That's one such argument, yes. I was only saying last week to my girlfriend that I felt like a serf!
But I the point I'm making is he's an activist who's proposed solution to the CO2 "problem" is to revert to a totalitarian system and then roll-back the industrial age. Of course people like him would be Disinterested Philosopher Kings (Plato) in his utopian world and people like you wouldn't get a vote, even though as you suggest, the vote is only a kind-of mob placebo in the grand scheme of things.
It can't be measured to that accuracy, and also it wouldn't surprise me if it's been "adjusted" - as so much is these days. In conclusion, it's probably bollocks.
No, a typical tactic of you warmongerers is to shoot the messenger. You're all very fond of arguments from authority, as long as you get to define what "authority" actually is.
I have proof. Look at the Vostok and Greenland cores. And not having a background in climatology is a positive benefit to keeping an open mind, don't you agree?
Haha. That is funny, yes, because it's a complete load of bollocks. It started dying in 2009 when the CRU emails were released and it's been slowly losing traction ever since. Copenhagen? Failure. Cancun? Failure. Public interest is declining (according to polls). Countries are expressing their feelings about it (Japan won't do anything, neither will China, neither will India and neither will the USA). People like you are true believers, however.
The IPCC have stated that's what they want. Here's a direct quote for you:
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more. One must clearly say that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy – Ottmar Edenhofer
Notice I did not say that the banks and financial institutions (who promote AGW, like Deutsch and Sachs do) have the same agenda as the IPCC. Their ends merely coincide. The banks would dearly love to trade trillions in global carbon credits. It would make them billions in commissions. A lot of them setup trading desks. Unfortunately as this whole concept has been exposed as a scam, many of them have closed them again (haha).
Sorry, I asked for a huge consequence. What you provided was a link to something that demonstrated a change. Given that change occurs constantly, it's really a pretty neat trick to present it as somehow "huge" and "unprecedented".
I have no idea what you're wittering on about. It's clear to me that whenever something that confirms your thesis happens it's "climate" and whenever something that contradicts it happens you call it "weather". Would you care to suggest some way of falsifying your hypothesis? Because as far as I know, no such proposal has ever been put forward.
Indeed we have. We also regularly build housing estates on flood plains. Where I live, there were huge floods in the 1940's (1947 & 49). Since then, an elaborate serious of gates, ditches, drains and sluices have been constructed to protect the area from further flooding. It's called mitigation. The Fens are below sea level and were reclaimed from marshland by Dutch engineers in the 1800's. Indeed, my town used to be called The Isle of Ely, rather than just Ely as it's known today. So, you know, we will adapt the environment to our needs as well as adapting ourselves to a changing environment. It's what we've been doing for millennia and it's what we'll continue to do into the future.
He's not anti-technocracy (if you'll forgive the double negative), which many members of the environmental movement take as one of their principle beliefs, from Konrad Lorenz onwards. He is still an environmentalist, however.
Can you point to a consequence that has been huge over, say, the last 50 years? No, you can't. The consequences are huge if the more outlandish models are correct (10F-15F), but of course given current temperatures are within the bounds of natural variability and over the medium and long term indistinguishable from noise, it's hardly cause for concern.
James Hansen is delusional. He recently praised the Chinese political system for being able to "get things done". Like a lot of lunatic environmentalists, he's anti-libertarian and anti-democratic.
Yes, I agree we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels over the medium term, but we don't need to destroy public trust in science, scientists and the scientific method in order to make it a priority. If you're suggesting the ends justify the means, I would humbly submit that in this case they are harmful, rather than beneficial, to civilisation.
You can however measure sea level to an accuracy of quite a lot less than 1mm if you average enough measurements over enough places and times and use modern instruments.
You can't, because there's no way of distinguishing between sea level rise, ocean floor movement, gravitational anomaly, or any of the other dozen or so variables that affect the height of the sea. "averaging" will not give you a reliable measure.
Looking forward, a rise in global average temperatures of 2 K or more as the vast majority of relevant experts predict for the rest of this century would almost surely cause a largish rise is sea level due to melting of ice which is currently supported by land in Greenland and some parts of Antarctica
So please explain to me how it is that despite a rise of 0.6C in temperature, there has been no acceleration in sea level. It's rising at its historical trend rate. Indeed, it actually slowed a little recently, if you believe the measurements (which I don't). Antartica and Greenland aren't at -2C, they are far colder than that, so the point at which it all starts melting is going to be an awful lot warmer than 2K. Antarctica has been gaining ice relatively consistently over the last few decades.
There is no empirical data showing that Co2 caused an increase in 20th century temperature. There is a weak correlation between Co2 and temperature in the 20th century. There is a stronger correlation between the PDO and solar activity. But you will ignore the latter, because the former suits your political opinions better.
Don't be silly. Climate change was political from the moment political activist James Hansen put it on the map by sliming all over congress, in the 1980's. The issue of harm to the environment is a good one and something I fully support (not harming it, trying not to harm it). What I disagree with - and in this I'm in agreement with one of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore - is that CO2 is in any way harmful to the environment. And that as a consequence of this obsessing over a few tenths of a degree increase in temperature, we're spending huge sums of money on things that are likely to make absolutely no difference whatsoever, ignoring all of the other problems that we really need to be dealing with.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one such argument, yes. I was only saying last week to my girlfriend that I felt like a serf!
