UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and, if so, why?
message 101:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(new)
Feb 02, 2015 04:05AM
Oh, and I do so enjoy being talked down to, Will.
reply
|
flag
Will and Geoff - It's time to put this issue to the vote.Harry Hill style.
message 103:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 02, 2015 12:13PM)
(new)
I don't think that would work, Pete. Will thinks that everyone that questions his cosy preconception is a charlatan. In his world cognitive dissonance couldn't exist.Therefore he could not accept any vote that went against him.
Resorting to insults? We all know what that means.
What I was trying to say is why don't you guys just agree to differ?
Will wrote: "Resorting to insults? We all know what that means."No, merely observing the facts.
I'm surprised he hasn't commented on the report on the Royal Society. Perhaps there are too many professors listed.
Pete wrote: "What I was trying to say is why don't you guys just agree to differ?"On most subjects, that is exactly what I would have done by now. But this topic is different. The consequences of getting it wrong are too severe.
Think about it this way. If the climate change deniers are right then ... nothing happens. We all save some money by consuming less. The fossil fuel reserves last a bit longer. After more than a century of constantly rising temperatures, maybe the Earth will start to cool of its own accord. Maybe.
But if the climate change scientists are right, then we are facing a threat to our way of life like nothing we have ever seen before. At the very least we will see more of the effects that we have already been seeing. Problems like coastal erosion, droughts, floods, tsunamis, crop failure. And at the more extreme end of what is possible we could end up with more severe impacts, such as contaminated soil across large parts of the world.
Maybe not quite extinction level events, but enough to give us all a pretty bad day.
The choice is this. We can listen to the experts, look at the real evidence and try to avert a potentially catastrophic future. Or we can believe a dwindling group of amateurs with no independent data and no training.
So I am afraid this is not an "agree to disagree" topic. That implies that the issue doesn't matter and that the two sides of the argument are equal. They aren't.
message 110:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 02, 2015 03:57PM)
(new)
From my point of view, the evidence is still unproven. The possibility that we may be wrong will affect the generations to come. If the NGOs and political parties like the Greens have their way our children and their children will be reduced to a medieval life where heating will be optional, we will not have the energy to leave our home towns except by horse and cart, we will be a agrarian economy again and we will be paying such a high price for fuel that most people will not be able to heat their homes.All this because the science is still a very long way from settled. Yes, there is warming occurring on our planet, where the problem lies is whether it is anthropogenic and to what degree. The link between CO2 emissions and global warming is proving increasingly implausible as time goes on - this is proven by the fact that CO2 is increasing whilst temperatures are stalled, or at best climbing very slowly.
The Global Warming industry, and yes that is what it is, is trying to defy the laws of physics by telling us that the excess heat is being absorbed by the deep oceans.
1. Physics tells us that heat rises as the energy that causes the heat increases.
2. NASA has confirmed that they can find no increase in temperatures in the deep oceans.
The Global Warming industry is a busted flush. Perhaps the answer is, as some global warming activists are saying, methane. So all the money we have spent on getting rid of coal, building turbines that don't work and subsidising nuclear reactors that won't be ready in time and no one will be able to buy the electricity from because its too expensive is all for naught.
Instead, as coal is being phased out, the government are relying on diesel generator farms as the last throw of the dice to stop the lights going out. If they believe the problem is CO2, why are they going to use electricity fallback that will massively increase the level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
For the first time I agree with Will, this argument is too important to "agree to disagree". We need to get the science right, not sweep the truth under the table until it is too late to save our descendants. Dissension makes everyone work harder to prove their case. There continues to be too
many people who are unconvinced that Global Warming is man made.
Interestingly, a large number of these objectors are in the areas of physical and geological science. Why is this? Because they are trained to follow the science, not some talking head that wants you to follow faith. Science isn't a religion, its proof and that is something that is sadly missing from the current consensus.
