The Truth, Still Inconvenient

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Seeing as the original BBC prediction was made 6 years ago, I'm not really all that shocked that it wasn't correct. The daily mail article does have an odd kind of gotcha-journalism "ha! look who got it wrong!" style rather than just reporting it straight, though.


the Daily Mail:

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

and here's the actual article the DM is trying to "refute":

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.


so the distortion is entirely on the part of the DM.

plus the application of Drudge rules for headline (in the requisite colossal font, and written directly to imply some sort of dissent within what is a clear, established consensus when there is none):

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year
 
From what I understand, the latest models indicate that the coming decade or so will be one of natural cooling, countered relatively evenly by climate change. The two effects will result in largely flat temperatures globally, as has been the case over the past few years. What is scary is what will happen after that.
 
From what I understand, the latest models indicate that the coming decade or so will be one of natural cooling, countered relatively evenly by climate change. The two effects will result in largely flat temperatures globally, as has been the case over the past few years. What is scary is what will happen after that.


I am sure we do damage to our environment but recent images of the sun indicate that the sun is actually cooling down, one recent image was very alarming as about 1/3 of the sun was shown to have a large cooling spot.

Global warming is mostly due to the activity of the sun, so Earth would not be the only planet warming, but I see it as solar cycles, and am sure the Earth will begin cooling and much of the polar regions will see a return of ice.

Said as an observer, not a scientist or politician. I choose to believe the Earth and our solar system are under control and that as humans we have only a small effect on the Earth. :reject:
 
there may well be many things beyond our control when it comes to the climate of the earth.

however, the amount of greenhouse gas and pollutants we pump into the atmosphere isn't beyond our control. regardless of the impossibility of knowing the exact, precise effect of CO2 gas -- which seems to be what the denialists demand -- we do know that not only is this stuff not good for the earth, it isn't good for us either. therefore, we should do what we can to reduce our impact on the planet. it's surely impossible to entirely stop pollution, but there are many things we can do to reduce our impact.

it's utterly beyond me why anyone would be opposed, unless you're a fossil fuel company. the idea that green science is some sort of socialist wealth redistributionist plan is a few steps into Loose Change tin foil asshattery.
 
Agreed, not against the reduction of the toxins we create, definitely bad for us and the environment, just suggesting that the temperatures we have seen, that seem to be record highs or lows can be attributed to solar activity as well.

Earth goes through cycles, and I think some of what we have seen over the past 10-12 years are because the sun was in a high activity cycle as well, now it could be in a cooling phase for the next 10-12 years, instead of flooding and hurricanes from excess water, we are likely to see more blizzards and colder temperatures during winter months.

But, yes, we still need to find options for cleaner energy.



Interesting reading :


http://rt.com/news/solar-activity-cycle-maximum-114/
 
purpleoscar said:
Or is it public policy masquerading as science to create another layer of bureaucracy and taxation?

No, it's not. Do you really think 95% of climate scientists are in cahoots with the government?
 
No, it's not. Do you really think 95% of climate scientists are in cahoots with the government?

Well the scientists get funded by the government and the U.N. policy alternatives at the front of the report usually takes the most alarmists claims. Government workers would benefit from the increased tax revenue and scientists would get more funding. Do you think that scientists (human beings) are not susceptible to politics and the reward punishment that exists in whether you get funding or not? You obviously haven't read any of the Climategates and probably don't want to. I would agree with you if the funding was 50/50 for skeptics and believers. It's not.

Diemen's repeated assertions that it doesn't matter if predictions don't match reality should be a warning bell. When results don't match a thesis it's time to revise the thesis or you are not a scientist. I don't know what a person would be at this point. Maybe an indirect U.N. employee or just toeing the line for a political spectrum a person likes. People don't have to be in a cabal or secret society to follow self-interest, despite what BVS keeps thinking will settle the issue.

The U.N.'s prescription (supposedly based on scientists) is to tax 70 trillion over 40 years to develop green energy. The U.S. (including most western countries) has enough debt to deal with so taxpayers should flip the U.N. the bird and clean their own financial messes.

This debate keeps popping up precisely because the reality isn't matching the computer models and when that happens it's healthy for some skepticism to arise. Just because people project authority doesn't mean they are right. It's actually possible for scientists to be as morally corrupt by short-term self-interest as any religious leader that disappoints. Science has had past disappointments before so it's nothing new.

