Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
U-Know! Forum »
Climate-Cat's out of the Bag!
Log In to post a reply

81 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
2148 posts

Edited Dec 04, 2009, 01:36
Re: Hi Guys!
Dec 04, 2009, 01:26
Firstly Jshell, good luck with finding a new job.

jshell wrote:
I give you the Left Wing blogger Monbiot to counter that: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

If Monbiot's back-tracking, then there's something credible here.

However, he's not backtracking. Once again, you overstate the content and importance of the leak. Why would you be doing that?

Show me where in that piece Monbiot says anything that undermines the premise that climate change is being driven by human activity.

Maybe we have different understandings of language, but the only criticism I see Monbiot making of those responsible for the content of the emails is directed against the deletion of data wanted under a Freedom of Information request. This si a serious charge, but I don't understand how it is a 'backtrack' on anything at all. Most of the piece is Monbiot lambasting environmentalists response to the leak and the slant that's been given to some of the story.

He has further criticism of those responsible in another article.

However, he is clear on what it's not.

Monbiot wrote:
But do these revelations justify the sceptics’ claims that this is “the final nail in the coffin” of global warming theory? Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists. They raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury manmade climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed.

He then goes on with a mock email showing what that conspiracy would need to have been.

jshell wrote:
Every story has 2 sides, and particularly this one.

Er, no, this one less than most actually.

I ask you the same thing that I ask DarkMagus; do you have the same position on other two-sided issues with a similar balance of evidence and consensus such as evolution/creation, the link with tobacco and cancer, and the link with HIV and AIDS?

jshell wrote:
The CRU data was one of the corenerstones of global climate science, that stone is shaky now, and as a Massive % of global work

That overstatement's still not out of your system yet is it? Go on, put a number on that percentage you claim. what proportion of global work on climate change came from the CRU (even including those not involved in any of the dodgy stuff)?

jshell wrote:
It's interesting as a subject on it's own, that if you follow global temperatures v's atmospheric CO2, that CO2 follows temp, not temp following CO2.

Again, rather like your earlier assertion that it's unproven that CO2 has an effect on global temperatures (it's actually provable in a lab), you're simply wrong with your grasp of the science.

Temperature and CO2 levels rise in tandem; they tend to feed one another. Warmer temperatures lead to less sea ice, melting permafrost, forests drying out. Less sea ice means the matter on the ocean floor warms (releasing methane), permafrost melts (releasing methane), dead forests burn (releasing their carbon), this increases the greenhouse effect, leading to warmer temperatures, leading to greater emissions, etc.

It's called 'positive feedback', and the tipping point for it to start feeding itself in a way we cannot stop is widely held at 2 degrees above pre-industrial temperatures. This is why the carbon cuts made now are so important. Waiting until we see more widespread evidence of climate change will be too late.

I strongly recommend Mark Lynas' book Six Degrees, which takes an overview of scientific evidence of what changes we can expect at each of the first six degree temperature increases.

jshell wrote:
Do you trust our Govt and the un-elected European govt? I fucking don't.

Totally with you on that one. their carbon reduction targets are inadequate and contrary to what the science demands, and their strategies for achieving those targets are practically designed to fail.

jshell wrote:
There are $$$billions at stake here.

Exactly. Which is why the fossil industry and their government puppets spent so long having people tell us there was no climate change, then there was but it wasn't humans, now it's all about learning to adapt to it rather than prevent it.

jshell wrote:
The Russians wonder WTF is going on coz they're predicting a cooling trend and can't comprehend what we're up to.

Can you give me any source for this and explain how it tallies with their planned carbon cuts?

jshell wrote:
funding of $000,000,000's, unbelievable numbers in fact.

Now there's a ripe irony, as if it's about getting money. The climatologists and meteorologists are largely saying that the time for research into global warming is over, they are urgently saying the funding needs to go into action strategies.
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index