If they are so convinced of their case, why are they spending enormous amounts of money on trying to convince us rather than providing conclusive evidence? Because they can't and that scares them.
It should also scare us.
I gave up on this thread ages ago. You two should get a room.
TimThis is our room! That's why I wanted it moved from the good morning thread.
GeoffLet's take your assertions one at a time.
"The evidence is still unproven..." Sorry, but no. The weight of evidence is overwhelming. We've had five IPCC reports and hundreds (if not thousands) of other independent reports.
"If the NGOs and political parties like the Greens have their way our children and their children will be reduced to a medieval life..." Ahem. The evidence is not coming from NGOs or political parties. It is coming from genuine scientists from many different disciplines and employed by many different organisations.
"The link between CO2 emissions and global warming is proving increasingly implausible as time goes on ..." Let me see, an unprecedented rise in global temperatures at the same time as an unprecedented release of CO2 into the atmosphere due to man's activities. Think about that for a minute.
A layman might expect a simple linear relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. But anyone who knows about climate knows there are many factors affecting temperatures. And while the temperature rise has slowed, the changes in sea level, arctic ice and extreme weather patterns has not.
"The Global Warming industry" ... Nope, there is no industry. There is a consensus based on overwhelming evidence. Climate change is bad for industry because its core message is that we should consume less.
"There continues to be too many people who are unconvinced that Global Warming is man made." How do you know this? All the credible science is pointing towards one conclusion. Arguing against it are an increasingly small number of non-scientists. Who are you going to trust?
The truth here is that people deny climate change despite all the evidence because they don't want it to be true. But that's no basis for a conclusion, especially when the implications are as massive as this.
"Interestingly, a large number of these objectors are in the areas of physical and geological science." Nope. Sorry, but no. The anti climate change lobby would like us to believe that they have scientists on their side. But when you look closely at their claims, there are very few scientists denying climate change. Some scientists quibble with some of the conclusions and the degree to which climate change is man-made. That's healthy peer challenge.
But most of the vociferous anti climate change people are non scientists.
"If they are so convinced of their case, why are they spending enormous amounts of money on trying to convince us rather than providing conclusive evidence? Because they can't and that scares them."
Not sure I understand this point, or if it is a point. We are spending money to research climate change because it's important and the implications are potentially severe. This research is then being published and subject to peer review. The peer review process is increasingly confirming the core theory - that the planet is warming to hazardous levels and that man's activities are partly to blame.
That research is both conclusive evidence and convincing. It is not a case of either one or the other.
The debate moves on. There was a time when the deniers were telling us that the climate wasn't getting warmer. They have largely given up on that one, as the evidence became too strong. Then they tried to argue that it wasn't at all man-made. That argument too disappeared in the face of the evidence. Now the argument is largely about what proportion of the warming is due to man and what we should do about it.
And at each stage the deniers are proved wrong and they move on to a new argument. Trying to pick holes in the face of overwhelming evidence because they don't want it to be true.
Will, you are too stubborn and pig headed to ever find questioning acceptable. This is why your kind are so dangerous. We as a race cannot afford people with your blinkered approach to science.You are treating science like the church treated Galileo. Excellent scientists are being hounded out of their work and their funding is being withdrawn because they dare to question the consensus. There are severe problems with the science of global warming, which is why the Global Warming industry (And it is an industry, what else do you call something that is estimated to cost $1.2 trillion dollars, by some reports that many consider too conservative.)
It is people like you, who accept everything that will be the destruction of our civilisation, not Global Warming. In a previous life you would have been working for the church, howling down Darwin.
Bless! Resorting to insults again. It's what people generally do when they run out of arguments.Darwin and Galileo based their conclusions on evidence. They were challenged by people with no evidence who didn't want them to be right.
The reason that the vast majority of the scientific community believe in climate change is because of the evidence. They are being opposed by a minority with no evidence who don't want them to be right.
The armchair expert climate change deniers are about as far away from Darwin as it is possible to get.
