Your Bucks
Get involved: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting bfp news to 80360 or email »
'It is not all the fault of mankind'
12:24pm Friday 18th July 2008
Comments (74)RE:SNOW IN 1907 (BFP July 11)
UNLESS those who still follow the IPCC's crusade can satisfactorily answer last week's question posed by Anthony Weeden, we should continue to deride their persistent prattle claiming that mankind is
responsible for global warming'.
The pre-historic variations in global mean surface temperature referred to by Mr Weeden incorporate the results of analyses of ice core drillings made by the British Antarctic Survey in the 1990s.
These were published in The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's 22nd Report in June, 2000 (RCEP 22).
Fig.2-V of that report, entitled Energy -the Changing Climate', shows the near-synchronous variations in local surface temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide content which occurred during the past 450,000 years or so. Approximately every 100,000 years during that period, the Earth's local surface temperature, close to the South Pole, dropped jerkily from a peak to a trough about 13 degrees C lower, and then jumped back smoothly and rapidly to a similar peak.
In sympathy - though actually several decades afterwards - the carbon dioxide content fell jerkily from a peak of about 300 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a trough of about 180 ppmv, then rose (rapidly and mostly smoothly) back again to a similar peak.
From my own calculations of the greenhouse effect of global warming, assuming solar radiation to be constant during that period (which it clearly was not), the 120 ppmv change in carbon dioxide level could not have induced a global warming change of more than about 0.5 degrees C. These calculations also show that trimming carbon dioxide levels by the colossal 60% or so aimed at in the latest IPCC jamboree could not reduce the global mean surface temperature by more than about 0.25 degrees C assuming constant solar input.
Atmospheric water - in the form of vapour, liquid (cloud and rain) and solid (ice) - is by far the dominant greenhouse substance, swamping the small effects of carbon dioxide in even the highest concentrations we can possibly generate by burning carbonaceous fuels as if there were no tomorrow.
Cloud, as well as forming a significant part of the greenhouse blanket', is also a potent shield against the Sun's rays. By increasing its extent during prolonged warm periods it reflects solar energy back into space, and by reducing its extent during prolonged cold spells it lets more sunshine through. It thus acting as an automatic Venetian blind.
The carbon dioxide changes in the Vostok Ice Sheet core analyses can be explained as the result of photosynthesis.
A warm Earth stimulates plant growth and subsequent decay to produce both methane (a potent greenhouse gas) and carbon dioxide.
A cold Earth arrests plant decay and thus inhibits carbon dioxide production, while photosynthesis at a reduced rate continues to deplete the atmosphere's stock of this gas.
Pre-historic global warming is therefore clearly due mainly to causes other than carbon dioxide, and - since this is fundamentally an energy phenomenon - it has to be attributed to variations in solar energy received by the Earth. Changes in the Earth's orbit (the Milankovitch theory) and orientation (axial tilt and precession of the equinoxes) clearly play some part, but these are minor in comparison with changes in the Sun's energy output. Why? Simply because the shape of the temperature/time curve due to gravitational effects has to be symmetrical in order to be repeatable, whereas the dominant shapes shown of RCEP's Fig.2-V are strongly asymmetrical.
I suggest that these solar energy changes are the result of continuing variations in the Sun's internal thermo-nuclear activity. One explanation could be that the Sun alternately accretes interstellar hydrogen and deuterium by its intense gravitational power during periods when energy output is low, then brakes - or halts - such accretion when energy levels increase.
The rapid rise in radiation pressure which follows increasing core temperature propels interstellar matter away from the Sun, forming a powerful buffer.
Gravitational attraction acts much more gently during the longer decay period. There are, perhaps, other viable explanations Yes, mankind certainly affects global warming a little by the burning
of fossil fuels, and even just by breathing! But by far the greatest effect is created by the Sun's inherent energy variations, however caused, and to a lesser extent by the changes in the Earth's
orbit and the tilt of its axis of rotation. So there we have it!
Roderick Taylor
Chartered Engineer
Abbotsbrook
Bourne End
Your Say YourBucks Free Press
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:56am Sat 19 Jul 08
FAO Roderick. It has just occurred to me that we could meet up, over a coffee, to hold a civilised conversation about why we both feel as strongly and as certainly as we do about our very different 'positions'. It may be a complete waste of time, for both of us, but there is only one way to find out. Dave
tom, marlow says...
5:42pm Sat 19 Jul 08
Its nice to see that the chartered engineers now accept there is some human contribution.
Perhaps its a result of our friends at Exxon-Mobil putting out adverts on the TV about how much they are doing to reduce carbon emissions.
I wonder if they still fund any of the mmgw sceptic groups and bogus reearch we had a long discussion about last year?
If you get chance to meet Mr Taylor perhaps you could ask him to publish his calculations so we could all share. I'm particularly interested in why he appears to base them solely on carbon dioxide levels when, as we all know, and he points out, water vaour and methane are significant. It may be, of course, that in the limited context of his letter this was a detail that was missed.
Perhaps its a result of our friends at Exxon-Mobil putting out adverts on the TV about how much they are doing to reduce carbon emissions.
I wonder if they still fund any of the mmgw sceptic groups and bogus reearch we had a long discussion about last year?
If you get chance to meet Mr Taylor perhaps you could ask him to publish his calculations so we could all share. I'm particularly interested in why he appears to base them solely on carbon dioxide levels when, as we all know, and he points out, water vaour and methane are significant. It may be, of course, that in the limited context of his letter this was a detail that was missed.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:05pm Sat 19 Jul 08
Thanks Tom. Indeed!
There was a perfectly sound ending to this false 'debate'.. back in 2006.. when Sir David Attenborough, after a lifetime of study and listening to experts, concluded once and for all, that recent steep rise in temperature is down to humans.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=S9ob9WdbX
x0
The legendary broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough was long unsure about the causes of the observed climate warming. In his documentary, The Truth About Climate Change, he sheds doubt and explains what convinced him.
Climate models based on purely natural processes such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions fail to explain the observed change in Earth's climate in the latter part of the 20th century. Models factoring in the human impact, that is, the increase of carbon dioxide in the athmosphere, depict the transpired warming accurately, however.
None of this stops die-hard sceptics from attempting to deny everything though, as they do!
One last thing, I am a Chartered Engineer, amongst my other qualifications, and I can reassure you there are plenty of us that have been leading the pack in terms of incovenient truth telling for a long while.
There was a perfectly sound ending to this false 'debate'.. back in 2006.. when Sir David Attenborough, after a lifetime of study and listening to experts, concluded once and for all, that recent steep rise in temperature is down to humans.
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=S9ob9WdbX
x0
The legendary broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough was long unsure about the causes of the observed climate warming. In his documentary, The Truth About Climate Change, he sheds doubt and explains what convinced him.
Climate models based on purely natural processes such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions fail to explain the observed change in Earth's climate in the latter part of the 20th century. Models factoring in the human impact, that is, the increase of carbon dioxide in the athmosphere, depict the transpired warming accurately, however.
None of this stops die-hard sceptics from attempting to deny everything though, as they do!
One last thing, I am a Chartered Engineer, amongst my other qualifications, and I can reassure you there are plenty of us that have been leading the pack in terms of incovenient truth telling for a long while.
williams, London says...
6:05pm Wed 30 Jul 08
With all due respect to Richard Attenborough and yourself, the logic employed in order to claim that climate models prove man-induced climate change, is circular.
As I'm sure you are aware, the physics of the atmosphere are incredibly complex. So complex, that is is impossible to model them accurately (even Dr Jim Renwick, a lead author on IPCC AR4 stated "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we dont expect to do terrifically well").
In order to get climate models to agree with past temperature records, the IPCC tell us in AR1 that they use "flux adjustments" which are later defined as "empirical corrections that could not be justified on physical principles". You and I would call them fudge factors.
Later, the IPCC tell us that some models have moved away from this, but then concede that "a number of state-of-the-art models continue to rely on it".
As for the models that don't use "flux adjustments", they now use "ad hoc tuning of radiative parameters". This is further defined as "implicit flux adjustments".
So we have models with fudge factors that account for physical processes that we cannot identify, so as we can get them to agree with past temperature records.
Even the processes we can identify are so hard to model the slightest change in their input can swing the temperature by whole degrees. The IPCC even admit this in AR4 chapter 1 when they state...
"The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9�C to 5.4�C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities."
(it's worth noting that this is heavily played down by the time it is mentioned again in chapter 8.)
On top of all this is the requirement for CO2 to have a positive feedback on water vapour (as I'm sure you are aware, the 0.01% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere that humans are responsible for cannot cause significant warming without this feedback). There is no evidence that demands that this relationship to be modelled as a positive feedback.
However, since the models are built on the assumption that man induces climate change and that in itself requires this feedback value (when almost every other natural feedback is negative) it is thrown in to the model.
It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming.
As I'm sure you are aware, the physics of the atmosphere are incredibly complex. So complex, that is is impossible to model them accurately (even Dr Jim Renwick, a lead author on IPCC AR4 stated "Climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we dont expect to do terrifically well").
In order to get climate models to agree with past temperature records, the IPCC tell us in AR1 that they use "flux adjustments" which are later defined as "empirical corrections that could not be justified on physical principles". You and I would call them fudge factors.
Later, the IPCC tell us that some models have moved away from this, but then concede that "a number of state-of-the-art models continue to rely on it".
As for the models that don't use "flux adjustments", they now use "ad hoc tuning of radiative parameters". This is further defined as "implicit flux adjustments".
So we have models with fudge factors that account for physical processes that we cannot identify, so as we can get them to agree with past temperature records.
Even the processes we can identify are so hard to model the slightest change in their input can swing the temperature by whole degrees. The IPCC even admit this in AR4 chapter 1 when they state...
"The strong effect of cloud processes on climate model sensitivities to greenhouse gases was emphasized further through a now-classic set of General Circulation Model (GCM) experiments, carried out by Senior and Mitchell (1993). They produced global average surface temperature changes (due to doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration) ranging from 1.9�C to 5.4�C, simply by altering the way that cloud radiative properties were treated in the model. It is somewhat unsettling that the results of a complex climate model can be so drastically altered by substituting one reasonable cloud parameterization for another, thereby approximately replicating the overall intermodel range of sensitivities."
(it's worth noting that this is heavily played down by the time it is mentioned again in chapter 8.)
On top of all this is the requirement for CO2 to have a positive feedback on water vapour (as I'm sure you are aware, the 0.01% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere that humans are responsible for cannot cause significant warming without this feedback). There is no evidence that demands that this relationship to be modelled as a positive feedback.
However, since the models are built on the assumption that man induces climate change and that in itself requires this feedback value (when almost every other natural feedback is negative) it is thrown in to the model.
It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
8:31pm Wed 30 Jul 08
Hi 'williams'
All very impressive lengthy and utterly believable but, sadly, balderdash.
Also, it was Sir David Attenborough not Richard that satisfied himself, after years of investigation, (for fear of getting it wrong) and he is right.
Lay readers may wish to have a look at the little youtube vid clip i posted before to see the sheer certainly of the conclusion.
Don't be fooled.
If you want a bit more depth, but still an easy read, try the home page of THE ROYAL SOCIETY no less:
http://royalsociety.
org/
Utterly clear and completely at odds with Bucks few odd ball denialists, who seem so sure and who are in fact in fantasy world... or worse...
All very impressive lengthy and utterly believable but, sadly, balderdash.
Also, it was Sir David Attenborough not Richard that satisfied himself, after years of investigation, (for fear of getting it wrong) and he is right.
Lay readers may wish to have a look at the little youtube vid clip i posted before to see the sheer certainly of the conclusion.
Don't be fooled.
If you want a bit more depth, but still an easy read, try the home page of THE ROYAL SOCIETY no less:
http://royalsociety.
org/
Utterly clear and completely at odds with Bucks few odd ball denialists, who seem so sure and who are in fact in fantasy world... or worse...
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
8:38pm Wed 30 Jul 08
PS If you want to talk about 2nd order complex climate cross compounding negative feedback loops I'd be happy to do so.
(These are the ones that cause thermal runaway. The hotter it gets, the hotter it gets, exponentially.)
How can you guys have missed this?
Try the Westminster Briefing, if you dare:
http://www.apollo-ga
ia.org/BaliandBeyond
.htm
Happy to talk science whenever you like, but please explain why you know better than 99% of all know scientists before you post again?
(These are the ones that cause thermal runaway. The hotter it gets, the hotter it gets, exponentially.)
How can you guys have missed this?
Try the Westminster Briefing, if you dare:
http://www.apollo-ga
ia.org/BaliandBeyond
.htm
Happy to talk science whenever you like, but please explain why you know better than 99% of all know scientists before you post again?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
8:57pm Wed 30 Jul 08
And before some other wit remarks that the Earth is now cooling, try this:
Climate of suspicion
Global warming is a fact whatever its deniers - encouraged by a cool year - have to say
Fred Pearce
The Guardian, Saturday June 7 2008
The deniers of global warming are about to latch on to a new argument. The world is cooling. And they are right - well, slightly.
Globally, this year is likely to be the coolest for some time - back to the average of the early 90s, according to some unpublished forecasts. This is no refutation of man-made global warming. It is the inevitable consequence of one of nature's climatic cycles. The La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño cycle in the Pacific, has sent average global temperatures plunging this year.
And there is more. Longer term climate cycles that play out over a decade or so will also be working to cool us in the coming decade. In particular, changes in the currents of the north Atlantic - which have caused Europe to warm more than anywhere else in the past decade and helped melt all that Arctic ice - are about to go into reverse.
A Germany study published earlier this month predicts the world will cool over the coming decade. British climate modellers at the Met Office don't go so far. They think nature's cooling will be more than counterbalanced by the warming effect of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But nobody is sure. In any case, we can expect the deniers to make the most of this opportunity to pour cold water on the whole climate change narrative. No year has yet been hotter than 1998, they will say. True: it was a huge El Niño year. Now we are on the way back down, they will say. Nonsense. The underlying trend remains upwards; and as every decade passes, natural cycles can do less and less to counter the growing human influence on temperature.
By late next decade, natural warming will once again combine with man-made warming to push temperature rise into overdrive. The surge that we saw through the 1980s and 1990s will resume with a vengeance. That could be the moment that climate change passes a point of no return, when ice sheets start to collapse and parched rainforests and soils dump their carbon into the air, accelerating warming.
Now, a sceptic might say that if the modellers are only just learning about the importance of natural cycles to climate forecasts, why should we believe their predictions at all? Fair point. In their desire to persuade us about the big picture of global warming, scientists have sometimes got cocky about colouring in the detail.
Recently I attended a conference in Reading where some of the world's top experts discussed their failings. How their much-vaunted models of the world's climate system can't reproduce El Niños, or the "blocking highs" that bring heatwaves to Europe - or even the ice ages. How their statistical mimics of tropical climate are "laughable", in the words of the official report.
This sudden humility was not unconnected with their end-of-conference call for the world to spend a billion dollars on a global centre for climate modelling. A "Manhattan project for the 21st century", as someone put it.
Even so, scientists are concerned that many of their predictions about how climate change will play out in different parts of the world are little better than guesses. But whatever the local wrinkles and whatever natural cycles may intervene, man-made global warming is real, current and matters a great deal.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.
· Fred Pearce is the author of The Last Generation
Climate of suspicion
Global warming is a fact whatever its deniers - encouraged by a cool year - have to say
Fred Pearce
The Guardian, Saturday June 7 2008
The deniers of global warming are about to latch on to a new argument. The world is cooling. And they are right - well, slightly.
Globally, this year is likely to be the coolest for some time - back to the average of the early 90s, according to some unpublished forecasts. This is no refutation of man-made global warming. It is the inevitable consequence of one of nature's climatic cycles. The La Niña, the cold phase of the El Niño cycle in the Pacific, has sent average global temperatures plunging this year.
And there is more. Longer term climate cycles that play out over a decade or so will also be working to cool us in the coming decade. In particular, changes in the currents of the north Atlantic - which have caused Europe to warm more than anywhere else in the past decade and helped melt all that Arctic ice - are about to go into reverse.