But I the point I'm making is he's an activist who's proposed solution to the CO2 "problem" is to revert to a totalitarian system and then roll-back the industrial age. Of course people like him would be Disinterested Philosopher Kings (Plato) in his utopian world and people like you wouldn't get a vote, even though as you suggest, the vote is only a kind-of mob placebo in the grand scheme of things.
It can't be measured to that accuracy, and also it wouldn't surprise me if it's been "adjusted" - as so much is these days. In conclusion, it's probably bollocks.
No, a typical tactic of you warmongerers is to shoot the messenger. You're all very fond of arguments from authority, as long as you get to define what "authority" actually is.
How do you know they aren't shrinking entirely naturally, as they would have in any case?
Where have I contradicted myself? Got to watch the pea under the thimble with you lot. You spend a lot of time making stuff up.
He gave the game away, didn't he?
Yes.
I have proof. Look at the Vostok and Greenland cores. And not having a background in climatology is a positive benefit to keeping an open mind, don't you agree?
Haha. That is funny, yes, because it's a complete load of bollocks. It started dying in 2009 when the CRU emails were released and it's been slowly losing traction ever since. Copenhagen? Failure. Cancun? Failure. Public interest is declining (according to polls). Countries are expressing their feelings about it (Japan won't do anything, neither will China, neither will India and neither will the USA). People like you are true believers, however.
Notice I did not say that the banks and financial institutions (who promote AGW, like Deutsch and Sachs do) have the same agenda as the IPCC. Their ends merely coincide. The banks would dearly love to trade trillions in global carbon credits. It would make them billions in commissions. A lot of them setup trading desks. Unfortunately as this whole concept has been exposed as a scam, many of them have closed them again (haha).
Sorry, I asked for a huge consequence. What you provided was a link to something that demonstrated a change. Given that change occurs constantly, it's really a pretty neat trick to present it as somehow "huge" and "unprecedented".
Current temperatures are not changing in any way outside of the bounds of natural variation. If you stretch out any segment of a random plot, as that image shows, it will look significant. However, if you plot the graph with more reasonable axis, you will see it's almost imperceptible noise.
I see you've fallen for the oldest trick in the book: crop and scale.
I know what temperature is you patronising git. I develop infra-red sensors for a living.
Yes he does.
Grant funding.
I have no idea what you're wittering on about. It's clear to me that whenever something that confirms your thesis happens it's "climate" and whenever something that contradicts it happens you call it "weather". Would you care to suggest some way of falsifying your hypothesis? Because as far as I know, no such proposal has ever been put forward.
Indeed we have. We also regularly build housing estates on flood plains. Where I live, there were huge floods in the 1940's (1947 & 49). Since then, an elaborate serious of gates, ditches, drains and sluices have been constructed to protect the area from further flooding. It's called mitigation. The Fens are below sea level and were reclaimed from marshland by Dutch engineers in the 1800's. Indeed, my town used to be called The Isle of Ely, rather than just Ely as it's known today. So, you know, we will adapt the environment to our needs as well as adapting ourselves to a changing environment. It's what we've been doing for millennia and it's what we'll continue to do into the future.
Oh really, is he? Is his name William Connolley, by any chance?
He's not anti-technocracy (if you'll forgive the double negative), which many members of the environmental movement take as one of their principle beliefs, from Konrad Lorenz onwards. He is still an environmentalist, however.
Can you point to a consequence that has been huge over, say, the last 50 years? No, you can't. The consequences are huge if the more outlandish models are correct (10F-15F), but of course given current temperatures are within the bounds of natural variability and over the medium and long term indistinguishable from noise, it's hardly cause for concern.
I wish Exxon paid me for me denialism. I seriously do.
James Hansen is delusional. He recently praised the Chinese political system for being able to "get things done". Like a lot of lunatic environmentalists, he's anti-libertarian and anti-democratic.
Yes, I agree we need to find alternatives to fossil fuels over the medium term, but we don't need to destroy public trust in science, scientists and the scientific method in order to make it a priority. If you're suggesting the ends justify the means, I would humbly submit that in this case they are harmful, rather than beneficial, to civilisation.
You can't, because there's no way of distinguishing between sea level rise, ocean floor movement, gravitational anomaly, or any of the other dozen or so variables that affect the height of the sea. "averaging" will not give you a reliable measure.
So please explain to me how it is that despite a rise of 0.6C in temperature, there has been no acceleration in sea level. It's rising at its historical trend rate. Indeed, it actually slowed a little recently, if you believe the measurements (which I don't). Antartica and Greenland aren't at -2C, they are far colder than that, so the point at which it all starts melting is going to be an awful lot warmer than 2K. Antarctica has been gaining ice relatively consistently over the last few decades.
There is no empirical data showing that Co2 caused an increase in 20th century temperature. There is a weak correlation between Co2 and temperature in the 20th century. There is a stronger correlation between the PDO and solar activity. But you will ignore the latter, because the former suits your political opinions better.
Don't be silly. Climate change was political from the moment political activist James Hansen put it on the map by sliming all over congress, in the 1980's. The issue of harm to the environment is a good one and something I fully support (not harming it, trying not to harm it). What I disagree with - and in this I'm in agreement with one of the founders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore - is that CO2 is in any way harmful to the environment. And that as a consequence of this obsessing over a few tenths of a degree increase in temperature, we're spending huge sums of money on things that are likely to make absolutely no difference whatsoever, ignoring all of the other problems that we really need to be dealing with.
I don't know any creationists and I don't often see them here either. It's obvious astroturfing. I'd love to see the server logs.