It's not looking good. Maybe it's not appropriate to post but having been trashed around for years by "used car salesmen", it somehow seems justified to show the scientific trend about climate science. The British gentleman way: http://www.thegwpf.org/news/1022-re...yal-society-to-accept-climate-scepticism.html The American way: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/28/uncertain-science.html Not that it feels good. The BP debacle in the gulf shows unambigiously one of the many reasons to minimize and ultimately terminate the dependence on fossil fuels. But abandoning the scientific method to that end was a cardinal mistake and the damage to science in general and climate science in particular may be substantial. The saddest thing, if all those billion$$ wasted on climate scare, had been used building safe nuclear power plants then we would have been very close to that end.
The basic science of climate change, at this point, is beyond dispute. The fact that self-styled "skeptics" can wage an effective anti-science propaganda campaign is sad in that it will delay a coordinated response to the crisis.
Andre. Andre, Andre, Andre!! I know you are an intelligent individual (if a little misguided) but really, *assumes John McEnroe persona for mocking and leering effect*..You CANNOT be SERIOUS! In one breath you recognise that oil is not very SAFE then propose Nuclear. Opening this thread and the OP makes you look like an enormous fool. Sorry. I can't see it any other way.
Not sure if it's a good idea to keep polarizing. versus my first link: Furthermore And that in the face of the observation of Newsweek:
Why all the name calling? Considering the safety issue, maybe compare the reality of the BP Gulf disaster with the reality (not fearmongering) of the Chernobyl disaster from pure unbiased observation: Growing Up with Chernobyl Highly recommended, for instance lesson 1: And lesson 5: So what would remain of the climate scare and nuclear scare when we remove prejudices and referred to that particular single agenda?
For the interested, maybe it was not just climategate but also more the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, May 2010, Chicago, that is bringing about the shift. All the presentations here
The fear of death is the "science" of the global warming deniers. The myth has now suffered a top kill, but fear will continue and grow in the absence of science, in the presence of denial.
Andre: I said the basic science is beyond dispute. That is no equivalent to a statement that "science if somehow fully settled". Science in general is never fully settled.
What you said was: To the casual reader there appears to be a link between the two sentences, maybe reading a "therefore" between the two. No offense intended, but If there is not supposed to be a "therefore" in between, then the post has the same merit as for instance the combination: "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius. Bugs must be killed". So let’s have a closer look at the basic science and the “self styled “skeptics” seperately, without an imaginary ‘therefore’. Certainly nobody is disputing basic laws of statistical physics or thermodynamic laws, laws of Kirchhof, Beer-Lambert, Stefan Boltzman, that’s clear enough. However one step further and we are running into problems right away. Applying these laws, we learn from the global warmers that the black body radiation temperature of Earth is -18C or 255K and the 33 degrees difference between that temperature and the average global temperature ca 15 C or 288K is caused by greenhouse effect. Is that undisputable? You bet it is not. I’m more than happy to explain sometimes that blackbody temperature for Earth (according to its definition) is meaningless and also that this 33 degrees greenhouse effect supposition overlooks the one way traffic of convection/advection/latent energy into the atmosphere. We can also demonstrate a lot of problems with the water vapor feedback etc , all of which are essential for the global warming panic.. But you can also see all of that in the presentations of the 4th climate conference. It’s just what you define as basic science. About the ‘self styled “skeptics”, like those speakers of the 4th climate conference for instance. Maybe consider this. Now that we are on the brink of getting back to common sense, it would probably be better if we realize that the witch hunt on the skeptics was merely an excess of moral panic. Maybe the notion could grow now that these people, like the presenters at the 4th climate conference, are merely scientists, meteorologists, etc, whose basic sin was that they refused to jump on the bandwagon and sticked to the basic scientific principles only. And as a consequence, sure enough, they became folk devils in a deluge of ad hominem attacks, in some sort of noble cause corruption, in which the end justifies the means, no matter what. However the bubble is bursting and it is nasty. How would the stream of little incidents look, as exposed in the climategate mail, in addition the many other incidents like this or this, when the noble cause for that turns out to be fake? It’s maybe not too late to correct these modern dark age excesses of groupthink, but using terms like ‘self styled “skeptics” and ‘anti-science’ is likely to be rather contra productive.