A Germany study published earlier this month predicts the world will cool over the coming decade. British climate modellers at the Met Office don't go so far. They think nature's cooling will be more than counterbalanced by the warming effect of man-made carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
But nobody is sure. In any case, we can expect the deniers to make the most of this opportunity to pour cold water on the whole climate change narrative. No year has yet been hotter than 1998, they will say. True: it was a huge El Niño year. Now we are on the way back down, they will say. Nonsense. The underlying trend remains upwards; and as every decade passes, natural cycles can do less and less to counter the growing human influence on temperature.
By late next decade, natural warming will once again combine with man-made warming to push temperature rise into overdrive. The surge that we saw through the 1980s and 1990s will resume with a vengeance. That could be the moment that climate change passes a point of no return, when ice sheets start to collapse and parched rainforests and soils dump their carbon into the air, accelerating warming.
Now, a sceptic might say that if the modellers are only just learning about the importance of natural cycles to climate forecasts, why should we believe their predictions at all? Fair point. In their desire to persuade us about the big picture of global warming, scientists have sometimes got cocky about colouring in the detail.
Recently I attended a conference in Reading where some of the world's top experts discussed their failings. How their much-vaunted models of the world's climate system can't reproduce El Niños, or the "blocking highs" that bring heatwaves to Europe - or even the ice ages. How their statistical mimics of tropical climate are "laughable", in the words of the official report.
This sudden humility was not unconnected with their end-of-conference call for the world to spend a billion dollars on a global centre for climate modelling. A "Manhattan project for the 21st century", as someone put it.
Even so, scientists are concerned that many of their predictions about how climate change will play out in different parts of the world are little better than guesses. But whatever the local wrinkles and whatever natural cycles may intervene, man-made global warming is real, current and matters a great deal.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.
· Fred Pearce is the author of The Last Generation
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:00pm Wed 30 Jul 08
Here's the important summary para of the above post - quoted from teh Guardian - for the busy reader.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.
Physicists have known for 200 years about greenhouse gases. They first calculated the likely global effect 100 years ago. They have been measuring the accumulation of these gases for 60 years. The world has been warming strongly for 30 years, and nobody has come up with a half-way plausible explanation other than the most obvious. It's the greenhouse gases, stupid.
williams, London says...
10:24am Thu 31 Jul 08
Hi Dave,
I must apologise for mixing up my Attenboroughs. I must admit, I have never had the mind for celebrity names and faces. I hope you'll excuse the Freudian slip.
I would be most grateful if you could tell me precisely what part of my criticism was 'balderdash' as I am now concerned that I have misread the IPCC reports on the accuracy of climate modeling.
With regards to your offer to discuss the water-vapour feedback within the climate, I would be very pleased to read any empirical evidence you have found that proves this to be a positive feedback relationship of the 67-80% scale that the IPCC assume.
With the IPCC WG1 describing the evidence they have with a closing paragraph of...
"Attempts to directly confirm the water vapour feedback by correlating spatial surface fluctuations with spatial OLR fluctuations were carried out by Raval and Ramanathan (1989). Their results are difficult to interpret, as they involve the effects of circulation changes as well as direct thermodynamic control (Bony et al., 1995). Inamdar and Ramanathan (1998) showed that a positive correlation between water vapour, greenhouse effect and SST holds for the entire tropics at seasonal time-scales. This is consistent with a positive water vapour feedback, but it still cannot be taken as a direct test of the feedback as the circulation fluctuates in a different way over the seasonal cycle than it does in response to doubling of CO2."
....I find it baffling as to why they would then assign such a high feedback value to it in their models.
The IPCC's decision seems even more confused when papers like 'Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models' (Sun,D-Z. Y.Yu, and T.Zhang 2007) conclude that the, within all the IPCC climate models, the negative forcings of water vapour are undervalued, while their positive forcings are largely exaggerated.
This has recently been re-affirmed by Dr Roy Spencer and W.D Braswell in their recent announcement of their latest research from the NASA AQUA satellite that they claim shows evidence of a much more insensitive climate. I am waiting to see if their claims hold any value once they publish their research in the coming weeks.
I'm afraid I can't really comment on the Guardian article without bringing in the mess that is the Mann "hockey stick" which is a lengthy discussion in itself, and perhaps one best left until we have resolved the CO2/water question. I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces.
I am very interested in hearing any comments you have on the papers mentioned above, or any other papers you know of regarding this issue.
I must apologise for mixing up my Attenboroughs. I must admit, I have never had the mind for celebrity names and faces. I hope you'll excuse the Freudian slip.
I would be most grateful if you could tell me precisely what part of my criticism was 'balderdash' as I am now concerned that I have misread the IPCC reports on the accuracy of climate modeling.
With regards to your offer to discuss the water-vapour feedback within the climate, I would be very pleased to read any empirical evidence you have found that proves this to be a positive feedback relationship of the 67-80% scale that the IPCC assume.
With the IPCC WG1 describing the evidence they have with a closing paragraph of...
"Attempts to directly confirm the water vapour feedback by correlating spatial surface fluctuations with spatial OLR fluctuations were carried out by Raval and Ramanathan (1989). Their results are difficult to interpret, as they involve the effects of circulation changes as well as direct thermodynamic control (Bony et al., 1995). Inamdar and Ramanathan (1998) showed that a positive correlation between water vapour, greenhouse effect and SST holds for the entire tropics at seasonal time-scales. This is consistent with a positive water vapour feedback, but it still cannot be taken as a direct test of the feedback as the circulation fluctuates in a different way over the seasonal cycle than it does in response to doubling of CO2."
....I find it baffling as to why they would then assign such a high feedback value to it in their models.
The IPCC's decision seems even more confused when papers like 'Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models' (Sun,D-Z. Y.Yu, and T.Zhang 2007) conclude that the, within all the IPCC climate models, the negative forcings of water vapour are undervalued, while their positive forcings are largely exaggerated.
This has recently been re-affirmed by Dr Roy Spencer and W.D Braswell in their recent announcement of their latest research from the NASA AQUA satellite that they claim shows evidence of a much more insensitive climate. I am waiting to see if their claims hold any value once they publish their research in the coming weeks.
I'm afraid I can't really comment on the Guardian article without bringing in the mess that is the Mann "hockey stick" which is a lengthy discussion in itself, and perhaps one best left until we have resolved the CO2/water question. I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces.
I am very interested in hearing any comments you have on the papers mentioned above, or any other papers you know of regarding this issue.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
10:38pm Thu 31 Jul 08
Dear Williams
Happy to oblige.
I can only call you Williams as that is how you identify yourself,or rather, you don't.
Fred Pearce was the Editor or Dep Editor of the New Scientist, not some Guardian hack.
The part of your argument that is balderdash, and I suspect you know it, is this:
"It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming."
Not only is that statement balderdash, ot is fantasy, and dangerous misleading fantasy to boot.
I suspect you are a professional obfuscator, trying to make it look - to the lay reader - as if there is doubt, when there is not.
If however you have some real science education, O would be interested in your comments on the Westminster Briefing, and on the various Wasdell papers that show that the IPCC played down the threat, not exaggerated them.
As to water vapour, it is indeed a powerful element of the 2nd order cross compounding negative feedbacks that are leading us to a dangerous state of thermal runaway...
But i am sure you will deny everything.
Go ahead, the public won't be fooled for much longer
Yours
Oh, and happy to meet up anytime..
If
Happy to oblige.
I can only call you Williams as that is how you identify yourself,or rather, you don't.
Fred Pearce was the Editor or Dep Editor of the New Scientist, not some Guardian hack.
The part of your argument that is balderdash, and I suspect you know it, is this:
"It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming."
Not only is that statement balderdash, ot is fantasy, and dangerous misleading fantasy to boot.
I suspect you are a professional obfuscator, trying to make it look - to the lay reader - as if there is doubt, when there is not.
If however you have some real science education, O would be interested in your comments on the Westminster Briefing, and on the various Wasdell papers that show that the IPCC played down the threat, not exaggerated them.
As to water vapour, it is indeed a powerful element of the 2nd order cross compounding negative feedbacks that are leading us to a dangerous state of thermal runaway...
But i am sure you will deny everything.
Go ahead, the public won't be fooled for much longer
Yours
Oh, and happy to meet up anytime..
If
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
10:44pm Thu 31 Jul 08
Just in case lay readers were impressed by 'williams' apparent show of detailed scientific understanding, here is what wikipedia say on the matter.
I am not citing this as relevant or decisive, just that many parents will trust this source for school home work.
Lets see what they say about:
Human influences on climate change:
Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment and influence climate. In some cases the chain of causality is direct and unambiguous (e.g., by the effects of irrigation on temperature and humidity), while in others it is less clear. Various hypotheses for human-induced climate change have been debated for many years, though it is important to note that the scientific debate has moved on from scepticism, as there is scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is beyond reasonable doubt as the main explanation for the current rapid changes in the world's climate.
Consequently in politics, the debate has largely shifted onto ways to reduce human impact and adapt to change that is already 'in the system.'
The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere), which exert a cooling effect, and cement manufacture. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture and deforestation, also affect climate.
I am not citing this as relevant or decisive, just that many parents will trust this source for school home work.
Lets see what they say about:
Human influences on climate change:
Anthropogenic factors are human activities that change the environment and influence climate. In some cases the chain of causality is direct and unambiguous (e.g., by the effects of irrigation on temperature and humidity), while in others it is less clear. Various hypotheses for human-induced climate change have been debated for many years, though it is important to note that the scientific debate has moved on from scepticism, as there is scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is beyond reasonable doubt as the main explanation for the current rapid changes in the world's climate.
Consequently in politics, the debate has largely shifted onto ways to reduce human impact and adapt to change that is already 'in the system.'
The biggest factor of present concern is the increase in CO2 levels due to emissions from fossil fuel combustion, followed by aerosols (particulate matter in the atmosphere), which exert a cooling effect, and cement manufacture. Other factors, including land use, ozone depletion, animal agriculture and deforestation, also affect climate.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
10:52pm Thu 31 Jul 08
Will 'Williams' explain why he doesn't answer the question i posed:
Happy to talk science whenever you like, but please explain why you know better than 99% of all know scientists before you post again?
His charming belittling of Sir David Attenborough is subtle but insulting.
Look at the video readers and see once and for all why Sir David was, at last, utterly convinced that humans are to blame...
Don't allow clever sounding people to bamboozle you. The facts are clear:
There is scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is beyond reasonable doubt as the main explanation for the current rapid changes in the world's climate.
Period.
Happy to talk science whenever you like, but please explain why you know better than 99% of all know scientists before you post again?
His charming belittling of Sir David Attenborough is subtle but insulting.
Look at the video readers and see once and for all why Sir David was, at last, utterly convinced that humans are to blame...
Don't allow clever sounding people to bamboozle you. The facts are clear:
There is scientific consensus on climate change that human activity is beyond reasonable doubt as the main explanation for the current rapid changes in the world's climate.
Period.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:02pm Thu 31 Jul 08
One last important item.
'Williams' tries to dismiss the author of the important Guardian piece i cited by saying:
"I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces."
Fred Pearce is a national treasure.
Read what wikipedia have to say about him: Fred Pearce is an English author and journalist based in London. He has been described as one of Britain's finest science writers and has reported on environment, popular science and development issues from 64 countries over the past 20 years. He specialises in global environmental issues, including water and climate change. and frequently takes heretic and counter-intuitive views - "a sceptic in the best sense", he says.
I may be wrong but I'd trust him more than i'd trust Bucks home grown obfuscators.
best wishes, dave
'Williams' tries to dismiss the author of the important Guardian piece i cited by saying:
"I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces."
Fred Pearce is a national treasure.
Read what wikipedia have to say about him: Fred Pearce is an English author and journalist based in London. He has been described as one of Britain's finest science writers and has reported on environment, popular science and development issues from 64 countries over the past 20 years. He specialises in global environmental issues, including water and climate change. and frequently takes heretic and counter-intuitive views - "a sceptic in the best sense", he says.
I may be wrong but I'd trust him more than i'd trust Bucks home grown obfuscators.
best wishes, dave
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:16am Fri 1 Aug 08
Dear 'Williams'
Just in case you were sincere in your comment:
"I am now concerned that I have misread the IPCC reports on the accuracy of climate modeling"
and I really should have given you the benefit of the doubt, I am investigating the water vapour element that you ask me to focus on, and will get back to you on that. My frustration comes from seeing several "well meaning people" dragging small pieces of detailed science in front of a local lay audience without any consideration of what they are doing. The prevailing concensus is way beyond debate. All the signs are there, in front of our face. NASA scientists say "Warming in increasing greatly, especially recently" and the ice everywhere is melting. Yet in Bucks people seem t think there is still some doubt we can cling on to - for dear life?
The consequences of the 'obfuscators' doing their job well will be that humankinds necessary response to addressing the climate destabilisation we have released (like a Genie out of a bottle) will be delayed. Are you sure you want the fact that you dared to take that risk to be written into history. I prefer to listen and heed the warnings that 99% of scientists have long been trying to tell us, via a ceptical media owned by several oil-vested interests, and oil-funded governments!
I also choose to listen to the smaller number of brave independent and pennyless scientists who are trying to tell us that it is actually far far WORSE than the IPCC consensus suggests. But I must be careful or I will be written off (like they often are) as being an alarmist. The truth is that the future the children of the world face is very alarming indeed.
"Warming is increasing greatly, especially recently."
(N.B. As ever scientist will know, this quote refers to WARMING not TEMPERATURE, it being the underlying 'heat engine' of the planet that will lead, in due course, to temperatures we simply can't even live through. Game over. That is how big the stakes are.
Perhaps you would care to address these wider issues (Mr.Ms?) Williams. Why do you dare slow mankinds necessary, beneficial, inevitable and desirable transition to a post fossil world.
Just in case you were sincere in your comment:
"I am now concerned that I have misread the IPCC reports on the accuracy of climate modeling"
and I really should have given you the benefit of the doubt, I am investigating the water vapour element that you ask me to focus on, and will get back to you on that. My frustration comes from seeing several "well meaning people" dragging small pieces of detailed science in front of a local lay audience without any consideration of what they are doing. The prevailing concensus is way beyond debate. All the signs are there, in front of our face. NASA scientists say "Warming in increasing greatly, especially recently" and the ice everywhere is melting. Yet in Bucks people seem t think there is still some doubt we can cling on to - for dear life?
The consequences of the 'obfuscators' doing their job well will be that humankinds necessary response to addressing the climate destabilisation we have released (like a Genie out of a bottle) will be delayed. Are you sure you want the fact that you dared to take that risk to be written into history. I prefer to listen and heed the warnings that 99% of scientists have long been trying to tell us, via a ceptical media owned by several oil-vested interests, and oil-funded governments!
I also choose to listen to the smaller number of brave independent and pennyless scientists who are trying to tell us that it is actually far far WORSE than the IPCC consensus suggests. But I must be careful or I will be written off (like they often are) as being an alarmist. The truth is that the future the children of the world face is very alarming indeed.
"Warming is increasing greatly, especially recently."
(N.B. As ever scientist will know, this quote refers to WARMING not TEMPERATURE, it being the underlying 'heat engine' of the planet that will lead, in due course, to temperatures we simply can't even live through. Game over. That is how big the stakes are.
Perhaps you would care to address these wider issues (Mr.Ms?) Williams. Why do you dare slow mankinds necessary, beneficial, inevitable and desirable transition to a post fossil world.
tom, marlow says...
9:22am Fri 1 Aug 08
This is a complex problem in which many factors play a part. Some of the data is not as good as other data. A few elements of the modelling may turn out to be wrong. A few of the boundary conditions are not well understood.
However, it is a fallacy to infer that because one element of a model is not correct then the whole model is wrong. Most of the data, most of the climate modelling is self consistent and leads to the same conclusions.
For sure there are a number of quantitative questions, exactly how much?, exactly when?. Thats inevitable when you are dealing with non-linear processes. But the range of answers doesnt include "none" and "so far in the future we can ignore it"
This whole apparoach of picking out one thing thats not well determined and arguing that the whole model is thus wrong is well used in many areas by people with an axe to grind.
