global warming fraud - finally exposed!

But Mike, Terry Wogan and Jeremy Clarkson make such a robust argument that it's all bumpkum - ho ho...oh how we laughed.

The Royal Society website is brilliant on this, but many folk would rather source the Daily Mirror and Top Gear. Their choice.

It is a popular argument to heap the stigma of increases in CO2 on man as the dominant source,

There are publications that point out that other life forms in general and insect life in particular generate enormously more CO2 to the point where mans' contribution is puny.

Evidence shows that the warm fertile periods between Ice ages have produced this same effect in past cycles without the impact of man. Here are some facts published and on record:

CO2 Facts of Record
1. Every interglacial is accompanied by a subsequent spike in atmospheric CO2
a. On average ~800 years delayed as evidenced in the Vastok ice-cores and
b. Validated by an identical observation in the Greenland ice-cores to span opposing hemispheres
2. These spikes are (have certainly been) the result of natural sources of CO2 being stimulated:
a. Microbial decay
b. Insect activity
c. Forest fire
d. Mammilla emissions and:
e. Ultimately and most significantly by oceanic release from eventual ocean warming
3. Every interglacial is accompanied by a spike in biodiversity
a. Driven largely by the inherently more favorable-to-life climatic conditions but also:
b. Significantly and favorably driven by the enhanced atmospheric CO2 from #2 above
4. The planet is just now amidst spikes in both atmospheric CO2 and biodiversity
a. ~11,000 years into the 2nd longest interglacial of ice-core record
b. One who’s duration can be expected to cause relatively enhanced spikes
5. CO2 release from microbial decay is today currently estimated to be 5-10X anthropogenic release
6. CO2 release from insect activity is today currently estimated to be 5-10X anthropogenic release
7. Anthropogenic activity significantly inhibits microbial decay and insect activity
a. From the ~25% land mass that is cultivated
b. From the ~10% land mass converted to cities and roads
8. Therefore, ~1/3 of the release from microbial decay and insect activity is anthropogenicaly inhibited
a. In other words, CO2 release from microbial decay and insect activity would be ~1/2 again larger today if not for anthropogenic activity
9. The level of atmospheric CO2 today is less than what would be reasonably expected had there never been anthropogenic interference within this current interglacial
10. We have painfully made ourselves aware of our contribution to the favorably current state of elevated atmospheric CO2
a. Those organisms that would otherwise be flourishing in our stead would have most certainly contributed more to atmospheric CO2 concentration

Interesting...HOWEVER this is not to suppose that we can all lie back and greedily consume. Fuel sources ARE finite. Money genuinely spent to create new energy generation techniques is worth spending. It would be rather nice if we could crack the Deuterium fusion conundrum. Boy that would give is plenty of energy to play with. If we are still around as a species when the next ice age comes along that would be very usefull to keep warm.

In the mean time regardless of whose right we all have to learn to swim I guess, because we certainly can't impact the natural cycles of warmth and glaciation.

Geoff

Did the cave men give up their cars and aeroplanes, etc , to prevent a disaster?
Oh no they didn't have any!

I suspect a smaller numbers of life forms, is all part of the overall picture. We are wingeing 'cos it's going to be difficult for humans to survive with out all our toys.
San and related people would be the top survivours, bemused whilst trying to deal with a load of dumb politicians that have come out of hiding,having locked them selves away until the worst of what ever happens, happens.

The human race has had to adapt through the ages, why should now be any different? Just because we have more gadgets than cavemen, does this mean no climate change, earthquakes, volcanoes, flooding/sea creation, boulders from space ...?

How can we trust those remunerated from the corporate purse? Then again, how can we trust those who receive fat grants from government?

Rainforest - money talks.

Cattle - we can also reduce the number of flatulent vegetarians.

Resources - mother of invention and all that. Alternatives will be available when it makes commercial sense. Still, no point wasting what we use now.

In case anyone is in any doubt, the Earth is doomed.

Cheers,
OW

Geoff P, your are right and the list you give as CO2 producers is right
But what is missing is the fact that YES the planet is designed to absorb CO2, but only a finite volume over a specific time.
The ice core evidence is showing nothing other than very modern history, our present polar ice has existed only a few minutes in earth clock time. The CO2 we are now opening up was locked into the planet way way before our present ice caps were there.

