http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

Who's clutching at straws?

 

Isn't it strange that all the sun behind the climate changes reports casting doubt on the man-made global warming theories, well, actually, "models", didn't get headlined by the Beeb like this?

 

But as soon as ONE report casting doubt on all the sun behind the climate changes reports surfaces: all of a sudden it's definitive proof that all the unreported sun behind the climate changes reports are wrong!

 

Oh, and hasn't the earth actually been cooling overall recently, with the warming of earlier in the last century having levelled off?

 

It's never as simple as they try to make out, is it?

 

 

> It's never as simple as they try to make out, is it?

The only person trying to make out that global warming is simple is you, BJ, with your naive and, let's be frank, completely ridiculous presumption that the establishment view is always wrong because the establishment is a lot stupider than you and always has an evil agenda.

Au contraire!

 

I've never tried to make out that global warming is simple.

 

It is you, the natural climate change denier establishment, with your naive and, let's be frank, completely ridiculous presumption that the only driver in climate change is the entrapment of heat by CO2, who says it is simple.

 

And whose view must be always wrong because they continually backtrack to try to wriggle out of being found out to be wrong.

 

And so have established they are a lot stupider than I.

 

Or that they have an evil agenda.

 

 

Is this the straw you were clutching at, FW:

 

You Can't Tax the Sun for Shining

So They Keep the Focus on You and Me

A new paper has been published which claims that the Sun cannot be implicated in the past 20 years of global warming. As expected, the usual suspects have lined up to proclaim the death of the Solar link to global warming and that the 'science is settled', despite the fact that the 2007 SPM of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report rates the level of scientific understanding of solar irradiance as 'low' and other solar factors such as eruptive cycles as 'very low.'

Bizarrely, one of the authors admits that the ecomyth-busting Wag TV documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' was part of the reason for writing the paper.

The paper confirms that there is considerable evidence for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate. It also concedes that it was an influence for the first half of the 20th Century, up to 1985, and that "solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown". Yet, this unknown factor is dismissed as being irrelevant. There is also some support for the ABD prediction that solar activity is heading for a fall: "mean values will decline over the next century. This would reduce the solar forcing of climate..." The solar eruptivity/cosmic ray/cloud formation link to climate change is dismissed without being discussed in detail, yet the co-author Claus Frohlich works at CERN, in Switzerland, where the cosmic ray/cloud experiment isn't due to be completed until 2010.

ABD environment spokesman Ben Adams said, "Once again we hear claims that the science is settled despite overwhelming evidence suggesting otherwise. The claimed 0.4C warming from 1985 includes a temperature boost from the natural phenomenon known as El Nino in 1998, concerns over a warm bias in the near surface temperature data, and the possible effect of land use changes. There's also the issue of how tropospheric amplification (warming), predicted by computer climate models, is still AWOL."

"Yet, on the basis of a PR statement drawn from incomplete research, we're all expected to give up our cars and our freedom of mobility, and hand over more of our already heavily taxed income to profligate politicians who will - allegedly - save the planet by wasting money and energy on projects related to re-election or pop culture rather than mitigation of climate change impacts. If the UK's carbon emissions stopped overnight, which eco-extremists would like to see, we would undergo economic collapse and regression to a localised medieval lifestyle while watching China make up the deficit in 700 days involving coal fired power stations built using subsidies from the UK government (Hansard 7th November 2002) as part of a package totalling more than £1.5 billion. You couldn't make this stuff up."


Notes for Editors:

Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, by Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

Predictable BBC: 'No Sun link' to climate change
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6290228.stm

Dr Nir Shaviv: CO2 or Solar?

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

CERN Press Release on the CLOUD experiment

http://press.web.cern.ch/press/PressReleases/Releases2006/PR14.06E.html

From your mates at the ABD.

 

Oh, BJ, you are such a joke. Let's see. Whom should one believe on matters relating to climate change? A scientist who actually gets off his backside and does some research which he then submits through a refereed process to an established scientific journal, or the Association of British Drivers, whose "environment spokesman" spouts some meaningless twaddle in a press release? Tough call.

I'd suggest that, unlike Mr Adams of ABD, you go and read Professor Lockwood's paper. Then again, it's got scary science with sums and everything in it. Perhaps you should stick to cutting and pasting meaningless press releases, which seems to be about your limit.

Oh, FW, you are such a joke. Let's see. Whom should one believe on matters relating to climate change? A scientist who allegedly gets off his backside and does some state-sponsored (Carbon Tax funded?) research which he then submits, though the experiment has just started, and won't produce its results until the end of the decade, through a "refereed" process to an established scientific journal, even though the "estasblished" journals don't seem to want to referee climate change sceptical papers.

 

Or the Association of British Drivers, whose "environment spokesman" spouts some meaningless twaddle in a press release?

Like the links he supplied.

 

Tough call.

I'd suggest that, unlike Mr Adams of ABD, you go and read Professor Lockwood's paper.

Why?

Do you think it a good think that people read pre-judged, presumptive papers prepared before the preparatory work has produced results?

 

> Why?
>
> Do you think it a good think that people read pre-judged,
> presumptive papers prepared before the preparatory work has
> produced results?

Still not read it yet then, BJ? I do understand. All those long words. And maths too. Bound to be a bit beyond someone of your, um, limited capacity.

So much easier to pretend that it is pre-judged and presumptive than to admit you are too stupid to follow its logic. Although quite how one is supposed to know that a piece of research is pre-judged and presumptive without having read it is a bit hard to understand for those of us who don't fall into your category of thick-as-the-proverbial.

