
That is just one of the errors you make (and I know how you were mislead on this one - but I'll leave you to figure that out for yourself).
Climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise, cannot be legislated away. The opinion of a judge in this matter is null and void. A commenter who invokes it, should not be taken serious.
Well, I just popped back to see if Robert A Cook had responded. He hasn't.
I pointed out that his post #37 contained many (indeed mainly) errors, but said that I didn't have confidence that he would take any notice if I pointed them out or the time to do so.
He then challenged me to point out one error, which I did in about twenty minutes.
Two hours later there is still no response from Robert. It's beginning to look as if my lack of confidence in him responding was justified.
#35 Slioch
Yes, of course, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
But Al Gore and the IPCC have NOT shown that CO2 causes global change.
Earth's climate has changed many times in the past, prior to the industrial revolution and large-scale burning of fossil fuels. Why?
Careful studies have shown that climate changes are caused by shifts in the solar inertial motion (SIM) as the Sun moves about the centre-of-mass (barycentre) of the solar system [See Fig. 1 in Journal of Costal Research, SI 50 (2007) 955-968 or climatology studies reported by Dr Theodor Landscheidt].
http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm
The uneven motion of the Sun could not be the reason for variations in solar activity with the Sun's epitrochiod-shaped orbit -- IF THE SUN WERE A HOMOGENEOUS BALL OF HYDROGEN (the standard solar model).
Precise measurements on meteorites, planets, comets, the solar photosphere, the solar wind, and solar flares since 1960 have clearly shown that shown that OUR SUN IS THE HETEROGENEOUS REMAINS OF A SUPERNOVA, with a surface covering of diffuse Hydrogen and Helium over a dense Iron mantle that surrounds an exceedingly high-density neutron star at the core [See references 1-6 below].
Solar surface activity arises from deep-seated magnetic fields [4].
Changes in our climate are linked with changes in magnetic activity at the solar surface (e.g., sunspots and solar eruptions) because sudden acceleration and deceleration of the Sun along an epitrochiod-shaped orbit shifts the location of the high-density core relative to the surface.
With kind regards,Oliver http://www.omatumr.com
REFERENCES:
1.) "Strange xenon, extinct superheavy el
#43 Oliver Manuel
"Al Gore and the IPCC have NOT shown that CO2 causes global change."
Well, Al Gore hasn't shown anything - he is not a scientist and acts as a campaigner/reporter, so forget Al Gore. What has been shown by the IPCC and others is that only by including the effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 within climate models is it possible to correlate the observed with the calculated temperatures for the last 40 years or so. Further, changes in solar radiation or fields do not so correlate during that time.
"Earth's climate has changed many times in the past, prior to the industrial revolution and large-scale burning of fossil fuels. Why?"
For a number of reasons, primarily changes in solar insolation consequent with changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch) along with feedbacks wrto albedo (ice/water) and CO2 during the glacial/interglacial changes. More recently (eg MWP and Little Ice Age) probably also associated with changes in the sun.
You present some very interesting ideas about reasons for changes in the sun, but you do not address the key issue with respect to recent global warming.
If you accept that "of course, CO2 is a greenhouse gas" why do you find it so difficult to accept that changes in CO2 concentration (which are irrefutable) cause changes in the Earth's heat content?
Slioch,
Your argument that only CO2 increases explain the temperature change is circular. Computer models have not been initialized against observed data so they project warming that is 3 times higher than what is observed. The models are based on the premise that increasing CO2 causes increasing temperatures. When the models then say that temperatures will increase following a CO2 increase, all the believers say there, that proves it.
CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas that only exists in trace amounts in the atmosphere. Our miniscule contributions to this already minute amount are laughable when used as so-called proof that we are responsible for climate change. CO2 also has a diminishing ability to absorb energy with each subsequent molecule added to the atmosphere. We will soon reach the point of saturation where all available IR capable of being absorbed by CO2 has already been absorbed and no addtional GHG effect is generated.
You seem bogged down in generalities without looking at the facts in detail. Perhaps a victim of wishful thinking.
Just came back to see if this topic had moved on since this morning.
Not by much I fear.
While the red herring of long term Solar influence has been well asserted, no one has tried to address the compensating mechanism question raised in post 22.
I know the questions are hard to consider , and probably inconvenient. But it does appear that those who deny that mankind can be responsible for interfering with Global climate, seem markedly uninterested in showing how the planet has adjusted naturally to pressures imposed by rising population , massive fossil fuel use and huge destruction of natural environment.
Meanwhile those scientists and agencies that have made the connection , and have observed plausible and verifiable effects that have occured due to these pressures are dismised as having incomplete data, by these selfsame climate change deniers.
This compensating mechanism issue is a question that will not go away. Every time the deniers fail to provide reasonable hypotheses for real observed balancing mechanisms that do corellate with these trends and are both verifiable and true, then their argument against man made effects on climate simply collapses.
Thank god for a very valid piece from Warner. All the enviro activists struggle when they try to justify Gore.
Check some history about the Little Ice Age, from which we have been recovering since about 1880. Advancing glaciers destroying villages in the Alps, total crop failures and famine because of the cold, disease and pestilence, Thames frost fairs...
Get real you global warmers.
#44 Spren
I have never argued "that only CO2 increases explain the temperature change." All factors are included within climate models, but if the increase in CO2 is not included then the models do not correlate with observation.
i do not recognise your characterisation of climate modelling.
You refer to "our miniscule (sic) contributions" to atmospheric CO2. Currently this stands at about 26 billion tons per year of CO2 emissions plus another C. 6 btpy from land use changes. Since 1750 CO2 atmospheric concentrations have increased by c.36% - that is not a minuscule contribution.
As for your incorrect statement concerning saturation, I refer you to:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-s...