A case in point. You casually tossed into the conversation the figure of $1.2 trillion as justification for global warming being an industry.
So I Googled "climate change 1.2 trillion dollars" to see where that figure came from. Try it for yourself.
And what I found is that $1.2 trillion is the latest estimate of the impact of climate change on the world's economies. It is emphatically not the profit being made by some hidden industry on the back of climate change. It is how much we are losing a year because of damage caused by climate change.
This is not profit. It is the cost of inaction. Add to that the 400,000 direct deaths and 4.5 million indirect deaths highlighted by the same report.
Don't believe me? Then read for yourself...
http://www.theguardian.com/environmen...
This just happens to be the first link of many I could have given.
So you've done it again. You have thrown a figure that you don't understand into the argument because you think it backs up your argument. It doesn't. It proves the exact opposite of the point you were trying to make.
I've got a lot of sympathy for your idea of challenging accepted statements and thinking for yourself. That's perfectly healthy.
What I don't understand is why you are not turning that same challenge towards the flimsy arguments from the climate change deniers.
My guess is that you don't want climate change to be true. I can sympathise with that too. Frankly, none of want climate change to be true. But that doesn't mean that we should twist the evidence to try to "prove" that climate change isn't a problem.
message 116:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 03, 2015 04:06AM)
(new)
I'm sorry Will, there are none so blind as those who will not see (Oh, I see the appropriateness of that now.). You are an example of this.Your guess is wrong regarding global warming. I neither want global warming or not want global warning to be true. What I want is for us to be right about global warming. That point is a very long way away. Any sensible person would agree with that. Instead, what is happening is that the debate on warming is being deliberately stifled. Our interactions here are a perfect microcosm of that restriction. Your continued use of denigration against any scientist that disagrees with your personal viewpoint is symptomatic of the problems that free speech in this area has.
For example, the report I posted the link to earlier, you have deliberately refused to comment on. The Royal Society has serious problems and is, very sadly, declining in credibility in this area due to its poor choices of presidents, past and present. Gifted people who have stepped beyond their field of expertise.
Do you not care that the man-made Global Warming debate might be wrong? Are you not worried that the things we are doing to prevent something that may not exist may in turn destroy our civilisation? I am.
Are you so certain, absolutely certain, that all the contrary evidence can be ignored or ridiculed? If so, then this can never be a debate, just a rant on your part.
I am willing to constantly investigate the evidence both for and against man-made climate change and will continue to do so. You, on the other hand, are not interested in investigating anything that is outside of your comfort zone.
I will change my opinion if the weight of evidence shows that man-made warming is real. There is currently far too much evidence that puts this in doubt.
Tolstoy observed that prostitutes seek out the company of their peers, as they know that they will not judge them. This is something that is heavily used in his books in general, as well as in this example. Climate change believers have the same problem, they seek peers with the same belief set. That is human nature. They use that reinforcement to decry anyone who disagrees with their point of view. This must always be challenged.
Are you prepared to change?
Geoff, Will has repeatedly stated that his opinion is based on what all the evidence is showing so he clearly does care that the debate might be wrong... but as he has pointed out at least twice, the debate itself has shifted as the weight of evidence moves against those who are denying that anything is wrong.
message 118:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 03, 2015 05:07AM)
(new)
Michael wrote: "Geoff, Will has repeatedly stated that his opinion is based on what all the evidence is showing so he clearly does care that the debate might be wrong... but as he has pointed out at least twice, t..."And as I have repeatedly said, the consensus is not driven by any shift in science. In fact, the base argument that CO2 drives Anthropogenic Climate Change is proving more and more to be incorrect. Hence the desperate efforts to try and explain why the Earth's temperature rise is stalling whilst CO2 levels continue to rise. The elephant in the room cannot continue to be ignored.
The problem is that the climate advocates are scared that the politicians will not understand if they show any weakness in their arguments. I can understand that, but the side effects that is creating is that it is deliberately stifling any debate on whether they may be wrong. Read the report on the Royal Society I have linked to earlier and tell me you are not worried.
