|
jshell wrote: Been a while as I'm covering 9 projects right now and working in a different city to where I live, so bear with me. I really have little time to myself.
I hear ya, matey, and am in a similar position. I had stuff come up three weeks ago that has left me unable to respond properly to stuff here. Until a coupla days ago I only left one comment here (about Grufty Jim's disgraceful ownership of Martika and Chris De Burgh CDs, and even that didn't get picked up on).
I'm only just getting back into the driving seat and have a squillion things to catch up on. So, sorry to resurrect withering threads, but I've not had chance.
jshell wrote: Strangely I'm not really an A-global warming 'denier', though that sounds strange. I'm just a suspicious person at heart.
Then why do you raise the same zombie arguments - ones that no matter how many times they're disproven rise from the dead - to be restated?
CO2 has a warming effect on the planet. Positive feedback happens. Both of these are observable in the environment and demonstrable in a laboratory. Yet you embarrass yourself by saying that isn't so. Why would someone intelligent do that, unless they had some need to deny it that wasn't based on facts?
jshell wrote: I was suspicious about 9/11 until I turned an 'engineer-eyed' view at the footage and visited the site.
There are plenty of 9-11ists out there who'll explain that the engineers are in on the secret, or duped by those who are, in order to protect their position. You know, like you and the deniers say about the IPCC.
Why don't you apply the same thinking to the connection between HIV and Aids, or between cancer and smoking? These have a similar level of scientific consensus as climate change, with a few noisy people - one or two of them even holding relevant expertise - putting the case for the other side.
The 'paper' you cite idea that only 60 scientists contributing to the IPCC support the reports is nonsense. It misunderstands what the IPCC does, and how science works.
The idea that the IPCC produces heavily biased work is bizarre, given that it does no primary research. Its job is to review and collate the already established science. That science, and the review, is a collaborative and cumulative job. (As I said, because of the need for consensus it tends to underestimate).
So the reviewers and authors produce it together. To say only authors who explicitly state support actually agree is ludicrous; to imply that, of the 2879 individuals cited, 2819 of them disagree with the IPCC findings but keep schtum is absurd.
You attacked the IPCC for not sticking to peer-reviewed science, yet when I point out that all the peer-reviewed stuff stacks up one way and the denier stuff doesn't have any peer-reveiwed backing, you decide that it's "the now bankrupt 'peer review' process".
You repeatedly use the denier tactic of making any error into a devious deceit, and also claiming any error into a disproving of the science itself.
I pointed out, taking one example you'd cited of Amazon dieback, that (quite apart form the denier stance you cite being discredited) the science remains intact with proper science actually predicting worse. You need to differentiate between finding an error and debunking a premise.
I note you still ignored the point that some effects of climate change are in line with what the IPCC predicted (here's a comparison published in Science - ie a real paper in the scientific sense, as opposed to something an unqualified person made up that can be printed on paper).
Some of the already visible effects are such as rainfall patterns in eat Africa and flood frequency in Bangladesh. These things are taking the subsistence farmland away from the poorest of the world. Is this the 'equilibrium' you were talking about? The drop in population numbers that you blithely accept as our price if indeed climate change is to be severe?
The people who've accumulated the most wealth - the ones who've emitted the most carbon - will be most able to buy food from places that still produce. Meanwhile the poor of the world - those who cannot afford to move and have emitted the least carbon - are the ones who get to starve for our profligacy.
jshell wrote: Merrick wrote: Are you really saying that less polar ice - replacing vast areas of white area with dark - won't affect the earth's reflective ability?
It will, of course, affect the earth's reflective ability
So you do accept the positive feedback effect. Yet earlier you said it was a smokescreen theory that couldn't be proven.
jshell wrote: You do know that the Arctic ice cover has been recovering steadily since the 2007 minimum?
This is rather like the denialist idea that the world has been cooling since 1998. 1998 was the hottest year on record. This is because climate is not only affected by human greenhouse gas emissions but other factors, and in 1998 there was a strong El Nino. However, all the years since are among the 15 hottest of the last 150 years, and the noughties was the hottest decade on record.
By the same token, 2007 was the lowest Arctic sea ice since records began. The years since have seen more sea ice, but nothing like normal.
The US National Snow and Ice Data Center reported in 2009:
"At the end of the Arctic summer, more ice cover remained this year than during the previous record-setting low years of 2007 and 2008. However, sea ice has not recovered to previous levels. September sea ice extent was the third lowest since the start of satellite records in 1979, and the past five years have seen the five lowest ice extents in the satellite record."
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html
|