Most all the earth's CO2 is "naturally" occurring, e.g. CO2 released in wood burning is in the natural atmospheric cycle and was locked away in the tree in the last few years. This can be expanded to cover older tress such as coal, but this is highly compressed trees with concentrated CO2. This releases too much CO2 too fast for the planets current & now comparably treeless CO2 absorbent capacity.

The extreme and GWP affecting levels of CO2 we have today are as a result of various industrial processes - e.g processing bauxite (aluminium)- that releases CO2 in vast volumes that was locked away countless millions of years ago when the earth's atmosphere was highly toxic with highly acidic and concentrated CO2 gases.

Mike

The first half of my list refers to previous interglacial periods when man wasn't around and yet the CO2 spikes are evident and global warming occured. The Forest fires referred to are the natural process that stems from lightning strikes etc and occurred in primeaval forests, not just a 'last few years' effect.

Note also the at least 10X CO2 release from natural means is as estimated 'today' which means the processes you mention are lumped in under the source 'man' in that comparison.

If man were to cease using these processes you refer to it would certainly clean the air up but as to its impact on the CO2 equation it is not going to stop that in its tracks or slow it down much.

I am not advocating the rape of the world but assuming we are all pigs, everybody is allowed some time at the trough, including the Chinese for example, where on top of the obvious commercial drive of such a huge nation, a large amount of manufacturing is on the western worlds behalf and should be set against 'us'.

No solution presents itself I am afraid.

Geoff

Geoff, I am not disagreeing, we just have a different angle on the same target.
The bottom line is we do BOTH agree we have a problem. If only everyone could disagree like we do, eh ??

One of my other concerns is the pollution history of the "west" was done by comparative less people
The "new growth" countries have populations are some 100 times greater than the west had in the past.
The damage potential of these very unconcerned and uncaring counties is HUGE. They are really set to screw it up bigtime.

I just returned from India and my wife was shocked big time on the uncaring attitude & levels of pollution.
I have been travelling in India for years, but it just gets worse & worse & I do not see any signs of improvement.
The abuse & uncaring attitude of everything all over the country; cities are choking to death with smoke & smog; the countryside is not much better the roads are just strips of garbage; rivers are refuse dumps. Off the coast of Goa there is a wall to wall horizon of 40 plus Chinese & Russian ships loading up zillions of tonnes of ore for industry, aluminium, iron, rare metals etc., but Russia & China have all these resources in abundance. So why take it from India ?? because the stupid India Commodities market has sold forward at half the going rate. The beaches are stinking of discharged oil & other detritus.

I met an old work colleague who now is assigned to China. We discussed the polution issues and he told me this is nothing, go see the arseholes in China. So as you said, we might all be pigs at trough, but the new growth populations need to learn that the pigswill is not for free, and quickly.

On the bright side; I sent most time in national parks and was please to see that no form of anything associated with man is allowed, seriously big fines for leaving garbage, the general public are not allowed even to get out of the safari trucks. Dropping paper or whatever means the truck stops and the driver goes pick it up. The western visitors behaved impeccably, not so the locals, sad to say.

Not a good day for defra or scientists who claim that mankind is the primary cause of global warming.

Or is this just another "trick"

No wonder the average man in the street is bewildered!

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

I am a total sceptic with modern politics.

I think we are totally manipulated by the media, and the political class, which is in the pay of vested interests of huge financial clout.

But common sense suggests that eventually we must immerse ourselves in a sustainable lifestyle eventually. This much I can move towards myself, but I refuse to worry about what others do or even what the future holds all the same ...

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Not a good day for defra or scientists who claim that mankind is the primary cause of global warming.

What scientists at Defra Don?

The post above on carbon sources and sinks isn't really relevant though is it? I'm a fur and feathers man, not a meteorologist or climatic scientist, but even I can understand the difference between natural cycles and additional human loading.

Have any of you sceptics bothered reading the Royal Society pages? I can recommend it again if you like?

George, Mat

First, try to keep global warming separate from sustainable use of the earth's resources.

Second, if one group of scientists says Mankind is (primarily) to blame for global warming, another group says that it is (primarily) the natural cycle of the earth's evolution, some say we can (meaningfully) prevent warming and others say we can't......

.....them I say the picture isn't very clear and that far more work needs to be done before we divert huge resources and changed lifestyles on somthing that could well be pointless. It might be better to predict the effects of global warming and invest resources in coping with it - which is what our ancesters no doubt did!