I disagree with your opinion that Will is worried that the debate is wrong. He has made up his mind and will not move. I do not expect him to change his position by the way, but I will not stand by and allow him to carry a false premise forward without challenge. I will therefore continue to post for as long as he keeps misrepresenting the fact that there is a significant minority of scientists that believe the accepted hypothesis is incorrect.
GeoffThe evidence is there. We have had a very open debate over the past couple of decades. The IPCC and many others have published their findings.
I read the "report" you linked to. It is mostly an attack on the Royal Society for taking a stance on climate change. It is written by Andrew Montford on behalf of an organisation called the Global Warming Policy Foundation.
Who are the Global Warming Policy Foundation? They are a think tank established by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser specifically to counter arguments about climate change.
According to they are website, they "are deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated."
So let's get this straight. An organisation set up specifically to attack climate change is criticising the Royal Society for defending climate change? That would be both silly and funny if the subject wasn't so serious.
And after they have finished trying to land a blow on the Royal Society, are they going to turn their attention to criticising NASA or the IPCC or the Environment Agency or ... any one of several hundred organisations who are all saying the same thing?
By all means read reports like this. Then read reports on the other side of the debate.
Oh, and take notice of the credentials of the authors. Andrew Montford, the author of your Royal Society report is a blogger. If he has an qualifications he is keeping them quiet. And while the report does list the people who are part of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, it also says this:
"Views expressed in the publications of the Global
Warming Policy Foundation are those of the authors,
not those of the GWPF, its Trustees, its Academic
Advisory Council members or its Directors."
So all those professors at the front of the report? They don't necessarily agree with it. And even if they do, I can't help feeling a strong sense of "so what?". I am not the slightest bit interested in the neutrality of the Royal Society. Frankly when the evidence is this strong they are right to champion it.
But the bit that made me smile was this sentence:
"Are you not worried that the things we are doing to prevent something that may not exist may in turn destroy our civilisation?"
What exactly might we do in response to climate change that could destroy our civilization?
Geoff, Will has repeatedly responded to the bit about CO2 levels.Most notably on page 2:
NASA is unequivocally not saying that temperatures have levelled off. Yes, there are variations from one year to the next. Yes, we don't fully understand the linkages between CO2 and global temperatures. Yes, there is an interesting question about why the deep ocean abysses aren't warming up as much as we might expect.
But the overall trend is undeniably upwards.
Michael wrote: "Geoff, Will has repeatedly responded to the bit about CO2 levels.Most notably on page 2:
NASA is unequivocally not saying that temperatures have levelled off. Yes, there are variations from one ..."
That is a very clever statement and does not tell the whole story. How can he possibly state that "...the overall trend is undeniably upwards." when there has been little of no change for 15 years?
Because history goes back further than 15 years.
Feel sorry for me.As the mod, I feel obligated to read this thread. :(
You two owe me cookies. And wine. Lots of wine.
See here:http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestayl...
And also:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/...
Personally, I find this as unbelievable as many of the pro-warming ones. NASA are spouting that the deep oceans haven't warmed, when they admit that they have not had the equipment to measure these temperatures until recently.
This is one of the reasons that I do not trust the climate warming consensus.
GeoffOne of the tricks that people use when they want to misrepresent the truth is to show only a part of the picture. That can include showing only a few years from a data series which runs for much longer.
A far more honest approach is to look at all the years for which we have data.
We have reasonably reliable global temperatures going back to the 1880s. These show temperatures falling until around 1910 and then rising steadily after that. The increase in temperature isn't constant. Some years are colder than the year before them. But if you draw a trend from 1910 to the current day, the line is undeniably upwards.
The "levelling off" is a period from 2000 to 2014 when temperatures have increased more slowly than before. We don't fully understand why this has happened. But let's be very clear. If this is a levelling off, it is at a peak which we have never reached before. The fifteen warmest years on record have all occurred in this century.