Read Michael Shermers's book "Why people beleive wierd things" and you will see how the same arguments are used by (for example)creationsist
s to "disprove" evolution, and by holocaust deniers.
The obfuscators (as Dave so aptly describes them) are using the same techniques with climate change.
I wonder why?
However, it is a fallacy to infer that because one element of a model is not correct then the whole model is wrong. Most of the data, most of the climate modelling is self consistent and leads to the same conclusions.
For sure there are a number of quantitative questions, exactly how much?, exactly when?. Thats inevitable when you are dealing with non-linear processes. But the range of answers doesnt include "none" and "so far in the future we can ignore it"
This whole apparoach of picking out one thing thats not well determined and arguing that the whole model is thus wrong is well used in many areas by people with an axe to grind.
Read Michael Shermers's book "Why people beleive wierd things" and you will see how the same arguments are used by (for example)creationsist
s to "disprove" evolution, and by holocaust deniers.
The obfuscators (as Dave so aptly describes them) are using the same techniques with climate change.
I wonder why?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:41am Fri 1 Aug 08
Thanks Tom. I wonder too. They can't be 'bad' people surely. Perhaps they are simply fooled/fuelled by a few professional bad fossils. In other words some may be a reasonable distance downstream of the few centrally organised well-funded professional oil-funded obfuscator denialists. Far enough away not to pick up the whiff of inauthenticity.
In other words, I don't think all the people who write in to Bucks papers are necessarily bad people, they may just be inadvertently mixing with powerful people (in 'power') who turn their minds. There's a lot of it about.
I am sure there are some people who harbour some GENUINE DOUBT as to whether it is conceivable that the holocaust never happened... but that issue is not presented by the media as a 50:50 balanced debate!
As to burning oil like there's no tomorrow, there's quite a few Bucks bucks in that!
It's a very convenient lie.
In other words, I don't think all the people who write in to Bucks papers are necessarily bad people, they may just be inadvertently mixing with powerful people (in 'power') who turn their minds. There's a lot of it about.
I am sure there are some people who harbour some GENUINE DOUBT as to whether it is conceivable that the holocaust never happened... but that issue is not presented by the media as a 50:50 balanced debate!
As to burning oil like there's no tomorrow, there's quite a few Bucks bucks in that!
It's a very convenient lie.
williams, London says...
3:53pm Fri 1 Aug 08
Thank you for both of your comments, Dave and Tom. If you don't mind, you have raised several points, so I will deal with Dave's first and then Tom's, so as not to keep some kind of order.
Firstly, I am a little confused as to what you are "looking into" with regards to the relationship between CO2 and water vapour feedback, since you earlier stated...
"If you want to talk about 2nd order complex climate cross compounding negative feedback loops I'd be happy to do so."
.....aside from the negative/positive error in that statement, you gave the impression that you were knowledgeable, to some degree, in this subject and were convinced through empirical evidence that the relationship was that of a positive feedback.
This links neatly into Tom's misinterpretation of my original post showing how climate models are not proof of anthropogenic global warming. Allow me to explain.
Every scientist is at least agreed on one rule of the physics regarding climate, that CO2 alone cannot drive climate to the extent that the theory of AGW demands without the assumption that it has a positive feedback relationship with water vapour.
i.e. the IPCC state that a doubling of current CO2 levels would result in a base warming of 1 degree C (which is negligible within the natural variance of the climate). The supposed catastrophe comes when this warming is multiplied by anything from 3 to 6 times by the feedback with water vapour.
There is no empirical evidence to believe this is to be an accurate representation of the actual climate, and there are many papers concluding that the IPCC has exaggerated this effect ('Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models' (Sun,D-Z. Y.Yu, and T.Zhang 2007))
IPCC climate models, however, assume this theory to be correct and so assign high, positive feedback parameters when simulating global temperature increases from man-made CO2.
Therefore, to claim that these climate models prove that anthropogenic global warming is real, is (by the application of basic rational logic) a self proving argument (since the models are built on the assumption that man made CO2 drives climate) and is, therefore, void.
The subject becomes even more interesting when we take into account recent empirical evidence from the NASA AQUA satellite that was launched in 2001, specifically to research the CO2/water vapour relationship. The AQUA team's findings indicate that it is actually a negative feedback relationship and thus the climate may be much less sensitive than has been assumed.
(Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Feedback vs. Chaotic Radiative Forcing: Smoking Gun Evidence for an Insensitive Climate System?)
Tom's claim that "ice everywhere is melting" is completely incorrect. The Antarctic has been getting colder and increasing in ice-mass for years. The Arctic is already half-way through the summer melt and if you check the current TERRA/MODIS satellite images you will see a far from "ice free" Arctic. The NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) also shows the increase in sea Arctic sea ice in 2008 compared to 2007.
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles.
of comparing actual scientific research with an anonymous open-community encyclopedia, I would very much like to discuss the assertions made over a apocalyptic disaster due to man-made CO2. However, as I stated before, I think it best that we sort out exactly what empirical evidence convinces you of the CO2/water vapour positive feedback before we move on to other areas of the debate.
N.B. I apologise for not putting my full name in. I had no intention of inducing some cloak and shadow persona for myself. The registration merely asked me for a 'username' for which I used my last name. You can call me Bill if it helps.
Firstly, I am a little confused as to what you are "looking into" with regards to the relationship between CO2 and water vapour feedback, since you earlier stated...
"If you want to talk about 2nd order complex climate cross compounding negative feedback loops I'd be happy to do so."
.....aside from the negative/positive error in that statement, you gave the impression that you were knowledgeable, to some degree, in this subject and were convinced through empirical evidence that the relationship was that of a positive feedback.
This links neatly into Tom's misinterpretation of my original post showing how climate models are not proof of anthropogenic global warming. Allow me to explain.
Every scientist is at least agreed on one rule of the physics regarding climate, that CO2 alone cannot drive climate to the extent that the theory of AGW demands without the assumption that it has a positive feedback relationship with water vapour.
i.e. the IPCC state that a doubling of current CO2 levels would result in a base warming of 1 degree C (which is negligible within the natural variance of the climate). The supposed catastrophe comes when this warming is multiplied by anything from 3 to 6 times by the feedback with water vapour.
There is no empirical evidence to believe this is to be an accurate representation of the actual climate, and there are many papers concluding that the IPCC has exaggerated this effect ('Tropical Water Vapor and Cloud Feedbacks in Climate Models' (Sun,D-Z. Y.Yu, and T.Zhang 2007))
IPCC climate models, however, assume this theory to be correct and so assign high, positive feedback parameters when simulating global temperature increases from man-made CO2.
Therefore, to claim that these climate models prove that anthropogenic global warming is real, is (by the application of basic rational logic) a self proving argument (since the models are built on the assumption that man made CO2 drives climate) and is, therefore, void.
The subject becomes even more interesting when we take into account recent empirical evidence from the NASA AQUA satellite that was launched in 2001, specifically to research the CO2/water vapour relationship. The AQUA team's findings indicate that it is actually a negative feedback relationship and thus the climate may be much less sensitive than has been assumed.
(Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell, 2008: Feedback vs. Chaotic Radiative Forcing: Smoking Gun Evidence for an Insensitive Climate System?)
Tom's claim that "ice everywhere is melting" is completely incorrect. The Antarctic has been getting colder and increasing in ice-mass for years. The Arctic is already half-way through the summer melt and if you check the current TERRA/MODIS satellite images you will see a far from "ice free" Arctic. The NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) also shows the increase in sea Arctic sea ice in 2008 compared to 2007.
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles.
of comparing actual scientific research with an anonymous open-community encyclopedia, I would very much like to discuss the assertions made over a apocalyptic disaster due to man-made CO2. However, as I stated before, I think it best that we sort out exactly what empirical evidence convinces you of the CO2/water vapour positive feedback before we move on to other areas of the debate.
N.B. I apologise for not putting my full name in. I had no intention of inducing some cloak and shadow persona for myself. The registration merely asked me for a 'username' for which I used my last name. You can call me Bill if it helps.
williams, London says...
4:00pm Fri 1 Aug 08
*sorry for the repeat post, but there was an error in posting. The last passage should read...
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles. I have no intention
of comparing actual scientific research with an anonymous open-community encyclopedia, I would very much like to discuss the assertions made over a apocalyptic disaster due to man-made CO2. However, as I stated before, I think it best that we sort out exactly what empirical evidence convinces you of the CO2/water vapour positive feedback before we move on to other areas of the debate.
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles. I have no intention
of comparing actual scientific research with an anonymous open-community encyclopedia, I would very much like to discuss the assertions made over a apocalyptic disaster due to man-made CO2. However, as I stated before, I think it best that we sort out exactly what empirical evidence convinces you of the CO2/water vapour positive feedback before we move on to other areas of the debate.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:18pm Fri 1 Aug 08
Hi Bill Williams
By hiding in the detail you completely ignore the main thrust.
If I understand you right, you are saying that the CO2 than humankind is releasing into the atmosphere by the buring of 200 illion years worth of fossil (safe underground) into the air we share, is not a problem to the planet.
If that is what you believe, then so be it.
I was correct in refereing to 'negative' feedback loops, thank you, as you would have seen if you had bothered to read the references I have provided. Eg The Westminster briefing.
You are either a scoundrel or a very blinkered and very easily duped person, so I am not going to waste more of my time. If you want to respond to the questions I raise about the big issues, then feel free. And perhaps you could tell us why you know better than 99% of independent scientists too.
Dave
By hiding in the detail you completely ignore the main thrust.
If I understand you right, you are saying that the CO2 than humankind is releasing into the atmosphere by the buring of 200 illion years worth of fossil (safe underground) into the air we share, is not a problem to the planet.
If that is what you believe, then so be it.
I was correct in refereing to 'negative' feedback loops, thank you, as you would have seen if you had bothered to read the references I have provided. Eg The Westminster briefing.
You are either a scoundrel or a very blinkered and very easily duped person, so I am not going to waste more of my time. If you want to respond to the questions I raise about the big issues, then feel free. And perhaps you could tell us why you know better than 99% of independent scientists too.
Dave
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:25pm Fri 1 Aug 08
I repeat my offer of being willing to meet up with each one of you 'Bucks based obfuscators' (Messrs Weeden, Taylor, Williams) - one on one - over a coffee - to try to politely discover why we have both drawn such totally opposite conclusions from the evidence in front of our eyes. If the BFP wish to witness such a meeting, that would be fine by me too.
Ultimately, the truth will set us all free.
Ultimately, the truth will set us all free.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:26pm Fri 1 Aug 08
I repeat my offer of being willing to meet up with each one of you 'Bucks based obfuscators' (Messrs Weeden, Taylor, Williams) - one on one - over a coffee - to try to politely discover why we have both drawn such totally opposite conclusions from the evidence in front of our eyes. If the BFP wish to witness such a meeting, that would be fine by me too.
Ultimately, the truth will set us all free.
Ultimately, the truth will set us all free.
williams, London says...
5:09pm Fri 1 Aug 08
Dave, it appears you are not, as you stated,...
"Happy to talk science whenever you like"
...and rather than conduct a mature and reasonable debate on the reasons why you so vehemently believe in anthropogenic global warming, you have resorted to name calling.
If you are no longer "wasting your time" on dealing with the science I have drawn in to question, then I would suggest that my presence at your public debate is somewhat redundant as I prefer to base my opinions on empirical science as opposed to emotive politics.
"Happy to talk science whenever you like"
...and rather than conduct a mature and reasonable debate on the reasons why you so vehemently believe in anthropogenic global warming, you have resorted to name calling.
If you are no longer "wasting your time" on dealing with the science I have drawn in to question, then I would suggest that my presence at your public debate is somewhat redundant as I prefer to base my opinions on empirical science as opposed to emotive politics.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
5:20pm Fri 1 Aug 08
HERE IS MY LETTER BFP DIDN'T PRINT THIS WEEK:
I sincerely hope you will print this response to Mr Weeden et al.
We are letting the children down: Saying CO2 is not to blame is simply a whopping great oil-soaked fantasy.
or
Seeing behind the Oil industry smoke screen.
Sir/Madam
Oh bother! Its a fair cop. Mr Weeden has me bang to rights in the BFP letters page!
In his letter last week he has exposed me to the people of Marlow! Its true! Shamelessly I try to earn my living out of convincing everyone that global warming is their fault. Some readers may be a little perplexed as to how such a business model could work. Well its simple: (1) Blame your client and make them feel bad. (2) Suggest they stop doing things they like, e.g. flying away on holidays so much. (3) Plunge them into darkness, and make them feel bad again. (4) Submit large invoice. (5) Hope they pay. There. See how easy it is! The truth is out.
No. Its a bit more subtle than that. You can Google carbon coach to find out more. Also, legally speaking, any readers thinking of taking up this career path should be warned that in financial terms, the living I make is around half what it was before, just over three years ago now, when I was enjoying the Directorship of a top London consultancy, and winning national awards for my leadership in sustainability and social responsibility. I take this subject deadly seriously, and I have done my homework.
Any accusation that I am in it for the money, is frankly laughable. I am in this game for the sake of my and other kids. It is that simple. Our children will not thank us for a good education, or a fat legacy, if they inherit a broken planet. Ask yourself, what could be the motivation of those who want to make us feel good about carrying on burning fossil fuel?
The other belly laugh is the ridiculous notion that back in January I failed to submit my written proof on time (!) to BFP letters page. (Whos taking notes here?) Mr Weeden tells us that he was in science education until he was 25. I have referred my readers before to such bodies as The Royal Society www.royalsociety.org whose freely downloadable and up-to-date publication Is Global Warming a Swindle?, on their website homepage, no less, is an easy but authoritative read. Readers who have any real interest in this subject will find this document useful. Its conclusion is alarmingly unequivocal.
When 99% of eminent independent world scientists agree something, then, (unlike Messrs Weeden and Taylor,) I do not consider that I have that much to add. The Professional Institutes that they proudly list after their names are also in agreement. So too, since 2006, is Sir David Attenborough. Even the US administration of President George W. Bush concluded in 2007 that mankinds contribution to global warming is no longer up for debate. But in small pockets in Bucks, the denial, astonishingly, and shamefully, continues.
The Canute analogy is a good one. But it will take more than a few doggedly denying individuals in Bucks to stop the rising tide of the free thinking world from joining the dots, and seeing the truth, behind the Oil industry smoke screen. One is left wondering whether Messrs Weeden and Taylor keep track of correspondence outside of Bucks?
Its undeniably tough for all of us to face the music, and face the rough climate that lies ahead. But if we dont, we are simply letting the children down. Saying CO2 is not to blame is simply a whopping great oil-soaked fantasy. May I repeat my hope that all those who wish to soothe BFP readers into complacency, will be around long enough to be held responsible by todays children, who will have to live with the consequences.
Dave Hampton
The Carbon Coach
I sincerely hope you will print this response to Mr Weeden et al.
We are letting the children down: Saying CO2 is not to blame is simply a whopping great oil-soaked fantasy.
or
Seeing behind the Oil industry smoke screen.
Sir/Madam
Oh bother! Its a fair cop. Mr Weeden has me bang to rights in the BFP letters page!
In his letter last week he has exposed me to the people of Marlow! Its true! Shamelessly I try to earn my living out of convincing everyone that global warming is their fault. Some readers may be a little perplexed as to how such a business model could work. Well its simple: (1) Blame your client and make them feel bad. (2) Suggest they stop doing things they like, e.g. flying away on holidays so much. (3) Plunge them into darkness, and make them feel bad again. (4) Submit large invoice. (5) Hope they pay. There. See how easy it is! The truth is out.
No. Its a bit more subtle than that. You can Google carbon coach to find out more. Also, legally speaking, any readers thinking of taking up this career path should be warned that in financial terms, the living I make is around half what it was before, just over three years ago now, when I was enjoying the Directorship of a top London consultancy, and winning national awards for my leadership in sustainability and social responsibility. I take this subject deadly seriously, and I have done my homework.