What will settle the issue and the only thing that will is good predictions that match reality again and again. True science has always been this way and always will be. The projections have been wrong all the time going back to Hansen's 1988 projection that New York would be under water by the year 2000. We are even beating the 2 degree increase in world temperatures limit agreement and we haven't even lowered CO2 and it's approaching 400ppm.

I believe CO2 warms, but the planet doesn't appear to be as sensitive to the increased CO2. When we had 20 times the CO2 it didn't destroy the planet. We should look for new sources of energy because fossil fuels aren't unlimited but we have much more time to do this than all these scare scenarios of "there's only 10 years left before it's too late". They are trying to use fear and emotion to get taxpayers to part with their money that they wouldn't otherwise do in a lucid state of mind. If doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere only adds a degreee of warming most people wouldn't give a shit and there would actually be some benefits to food production by the CO2 and increased temperatures in remote areas.

The Climate Science Capitulation Begins…Hans von Storch: “We Definitely Have Seen Less Warming Than Expected”

On whether global warming has stopped, Hans von Storch says: “No. We don’t expect that. But it is indeed true that we have seen a considerably reduced warming trend compared to what our climate model scenarios showed over the last 15 years. [...] We definitely have seen less warming than we expected.”

On what the cause could be, von Storch says many candidates are possible, and it points to climate variability, which would be natural fluctuations, which is what skeptics have been saying from Day 1. He also says that perhaps the climate sensitivity of CO2 was perhaps “a bit over-estimated“. Hans von Storch even mentions the S-word, claiming that it could have something to do with the sun.

On whether or not it could be the oceans eating up the heat, von Storch says that it’s possible, and that “what is obvious here is that our climate models didn’t anticipate this“.

On if models can still be trusted? von Storch obstinately insists:

Yes, completely. [...]. It could be that the climate models are completely okay and that nothing bad can be said about them. But we haven’t put all the ingredients which we believe are important for the future into them.” [Garbage in -> Garbage out?]:huh: My emphasis

The best thing to do is keep the powder dry and don't light the fuse until we have better science.
 
Diemen's repeated assertions that it doesn't matter if predictions don't match reality should be a warning bell.

1) Repeated? I made one comment that it wouldn't be surprising if a prediction was inaccurate - that in no way is the same as saying it doesn't matter if predictions don't match reality. I have no idea where you're getting this "repeated assertions" thing from.

2)Apparently you missed the follow up, which showed me to be a bit hasty to take the Daily Mail article at it's word:

With Climate Journalism Like This, Who Needs Fiction? - ImaGeo | DiscoverMagazine.com
 
Last edited:
1) Repeated? I made one comment that it wouldn't be surprising if a prediction was inaccurate - that in no way is the same as saying it doesn't matter if predictions don't match reality. I have no idea where you're getting this "repeated assertions" thing from.

You mentioned the same thing before when I brought up the James Hansen failed prediction of New York being underwater in the year 2000. When predictions fail it's time to look at the thesis. The predictions are continued warming and eventually accelerated warming. All the hot predictions are wrong. Only the slightly warmer to slightly cooler predictions (done by skeptics who are supposed to be outliers) were correct.

2)Apparently you missed the follow up, which showed me to be a bit hasty to take the Daily Mail article at it's word:

With Climate Journalism Like This, Who Needs Fiction? - ImaGeo | DiscoverMagazine.com

That article doesn't solve anything because AGW proponents cherry pick data (especially the satellite start date which started in a natural cool period) in order to make the current temperatures exaggeratedly high and don't get me started on eliminating the medieval warm period with cherry picked tree data in order to again make the current temperatures appear to be industry's fault. It's fun to see people talk about journalistic malpractice but the AGW lobby groups have been doing this for decades. What was the arctic ice like in the 1930's? Can we know what it was like during the medieval warm period? The entire argument on the AGW side is perception which affects how people feel which is really the point. Al Gore wants you to FEEL like it's bad because for some people concepts trump observation which should never happen, which is what the German article I posted pointed out about climate models. More observation is needed to make the models predict better. In other words we actually have to understand climate better than we do now.

I would love to see AGW lobbies stop lying and return to actual science and realistic predictions. Unfortunately that would mean no fear and alarmism which would derail cap and trade schemes for revenue generation which is what it's all about.

It's not just one year up or down. It should have been far more warm now than it is. Next year and the year after would have to be exceedingly warmer to catch up to those predictions. I'm not even talking about the higher temperature predictions that would have us at 6 degree increase in 100 years which would require much higher temperatures now.