Does this mean that climate change isn't a problem any more? No, of course it doesn't. Because while the global temperatures have remained reasonably static, other parts of climate change have continued to get worse. The sea levels are still rising and damaging weather events are getting more common.
Look at all of the picture, not just the bit convenient for your argument.
There has been no disagreement from me that global temperatures have risen over time, I have stated this multiple times previously, despite best endeavours to ignore it.What is a fact is that temperatures over the last 15 years have been "levelling off". CO2 levels, on the other hand, appear to have increased from 349ppm in 1987 to 398ppm in 2014 (source http://co2now.org/). Satellites have only been used as a basis of global temperature measurement since 1978. As I have constantly stated elsewhere, the ground based weather stations, for many reasons, are not a reliable indicator of global temperatures, due to natural inaccuracy, changes in station circumstances, reduction in the number of stations themselves, manipulation of data sets, etc.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Feel sorry for me.As the mod, I feel obligated to read this thread. :(
You two owe me cookies. And wine. Lots of wine."
Ah, but you can reproduce this thread as an e-book titled "Fifty Tirades a Day!" Confusion with that other "Fifty" book might generate enough revenue to get you those cookies and a bottle of wine.
David wrote: "Patti (baconater) wrote: "Feel sorry for me.As the mod, I feel obligated to read this thread. :(
You two owe me cookies. And wine. Lots of wine."
Ah, but you can reproduce this thread as an e-book titled "Fifty Tirades a Day!" Confusion with that other "Fifty" book might generate enough revenue to get you those cookies and a bottle of wine."
Cookie (singular) maybe.
GeoffI've covered this point many times. Here we go again...
It would be nice and simple if there was a simple correlation between one input and one output. One cause = one effect. Life would be so much easier (although a damn sight more scary) if CO2 and global warming were directly tied to each other.
But it simply doesn't work that way. Our climate is complicated with many inputs and many outputs. There are also a number of feedback loops that we don't fully understand. For example melting polar ice caps dump a large amount of freshwater into the sea. What does this do to the gulf stream and other ocean currents?
So yes in the past 15 years CO2 levels have risen more quickly than temperatures. This doesn't disprove a link between CO2 and temperature. It simply shows that CO2 isn't the only thing affecting temperature. But we knew that already.
In the last 15 years, CO2 levels have risen, sea levels have risen, extreme weather events have increased, polar ice has retreated. Global temperatures haven't risen by as much as we might have expected, but they haven't fallen either.
A very funny thing is happening here. The climate change deniers delight in pointing out that there are natural sources of CO2, such as volcanoes and cows.
And they are quite right. There are natural sources of CO2.
They also like to point out that CO2 isn't the only thing warming the Earth, such as solar activity. And they are quite right about that too. CO2 isn't the only cause of global warming.
But then when it suits their argument the deniers forget all about natural CO2 or non-CO2 warming and try to draw a direct link between CO2 and temperature.
Climate change is complicated. We don't fully understand it. But we do have ample evidence to show that our climate is changing as a result of man's activities.
You haven't answered my question:
What exactly might we do in response to climate change that could destroy our civilization?
I've already answered that question, Will. Do keep up.
Ding ding! End of Round One. Commercial Break:A climate scientist and a climate change denier walk into a bar. The denier says, 'bartender, show me your strongest whiskey.' The bartender says, 'this one here. It's 95 percent alcohol.' The denier slams down his fist and leaves the bar in a hurry. The scientist says, 'you know, that's the problem with these guys. You show them the proof, and they still don't buy it.'
My wife left me because of my views on the environment.
I tried saving water by showering with the neighbour's daughter.
I went to the greengrocers today and I picked up an iceberg lettuce. I said to the man at the counter, "Why is it these seem to be getting smaller and smaller?"
"Global warming." He replied.
We produce 48% more carbon emissions than we did in the 1970s but that figure could be halved if we just divide it by two.