That would be preferable to being contraproductive right away and directly, the way terms such as "groupthink" are. btw: Presenting one's argument by linking to politically entrained videos and other forms of oral and rhetorical persuasion backed by wealth, rather than the post-Enlightenment standard medium of the written word and its associated accountability, is more typical of a return to Dark Ages custom.
Andre: I'm more than happy to hear your explanation of where that energy comes from and how it is not lost to space. Go ahead. Minor, insignificant stuff in the grand scheme of things. You'd think from the climate skeptics that those few emails somehow drove a nail through the coffin of climate change science. That couldn't be further from the truth - as you'd of course know because you only look at the science - right?
Meanwhile some more about the shift of the Royal Society here It's three now, after France and India, From some of the comments here, one would wonder, are we interested about be put at ease by mindguards (symptom #8), or are we curious if there is indeed other evidence of 'noble cause corruption'. In that case, I'd recommend the presentation of Joseph d'Aleo (last column, third down) about the decennium old discussion about the integrity of the weather station data and the elaboration of Steve McIntyre (last column, 13 down) about the equally old evidence of 'hide the decline', which actually was a hot item just before climate gate.
It is my understanding that there is definite evidence supporting global warming. It is also my understanding that it is not clear how much of the effect is due to human activities & how much is due to natural causes. EG: Cyclical changes; Changes in solar activities; What ever. It is also my understanding that global warming is a problem requiring our attention, and that much of the criticism of this view is due to exageration of some minor issues.
Climate Change is all natural world cycles, we can not do nothing about it, and we can not take Credit for causing it. Nuff said, Now sit back relax, live life, and what comes, comes.
More video linkage, apparently - if the links worked. The prevalence of video "presentations" and the like, from the denialist crowd (never a group, of course - groupthink applies to other people always), appears to be a necessity - the arguments don't look that good when laid out in print.
There is no concrete evidence that global warmingis occuring in the sense that humans have caused an increase in overall temperature. Ice core and paleoclimate studies show that the Earth's average temperature has been for higher than it is today and CO2 levels have also been higher. Considering we're in an ice age surely we should expect that some day the climate is going to change and when it does people will complain. The rate of increase in greenhouse gases is increasing at a faster rate than is comfortable and this is assumed to be at least in part due to anthropogenic sources. Trying to control the climate probably isn't the best idea as we don't know the exact consequences of large scale changes but we can change our impact. Nuclear power isn't the white knight of the energy industry, there's still no perfect way to dispose of the waste and while there have been fewer deaths as a direct result when compared to something like coal/oil production the accidents that have happened have been pretty horrific. Waste disposal sites like Yucca Mtn, USA are expected to fill up pretty quickly and there is talk about sending the waste back to uranium suppliers (i.e. Australia). The problem with renewable is that the majority don't have the capacity to produce baseload power (geothermal being an exception) so it's difficult to kick coal/oil/nuclear because no one wants to give up their creature comforts for the sake of future generations. It'd be interesting to make use of all those gym junkies out there and capture vibrational energy for awhile to see if they could contribute to the overall solution.
How many times do I have to explain to you that convective activity and advection are not a part of climate? Do you never learn anything? Here's an example of how convective activity is used retrospectively in Climatology: http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/users/brooks/public_html/papers/SLS22/brooksanderson.pdf Here's one for advection of moisture-flux: http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=2e44bc1c202614e018a38a4a406fdc3c Neither would play any large scale roll in modifying overall weather patterns to the extent that the global energy budget would be significantly modified.