Why am I mnot surprised you should ponder :lthough quite how one is supposed to know that a piece of research is pre-judged and presumptive without having read it is a bit hard to understand for those of us who don't fall into your category of thick-as-the-proverbial.

 

Errrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

When the researchers jet around the world saying flying fcuks the planet by warming it.

 

Then when someone points out it's seems to be getting colder they say that too.

 

And when somone says it's got wettter rather than drying they say, yup, that as well.

 

And finish off with anyone contradicting them doesn't count because they are probably getting their grants from Exxon, not a carbon tax funded slush fund!

 

I understand that it is a scary complicated world for someone with as tenuous a grasp on reality as you, BJ, which I guess explains why you clutch so frantically to these straws of simple-minded conspiracy theories rather than facing up to the fact that you are simply too dim to grasp the reality that global warming is not inconsistent with cooling in some places (including Britain if the Gulf Stream shuts down), and that scientists flying does not in any way diminish their argument that flying is bad for the planet.

Clearly it is you who has a tenuous a grasp on reality, FW!

Which I guess explains why you clutch so frantically to these straws of trying to accuse me of promoting simple-minded conspiracy theories rather than facing up to the fact that you are simply too dim to grasp the reality that natural global warming denial is  inconsistent.

 

Strange how they "forgot" to mention cooling in some places would be a "natural" result of "man-made" global warming until the sceptics pointed out it was happening.

And didn't things like this happen (including Britain cooling or the Gulf Stream shutting down) long before the 4x4? What wiped out the ancient Americvan civilisations and turned the Sarhara into a desert, for example?

And scientists, politicians and environMentalists flying does in every way diminish their argument that flying is bad for the planet.

 

They tell us that every little helps, regardless of what everyone else is doing.

 

But what they really mean is do as we say, not as wse do, and keep handing over the carbon taxes to pay for our first class flights!

 

> But what they really mean is do as we say, not as wse do, and
> keep handing over the carbon taxes to pay for our first class
> flights!

Your pathetic envy of anyone with the intellect to carry out original research rather than simply cutting and pasting what you find on random idiot websites shines like a beacon BJ.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahhaha

 

So now my unveiling of lying hypocrites who say we must make even the tiniest efforts to save the planet (or pay a tax) is allegedly just my:

pathetic envy of anyone with the intellect to carry out original research rather than simply cutting and pasting what you find on random idiot websites shines like a beacon BJ.

 

By the way, fancy a bargain?

I know someone who could sell you the Eiffel Tower at a knock down price!

 

As usual, BJ, your ambition far outpaces your intellectual ability. You haven't "unveiled" anything: you have neither demonstrated that the people who are smart enough to actually understand and do science are lying, nor have you demonstrated that they are hypocritical because they fly places while advocating that flying is bad for the planet. I would explain why such behaviour isn't hypocritical, but the reasoning is demonstrably beyond you.

You would explain why such behaviour isn't hypocritical, but the reasoning is demonstrably beyond me?

For once, you're right:

There's no way I could understand that the internet hadn't been invented yet.

That even telephony was still a technology of the future.

 

But I'd rather struggle with those.

Than not understand why if people insist that everyone has to make every single energy saving they can, however small or apparently insignificant.

They shouldn't then be flying half way round the world to pat themselves on the back and tell each other how they've just saved the planet.

 

Then again, I suppose I shouldn't let my enthusiasm run away with me and allow my ambition to far outpace my intellectual ability.

 

Like when I think I've "unveiled" something:

Such as when the people who are smart enough to actually understand and do science say that a third of accidents are caused by speeding.

And when challenged to back up their claims refer to TRS 323 as evidence.

And when asked to explain where TRS 323 shows that 30% of accidents are caused by speeding the people who are smart enough to actually understand and do science say that x% of accidents are caused by people misjudging the (legal, safe and appropriate) "speed" of an approaching vehicle when pulling out from junctions, and y% are caused by people pulling away from traffic lights (too "speedily"!) before they have changed, and z% are caused by people driving within the limit but at a "speed" too fast for the conditions, etc, etc, etc.

And when you add those up they come to 30%.

And when you add in the 3% of accidents caused by people driving below a minimum "speed" limit in the States it comes to a third.

 

And when people point out that none of those actually are cases where speeding caused an accident.

The people who are smart enough to actually understand and do science say oh, you can't rely on TRS 323 as evidence, because it wasn't a study into accident causation as such, although it did study it.

And the the proof is something else entirely.

Which they will publish just as soon as they manage to write it up.

But they've always had the real facts available to prove that "Speed Kills!".

They just didn't think they needed to publicise them.

As it's self evident that "Speed Kills!".

Any people who are smart enough to actually understand and do science know that.

And anyone who doesn't know that speed kills obviously isn't one of the people who are smart enough to actually understand and do science.

 

Now where have I heard that before?

Oh, I remember.

From the natural climate change deniers.

(The older ones of whom were the same ones who swore blind we were about to plunge into an ice age if we didn't reverse our capitalist urges.

And anyone who doesn't know that western consumption is going to plunge us into an ice age obviously isn't one of the people who are smart enough to actually understand and do science!)

 

So, remind me FW:

Aren't you one of the people who are smart enough to actually understand and do science.

 

I wouldn't boast about it, if I were you!

 

Sorry, did you say something BJ? I just heard this vague annoying self-important droning noise.

Clearly your blinkers have slipped over your ears.

Only to be expected when you wear them over rose tinted specs.