Scientists are 95% certain that mankind has caused global warming, leaving a 6% chance they did the maths wrong.
(Courtesy of Sickipedia.org:)
Okay Geoff and Will. Ding ding, Round Two.
Carry on.
Pete wrote: "Ding ding! End of Round One. Commercial Break:A climate scientist and a climate change denier walk into a bar. The denier says, 'bartender, show me your strongest whiskey.' The bartender says, 't..."
Did they have: "Is the planet heating up, or are you just glad to see me?"
David wrote: Did they have: "Is the planet heating up, or are you just glad to see me?" "Nice one!
Pete wrote: "David wrote: Did they have: "Is the planet heating up, or are you just glad to see me?" "Nice one!"
Ah, but is science on your side, or is that just your opinion? lol
Damn. Meant to lock thus thread. ;)
Patti - yes, but if you lock this thread it will only wriggle out somewhere else. And at least if we have it here it doesn't pollute the good morning thread.Geoff - Booker was talking rubbish before, and he's still talking rubbish.
It does not matter whether 2014 was the hottest year on record, or the second hottest, or the third hottest. It was pretty hot.
And isn't it funny that he denies climate change and then goes on to say: "In the north-eastern US, the past month has been the coldest since records were kept, and four of the five Great Lakes are on the verge of freezing over completely for the first time in living memory. Snow has fallen in Greece and across the Middle East as far south as Saudi Arabia, where locals gleefully building snowmen were greeted by a fatwa sternly pointing out that to make images of animate creatures was an offence against Islamic law."
In other words, he himself is pointing out examples of climate change in order to challenge climate change. I'm amazed he can do that with a straight face.
All global temperature data are adjusted. They always have been and probably always will be, because of the difficulty of measuring something as large as a planet.
And yes he did get 30,000 comments on his last article. But what he doesn't say is what proportion of them were pointing out the flaws in his arguments.
Keep on posting and I will keep on knocking them over. This topic is too important to allow people like Christopher Booker to go unchallenged.
Good try Will, nice piece of rubbish you're spouting there.Booker is denying athropometric climate change. The quote you copied so assiduously supports his contention completely.
If you are going to quote someone, please at least get your facts right.
Do we need to do this again? Booker is trying to quibble about whether 2014 was or was not the hottest year on record. Which is a pointless exercise since it doesn't matter. There will almost certainly be a hotter year still along soon.
He is not just denying that climate change is partly caused by man, he is also trying to argue about the level of climate change that is happening. And to do this he uses examples of climate change.
His article starts with this "Mother Nature has certainly been showing her amusement at those excitable claims last month that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”.
And then he goes on to give examples of unprecedented cold weather.
His logic seems to be that the world can't be getting warmer since there are examples of extreme cold weather. And that frankly shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about. The earth, as a whole, is getting hotter. While this is happening we are seeing highly variable climate patterns, including the ones he has quoted.
The Earth does not heat up or cool down uniformly. Everyone who knows about climate and weather learns this almost from day one. The fact that the Great Lakes have frozen does not mean that the earth isn't getting hotter. This is such a basic point, it's astonishing that he either doesn't know it or conveniently isn't mentioning it.
In fact, look at it this way. 2014 was either the hottest year on record or very close to it - and this happened at the same time as all the cold things that he mentioned. And what is that if not climate change?
But let's try to manage without the insults, okay? I quoted Booker because you did, and because the contradictions in his article are so self evident.
message 142:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 22, 2015 06:34AM)
(new)
The classic response expected from someone who believes that Global Warming exists - If it's hotter then it's climate change, if it's colder, it's just weather.
No - it's the only response possible from anyone who knows anything about climate change.The world has been getting steadily warmer. That is undeniable, even to the most stubborn of deniers. 2014 may or may not have been hottest on record, but it doesn't matter. That's just nit-picking.
