BBC back peddling on Climate Change/Global Warming

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Danbones

 

the link where you question my cred makes a good point in the comments section:

Actually I didn't question your credibility but I did say you can damage it by not reading something before you post it.

with all the reasons scientists are using to justify the climate change in othe planets...

What other reasons?

A:carbon credits

No, it's A: Because other factors are considered and there is quite a lot of evidence that human activity is the greatest factor involved.

yes, read the sight... good advice..of course... its a man made global warming sight!
what a better reference then the heart of the beast?
that sight does have a good debate of its own
I did read
Re other eeasonsrbit position re the sun and local moons, internal chemical reactions, vapor cover...

and I believe posted a peer reviewed scientists comment that there doesn't seem to be any evidence
as I posted:

There are no scientists in the world who can produce such observational data. There is only effect the other way, namely that ocean temperatures control average CO2 levels

www.weatheraction.com...

as far as My CRED
I don't expect anyone to take my opinion as gospel, thats why I link "for and against"
so my cred isn't as important as what I learn
which around here is lots some days

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

t's that it's been accelerated and influenced by the things we do

I have to ask just what are the things that we do?
I have to ask who is "we"? The people or the Governments?

I have to ask how much perpetual war could influence the climate if what you claim is true? ( "the things we do"), then it is a major contributer to your ideals.



I have to ask if perpetual war is suspect, which under your definition it surely must be, then why is it still
contributing to this mess if the whole shebang is so concerning that we are deluged with information daily.

That information claims we are killing ourselves via our own emissions, What good is war then if we are all dead and can't share the Oil,......sorry I meant spoils?

You don't waste resources taking ground if there is no profit to be had.

Everyone knows here that the infamous "Scientists" are paid very well and from what I gather in my readings they are funded by people who want the results that end in profit.

You can buy anything you want today, but you cannot buy peoples thoughts and ideas, and for that matter logic.

Too many of us are aware of the false flags, stupid wars, and corporate buying power and therefore greed.

So with this mini rant done I ask this, why is there wars none stop to acquire land and resources if we are all going to die soon?

Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by burntheships

I hope you take time to read that, and all of the links included. Its far to in depth to put into one
post, and deserves a thread of its own.

I hope you take the time to read what the "leaked" document actually says instead of just reading an out of context paragraph.

Here is the conclusion of that section(page 7-44) but please, read the whole section starting on 7-43.

Although there is some evidence that ionization from cosmic rays may enhance aerosol nucleation in the free troposphere, there is medium evidence and high agreement that the cosmic ray-ionization mechanism is too weak to influence global concentrations of CCN or their change over the last century or during a solar cycle in any climatically significant way. The lack of trend in the cosmic ray intensity over the last 50 years (Agee et al., 2012; McCracken and Beer, 2007) provides another strong argument against the hypothesis of a major contribution of cosmic rays to ongoing climate change.

The role of GCRs was studied and found to not be a significant factor in warming.
source

reply to post by Danbones

and I believe posted a peer reviewed scientists comment that there doesn't seem to be any evidence
as I posted:

Also Piers reviewed. That's his statement.

reply to post by Iwinder


I'm not sure what kind of response you're looking for from me lwinder - but I share your views on war

We're fighting for resources - it will likely get worse

Not comforting - I know

reply to post by Phage


I read the whole thing.
The IPCC report leaked by Alec Rawls, along with other data from real science shows that
its far too irresponsible and illogical to implement policy on flawed and incomplete data in
understanding Climate Change.

This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic forcing. [Emphasis in original.]

Other data, from respected global warming skeptics such as Dr. S. Fred Singer, Bjorn Lomborg, Richard Lindzen, and others strongly indicates, it is very likely that the theory of human-caused global warming is wrong.

reply to post by burntheships

I read the whole thing.

Then maybe you can direct me to where it is indicated that there is evidence that GCRs have a significant effect on warming. Which reference in the document shows this? They look at the evidence and find it lacking. That's the point.

While you're at it, maybe you can point out where this evidence is:

substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance

He seems to be claiming that there is evidence of negative forcing, that there is cooling occurring. Though that's a sort of weird way to express it and I'm not sure that's really what he means to say.

reply to post by burntheships

Major IPCC Report Draft Leaked Then Cherry-Picked By Climate Sceptics

What this is actually talking about, is a fringe theory that cosmic rays have an important influence on the climate. What neither Mr Rawls, Watts Up With That or the climate sceptic blogger James Delingpole did, was to point out that the paragraphs on the chapter which follow the one which Rawls quotes, go on to explain why these theories were not robust.

Professor Steve Sherwood, of the University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, is a lead author on Chapter 7. Commenting on the publicly-quoted paragraph about cosmic rays (the one cited by Delingpole as a "game changer) Professor Sherwood told me:

The single sentence that this guy pulls out is simply paraphrasing an argument that has been put forward by a few controversial papers (note the crucial word "seems") purporting significant cosmic-ray influences on climate. Its existence in the draft is proof that we considered all peer-reviewed literature, including potentially important papers that deviate from the herd. The rest of the paragraph from which he has lifted this sentence, however, goes on to show that subsequent peer-reviewed literature has discredited the assumptions and/or methodology of those papers, and failed to find any effect. The absence of evidence for significant cosmic-ray effects is clearly stated in the executive summary. This guy's spin is truly bizarre. Anyone who would buy the idea that this is a "game changer" is obviously not really looking at what is there.