Any accusation that I am in it for the money, is frankly laughable. I am in this game for the sake of my and other kids. It is that simple. Our children will not thank us for a good education, or a fat legacy, if they inherit a broken planet. Ask yourself, what could be the motivation of those who want to make us feel good about carrying on burning fossil fuel?
The other belly laugh is the ridiculous notion that back in January I failed to submit my written proof on time (!) to BFP letters page. (Whos taking notes here?) Mr Weeden tells us that he was in science education until he was 25. I have referred my readers before to such bodies as The Royal Society www.royalsociety.org whose freely downloadable and up-to-date publication Is Global Warming a Swindle?, on their website homepage, no less, is an easy but authoritative read. Readers who have any real interest in this subject will find this document useful. Its conclusion is alarmingly unequivocal.
When 99% of eminent independent world scientists agree something, then, (unlike Messrs Weeden and Taylor,) I do not consider that I have that much to add. The Professional Institutes that they proudly list after their names are also in agreement. So too, since 2006, is Sir David Attenborough. Even the US administration of President George W. Bush concluded in 2007 that mankinds contribution to global warming is no longer up for debate. But in small pockets in Bucks, the denial, astonishingly, and shamefully, continues.
The Canute analogy is a good one. But it will take more than a few doggedly denying individuals in Bucks to stop the rising tide of the free thinking world from joining the dots, and seeing the truth, behind the Oil industry smoke screen. One is left wondering whether Messrs Weeden and Taylor keep track of correspondence outside of Bucks?
Its undeniably tough for all of us to face the music, and face the rough climate that lies ahead. But if we dont, we are simply letting the children down. Saying CO2 is not to blame is simply a whopping great oil-soaked fantasy. May I repeat my hope that all those who wish to soothe BFP readers into complacency, will be around long enough to be held responsible by todays children, who will have to live with the consequences.
Dave Hampton
The Carbon Coach
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
10:48pm Fri 1 Aug 08
Dear 'Bill Williams'
Perhaps you would care to answer the question I have asked you several times.
Why do you think you know more than 99% of all independent scientists.
Why do you risk the childrens lives on your certainty that you alone are right.
You have completely failed to answer any of the general matters I have raised.
In whose employ are you sir.
If you don't have the confidence to meet with me, go back to your 'research' study.
Good night sir.
Dave
Perhaps you would care to answer the question I have asked you several times.
Why do you think you know more than 99% of all independent scientists.
Why do you risk the childrens lives on your certainty that you alone are right.
You have completely failed to answer any of the general matters I have raised.
In whose employ are you sir.
If you don't have the confidence to meet with me, go back to your 'research' study.
Good night sir.
Dave
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:02pm Fri 1 Aug 08
One more thing.
Can you prove you are not in fact Mr Weeden, or Mr Taylor, in plain bill disguise?
Your argumemnts and tactics are very familiar and well documented in "The Exxon guide to confusing the general public that there is still some doubt."
I am disappointed you don't want to meet.
I remain happy to talk science whenever you like. When would you like to start?
And since when has the minority view of 1% of all scientists been 'empirical science'. I think you are getting a little confused.
If you are open to further learning, then please have a read of The Westminster Briefing and the latest research it draws on.
You couldn't be more wrong. But I suspect you know that.
Can you prove you are not in fact Mr Weeden, or Mr Taylor, in plain bill disguise?
Your argumemnts and tactics are very familiar and well documented in "The Exxon guide to confusing the general public that there is still some doubt."
I am disappointed you don't want to meet.
I remain happy to talk science whenever you like. When would you like to start?
And since when has the minority view of 1% of all scientists been 'empirical science'. I think you are getting a little confused.
If you are open to further learning, then please have a read of The Westminster Briefing and the latest research it draws on.
You couldn't be more wrong. But I suspect you know that.
williams, London says...
6:25pm Sat 2 Aug 08
Dear Dave,
I must admit, your continual attacks on my character along with petulant name calling are begining to make me very weary.
That you call in to question my integrity with poorly veiled accusations that I receive funding from 'big oil' is close to libel and I would take offense were it not so remarkably ironic that it is yourself with a vested interest in the continuation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
It is a common misconception that a consensus establishes a scientific theory as a "fact". As I'm sure you are aware, there are many examples throughout history where a scientific consensus has been later shown to be wrong.
i.e. there was a consensus of scientists in the 90's that by now a third of the UK population would be dead from CJD transmitted through beef. This never happened.
It is for this reason that I am loathed to defend any of my scientific principles on the basis of "consensus" as it has no relevance and is generally an argument reserved by people who cannot understand nor debate the science.
If I, as you say, "couldn't be more wrong" then convince me with science. Don't bully me with smear tactics and the continual bannering of a consensus.
However, as you seem to place so much emphasis on the IPCC consensus, I would recommend starting your research with...
Chris Landsea's resignation letter to the IPCC.
http://sciencepolicy
.colorado.edu/promet
heus/archives/scienc
e_policy_general/000
318chris_landsea_lea
ves.html
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Professor Paul Reiter's testimony to the House Of Lords
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/ld200506/ldselect/l
deconaf/12/12we21.ht
m
"It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered "Lead authors" with experience, representative of the world's top scientists and specialists in human health?"
The Heidelberg Appeal
http://www.sepp.org/
policy%20declaration
s/heidelberg_appeal.
html
I am harboring the foolish hope that you may now be able indulge me with the scientific research that convinces you of the positive feedback relationship between CO2 and water vapour (which is integral to the theory of anthropogenic global warming). That is to say, a rebuttal of the recent data analysis done by the NASA AQUA satellite team.
However, the cynic in me is convinced that you will, once again, avoid citations of actual research papers and instead provide some obscure wikipedia page and declare a consensus. At which point I will have to take my leave from the "debate" as iterative cranial-based masonry adjustments are not a pleasure of mine.
I must admit, your continual attacks on my character along with petulant name calling are begining to make me very weary.
That you call in to question my integrity with poorly veiled accusations that I receive funding from 'big oil' is close to libel and I would take offense were it not so remarkably ironic that it is yourself with a vested interest in the continuation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
It is a common misconception that a consensus establishes a scientific theory as a "fact". As I'm sure you are aware, there are many examples throughout history where a scientific consensus has been later shown to be wrong.
i.e. there was a consensus of scientists in the 90's that by now a third of the UK population would be dead from CJD transmitted through beef. This never happened.
It is for this reason that I am loathed to defend any of my scientific principles on the basis of "consensus" as it has no relevance and is generally an argument reserved by people who cannot understand nor debate the science.
If I, as you say, "couldn't be more wrong" then convince me with science. Don't bully me with smear tactics and the continual bannering of a consensus.
However, as you seem to place so much emphasis on the IPCC consensus, I would recommend starting your research with...
Chris Landsea's resignation letter to the IPCC.
http://sciencepolicy
.colorado.edu/promet
heus/archives/scienc
e_policy_general/000
318chris_landsea_lea
ves.html
"I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
Professor Paul Reiter's testimony to the House Of Lords
http://www.publicati
ons.parliament.uk/pa
/ld200506/ldselect/l
deconaf/12/12we21.ht
m
"It is often stated that the IPCC represents the worlds top scientists. I copy to you the bibliographies of (the two lead authors), as downloaded from MEDLINE. You will observe that (the first) has never written a single article, and (the second) has only authored five articles. Can these two really be considered "Lead authors" with experience, representative of the world's top scientists and specialists in human health?"
The Heidelberg Appeal
http://www.sepp.org/
policy%20declaration
s/heidelberg_appeal.
html
I am harboring the foolish hope that you may now be able indulge me with the scientific research that convinces you of the positive feedback relationship between CO2 and water vapour (which is integral to the theory of anthropogenic global warming). That is to say, a rebuttal of the recent data analysis done by the NASA AQUA satellite team.
However, the cynic in me is convinced that you will, once again, avoid citations of actual research papers and instead provide some obscure wikipedia page and declare a consensus. At which point I will have to take my leave from the "debate" as iterative cranial-based masonry adjustments are not a pleasure of mine.
tom, marlow says...
9:47pm Sat 2 Aug 08
Bill said
Tom's claim that "ice everywhere is melting" is completely incorrect.The Antarctic has been getting colder and increasing in ice-mass for years
Tom looks back at what he wrote and discovers that he said nothing of the sort.....
I made a comment in a discussion last year about the arctic melting - perhaps thats what you are referring to.
I'm not going to argue about things I havent said other than to comment that if I had said it I would be arguing that it is well established that the artic and antarctic ice masses are shrinking. The Glacier I've been skiing on most winters for the last 20 yrs has been getting smaller too, so I've seen it for myself (and for dave's benefit, most years I go there by train)
I'm going to leave you and Dave to slug it out over the climatology. My background is in spectrocopy so my detailed understanding of the processes is limited to the microscopic and molecualr level. However, I have a good grasp of the methodology (and the politics)
I say again - finding faults with specific details does not in any way invalid the larger picture
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:35pm Sat 2 Aug 08
WE are at last agreed.
(i) there is no "debate" and (ii) iterative cranial-based masonry adjustments are not a pleasure of mine either.
You may have fooled a few people with your posturings, but I doubt it.
I remain happy to meet with you, and I remain curious why you cannot or will not explain why you feel you know better than 99% of independent scientists.
I am also curious how you will feel about yourself in 10 year time when the evidence is all around you, and people start to get angry with those who misled them that everything was fine.
I am sure there are some people who harbour some GENUINE DOUBT as to whether it is conceivable that the holocaust never happened... but that issue is not presented by the media as a 50:50 balanced debate.
As to burning oil like there's no tomorrow, there's quite a few Bucks bucks in that!
It's a very convenient lie.
(i) there is no "debate" and (ii) iterative cranial-based masonry adjustments are not a pleasure of mine either.
You may have fooled a few people with your posturings, but I doubt it.
I remain happy to meet with you, and I remain curious why you cannot or will not explain why you feel you know better than 99% of independent scientists.
I am also curious how you will feel about yourself in 10 year time when the evidence is all around you, and people start to get angry with those who misled them that everything was fine.
I am sure there are some people who harbour some GENUINE DOUBT as to whether it is conceivable that the holocaust never happened... but that issue is not presented by the media as a 50:50 balanced debate.
As to burning oil like there's no tomorrow, there's quite a few Bucks bucks in that!
It's a very convenient lie.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:52pm Sat 2 Aug 08
"the theory of anthropogenic global warming"
It is NOT a theory, it is a fact, as i suspect you know. it was a 'theory' 25 years ago.
Readers might be interested in the organisations backing a new campaign called "One Hundred Months". We don't time to waste debating whether black is white, we need to get on with cutting the carbon, for the childrens sake.
www.onehundredmonths
.org
It is NOT a theory, it is a fact, as i suspect you know. it was a 'theory' 25 years ago.
Readers might be interested in the organisations backing a new campaign called "One Hundred Months". We don't time to waste debating whether black is white, we need to get on with cutting the carbon, for the childrens sake.
www.onehundredmonths
.org
williams, London says...
11:50am Sun 3 Aug 08
Dear Tom, I sincerely apologise for getting one of your posts confused with one of Dave's. It was not my intention to put words in your mouth and I hope you can appreciate it was an honest mistake.
In answer to your further comments regarding this issue, the evidence of the planet warming over the past 50 years does not prove that it is anthropogenic activity that is the cause. I would also urge you to check your data on the Antarctic ice mass and the degree of divergence of the arctic sea ice levels from the 1979-2001 average.
Once again, sorry for accusing you of a statement you didn't make.
Dave, you have failed to comprehend my quotation marks around the word "debate" in my last post.
They were intended to underline the point that you have never actually engaged me in a debate, preferring instead to hide behind petulant name calling, attempted character assassinations, and now the bizarre equating of myself to a Holocaust Denier.
Considering my heritage I initially took great offense to this last point of attack. However when I then contemplated the staggering irrelevance of such a comment, it is obvious that the comment was borne out of desperation and anger and I doubt you realised the true gravity of what you were inferring.
As I stated in my last post, if you are unable to explain your disagreement with the AQUA satellite data and propose the scientific research that leads you to be convinced of a highly sensitive (i.e. positive feedback dominated) climate, then there is little point of the continuation of this "debate" (please see my above comments before you get excited about those quotation marks).
While I hold no hope that you will use this experience to actually learn and advance your knowledge on a subject that you obviously know little to nothing about, I expect anyone who has witnessed the obtuse derision with which you meet any questioning opinions will think twice before listening when you pose as an authoritative voice.
In answer to your further comments regarding this issue, the evidence of the planet warming over the past 50 years does not prove that it is anthropogenic activity that is the cause. I would also urge you to check your data on the Antarctic ice mass and the degree of divergence of the arctic sea ice levels from the 1979-2001 average.
Once again, sorry for accusing you of a statement you didn't make.
Dave, you have failed to comprehend my quotation marks around the word "debate" in my last post.
They were intended to underline the point that you have never actually engaged me in a debate, preferring instead to hide behind petulant name calling, attempted character assassinations, and now the bizarre equating of myself to a Holocaust Denier.
Considering my heritage I initially took great offense to this last point of attack. However when I then contemplated the staggering irrelevance of such a comment, it is obvious that the comment was borne out of desperation and anger and I doubt you realised the true gravity of what you were inferring.
As I stated in my last post, if you are unable to explain your disagreement with the AQUA satellite data and propose the scientific research that leads you to be convinced of a highly sensitive (i.e. positive feedback dominated) climate, then there is little point of the continuation of this "debate" (please see my above comments before you get excited about those quotation marks).
While I hold no hope that you will use this experience to actually learn and advance your knowledge on a subject that you obviously know little to nothing about, I expect anyone who has witnessed the obtuse derision with which you meet any questioning opinions will think twice before listening when you pose as an authoritative voice.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
12:49pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Bill Williams is fast to object to 'petulant name calling' as he refers to it. If I have a moment later I will gather together all the insults, some better veiled than others, he has made (above) about me.
But the point here is that one of us is engaged in a discussion that aims to free humanity from its current (supressed) addiction to oil, and the other is trying hard to obfuscate and confuse, or at least to generate the appearance, to any lay reader, that there is doubt when there simply is not.
I have provided Mr Bill Williams with numerous references, challenges, links to authoritative papers that UTTERLY contradict and refute his position, and he choses to ignore all those. he choses not to disclose his interest in the matter, or to explain the very simple matter of "Why are you so certain that CO2 is NOT a problem - that you are prepared to jeopardise the childrens entire future!
If readers are getting tired and confused, but you have just sufficient energy (and will to live?!) to read on more document. I will post it now. It is DYNAMITE. It is undisputed. It is highly alarming (as distinct from alarmist.) It catalogues the changes that were made to the final pre-publication draft of the last IPCC summary. Changes made by politicians not scientists, and you will be pleased to see Bill, that there is reference to water vapour in amongst the bigger picture conclusions that the scientists have made.
You may rest assured Bill, that I will not let this rest.
You are deliberately trying to conceal truth or mislead, for whatever motive.
Are you capable of addressing these bigger issues I raise or are you only happy in the minutiae of the sub-text of the pseudo-scientific objections raised by oil industry based interventions in the whole massively fair, balanced, science based and ultimately NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNING endeavour that is the IPCC.
And as I have mentioned, I have evidence of political intervention in IPCC - that shows clearly that governments intervened to PLAY DOWN the threat as summarised by IPPC, rather than exagerate it.
But you fiddle on if you like while the planet burns.
I hope the people of Marlow will remember your contribution to making a very clear picture somehwat cloudy.
But the point here is that one of us is engaged in a discussion that aims to free humanity from its current (supressed) addiction to oil, and the other is trying hard to obfuscate and confuse, or at least to generate the appearance, to any lay reader, that there is doubt when there simply is not.
I have provided Mr Bill Williams with numerous references, challenges, links to authoritative papers that UTTERLY contradict and refute his position, and he choses to ignore all those. he choses not to disclose his interest in the matter, or to explain the very simple matter of "Why are you so certain that CO2 is NOT a problem - that you are prepared to jeopardise the childrens entire future!