Then there's the predictable lamentation of people that the "cool period will offset the temperatures but wait until the warm period returns then it will be really bad!" We need to know if excessive warm temperatures are our fault as well. Nature can dole out high temperatures on her own regardless of what we do. That's why understanding cosmic rays and the sun's effect plus the sun's effect on oceans is also important instead of blaming CO2 for most of it.
 
In about 15-20 years, solar power will be so cheap and ubiquitous we won't need to worry about 99% of this...the biggest issue will become cleanup (prevention will be in place).
 
If the US conducted a quest for fusion power in the same fashion as the quest to put a man on the moon, we'd have a true long term solution to our energy & environmental concerns.
 
Could Kurzweil be right about solar, the Google of energy?

"We also see an exponential progression in the use of solar energy," he has predicted. "It is doubling now every two years. Doubling every two years means multiplying by 1,000 in 20 years. At that rate we'll meet 100% of our energy needs in 20 years."

It's amazing that we've yet to efficiently harness the power of the thing that literally supplies nearly the entire planet with its raw energy
 
If the US conducted a quest for fusion power in the same fashion as the quest to put a man on the moon, we'd have a true long term solution to our energy & environmental concerns.
There's plenty of clusterfuck to achieve efficiency in nuclear fusion. Lack of skilled professionals, funding and optimal level of intelligence.

I'm pretty sure that another country, probably China or Russia, would have to develop the first solution with nuclear fusion before the US does it.
 
There's plenty of clusterfuck to achieve efficiency in nuclear fusion. Lack of skilled professionals, funding and optimal level of intelligence.

I'm pretty sure that another country, probably China or Russia, would have to develop the first solution with nuclear fusion before the US does it.

I won't argue with you on that point. US investment in "green initiatives" has created a handful of wealthy people and few viable solutions.
 
I won't argue with you on that point. US investment in "green initiatives" has created a handful of wealthy people and few viable solutions.

One possible solution is to limit government funding to "crowd sourced" and "open sourced" projects.
 
government funding of "green" technologies pales in comparison to the welfare given to petroleum companies, even after they destroy the Gulf of Mexico or pristine Alaskan wilderness.
 

His self written intro:

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books, including his most recent work Watermelons: How the Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future, also available in the US, and in Australia as Killing the Earth to Save It. His website is James Delingpole - Official Website.

Is this the kind of "source" you would accept from your students? I surely hope not. Let's forget about being taken seriously in here, but for your own sake in order to understand this issue you have to understand the legitimacy of your sources and learn to discern.

Lets start with something simple, do you respect modern science in general?
 
That's a good article that asks some interesting questions like:

Others, such as the EU’s Climate Commissioner, Connie Hedegaard, steam on oblivious. Interviewed last week by the Telegraph’s Bruno Waterfield, she said: “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said: 'We were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of the things you have to do in order to combat climate change?” If she means needlessly driving up energy prices, carpeting the countryside with wind turbines and terrifying children about a problem that turns out to have been imaginary, then most of us would probably answer “No”.

Then there's this problem:

IPCC Investigator Laframboise: “Numerous IPCC Scientists With WWF Connections…IPCC Has Been Compromised”

It is indeed interesting that of the 34 members of the IPCC editorial team that wrote the summary report, one third are connected to the WWF and Greenpeace. That is legitimate, but that has to be made transparent. Imagine just the opposite and the editorial team were one third Exxon supporters. Wouldn’t people say: ’Hello! Is that really necessary?’”
 
That's a good article
This is a major problem. We have an entire faction of the engaging population that not only considers this an article, but a "good" one.


It is indeed interesting that of the 34 members of the IPCC editorial team that wrote the summary report, one third are connected to the WWF and Greenpeace. That is legitimate, but that has to be made transparent. Imagine just the opposite and the editorial team were one third Exxon supporters. Wouldn’t people say: ’Hello! Is that really necessary?’”
Are you serious? Oscar let's put on your critical thinking cap. Do these people profit from these connections? So why is this concerning? If your life's work lead you to get involved how is that even an issue.

Would you find it concerning if a conservative politician was connected to a pro-life organization?

Now of course the opposite would be concerning, if you had scientist or politicians that were vocal about climate change being a hoax and you discovered they were profiting from Exxon then that would raise some eyebrows. Come on man, critical thinking will allow this conversation to move forward, this just leaves it dead in its tracks.
 
Back
Top Bottom