I got sidetracked - was also reading up on James Delingpole - some interesting networking going on in his life

Anyway - we could do this all day - and the next - and for the next ten years...he said/she said - finger pointing - name calling...

I read your articles - did you read mine? A whole lot of scientists dedicated to nothing then?

Really?

:-)

Originally posted by Phage
He seems to be claiming that there is evidence of negative forcing, that there is cooling occurring. Though that's a sort of weird way to express it and I'm not sure that's really what he means to say

Solar Forcing as I understand it.

Its an admission of enhanced solar forcing – as well as a lack of warming to match model projections, and reversal on ‘extreme weather’.

reply to post by Phage

Hey! I just said that.

I never cease to be amazed how people can be deceived by a single out of context statement. Not surprised, but amazed.

What's really remarkable is that they even provide the document. I guess they know their audience. They know their audience won't actually read the source material.

reply to post by burntheships

Its an admission of enhanced solar forcing

Enhanced by GCRs? No. It is not. It says that evidence shows an insignificant effect of GCRs on forcing.

You need to read the source yourself. Not believe what someone tells you it says. Don't even believe me. Read it. If you find I'm wrong we can talk about it.

reply to post by Phage


I had already replied before your last edit, so I missed that part
you added.

Some more thought here on the reversal of thought by the IPCC

climatedepot.com... rricanes-floods

Compared to the First Order Draft, the Second Order Draft (page 7-43, lines 1-5, emphasis added):

Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.

reply to post by burntheships

Why do you keep posting the introduction to the GCR topic?
They took a look at studies of the effects of GCRs because there has been discussion about it. They found no convincing evidence of GCRs affecting forcing. They provide the references for you.

Why do you keep paying attention to "sound bites" provided by others. Why don't you read it yourself so you can see the full context?

Originally posted by Phage
Then maybe you can direct me to where it is indicated that there is evidence that GCRs have a significant effect on warming. Which reference in the document shows this?

Ok, yes see my post above this one, I included the Second Order Draft (leak)

As for the debate, it will continue, although I think the idea of making lifetime policy
on tainted data that has been skewed for a certain result will fade away,

I agree with Dr. Singer

"I think it is worth fighting for sound science even if one is smeared and slandered. My belief is the global warming scare will be over in the matter of a decade or so.
"

Why are so many false myths about science circulated? What is the agenda of those who continue to maintain that the world is warming at catastrophic levels?

Fred Singer: There are many false myths about science that circulate − usually based on insufficient expertise. I have been one of those who attacks smoking as a member of an anti-smoking organization. Cigarette smoking is definitely unhealthy. There are those who warn of catastrophic events from future warming; their aim appears to be to scare the population. I suspect that many are motivated by monetary considerations.


Daily Bell: Are islands drowning?

Fred Singer: As far as I am aware, islands are not drowning.

Daily Bell: Why have you fought this fight? You've been smeared, derided and even slandered. Has it been worth it? Will the forces of climate change win out?

Fred Singer: I think it is worth fighting for sound science even if one is smeared and slandered. My belief is the global warming scare will be over in the matter of a decade or so.
www.thedailybell.com...

What I'd like to know is where are all the screaming people that agree with science that AGW is a reality? Where are the politicians putting this in their platform? Where are the policies based off IPCC, NOAA, NASA findings? Oh yeah I know Obama mentioned it, we'll see how far that goes... but other than him? Can someone link me to some stuff?

Where is it being talked about in the media to any significant degree? According to some we're getting barraged with 24/7 climate doom. Who are the anchors? The networks? Anyone have some you tube links? A chart that graphs out how many times AGW is spoken or printed per day over the past 16 years or so?

Where is this AGW fanatical religion? Who are they? Where are the temples, churches, shrines? Who are the leaders? Where do I sign up? Can we make Earth Day our version of Christmas, with presents and carols etc? Where's my holy book!?

It's all in denialists heads so no one can give me the info but the gauntlets been thrown.

Phage, for the love of humanity do a thread (in simple terms).

reply to post by burntheships

Ok, yes see my post above this one, I included the Second Order Draft (leak)

That's the same thing I have been talking about. They looked at it and found that there is not strong evidence that GCRs affect forcing. That's what I said the first time. That's what I said the second time. You didn't read the whole section did you? You just read what a blogger says and accept his assessment of what the report says.

reply to post by Phage


Its the same report, yes I read the whole of the leak. The actual report will not be
published until this September.

As a GW skeptic I have read it and I think that cosmic rays could have a greater warming
influence on the planet than mankind's emissions.

We just dont agree, your not a GW skeptic, I am.

reply to post by burntheships

As a skeptic I have read it and I think hat cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind's emissions.

As climate scientists, the IPCC disagrees with you. A great deal. Notice too that the bloggers you pay so much attention to offer nothing to dispute the findings of the IPCC, they just completely distort what the report says. Why do they do that?

reply to post by Phage


Dr. Singer is not a blog, plainly.
There are many scientists that dont find the data to support AGW.
Your attempt to marginalize other scientists by stating I have only
posted bloggers is the end here.

At this point, we disagree, and I dont see the point in further debate right now,
maybe when the full report is out in September.

reply to post by burntheships

Can you show me where Dr. Singer finds a significant effect on forcing by GCRs as the bloggers claim the report shows?

There, I made the distinction clearer for you.