If readers are getting tired and confused, but you have just sufficient energy (and will to live?!) to read on more document. I will post it now. It is DYNAMITE. It is undisputed. It is highly alarming (as distinct from alarmist.) It catalogues the changes that were made to the final pre-publication draft of the last IPCC summary. Changes made by politicians not scientists, and you will be pleased to see Bill, that there is reference to water vapour in amongst the bigger picture conclusions that the scientists have made.
You may rest assured Bill, that I will not let this rest.
You are deliberately trying to conceal truth or mislead, for whatever motive.
Are you capable of addressing these bigger issues I raise or are you only happy in the minutiae of the sub-text of the pseudo-scientific objections raised by oil industry based interventions in the whole massively fair, balanced, science based and ultimately NOBEL PEACE PRIZE WINNING endeavour that is the IPCC.
And as I have mentioned, I have evidence of political intervention in IPCC - that shows clearly that governments intervened to PLAY DOWN the threat as summarised by IPPC, rather than exagerate it.
But you fiddle on if you like while the planet burns.
I hope the people of Marlow will remember your contribution to making a very clear picture somehwat cloudy.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
12:56pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Dear Bucks Free Press Readers. If there are any left!
Please give this one link a try. It is absolute dynamite:
http://www.meridian.
org.uk/_PDFs/IPCC.pd
f
Its a very easy read. To getthe full impact, stop to contemplate the emotion you feel when you read the statements in blue, as compared to their twins in pink.
The before and after drafts.
The shift is dramatic, and shows governmental suppression of science, concealment of the degree of certainly about the seriousness of the climate threat, rather than exaggeration?
This is the complet opposite of what the main the street thinks, that politicians are hyping it up to foist green taxes on us. The truth is much more alarming, if you have any relatives who are likely to be around for the next 25 years or so.
PLEASE READ, including you Bill, but I have no doubt you will tell me black is white again, or blue is red...
Please give this one link a try. It is absolute dynamite:
http://www.meridian.
org.uk/_PDFs/IPCC.pd
f
Its a very easy read. To getthe full impact, stop to contemplate the emotion you feel when you read the statements in blue, as compared to their twins in pink.
The before and after drafts.
The shift is dramatic, and shows governmental suppression of science, concealment of the degree of certainly about the seriousness of the climate threat, rather than exaggeration?
This is the complet opposite of what the main the street thinks, that politicians are hyping it up to foist green taxes on us. The truth is much more alarming, if you have any relatives who are likely to be around for the next 25 years or so.
PLEASE READ, including you Bill, but I have no doubt you will tell me black is white again, or blue is red...
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
2:09pm Sun 3 Aug 08
For the record, an entertaining summary of Bill williams disguised* and ultimately still anonymous attacks on me: (*initially! See the way he ups the ante at the end!)
Line 1: With all due respect to Richard Attenborough and yourself... (never a good start, and it was Sir David)
Line 2: The logic employed in order to claim that climate models prove man-induced climate change, is circular. I am accused of circular logic.
the IPCC tell us.... that they use "flux adjustments" ... You and I would call them fudge factors. Actually, as I scientist and Cambridge educated engineer I would not call them fudge factors.
It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming. The clear implication from Bill is that i am completely illogical. I am not.
Interlude: vast amounts of information and links provided for me all ignored or dismissed by Bill.
I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces. This was said of a piece by eminent science author Fred Pearce.
.....aside from the negative/positive error in that statement, (DH: it was not an error) you gave the impression that you were knowledgeable, to some degree, in this subject ... (DH: thats an insult)
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles. (A put down, and also factually incorrect.)
...and rather than conduct a mature and reasonable debate on the reasons why you so vehemently believe in anthropogenic global warming, you have resorted to name calling. I think the name calling Bill is referring to is my application of the word obfuscator to people like him, who hide in the impressive looking detail and deny the larger facts before them.
I prefer to base my opinions on empirical science as opposed to emotive politics. Sure thing bro!
That you call in to question my integrity with poorly veiled accusations that I receive funding from 'big oil' is close to libel and I would take offense were it not so remarkably ironic that it is yourself with a vested interest in the continuation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This is his interpretation of what I said, close to libel or not. I have a vested interest in my children having a stable and viable home planet that is my interest, as I have explained before. Bill will not answer what it is that makes him tick? What IS the motive for his ultra-high-risk certainty CO2 isnt a problem! Is he an innocent victim of deception by people who ARE funded by big oil. I think so.
I am harboring the foolish hope that you may now be able indulge me with the scientific research that convinces you of the positive feedback relationship between CO2 and water vapour. Sure!
And heres the grand slam from someone who started so polite!
While I hold no hope that you will use this experience to actually learn and advance your knowledge on a subject that you obviously know little to nothing about, I expect anyone who has witnessed the obtuse derision with which you meet any questioning opinions will think twice before listening when you pose as an authoritative voice.
Almost libellous I'd say.
Nice try Bill.
Ill let history and others decide.
Line 1: With all due respect to Richard Attenborough and yourself... (never a good start, and it was Sir David)
Line 2: The logic employed in order to claim that climate models prove man-induced climate change, is circular. I am accused of circular logic.
the IPCC tell us.... that they use "flux adjustments" ... You and I would call them fudge factors. Actually, as I scientist and Cambridge educated engineer I would not call them fudge factors.
It is, therefore, completely illogical to claim that climate models prove anthropogenic global warming. The clear implication from Bill is that i am completely illogical. I am not.
Interlude: vast amounts of information and links provided for me all ignored or dismissed by Bill.
I also have the personal preference of basing my scientific opinions on empirical evidence, as opposed to media opinion pieces. This was said of a piece by eminent science author Fred Pearce.
.....aside from the negative/positive error in that statement, (DH: it was not an error) you gave the impression that you were knowledgeable, to some degree, in this subject ... (DH: thats an insult)
The rest of your comments are either based on catastrophic climate change predictions, or wikipedia articles. (A put down, and also factually incorrect.)
...and rather than conduct a mature and reasonable debate on the reasons why you so vehemently believe in anthropogenic global warming, you have resorted to name calling. I think the name calling Bill is referring to is my application of the word obfuscator to people like him, who hide in the impressive looking detail and deny the larger facts before them.
I prefer to base my opinions on empirical science as opposed to emotive politics. Sure thing bro!
That you call in to question my integrity with poorly veiled accusations that I receive funding from 'big oil' is close to libel and I would take offense were it not so remarkably ironic that it is yourself with a vested interest in the continuation of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This is his interpretation of what I said, close to libel or not. I have a vested interest in my children having a stable and viable home planet that is my interest, as I have explained before. Bill will not answer what it is that makes him tick? What IS the motive for his ultra-high-risk certainty CO2 isnt a problem! Is he an innocent victim of deception by people who ARE funded by big oil. I think so.
I am harboring the foolish hope that you may now be able indulge me with the scientific research that convinces you of the positive feedback relationship between CO2 and water vapour. Sure!
And heres the grand slam from someone who started so polite!
While I hold no hope that you will use this experience to actually learn and advance your knowledge on a subject that you obviously know little to nothing about, I expect anyone who has witnessed the obtuse derision with which you meet any questioning opinions will think twice before listening when you pose as an authoritative voice.
Almost libellous I'd say.
Nice try Bill.
Ill let history and others decide.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
2:31pm Sun 3 Aug 08
On a lighter nite, this is quite fun readers:
http://theboywhodeni
edwolf.com/
http://theboywhodeni
edwolf.com/
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
2:42pm Sun 3 Aug 08
One last thing (from me.) If anyone is disappointed that I haven't direvtly addressed 'Bill Williams' apparently innocent looking question, all the answers and more (and plenty of enlightenment) are all to be found on an amazing website called www.realclimate.org
"Climate science from climate scientists"
There is also a very funny and wise site:
www.climatedenial.or
g
Who cares wins...
"Climate science from climate scientists"
There is also a very funny and wise site:
www.climatedenial.or
g
Who cares wins...
tom, marlow says...
4:07pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Bill Williams wrote
Dear Tom, I sincerely apologise for getting one of your posts confused with one of Dave's. It was not my intention to put words in your mouth and I hope you can appreciate it was an honest mistake.
In answer to your further comments regarding this issue, the evidence of the planet warming over the past 50 years does not prove that it is anthropogenic activity that is the cause. I would also urge you to check your data on the Antarctic ice mass and the degree of divergence of the arctic sea ice levels from the 1979-2001 average.
Once again, sorry for accusing you of a statement you didn't make.
As I said, I'm not a climatologist, so I'm not going to go to the original data.
Are you trying to tell me that every single article I read in New Scientist (which is my main source of information on the subject, along with the occasional National Geographic and Economist article) is lying?
Time and time again I read of loss of polar ice coverage, receeding glaciers (I've seen then for myself). Is this all lies?
Can you explain in the light of these reports you claim that it is not happening?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:26pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Well said Tom.
By way of a 'taster' for the amazing resource that is
www.realclimate.org
try this little extract entitled:
Cuckoo Science
(November 2006)
Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious 'science' on the web and in the media. These pieces look scientific to the layperson (they have equations! references to 19th Century physicists!), but like cuckoo eggs in a nest, they are only designed to look real enough to fool onlookers and crowd out the real science.
A cursory glance from anyone knowledgeable is usually enough to see that concepts are being mangled, logic is being thrown to the winds, and completetly unjustified conclusions are being drawn - but the tricks being used are sometimes a little subtle.
Soumd familiar anyone?
By way of a 'taster' for the amazing resource that is
www.realclimate.org
try this little extract entitled:
Cuckoo Science
(November 2006)
Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious 'science' on the web and in the media. These pieces look scientific to the layperson (they have equations! references to 19th Century physicists!), but like cuckoo eggs in a nest, they are only designed to look real enough to fool onlookers and crowd out the real science.
A cursory glance from anyone knowledgeable is usually enough to see that concepts are being mangled, logic is being thrown to the winds, and completetly unjustified conclusions are being drawn - but the tricks being used are sometimes a little subtle.
Soumd familiar anyone?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:41pm Sun 3 Aug 08
Bingo!
Also from
www.RealScience.org
Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
April 2005!
Filed under: FAQ
Climate modelling
Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?", "Why isn't water vapour included in climate models?", "Why isn't included on the forcings bar charts?" etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response.."
Again, sound familiar?
Also from
www.RealScience.org
Water vapour: feedback or forcing?
April 2005!
Filed under: FAQ
Climate modelling
Whenever three or more contrarians are gathered together, one will inevitably claim that water vapour is being unjustly neglected by 'IPCC' scientists. "Why isn't water vapour acknowledged as a greenhouse gas?", "Why does anyone even care about the other greenhouse gases since water vapour is 98% of the effect?", "Why isn't water vapour included in climate models?", "Why isn't included on the forcings bar charts?" etc. Any mainstream scientist present will trot out the standard response that water vapour is indeed an important greenhouse gas, it is included in all climate models, but it is a feedback and not a forcing. From personal experience, I am aware that these distinctions are not clear to many, and so here is a more in-depth response.."
Again, sound familiar?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
8:02am Mon 4 Aug 08
Incidentally 'Bill' you claim to take great offence at the reference to 'holocaust denial' and accuse me of equating you to one. I did no such thing. YOU made that equation. The wider point I was making did not involve you.
Neither did Tom accuse you of any such thing, but you are mixing up your Tom's and your Dave's again 'Bill'.
It was Tom who earlier made reference to the fact that similat techiques are used in other areas of (farcical, my word) truth distortion:
"Read Michael Shermers's book "Why people beleive wierd things" and you will see how the same arguments are used by (for example)creationsist
s to "disprove" evolution, and by holocaust deniers." said Tom.
I think any reader who has bothered to read this far will now be well aware of your background and your intent ' Bill' if not your identity.
I remain happy to meet with you, with BFP in attendance.
I remain curious why you try to portray yourself as someone who knows better than 99% of real scientists.
I remain utterly unconvinced by one word of your pseudo-science (and have referred it to real scientists who have assured me it is entirely base-less and entirely in keeping with the out-spurt from professional climate sceptic groups, who's single intent is obfuscation and the introduction of doubt where there is none.
I will give you credit - you have probably achieved that modicum of doubt in the minds of some lazy lay readers in Bucks (if they got this far!) quite well, so you are good at what you do.
But don't you DARE lecture me about the TRUE GRAVITY of any aspect of the above discussion. I am fully aware of the gravity of this topic.
It is the children's lives that are being put at risk by your obfuscation tactics.
As I have said before, I hope Bucks readers will remember the contribution made by people like you in 10-25 years time when the any possibility for the reversal of manmade climate destabilistaion may then be impossible. In other words, the children may be living on a dying planet.
And all because the oil companies, for a few dollars more, wanted to hush up the fact that the burning of their product (and other fossil fuel) was causing Mother Earth serious damage.
I will take as many ridiculous insults as you care to throw my way, I have take a lot already, but I would advise you not to attempt to smear my reputation.
I also fully expect more insults, more pompous lecturing, more obfuscation, and more table turning.
But DO NOT lecture me on issues of 'heritage' or on the 'gravity' of the situation.
Neither did Tom accuse you of any such thing, but you are mixing up your Tom's and your Dave's again 'Bill'.
It was Tom who earlier made reference to the fact that similat techiques are used in other areas of (farcical, my word) truth distortion:
"Read Michael Shermers's book "Why people beleive wierd things" and you will see how the same arguments are used by (for example)creationsist
s to "disprove" evolution, and by holocaust deniers." said Tom.
I think any reader who has bothered to read this far will now be well aware of your background and your intent ' Bill' if not your identity.
I remain happy to meet with you, with BFP in attendance.
I remain curious why you try to portray yourself as someone who knows better than 99% of real scientists.
I remain utterly unconvinced by one word of your pseudo-science (and have referred it to real scientists who have assured me it is entirely base-less and entirely in keeping with the out-spurt from professional climate sceptic groups, who's single intent is obfuscation and the introduction of doubt where there is none.
I will give you credit - you have probably achieved that modicum of doubt in the minds of some lazy lay readers in Bucks (if they got this far!) quite well, so you are good at what you do.
But don't you DARE lecture me about the TRUE GRAVITY of any aspect of the above discussion. I am fully aware of the gravity of this topic.
It is the children's lives that are being put at risk by your obfuscation tactics.
As I have said before, I hope Bucks readers will remember the contribution made by people like you in 10-25 years time when the any possibility for the reversal of manmade climate destabilistaion may then be impossible. In other words, the children may be living on a dying planet.
And all because the oil companies, for a few dollars more, wanted to hush up the fact that the burning of their product (and other fossil fuel) was causing Mother Earth serious damage.
I will take as many ridiculous insults as you care to throw my way, I have take a lot already, but I would advise you not to attempt to smear my reputation.
I also fully expect more insults, more pompous lecturing, more obfuscation, and more table turning.
But DO NOT lecture me on issues of 'heritage' or on the 'gravity' of the situation.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:18am Mon 4 Aug 08
Hot from The Sydney Morning Herald
Aug 2nd 2008
The climate change smokescreen
Global warming scepticism is being manipulated by tactics reminiscient of an earlier campaign of denial, writes David McKnight.
Latest related coverage
Despite sceptics' noise, scientific consensus is growing
Common myths
Advertisement
When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action, engaging in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists.
The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In the space provided by doubt, billions of dollars in sales could continue. Delay and doubt were crucial products of its PR campaign.
In May, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon Mobil acknowledged it had been doing something similar. It said it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.
Aug 2nd 2008
The climate change smokescreen
Global warming scepticism is being manipulated by tactics reminiscient of an earlier campaign of denial, writes David McKnight.
Latest related coverage
Despite sceptics' noise, scientific consensus is growing
Common myths
Advertisement
When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action, engaging in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists.
The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science. In the space provided by doubt, billions of dollars in sales could continue. Delay and doubt were crucial products of its PR campaign.
In May, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon Mobil acknowledged it had been doing something similar. It said it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:19am Mon 4 Aug 08
And link to the story in full:
http://www.smh.com.a
u/news/global-warmin
g/the-climate-change
-smokescreen/2008/08
/01/1217097533885.ht
ml
http://www.smh.com.a
u/news/global-warmin
g/the-climate-change
-smokescreen/2008/08
/01/1217097533885.ht
ml
williams, London says...