As part of the process of warming we are seeing highly variable weather patterns such as the ones that Christopher Booker has so eloquently described. Some parts of the world will get wetter, drier, hotter, cooler.
The climate is changing - it's called climate change.
The earth is getting hotter - it's called global warming.
Weather is the stuff we see from day to day. Climate refers to the patterns of weather over a longer period.
Sorry Geoff, but the moment you quote Booker I lose interest. The man writes purely to provoke a reaction. His many targets include the Theory of Evolution, arguing in favour of Intelligent Intervention. He is not a journalist worthy of my time.
message 145:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 22, 2015 09:57AM)
(new)
I remember the famous scientific movement of the late 1970s who were telling us that we were slipping back into another ice age. is many targets include the Theory of Evolution, arguing in favour of Intelligent Intervention. He is not a journalist worthy of my time.
I think that accusation deserves documentary evidence BJ, if you expect me to continue to view you with any credibility.
will,I will continue to post in this thread. Whether you feel you wish to ignore the obvious is up to you. As you have already done with the report on the Royal Society you keep ignoring.
GeoffIt's a free country. Keep on posting and I'll keep on replying. We're in danger of repeating ourselves on some very simple science, but if that is what it takes, that's what we will do.
I dealt with the "report" on the Royal Society in post 119. Written by another blogger with zero qualifications and with virtually no facts or science in it. It seemed to be more of a rant piece than anything to be taken seriously.
BTW, Christopher Booker's views on intelligent design vs evolution are well known:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/co...
While we are on the topic he also has ... ahem ... unusual views on subjects as diverse as the risk to health of asbestos and passive smoking and the value of the family courts system.
I wouldn't mind any of that if he was talking sense about climate change. But he isn't. He has reached a conclusion and is determined to "prove" it whatever the evidence says.
Mind you, he does have some entertainment value. I couldn't resist a giggle when he tried to use examples of climate change to deny climate change. Or claiming that he had 30,000 comments on his earlier piece without admitting that a fair few were criticising him.
message 148:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 22, 2015 10:55AM)
(new)
Despite having "zero qualifications" as you so insultingly state (He actually has a degree in chemistry and is a chartered accountant.) his analysis has proved correct on a number of occasions, particularly with regards to Climategate.To quote your favourite newspaper:
Montford's report, The Climategate Inquiries, was published in September 2010.[23] Fred Pearce writes in The Guardian that the three inquiries Montford looked into were all badly flawed, and that Montford's report dissects their systemic failures. He writes that the report, "for all its sharp—and in many cases justified—rejoinders to the official inquiries ... is likely to be ignored in some quarters for its brazen hypocrisy." Pearce argues that one of the criticisms of the three inquiries was that no climate sceptics were on the inquiry teams, and now the critics themselves have produced a review of the reviews that included no one not already supportive of the sceptical position. But, Pearce added, Montford "has landed some good blows here.
Pearce, Fred. "Montford lands some solid blows in review of 'climategate' inquiries", The Guardian, 14 September 2010.
GeoffIt just keeps on getting better! Here is the full Guardian report:
http://www.theguardian.com/environmen...
The bit you quoted is "Montford has landed some good blows here." Naturally you didn't quote it in full. This is the full headline:
"Andrew Montford's report for Lord Lawson's sceptic thinktank raises some valid criticisms but will most likely be ignored for its brazen hypocrisy"
And if you read the article ... ALL of it ... you will see that it says absolutely nothing about climate change not being real or not being man made. All it says that three relatively minor inquiries could have been better handled. But it also criticises the GWPF report for being written by an organisation which sets out to attack climate change - which was precisely my objection too.
The trick is to read things in full, not just the bits that you think support your argument.
message 150:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Feb 22, 2015 11:29AM)
(new)
Pot and kettles, Will. Your favourite trick is to ridicule everything that you disagree with.You are always ready to decry as crackpots and uneducated and yet, when someone speaks completely outside their area of expertise you ignore this as it supports your perceived view.
