You do realize that nobody on this list is a climatologist ? The only one with a somewhat related field of expertise is Wysmuller who has turned climate change denial into a business of his own.
Forgot to mention, it still could be that the temperature rise does not depend on (mainly?) any ghg emission, but would still present a problem.
The numbers. CO2 has increased steadily since 1900, LST has increased and decreased as illustrated by the graph in post #555 1950 -1970 temperature decreased which has no trend line.
CO2 Coalition | CO2 Fundamentals check the About
About The Executive Director:
Caleb S. Rossiter, Ph.D. is the Executive Director of the Coalition. Dr. Rossiter has a long and distinguished career as a specialist in research methods with a focus on the use and misuse of statistics and models in the climate change debate, U. S. foreign policy and world history and politics. He has extensive experience in academic administration, policy-making and policy analysis, and American government with emphasis on the legislative process.
Yes, the real question then is, is it better to wash reusable nappies or stick with disposable?
From a first glance it seems that their stance is a different one, as they seem to acknowledge the global warming due to higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, but think that it well be a benefit for mankind.
"Observations indicate that every doubling of the CO2 concentration will increase the earth’s surface temperature by 1 to 2 C, and perhaps less. The warming is so small that the resulting longer growing seasons and increased plant productivity from additional CO2 will be of great benefit to life on earth."
Interesting pov but questionable if (for example) natural temporal uprise provides 2 degree and CO2 emission induced adds another 1-2 degree.
@ 00940,
I don't think that the blame game based on any associated business relation will really help.
One has to look at the facts/argument, if one can not rebutt these it doesn't help to point to any (hidden?) interests.
Facts/Data/arguments can be independently evaluated, some more concerns are justified when examining who supplied the experimental data.
Presumably one can construct an ad hominem argument for/against every person contributing to the field.
The fact is that this person has not contributed anything to the field, science wise. His area of expertise is in public policy, his own website makes it quite clear: Dr. Caleb Rossiter Curriculum Vitae . Nothing in there making him relevant to the debate at hand, except on the lobbying/political side of it.
Many here and elsewhere rail against the demon of overpopulation, and it does stress the Earth's ecosystem. But of course this is perhaps the one area where those expressing the concern can make a direct and immediate contribution to help solve this problem by contributing their own personal -1 to the 7+ billion number. Aye, there's the rub...fixing overpopulation is always someone else's future problem solved by seeing to it that someone else's future existence is avoided...the tyranny of the already living!
Oh and no kids for me and the Mrs. and we're far past breeding age, so we've at least made that easy indirect contribution. 😉
Oh and no kids for me and the Mrs. and we're far past breeding age, so we've at least made that easy indirect contribution. 😉
Overpopulation isn't a problem.
World population growth is expected to nearly stop by 2100 | Pew Research Center
World population growth is expected to nearly stop by 2100 | Pew Research Center
The only population that is currently creating an ecological problem are those already alive. But those already alive take their right to existence for granted and expect the population to be controlled by preventing the existence of those not yet alive. As to the use of the word "tyranny" in this context, see the definition of the linguistical term "hyperbole".
Doctored graph, you mean Michel Mann's hockey stick graph that omitted the medieval warming? The debate is settled, they (not anti-AGW crowd) say. There is no conspiracy, period. Yay!
You brought up past 650K years and yet you stick to a graph of last 170 years when it fits your narrative.
@warrjon
I'd say the list is pretty small if you consider all the scientists involved in Earth Sciences world wide. Piers Corbyn BTW has been thoroughly discredited in various places as has the famous Lord Monckton (although not listed in your references) Climate misinformation by source: Christopher Monckton (this is just one reference)
See Greenpeace's rebuttal on Patrick Moore for example Patrick Moore (consultant - Wikipedia)
BTW, on your second link, I picked a few names at random and typed them into Google. A few came up, but on others there was nothing.
49 former NASA scientists dispute climate change. NASA employs 17 000 scientists.
From my occasional research into climate denial, what I've learned is that many of the higher profile anti climate change scientists are paid consultants for various companies in the energy industry sector or are funded by wealthy individuals (eg the Koch brothers i.a.o.). Of course, not all of them will be and some academic dissent is good because it will sharpen the arrow of the pro climate change lobby and help them improve their arguments. But, getting paid to disseminate disinformation is pretty low in my book when you probably know there is a link to climate change and the discharge of GHG on a massive scale (as I keep saying, 100 cubic kilometres of CO2 and we add a mountain more every year to the tune of 40 gigatons).
BTW, highest August Bank holiday temperatures ever recorded happened in the UK this weekend. And 4 weeks ago, the highest temperatures ever recorded in the UK took place (38.4 C IIRC). Ditto France as well at 45.3 C.
BTW, here is another example. Ralf Ellis is a conspiracy theorist and history revisionist who has name within academic circles for trying to rewrite history and/or making outrageous (by academic standards) claims - plenty of rebuttals if you look around the web from university linked academics.