9:06pm Mon 4 Aug 08
Hi Tom, thanks for your comment.
In it, you asked (I'll try and get it right this time)...
I'm very wary of putting this down to any one person intentionally telling a lie. The kind of articles you are referring to, as I have observed them, I would consider as bias towards the theory of anthropogenic global warming in that they miss parts of the story (intentionally or not, I cannot say) that give you the whole picture.
For example, almost every newspaper and magazine ran a piece about the 2007 record Arctic sea ice melt and put it down to man made global warming. What was never heard mentioned in the mainstream press was the NASA investigation into the melt which concluded....
http://www.nasa.gov/
vision/earth/looking
atearth/quikscat-200
71001.html
Which presents a much wider view of what was actually occurring beyond what was effectively portrayed as (if you'll excuse my crude headline attempt) "global warming melts arctic".
In essence it comes down to (as far as the media is concerned) selling papers and, sadly, sensational claims sell papers. The title "Latest NASA research shows Arctic has record melt: Further investigation shows it was the alteration of polar winds.", I'll think you'll agree, is not as exciting.
Further adding to this problem is the vast funding that is now available for research into how anthropogenic CO2 is affecting the environment. Please allow me to put this last comment into perspective.
Exxon, as everyone knows, has been funded some scientists to publish papers with bias findings against the man-made global warming advocates. Over the past 9 years, they have spent approximately $16 million on such activities. .
In comparison, over the past 10 years the US Government alone has spent just over $50 billion on research into human effect on the climate.
As such, I have read absurd papers on how global warming is going to make fish deaf, increase kidney stones, cause the earth to literally explode and even one stipulation that climate change caused Hurricane Katrina and the conflict in Darfur, which led to the black hawk down battle between U.S. troops and Somali rebels.
If you'll allow me to be perfectly clear on this, I in no way condone the perversion of science for any reason. Least of all financial gain.
In it, you asked (I'll try and get it right this time)...
Time and time again I read of loss of polar ice coverage, receding glaciers (I've seen then for myself). Is this all lies?
I'm very wary of putting this down to any one person intentionally telling a lie. The kind of articles you are referring to, as I have observed them, I would consider as bias towards the theory of anthropogenic global warming in that they miss parts of the story (intentionally or not, I cannot say) that give you the whole picture.
For example, almost every newspaper and magazine ran a piece about the 2007 record Arctic sea ice melt and put it down to man made global warming. What was never heard mentioned in the mainstream press was the NASA investigation into the melt which concluded....
Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic, said Son Nghiem of NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
http://www.nasa.gov/
vision/earth/looking
atearth/quikscat-200
71001.html
Which presents a much wider view of what was actually occurring beyond what was effectively portrayed as (if you'll excuse my crude headline attempt) "global warming melts arctic".
In essence it comes down to (as far as the media is concerned) selling papers and, sadly, sensational claims sell papers. The title "Latest NASA research shows Arctic has record melt: Further investigation shows it was the alteration of polar winds.", I'll think you'll agree, is not as exciting.
Further adding to this problem is the vast funding that is now available for research into how anthropogenic CO2 is affecting the environment. Please allow me to put this last comment into perspective.
Exxon, as everyone knows, has been funded some scientists to publish papers with bias findings against the man-made global warming advocates. Over the past 9 years, they have spent approximately $16 million on such activities. .
In comparison, over the past 10 years the US Government alone has spent just over $50 billion on research into human effect on the climate.
As such, I have read absurd papers on how global warming is going to make fish deaf, increase kidney stones, cause the earth to literally explode and even one stipulation that climate change caused Hurricane Katrina and the conflict in Darfur, which led to the black hawk down battle between U.S. troops and Somali rebels.
If you'll allow me to be perfectly clear on this, I in no way condone the perversion of science for any reason. Least of all financial gain.
tom, marlow says...
9:24pm Mon 4 Aug 08
Ok, so that was the arctic ice melt in 2007, what about 2006? 2005?....
What about the antarctic? what about the alpine and himalayan glaciers?
This is exactly my point - you are taking a single minute detail of the picture, coming up with an alternative explanation for that, and then claiming that the whole big picture must be incorrect.
And even then one could regress your explanation for the 2007 arctic melt and ask "what caused the unusual weather conditions?" I note that you are now accepting that the ice is melting.
What about the antarctic? what about the alpine and himalayan glaciers?
This is exactly my point - you are taking a single minute detail of the picture, coming up with an alternative explanation for that, and then claiming that the whole big picture must be incorrect.
And even then one could regress your explanation for the 2007 arctic melt and ask "what caused the unusual weather conditions?" I note that you are now accepting that the ice is melting.
williams, London says...
10:27pm Mon 4 Aug 08
Put simply, I didn't choose 2007, it was seized on by the media due to a record melt that year.
Arctic ice melts and re-freezes on a yearly basis (as you'd expect). 2006, 2005 were not stand-out years with regard to this cycle. It is also worth noting that 2008 has seen an almost complete recovery in arctic ice (if you look at the National Snow and Ice Data Center website they have a running update).
In answer to your comment
I never claimed it wasn't, I claimed that the statement...
...is incorrect. If you check my sources I stated in my earlier post, you'll see this is correct (there is data on the record levels of Antarctic ice also).
Even if we ignore all this, as I mentioned before, evidence of an average increase in global temperature does not prove that it is anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are causing it (suffice to say I don't think anyone has disputed an increase).
Your question with regard to the NASA investigation into the cause of the 2007 melt of...
...is a good and perfectly valid question, and one that I am not aware of an answer to.
It is perhaps something to be considered in future discussions.
The research that I originally cited as problematic to the theory of anthropogenic global warming is not to be considered a minute detail. The question of the scale and polarity of the feedback between CO2 and water vapour is at the core of the theory. Since recent findings have shown it to be not what the IPCC believed, I consider that very integral to the debate.
If you'll excuse my frankness, I've just worked a 12 hour day on less than 3 hours sleep and I will have to bid you adieu for tonight. I look forward to any comments.
Arctic ice melts and re-freezes on a yearly basis (as you'd expect). 2006, 2005 were not stand-out years with regard to this cycle. It is also worth noting that 2008 has seen an almost complete recovery in arctic ice (if you look at the National Snow and Ice Data Center website they have a running update).
In answer to your comment
I note that you are now accepting that the ice is melting.
I never claimed it wasn't, I claimed that the statement...
"ice everywhere is melting"
...is incorrect. If you check my sources I stated in my earlier post, you'll see this is correct (there is data on the record levels of Antarctic ice also).
Even if we ignore all this, as I mentioned before, evidence of an average increase in global temperature does not prove that it is anthropogenic CO2 emissions that are causing it (suffice to say I don't think anyone has disputed an increase).
Your question with regard to the NASA investigation into the cause of the 2007 melt of...
what caused the unusual weather conditions?"
...is a good and perfectly valid question, and one that I am not aware of an answer to.
It is perhaps something to be considered in future discussions.
The research that I originally cited as problematic to the theory of anthropogenic global warming is not to be considered a minute detail. The question of the scale and polarity of the feedback between CO2 and water vapour is at the core of the theory. Since recent findings have shown it to be not what the IPCC believed, I consider that very integral to the debate.
If you'll excuse my frankness, I've just worked a 12 hour day on less than 3 hours sleep and I will have to bid you adieu for tonight. I look forward to any comments.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
2:15am Tue 5 Aug 08
Tom,
You might enjoy this.
The Boy Who Denied Wolf:
http://www.theboywho
deniedwolf.com/
You might enjoy this.
The Boy Who Denied Wolf:
http://www.theboywho
deniedwolf.com/
BT1, Going to Iceland says...
3:42pm Tue 5 Aug 08
I was enjoying a Rocket ice-lolly the other day but was concerned that it was melting rather quicker than normal. Coincidence? I think not. Related? Quite possibly.
williams, London says...
4:31pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Very possibly, BT1! I have a fantastically patronising book somewhere, entitled "The Little Boy Who Had a Lolly" that has been re-written to fit the theory of man-made global warming. I think it will answer any scientific questions you have. I will dig it out and send it your way.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
7:50pm Tue 5 Aug 08
A fierce intellect friend of mine from outside Bucks sent me the following comment:
"Sadly I dont have time to indulge in micro-campaigning, thanks, so I must decline taking on the Gentlemen amateur scientists of South Bucks.
Ill limit myself to the following comment.
Taylor s kitchen-table estimations & false modesty (e.g. I suggest that these solar energy changes are caused by..) are purely obsessive. He posits himself implicitly as the dogged independent man of common sense. Has he, in any form, presented these ideas for scrutiny to the IPCC or to any other academic audience? No? Presumably because, before a disparate group of 2,000 of the worlds foremost minds on climate change, his ideas will rapidly be debunked."
"Sadly I dont have time to indulge in micro-campaigning, thanks, so I must decline taking on the Gentlemen amateur scientists of South Bucks.
Ill limit myself to the following comment.
Taylor s kitchen-table estimations & false modesty (e.g. I suggest that these solar energy changes are caused by..) are purely obsessive. He posits himself implicitly as the dogged independent man of common sense. Has he, in any form, presented these ideas for scrutiny to the IPCC or to any other academic audience? No? Presumably because, before a disparate group of 2,000 of the worlds foremost minds on climate change, his ideas will rapidly be debunked."
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
8:05pm Tue 5 Aug 08
To BT1: Ha! Thanks! Have a good trip to Iceland and enjoy the lolly. I also hope you will also enjoy 'williams' "fantastically patronising" booklet. (Did he write it i wonder?!)
If on the other hand you would prefer something edifying, honest, and not atall patronising, try the science booklet on the Royal Society homepage, where you will discover that man-made global warming it is not a a 'theory', neither is there honest any 'debate'.
What there is, is an alarming future ahead, unless we start adult debate about solutions, such as much more renewable energy and much less fossil fuel for example.
It is time to let go of childishly hoping the problem isn't real, or will go away. It is time to do something to cut the carbon, for the kids sake. Thanks.
If on the other hand you would prefer something edifying, honest, and not atall patronising, try the science booklet on the Royal Society homepage, where you will discover that man-made global warming it is not a a 'theory', neither is there honest any 'debate'.
What there is, is an alarming future ahead, unless we start adult debate about solutions, such as much more renewable energy and much less fossil fuel for example.
It is time to let go of childishly hoping the problem isn't real, or will go away. It is time to do something to cut the carbon, for the kids sake. Thanks.
wayne, wycombe says...
8:12pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Oh Dear,
Here they go again, the sister's are found to be wanting so again they resort with spite and fallacy.
I must admit, i'm slightly surprised at you Tom, less so with Hampton.
I have found your evidence highly interesting Williams, please don't waste your valuable time with these two, it appears to me that your talents are far more valuable elsewhere.
All the best
Here they go again, the sister's are found to be wanting so again they resort with spite and fallacy.
I must admit, i'm slightly surprised at you Tom, less so with Hampton.
I have found your evidence highly interesting Williams, please don't waste your valuable time with these two, it appears to me that your talents are far more valuable elsewhere.
All the best
williams, London says...
9:33pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Thank you, Wayne. I'm inclined to agree with you. The wall is unyielding and my head is getting sore.
I'm saddened that such a 'fierce intellect' considers me so lowly that he must communicate through proxy to simply ask...
I would have hoped that such a stunning intellect would be aware of the journal of climate from the AMS (American Meteorological Society). He can find the Spencer et al research from the AQUA satellite in there.
I'm saddened that such a 'fierce intellect' considers me so lowly that he must communicate through proxy to simply ask...
Has he, in any form, presented these ideas for scrutiny to the IPCC or to any other academic audience?
I would have hoped that such a stunning intellect would be aware of the journal of climate from the AMS (American Meteorological Society). He can find the Spencer et al research from the AQUA satellite in there.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
11:56pm Tue 5 Aug 08
Well there's an interesting turn up for the books. It would seem that 'bill williams' may have just forgotten that he is a different person to R Taylor, to whom my friends comments were clearly addressed!!!
And which exactly, of Mssrs Weeden, Taylor, bill williams or 'wayne' have their names on papers presented to the IPCC? I'd appreciate a reference to the material they have submitted, in their own names of course.
And which exactly, of Mssrs Weeden, Taylor, bill williams or 'wayne' have their names on papers presented to the IPCC? I'd appreciate a reference to the material they have submitted, in their own names of course.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
12:01am Wed 6 Aug 08
Well there's an interesting turn up for the books. It would seem that 'bill williams' may have just forgotten that he is a different person to R Taylor, to whom my friends comments were clearly addressed!!!
And which exactly, of Mssrs Weeden, Taylor, bill williams or 'wayne' have their names on papers presented to the IPCC? I'd appreciate a reference to the material they have submitted, in their own names of course.
And which exactly, of Mssrs Weeden, Taylor, bill williams or 'wayne' have their names on papers presented to the IPCC? I'd appreciate a reference to the material they have submitted, in their own names of course.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
12:05am Wed 6 Aug 08
As for you 'wayne' - gosh you are brave aren't you, hurling insults, from the sidelines and the shadows.
What a joke! It is you who resorts to insults wayne. 'Spite and fallacy' are your hallmarks, not mine... as any analysis of the content of this BFP opinion board will show.
What a joke! It is you who resorts to insults wayne. 'Spite and fallacy' are your hallmarks, not mine... as any analysis of the content of this BFP opinion board will show.
williams, London says...
8:47am Wed 6 Aug 08
I must apologise for mistaking your friend's remarks as being addressed to myself. To be quite honest, I lost interest after I read "fierce intellect" and quickly scanned through your screed, mistaking his powerful commentary as being concerned with the data I referenced all those days ago (and which you continue to ignore).
This is quite obvious from the fact that in my reply I provided the whereabouts of the Spencer et al paper that I had referred to, which, considering it concerns feedback measurements and has nothing to do with the solar levels that Mr Taylor discusses, would make no sense whatsoever if I was Mr Taylor.
Your paranoia is quite remarkable.
This is quite obvious from the fact that in my reply I provided the whereabouts of the Spencer et al paper that I had referred to, which, considering it concerns feedback measurements and has nothing to do with the solar levels that Mr Taylor discusses, would make no sense whatsoever if I was Mr Taylor.
Your paranoia is quite remarkable.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:38am Wed 6 Aug 08
My paranoia!!
Yeah yeah yeah.
More insults, thanks!
Your inability to answer a straight question is quite remarkable.
Like (1) what is your name?
(2) Have you submitted a paper (in your name) to the IPCC?
(3) what is the 'qualification' you have that makes you consider you know better than 99% of the worlds independent scientists who have painstakingly reviewed ALL the so called 'data' and pseudo-data you sceptics keep digging up, many times over. And they keep drawing the same overwhelming(inconve
nient) conclusion.
I'll post it again for you, verbatim straight from the Royal Society website (again) and perhaps you will this time answer why you know better than the Royal Society and all the worlds top scientists they represent.
I take it you are not a member?
Dave Hampton, 9 Hyde Green, Marlow.
Yeah yeah yeah.
More insults, thanks!
Your inability to answer a straight question is quite remarkable.
Like (1) what is your name?
(2) Have you submitted a paper (in your name) to the IPCC?
(3) what is the 'qualification' you have that makes you consider you know better than 99% of the worlds independent scientists who have painstakingly reviewed ALL the so called 'data' and pseudo-data you sceptics keep digging up, many times over. And they keep drawing the same overwhelming(inconve
nient) conclusion.
I'll post it again for you, verbatim straight from the Royal Society website (again) and perhaps you will this time answer why you know better than the Royal Society and all the worlds top scientists they represent.
I take it you are not a member?
Dave Hampton, 9 Hyde Green, Marlow.
tom, marlow says...
9:40am Wed 6 Aug 08
This is degenerating into a series of ad hominem attacks. Once again I suggest referring to Dr Shermer for commentary on the value of that line of argument.
There is a huge amount of evidence in the literature that human activity is contributing to climate change. I'll leave Dave to enumerate that, he knows a lot more than I do. Inevitably there are papers published that are contradictory, thats the nature of things, but there existence does not invalidate all the evidence - or necessarily any of the evidence, it just questions certain aspects.
There is a huge amount of evidence in the literature that human activity is contributing to climate change. I'll leave Dave to enumerate that, he knows a lot more than I do. Inevitably there are papers published that are contradictory, thats the nature of things, but there existence does not invalidate all the evidence - or necessarily any of the evidence, it just questions certain aspects.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:40am Wed 6 Aug 08
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.
Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.
Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:42am Wed 6 Aug 08
The above from the Royal Society homepage by the way, other readers.
Kinda spookily clear isn't it - unlike the mock-science letters that keep appearing in BFP perhaps?
Kinda spookily clear isn't it - unlike the mock-science letters that keep appearing in BFP perhaps?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:50am Wed 6 Aug 08
And once more, with my highlight added this time:
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.
Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.
Source:
www.royalsociety.org
But no doubt Bucks 'scientists' know better...
Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.
Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.
Source:
www.royalsociety.org
But no doubt Bucks 'scientists' know better...
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
9:55am Wed 6 Aug 08
Thanks Tom, well said. For anyone who has any interest in our common future, there is a great book called "The Carbon Age" by US author Eric Roston, who, also, has done him homework and is a bit more widely read that "the climate contrarians weekly"
I'm going to sign off now. Everything I could want to say, I've said. I'm happy that if my kids were ever to read through this transcript - in 10 years time - they'd be proud of me. And frankly that's all that matters.
I'm going to sign off now. Everything I could want to say, I've said. I'm happy that if my kids were ever to read through this transcript - in 10 years time - they'd be proud of me. And frankly that's all that matters.
williams, London says...
10:48am Wed 6 Aug 08
It wasn't intended as an insult. You seem obsessed with my identity to the point of paranoia. I was merely making a statement.
In answer to your questions:
1) Bill Williams (you are already aware of this).
2) No. But what relevance that has I don't know.
3) I have a degree in computer science and 10 years of experience in the solar cell industry. Again, what relevance this has to my commenting on recent satellite research, I don't know.
I don't subscribe to the views of the Royal Society because it has become a political body that is a voice piece for a handful of people. Since they demanded that anyone who "denies" anthropogenic global warming to have their funding cut, I don't consider the minority who chose the policies to have very much integrity.
As for Tom's comment of...
...I have made this point time and time again. So, once more, here it is;
The research I have tried to get you (both) to comment on looks at the integral part of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. If this research holds water (and the American Meteorological Society consider it to) then the physical theory at the center of AGW, as the IPCC model and state it to be, is wrong. I don't consider that to be "some aspect" or a "minor detail".
But since Dave either won't read it or cannot understand it, and you yourself admit to not being interested in the data it seems like I have, as Wayne commented, wasted my time.
More the fool, me.
In answer to your questions:
1) Bill Williams (you are already aware of this).
2) No. But what relevance that has I don't know.
3) I have a degree in computer science and 10 years of experience in the solar cell industry. Again, what relevance this has to my commenting on recent satellite research, I don't know.
I don't subscribe to the views of the Royal Society because it has become a political body that is a voice piece for a handful of people. Since they demanded that anyone who "denies" anthropogenic global warming to have their funding cut, I don't consider the minority who chose the policies to have very much integrity.
As for Tom's comment of...
but there existence does not invalidate all the evidence - or necessarily any of the evidence, it just questions certain aspects.
...I have made this point time and time again. So, once more, here it is;
The research I have tried to get you (both) to comment on looks at the integral part of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. If this research holds water (and the American Meteorological Society consider it to) then the physical theory at the center of AGW, as the IPCC model and state it to be, is wrong. I don't consider that to be "some aspect" or a "minor detail".
But since Dave either won't read it or cannot understand it, and you yourself admit to not being interested in the data it seems like I have, as Wayne commented, wasted my time.
More the fool, me.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
12:17pm Wed 6 Aug 08
It looks as if we have both wasted our time Bill, which is a shame. My offer to meet up remains, but I expect you will dismiss that again.
I have looked at the item the AMS site thanks, and I understand it much better than you might think.
What I (still) don't understand is why you think this 'research' has being dismissed by top scientists, other than for the reason it is flawed, and that the 'circular argument' hoax it tries to spin can readily be debunked.
Or look at it another way.
My position is that I have studied, and choose to believe, the body of emerging data that says NOT THAT the IPCC have got it all wrong (as you rather incredibly seem hell bent on saying) but RATHER that the IPCC has got it slightly wrong... BY seriously UNDERestimating the threat to our children, from manmade greenhouse gases and second order cross compounding feedbacks, meaningthe hotter it gets, the hotter it gets. Thermal runnaway. Hardly a pleasant option for the kids. I know you dismiss this as 'alarmism'.
So your entire argument, is so very far from my (and most scientists) working reality, it hardly merits being dignified with a response. Bluntly. It's fantasy.
If people remember the headline summary of each of the FOUR IPCC reports, since the first report in 1990, (1995, 2001, 2007) each one breaks the news and updates the previous one with a clear compelling and consistent message to humanity : Each one in effect repeats: "We now conclude that it is in fact worse than we previously thought."
Each 5 years they repeat that headline.
At no point has the updated SCIENCE consensus said "Oops sorry we were wrong and it looks like everything's fine folk, and hoorah, we can get back to burning fossil fuel like there's no tomorrow now folks. Phew! Panic over"
So you may live in the hope that AR5 (5th IPPC report) will
suddenly declare CO2 innocent. I don't.
I don't hold my breath. Especially as the risks of me being wrong are so vastly less than the gamble you take. This has been pointed out before by Prof M R Fry on BFP letters page.
So, to sum up, hypothetically, if i were to say to you: "Hey Bill, you win! I thank you from the bottom of my heart for opening my eyes, the whole thing was a vast CO2 con. There is no real problem burning fossil fuel as fast as we like."
Would that tend to accelerate the uptake of the post-oil economy, or slow it down.
Would that be good for big oil, or bad?
I'll let readers decide, as I already know your answer Bill. I read it in "Climate contrarians weekly."
I remain happy that I will be proud of every word I have said above, if my kids ever get to read this dialogue, in 10 years time. That's what makes me tick.
Out.
I have looked at the item the AMS site thanks, and I understand it much better than you might think.
What I (still) don't understand is why you think this 'research' has being dismissed by top scientists, other than for the reason it is flawed, and that the 'circular argument' hoax it tries to spin can readily be debunked.
Or look at it another way.
My position is that I have studied, and choose to believe, the body of emerging data that says NOT THAT the IPCC have got it all wrong (as you rather incredibly seem hell bent on saying) but RATHER that the IPCC has got it slightly wrong... BY seriously UNDERestimating the threat to our children, from manmade greenhouse gases and second order cross compounding feedbacks, meaningthe hotter it gets, the hotter it gets. Thermal runnaway. Hardly a pleasant option for the kids. I know you dismiss this as 'alarmism'.
So your entire argument, is so very far from my (and most scientists) working reality, it hardly merits being dignified with a response. Bluntly. It's fantasy.
If people remember the headline summary of each of the FOUR IPCC reports, since the first report in 1990, (1995, 2001, 2007) each one breaks the news and updates the previous one with a clear compelling and consistent message to humanity : Each one in effect repeats: "We now conclude that it is in fact worse than we previously thought."
Each 5 years they repeat that headline.
At no point has the updated SCIENCE consensus said "Oops sorry we were wrong and it looks like everything's fine folk, and hoorah, we can get back to burning fossil fuel like there's no tomorrow now folks. Phew! Panic over"
So you may live in the hope that AR5 (5th IPPC report) will
suddenly declare CO2 innocent. I don't.
I don't hold my breath. Especially as the risks of me being wrong are so vastly less than the gamble you take. This has been pointed out before by Prof M R Fry on BFP letters page.
So, to sum up, hypothetically, if i were to say to you: "Hey Bill, you win! I thank you from the bottom of my heart for opening my eyes, the whole thing was a vast CO2 con. There is no real problem burning fossil fuel as fast as we like."
Would that tend to accelerate the uptake of the post-oil economy, or slow it down.
Would that be good for big oil, or bad?
I'll let readers decide, as I already know your answer Bill. I read it in "Climate contrarians weekly."
I remain happy that I will be proud of every word I have said above, if my kids ever get to read this dialogue, in 10 years time. That's what makes me tick.
Out.
tom, marlow says...
1:46pm Wed 6 Aug 08
Couple of points Bill -
1. I have a degree in chemistry followed by 6 yrs research in spectroscopy and photophysics, during that time I spoke with and indeed worked with a number of people who had been involved in pinning down the role of CFCs in ozone layer depletion (remember that? turned out to be right) - anyway p*****g contest over. Yet, I dont consider myself qualified to to assess papers in the climatology literature - so I dont try. I rely on people such as the RS and the IPCC to do it for me. So I'm not going to try and read some paper published by the AMS as I'm not able to make any accurate judgements of its validity. Its not a case of being disinterested - life is short, I have a living to earn, I know a lot of scientists and trust their judgement.
2. Can you substantiate your claim that the Royal Society "has become a political body that is a voice piece for a handful of people". I've met a few of them over the years and wouldnt question the integrity of any of them.
Your claim about then demanding withdrawal of funding from anyone who "denies" anthropogenic global warming has almost reached the status of an urban myth. A member of their press-office staff wrote to Exxon-Mobil asking if they had made any progress in reviewing a number of projects that had been identified as misleading. This letter was from the press office, not from the RS mebership. Exxon -Mobil leaked the letter and kicked up a fuss about it. Ironically, as Exxon-Mobil have now started to market themselves as an environmentally friendly, "look how we're trying to reduce the carbon burn" company, they've pulled the funding on those projects.
Now is that all about the Royal Society being politically motivated, or Exxon-Mobil realising they've been rumbled?
1. I have a degree in chemistry followed by 6 yrs research in spectroscopy and photophysics, during that time I spoke with and indeed worked with a number of people who had been involved in pinning down the role of CFCs in ozone layer depletion (remember that? turned out to be right) - anyway p*****g contest over. Yet, I dont consider myself qualified to to assess papers in the climatology literature - so I dont try. I rely on people such as the RS and the IPCC to do it for me. So I'm not going to try and read some paper published by the AMS as I'm not able to make any accurate judgements of its validity. Its not a case of being disinterested - life is short, I have a living to earn, I know a lot of scientists and trust their judgement.
2. Can you substantiate your claim that the Royal Society "has become a political body that is a voice piece for a handful of people". I've met a few of them over the years and wouldnt question the integrity of any of them.
Your claim about then demanding withdrawal of funding from anyone who "denies" anthropogenic global warming has almost reached the status of an urban myth. A member of their press-office staff wrote to Exxon-Mobil asking if they had made any progress in reviewing a number of projects that had been identified as misleading. This letter was from the press office, not from the RS mebership. Exxon -Mobil leaked the letter and kicked up a fuss about it. Ironically, as Exxon-Mobil have now started to market themselves as an environmentally friendly, "look how we're trying to reduce the carbon burn" company, they've pulled the funding on those projects.
Now is that all about the Royal Society being politically motivated, or Exxon-Mobil realising they've been rumbled?
williams, London says...
4:18pm Wed 6 Aug 08
Dear Dave,
Since we're summing up here, allow me to see if I have followed your conclusions:
i) The research I have referenced (which has been announced only weeks ago) is flawed and wrong. Yet you provide no explanation as to how.
ii) Any opinion that man-made CO2 does not drive catastrophic climate change (or even a reduction of that assumption) is implicit of a pro-oil, pro pollution advocate.
I can't really comment on the first point since you provide no evidence beyond "it's wrong because it's wrong".
Your second point is largely based on the assumption that I am motivated by money or some kind of political gain. Since I have only ever asked to discuss science, I think this opinion is more a reflection of how you see the debate as to my own motivations.
As for demanding immediate action based on "risks" (the 100 million worldwide who have been pushed into poverty by our rush for bio-fuels?), sadly, we never got to discuss what the specifics are.
Dear Tom,
Allow me to answer your points;
1) Congratulations on your degree. However, as I stated before, I am unsure to why I should be interested. I would judge anything you have to say on its logic and reason, not your qualifications. I brought up my qualifications only because I was answering Dave's question regarding them (which I found rather rude). You'll have to ask him about the "p*****g contest".
The AMS paper requires ,in my opinion, only an A level grasp of maths and the physical principles being discussed, both of which (considering your credentials) I expect you are more than sufficiently knowledgeable in.
2. This is why I am loathed to get in to the "consensus" point.
Besides from it being a non-argument with regards to empirical research being correct or not, we end up discussing our opinions of government bodies based on our dealings with them, our opinions of specific people and not the actual science.
Since we're summing up here, allow me to see if I have followed your conclusions:
i) The research I have referenced (which has been announced only weeks ago) is flawed and wrong. Yet you provide no explanation as to how.
ii) Any opinion that man-made CO2 does not drive catastrophic climate change (or even a reduction of that assumption) is implicit of a pro-oil, pro pollution advocate.
I can't really comment on the first point since you provide no evidence beyond "it's wrong because it's wrong".
Your second point is largely based on the assumption that I am motivated by money or some kind of political gain. Since I have only ever asked to discuss science, I think this opinion is more a reflection of how you see the debate as to my own motivations.
As for demanding immediate action based on "risks" (the 100 million worldwide who have been pushed into poverty by our rush for bio-fuels?), sadly, we never got to discuss what the specifics are.
Dear Tom,
Allow me to answer your points;
1) Congratulations on your degree. However, as I stated before, I am unsure to why I should be interested. I would judge anything you have to say on its logic and reason, not your qualifications. I brought up my qualifications only because I was answering Dave's question regarding them (which I found rather rude). You'll have to ask him about the "p*****g contest".
The AMS paper requires ,in my opinion, only an A level grasp of maths and the physical principles being discussed, both of which (considering your credentials) I expect you are more than sufficiently knowledgeable in.
2. This is why I am loathed to get in to the "consensus" point.
Besides from it being a non-argument with regards to empirical research being correct or not, we end up discussing our opinions of government bodies based on our dealings with them, our opinions of specific people and not the actual science.
tom, marlow says...
4:46pm Wed 6 Aug 08
So in summary,
1. Despite being a computer scientist you reckon you understand the issues better than the vast majority of climatologists. I've got nothing against computer scientists by the way - its how I make a living these days -); its a lot better paid and on the whole easier than real science.
2. You cant substantiate you claims about the RS being politically motivated. Wayne tried that one last year - fortunately the letter that sparked the controversy is in the public domain.
Oh and I agree with your comments about the problems caused by the rush into bio-fuels. By and large thats been a knee jerk response by the very people who 10 yrs ago were denying carbon driven climate change, although I had a big argument about 25 yrs ago when I was talking to some brazilian guys about the program they had there to produce ethanol from sugar cane to run their cars. My point then was that you shouldnt be using food crops and agricultural land for producing fuel.
We must all take some responsibility for our ever increasing demand for fuel. Fossil fuels are a limited resource, so is arable land.
1. Despite being a computer scientist you reckon you understand the issues better than the vast majority of climatologists. I've got nothing against computer scientists by the way - its how I make a living these days -); its a lot better paid and on the whole easier than real science.
2. You cant substantiate you claims about the RS being politically motivated. Wayne tried that one last year - fortunately the letter that sparked the controversy is in the public domain.
Oh and I agree with your comments about the problems caused by the rush into bio-fuels. By and large thats been a knee jerk response by the very people who 10 yrs ago were denying carbon driven climate change, although I had a big argument about 25 yrs ago when I was talking to some brazilian guys about the program they had there to produce ethanol from sugar cane to run their cars. My point then was that you shouldnt be using food crops and agricultural land for producing fuel.
We must all take some responsibility for our ever increasing demand for fuel. Fossil fuels are a limited resource, so is arable land.
williams, London says...
6:07pm Wed 6 Aug 08
In answer to your points;
1. I have a solid grasp of the mathmatics and physics required to understand the problems of defining the feedback in the climate system. Obviously, I did not undertake the research I am referring to, but I can understand the paper and the implications of the conclusions.