Of course, climate change is a hoax and a conspiracy according to him. He recently wrote a paper suggesting how the ice ages come to an end, based on earlier work by scientists who have attributed the decline of European mainland glaciers to changes in albedo brought about the industrialization during the 1800's where historical references talk about the air in the valleys being thick with smoke during this time and the glaciers becoming 'dirty'. Nice try, but getting taken seriously is going to be a might more difficult.
So here you have a crackpot trying to enter mainstream science . . .
YouTube
YouTube
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thoth-Arch...f+ellis+books&qid=1566915604&s=gateway&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.co.uk/K2-Quest-G...f+ellis+books&qid=1566915630&s=gateway&sr=8-5
Enjoy!
I'd say the list is pretty small if you consider all the scientists involved in Earth Sciences world wide. Piers Corbyn BTW has been thoroughly discredited in various places as has the famous Lord Monckton (although not listed in your references) Climate misinformation by source: Christopher Monckton (this is just one reference)
See Greenpeace's rebuttal on Patrick Moore for example Patrick Moore (consultant - Wikipedia)
BTW, on your second link, I picked a few names at random and typed them into Google. A few came up, but on others there was nothing.
49 former NASA scientists dispute climate change. NASA employs 17 000 scientists.
From my occasional research into climate denial, what I've learned is that many of the higher profile anti climate change scientists are paid consultants for various companies in the energy industry sector or are funded by wealthy individuals (eg the Koch brothers i.a.o.). Of course, not all of them will be and some academic dissent is good because it will sharpen the arrow of the pro climate change lobby and help them improve their arguments. But, getting paid to disseminate disinformation is pretty low in my book when you probably know there is a link to climate change and the discharge of GHG on a massive scale (as I keep saying, 100 cubic kilometres of CO2 and we add a mountain more every year to the tune of 40 gigatons).
BTW, highest August Bank holiday temperatures ever recorded happened in the UK this weekend. And 4 weeks ago, the highest temperatures ever recorded in the UK took place (38.4 C IIRC). Ditto France as well at 45.3 C.
BTW, here is another example. Ralf Ellis is a conspiracy theorist and history revisionist who has name within academic circles for trying to rewrite history and/or making outrageous (by academic standards) claims - plenty of rebuttals if you look around the web from university linked academics.
Of course, climate change is a hoax and a conspiracy according to him. He recently wrote a paper suggesting how the ice ages come to an end, based on earlier work by scientists who have attributed the decline of European mainland glaciers to changes in albedo brought about the industrialization during the 1800's where historical references talk about the air in the valleys being thick with smoke during this time and the glaciers becoming 'dirty'. Nice try, but getting taken seriously is going to be a might more difficult.
So here you have a crackpot trying to enter mainstream science . . .
YouTube
YouTube
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Thoth-Arch...f+ellis+books&qid=1566915604&s=gateway&sr=8-1
https://www.amazon.co.uk/K2-Quest-G...f+ellis+books&qid=1566915630&s=gateway&sr=8-5
Enjoy!
Still implies you have an issue with "preventing the existence of those not yet alive"? That is what makes no sense to me
The planet was very different 650k years ago . . . there were no humans for a start.
CO2 is increasing at 2ppm a year and within 50 years we will be at > 500ppm which we have not had for 35 million years (that's why I am extremely confident to tell you that in 4 years the CO2 will lie between 417 and 420 ppm +- 1ppm) OR WORSE.
You forgot to point out of course that I put up all these numbers and the graphs - you've only questioned them and shown nothing that disproves them.
Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia
As per usual, the whole Michael Man thing taken out of context, information manipulated, his cautionary notes about uncertainties dismissed and his methodology not read or understood by the anti-AGW crowd. He was BTW accused of 'instead of molesting children, he molested data' by one journalist. So its a free for all against scientists by those who feel their environmental profligacy will be challenged and curbed by the facts.
Last edited:
You are repeating what's been debated on this thread already. The graph of increasing global temperature since the industrial revolution vs the graph of increasing CO2 are not in sync. Your reply to that was thermal lag and I asked you which past increase of CO2 we are currently experiencing now in the form of global temperature fluctuation and your reply was "I don't know, but surmise..."
Lets stick to reconvening in 4 years as a starter of 11 year reconvene plan. I think we will have something new to debate about by then.
Give me a break. These are not independent academics - they are PhD's who are hired guns and its precisely what I'd expect 'on the hill' - lobbying government to make sure their masters can continue pumping stuff out of the ground and into the air to keep the $'s rolling in. What I'd like to know is what these guys earn from this and what their expense accounts are.
And they got the cheek to ask for donations.
"Warming, sea-level rise and other impacts will be small, while the benefits will be widespread: larger food crops, flourishing forests, and lush plant growth generally – the greening most people prefer."
Yup, while the Amazon goes up in flames . . .
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.