2. I am wary of any organisation that calls for the close of a debate on a subject and considers the science "complete" when there is so much yet to be known. Their support of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" also makes me very skeptical of how scientific they are about the subject.
I agree completely with your opinions on bio-fuels except that to point out that the IPCC was a large advocate of a large increase in bio-fuel usage.
1. I have a solid grasp of the mathmatics and physics required to understand the problems of defining the feedback in the climate system. Obviously, I did not undertake the research I am referring to, but I can understand the paper and the implications of the conclusions.
2. I am wary of any organisation that calls for the close of a debate on a subject and considers the science "complete" when there is so much yet to be known. Their support of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" also makes me very skeptical of how scientific they are about the subject.
I agree completely with your opinions on bio-fuels except that to point out that the IPCC was a large advocate of a large increase in bio-fuel usage.
williams, London says...
6:09pm Wed 6 Aug 08
And a basic grasp of the English Language. Should have been mathematics. Excuse my typing.
wayne, wycombe says...
12:59pm Thu 7 Aug 08
David, you complain of oil Companies having a vested interest, I guess you forgot to mention your own vested interest:
http://www.carboncoa
ch.com/
Carbon Coach Ltd
Marlow, Buckinghamshire
Like George Monbiot,most climate change protaganists who preach armageddon, still rely on cars and on fossil fuels as you yourself freely admit:
"
We are a two car family, but we keep our annual mileage down and achieve very high fuel economy in both cars. Our Mini One diesel is rated at 129gms CO2/km. (In comparison, the highly acclaimed Toyota Prius hybrid car as driven by Leonardo DiCaprio and Penelope Cruz is rated 104gms only a little better!) Our other car is a VW Sharan diesel , seven seater (we have four children). This car comfortably manages more than 300 person miles per gallon. (50mpg, with six in the car.
With respect to your website,you might find that people (me included) would be very interested in resource reduction, (especially with the current state of economic affairs) if you concentrated on the cost benefits rather than armageddon. People do not like to be patronised or bullied; education and the benefit from resource reduction would reach and emphathise with a much greater audience than Science and thesis.
http://www.carboncoa
ch.com/
Carbon Coach Ltd
Marlow, Buckinghamshire
Like George Monbiot,most climate change protaganists who preach armageddon, still rely on cars and on fossil fuels as you yourself freely admit:
"
We are a two car family, but we keep our annual mileage down and achieve very high fuel economy in both cars. Our Mini One diesel is rated at 129gms CO2/km. (In comparison, the highly acclaimed Toyota Prius hybrid car as driven by Leonardo DiCaprio and Penelope Cruz is rated 104gms only a little better!) Our other car is a VW Sharan diesel , seven seater (we have four children). This car comfortably manages more than 300 person miles per gallon. (50mpg, with six in the car.
With respect to your website,you might find that people (me included) would be very interested in resource reduction, (especially with the current state of economic affairs) if you concentrated on the cost benefits rather than armageddon. People do not like to be patronised or bullied; education and the benefit from resource reduction would reach and emphathise with a much greater audience than Science and thesis.
tom, marlow says...
2:01pm Thu 7 Aug 08
Wayne, I think you are being a bit unfair to Dave's website. I didn't find it particularly patronising. Mind you I wasnt viewing it with the intention of finding fault :-)
I agree with you that there is a lot more to resource consumption issues than just carbon and that broadly based education is more valuable than proselytising.
As for armageddon, that just one end of a spectrum of possible outcomes that ranges from at best, unpleasant changes to our environment all the way through to complete wipe out.
One thing that Bill Williams and his mates dont deny is that things are warming up - the issue is only the extent to which human activity is responsible.
Trying to make a living out of educating and consulting a population that by and large has its head firmly buried in the sand is a brave move. I wish Dave good luck with that.
I agree with you that there is a lot more to resource consumption issues than just carbon and that broadly based education is more valuable than proselytising.
As for armageddon, that just one end of a spectrum of possible outcomes that ranges from at best, unpleasant changes to our environment all the way through to complete wipe out.
One thing that Bill Williams and his mates dont deny is that things are warming up - the issue is only the extent to which human activity is responsible.
Trying to make a living out of educating and consulting a population that by and large has its head firmly buried in the sand is a brave move. I wish Dave good luck with that.
williams, London says...
1:45pm Fri 8 Aug 08
I found the website more amusing than patronising. The "if CO2 was purple..." banner literally made me laugh out loud.
None of it was more amusing than the feature in the Marlow Free Press today, however, where Mr Hampton stated he has studied the subject for 25 years and has "spoken with Al Gore and other scientists.".
I don't know what made me laugh more. That Dave Hampton considers Al Gore a scientist, or that after 25 years of study he cannot differentiate between a discussion on climate feedback from radiative forcing.
Ironically he has, in a way, reduced my carbon footprint. Who needs to watch TV when there is comedy gold like this coming through the letter box each week?
None of it was more amusing than the feature in the Marlow Free Press today, however, where Mr Hampton stated he has studied the subject for 25 years and has "spoken with Al Gore and other scientists.".
I don't know what made me laugh more. That Dave Hampton considers Al Gore a scientist, or that after 25 years of study he cannot differentiate between a discussion on climate feedback from radiative forcing.
Ironically he has, in a way, reduced my carbon footprint. Who needs to watch TV when there is comedy gold like this coming through the letter box each week?
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
12:49pm Sun 10 Aug 08
Oh dear Bill! And you stated so polite.
I can AGREE with you about the mistake ("Gore and other scientists") being funny:
It was indeed amusing... (but perhaps not quite 'comedy gold' standards.. And didn't you maintain before that you didn't know who Sir David Attenborough was? ...so you can't watch much TV, so i can't have reduced your footprint much sadly, but i am pleased to have been of service.)
It WAS amusing that a reporter at BFP got one of the many words I used in a rushed phone interview with his colleague incorrectly.
I would never have said "Al Gore and OTHER scientists" as you well know.
But I am fortunate to have met, and had discussions with, a large number of the worlds top scientists, just as I have also met with the USA former VP and Nobel Prize winner twice.
Al Gore is much derided (is there a pattern here?) ..as the man who openly challenged civilisation's prevailing "convenient lie". He broke humankind's pact of silence - not to mention our species collective act of suicide. ie: "Don't worry. It's scare tactics to control us. We can party on: Let the fossil bonfire burn" (Sick.)
I have also met a large and growing number of wise, caring and intelligent individuals who have satisfied themselves that it is wise to listen to the climate warnings and not dismiss or deny them.
The bulk of this 'post' is aimed at those sorts of people 'bill' - not you.
By all means resort to nasty attepts at derision 'Bill'. They suit you a bit better than your initial posturing as a polite backroom scientist who thought he had found a genuine flaw in a consensus. A consensus so old, so massive, so long established and so steadily growing that doctors in Ethics are now studying the ethics of HOW we should RESPOND to climate change." The brightest minds in all fields of education have turned to how to address the problem. They stopped debating it over 10 years ago.
There is also vast concern and consensus about climate in faith groups, low income groups, and people who work in the open air (!) Church leaders are united and onto the truth too. .
(but 'bill' will no doubt dismiss this as vested interest!!"
'Bill' is so incredibly out of touch with reality, and the REAL debate of the C21st - which is how we come off fossil fuel and rapidly - that I am happy to be ridiculed by him.
I would certainly not want his endorsement.
I have never attempted to conceal my beliefs, or any facts. I would have thought the fact that I have chosen to freely disclose so much about my personal life may be relevant to the casual reader of this column, wondering who has anything to hide?
FOR THE RECORD:
My website went 'live' in the summer of 2005 and the text of the bulk of the introductory pages has not been updated since. (I have been busy cutting my own and others carbon. My OVERALL footprint for my family of six is very low - and massively below UK average.)
*That also shows how established things are, and I hope, gives readers a feel for the fact I was into all thing long before talking about carbon footprints got 'popular'.
Meanwhile the critical destablisiation of the climate system of our childrens shared Home planet continues.
Shame on you.
People who understand how human's recent 100 or so years ago) habits have led to the recent burning up of vast amounts (millions of years worth) of fossil fuel over just a few generations, and how that dumps billions of tonnes of (INVISIBLE) 'new' CO2 'smoke' into our common atmosphere, have all found the meme "IF WE COULD SEE CO2 THE SKY WOULD HAVE CHANGED COLOUR IN OUR OWN LIFETIME" very helpful. You however find it funny. Funny that.
It is precisely the invisibility of CO2 that makes it easier for the fossil industry to say 'crisis what crisis'.
Manmade CO2 is causing the steady increase in CO2 concentration that we have seen since the industrial revolution.
In 1980 when I was employed by British Gas, (as an R&D Scientist ironically) the background concentration of CO2 (we had to zero the monitors before measuring CO2 levels after gas boiler combustion) was about 335ppm.
When I was born (1959) it was 315ppm.
In all the previous 600,000 years it has never exceeded 300ppm.
Natural cycles exist, and have often taken CO2 down to 180ppm or so, but we have NOT been this high before - not in 600,000 years! And each year, now, like addicts - we heap another 2 ppm on top of that. We are up at 388ppm now, 390ppm next year. 400ppm by 2015. Unrelenting.
Most open minded people find that both interesting and somewhat alarming, not least because each 5 years or so, successive global scientific consensus reports, over the last 20 years REDUCE the estimate of the safe upper limit. (From 550, down to 450ppm. Most now say - alarmingly - that it would be prudent to aim for 350ppm. i.e. a level we have aleady exceeded. (We can aim to stabilise again at a level below current.)
Hence the utter lunacy of the hoax Bucks 'debate'.
If readers would like to see all this in a simple (globally understandable) 90 second video animation, there is an excellent one at
www.350.org
This work is the work of concerned informed citizens all over the world and it is real.
In the 'real world' (the only one that both 'williams' Mr Weeden, myself and and all of Marlow parents children co-habit) there is growing concern, not because of government scare tactics, but because of the lack of them.
I can AGREE with you about the mistake ("Gore and other scientists") being funny:
It was indeed amusing... (but perhaps not quite 'comedy gold' standards.. And didn't you maintain before that you didn't know who Sir David Attenborough was? ...so you can't watch much TV, so i can't have reduced your footprint much sadly, but i am pleased to have been of service.)
It WAS amusing that a reporter at BFP got one of the many words I used in a rushed phone interview with his colleague incorrectly.
I would never have said "Al Gore and OTHER scientists" as you well know.
But I am fortunate to have met, and had discussions with, a large number of the worlds top scientists, just as I have also met with the USA former VP and Nobel Prize winner twice.
Al Gore is much derided (is there a pattern here?) ..as the man who openly challenged civilisation's prevailing "convenient lie". He broke humankind's pact of silence - not to mention our species collective act of suicide. ie: "Don't worry. It's scare tactics to control us. We can party on: Let the fossil bonfire burn" (Sick.)
I have also met a large and growing number of wise, caring and intelligent individuals who have satisfied themselves that it is wise to listen to the climate warnings and not dismiss or deny them.
The bulk of this 'post' is aimed at those sorts of people 'bill' - not you.
By all means resort to nasty attepts at derision 'Bill'. They suit you a bit better than your initial posturing as a polite backroom scientist who thought he had found a genuine flaw in a consensus. A consensus so old, so massive, so long established and so steadily growing that doctors in Ethics are now studying the ethics of HOW we should RESPOND to climate change." The brightest minds in all fields of education have turned to how to address the problem. They stopped debating it over 10 years ago.
There is also vast concern and consensus about climate in faith groups, low income groups, and people who work in the open air (!) Church leaders are united and onto the truth too. .
(but 'bill' will no doubt dismiss this as vested interest!!"
'Bill' is so incredibly out of touch with reality, and the REAL debate of the C21st - which is how we come off fossil fuel and rapidly - that I am happy to be ridiculed by him.
I would certainly not want his endorsement.
I have never attempted to conceal my beliefs, or any facts. I would have thought the fact that I have chosen to freely disclose so much about my personal life may be relevant to the casual reader of this column, wondering who has anything to hide?
FOR THE RECORD:
My website went 'live' in the summer of 2005 and the text of the bulk of the introductory pages has not been updated since. (I have been busy cutting my own and others carbon. My OVERALL footprint for my family of six is very low - and massively below UK average.)
*That also shows how established things are, and I hope, gives readers a feel for the fact I was into all thing long before talking about carbon footprints got 'popular'.
Meanwhile the critical destablisiation of the climate system of our childrens shared Home planet continues.
Shame on you.
People who understand how human's recent 100 or so years ago) habits have led to the recent burning up of vast amounts (millions of years worth) of fossil fuel over just a few generations, and how that dumps billions of tonnes of (INVISIBLE) 'new' CO2 'smoke' into our common atmosphere, have all found the meme "IF WE COULD SEE CO2 THE SKY WOULD HAVE CHANGED COLOUR IN OUR OWN LIFETIME" very helpful. You however find it funny. Funny that.
It is precisely the invisibility of CO2 that makes it easier for the fossil industry to say 'crisis what crisis'.
Manmade CO2 is causing the steady increase in CO2 concentration that we have seen since the industrial revolution.
In 1980 when I was employed by British Gas, (as an R&D Scientist ironically) the background concentration of CO2 (we had to zero the monitors before measuring CO2 levels after gas boiler combustion) was about 335ppm.
When I was born (1959) it was 315ppm.
In all the previous 600,000 years it has never exceeded 300ppm.
Natural cycles exist, and have often taken CO2 down to 180ppm or so, but we have NOT been this high before - not in 600,000 years! And each year, now, like addicts - we heap another 2 ppm on top of that. We are up at 388ppm now, 390ppm next year. 400ppm by 2015. Unrelenting.
Most open minded people find that both interesting and somewhat alarming, not least because each 5 years or so, successive global scientific consensus reports, over the last 20 years REDUCE the estimate of the safe upper limit. (From 550, down to 450ppm. Most now say - alarmingly - that it would be prudent to aim for 350ppm. i.e. a level we have aleady exceeded. (We can aim to stabilise again at a level below current.)
Hence the utter lunacy of the hoax Bucks 'debate'.
If readers would like to see all this in a simple (globally understandable) 90 second video animation, there is an excellent one at
www.350.org
This work is the work of concerned informed citizens all over the world and it is real.
In the 'real world' (the only one that both 'williams' Mr Weeden, myself and and all of Marlow parents children co-habit) there is growing concern, not because of government scare tactics, but because of the lack of them.
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
1:47pm Sun 10 Aug 08
www.350.org
In the 'real world' (the only one that both 'williams' Mr Weeden, myself and and all of Marlow parents children co-habit and share) there is growing concern, not because of government scare tactics, but because of the lack of them.
In the 'real world' (the only one that both 'williams' Mr Weeden, myself and and all of Marlow parents children co-habit and share) there is growing concern, not because of government scare tactics, but because of the lack of them.
In this section
- A wander-ful effort
- Drivers do cost a lot
- High Wycombers need their own society
- Help us in our fight against this killer
- Did you want to give your patients extra exercise?
- Model information curses our society
- Ash tree has put me out of the picture
- The timing is so bad
- Horse Trust warns on drawbacks of rescuing 'meat-trade' horses and ponies
- Stop eating meat and allowing animals to die
Sponsored Links
Local Links
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Dave Hampton, Marlow says...
4:30pm Fri 18 Jul 08
"Yes, mankind certainly affects global warming a little by the burning of fossil fuels, and even just by breathing!" he writes.)
No need to hold your breath readers.
If your carbon footprint is average for UK, let alone for Marlow, the CO2 you breathe out will be just one twenty fifth of your fossil fuel generated 'footprint' of CO2 emissions.
Plus, more fundamentally, most of us don't eat or drink pure fossil fuel, so the CO2 breathed out is mainly part of the natural ongoing circle of life, and not part of the breaking of that cycle by the release of locked up carbon (ancient sunlight) from 100s millions of years ago.
i.e. Plants grow into the food we eat, absorbing CO2, animals eat plants and release some CO2, but hardly any of this is 'new' CO2, unless the food we eat is heavily industrially processed, air-flown and fertiliser hot-housed.
Or unless we drink oil!