If, as part of this (global) debate, a newpaper publishes correspondence between scientists who are working on global warming research on which Defra chooses to rely, and it is clear that these scientists are manipulating data to make it "fit" anthropogenic global warming, then I am even more convinced that far more work needs to be done. Others would say that such "fixing" of data is proof-positive that mankind is NOT the (primary) cause of global warming. But I am far more open minded that that.

Cheers

Don

PS I only happened to catch a few minutes of discussion on Newsnight, not the most reliable source of information, I admit.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Second, if one group of scientists says Mankind is (primarily) to blame for global warming, another group says that it is (primarily) the natural cycle of the earth's evolution, some say we can (meaningfully) prevent warming and others say we can't......

That's the biggest misconception though Don. Have a look at the Royal Society website. What we have is actual world experts in appropriate fields (NOAA, NASA, Cambridge CRC, MIT, Monash etc etc) saying one thing, and a collective of crakpots from marginal fields trying to make a name for themselves by bagging easy headlines.

....And unfortunately, there's precious litle that the middle market tabloids of the infotainment business love more than attempting to demolish the work of experts. Then the so-called serious papers, fighting their own circulation battles, jump on the bandwagon.

Regards, Chris

quote:

Originally posted by Mat Cork:

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Second, if one group of scientists says Mankind is (primarily) to blame for global warming, another group says that it is (primarily) the natural cycle of the earth's evolution, some say we can (meaningfully) prevent warming and others say we can't......

That's the biggest misconception though Don. Have a look at the Royal Society website. What we have is actual world experts in appropriate fields (NOAA, NASA, Cambridge CRC, MIT, Monash etc etc) saying one thing, and a collective of crakpots from marginal fields trying to make a name for themselves by bagging easy headlines.

Pretty confident that you are on the right side then,Mat...I would hesitate to label all whose views don't sit comfortably with yours as 'crackpot'. There are just as eminent scientist arguing along with your crackpots...though I admit the weight of opinion is heavily on your side.

It is all debate if a lot of the eminent views are correct anyway. We are way behind teh eight ball as far as fixing what we have done already,

quote:

Originally posted by Geoff P:
There are just as eminent scientist arguing along with your crackpots. The Royal Society is not the Gospel only one of many scientific clubs.

Name me one Geoff...and no there aren't, and when it comes to it, people can't name them. If, a significant individual from a reputable institution started to provide evidence that CC was not driven by human activity commercial organisations (like the one I work for) would be knocking down their door. But they don't exist Geoff.

Incidentally Geoff, the Royal Society provide scrutiny for the scientific community in this country, similar organisations exist elsewhere in the world...they have no record of pandering to government nor to 'global conspiracy theory'. It's one thing to say 'oh it's not the case, there are others, and the Royal Soc is only one orgnanisation' - Clarkson and Wogan do it on a regular basis...but you have to back it up. Who are these scientists, what are their skills, where do they operate, what is their published research?

quote:

what is their published research?

...you mean like the (un) published work of the University of East Anglia.

Put the clocks back 500 years. The "scientists of the day" were adamant that the world was flat. One or two crackpots claimed they had evidence that it might resemble a sphere.

If the evidence (for man induced global warming) is overwhelming, it should be dead easy to diseminate and also convince the last remaining three sceptics.

As you might gather, I am not convinced that enough evidence exists that global warming is due to industrialised mankind.

I am also not convinced that warming means the end of mankind. Indeed, mankind seems to have flourished during this and the previous interglacial period. And I guess Neanderthal flourished likewise.

Cheers

Don

oh I've been involved and read, watched documentaries. I think it will come true but there's really a difficult timeline and scientific statistics are compiling and guesses made. Petro products are everywhere, paints, plastics, synthetics, there is no getting away from it completely. And then there are the transportation of not only people, but your products you use. That cell phone, computer, stereo, your produce, the fabrics and buttons on your shirt all come from different places, maybe even continents. What about that cardboard box you just tossed, that's probably originated in a forest, got shipped to asia as bulk, they repackage and supply manufacturers. There is no end to the interconnected web of industrial products that keep us alive. Civilization will also have to adapt and probably change and move.

I try to do what I can and most of you do. Why drive if you can walk to the store? I would never ever buy a house on the shore, that's just stupid. But another major concern is people/developers move in and cut down trees for sun and less debris, exposing vistas, creating roads and houses. Cleared land isn't just in the rain forests it's everywhere man lives and grows crops. Plants do use up CO2 and the denser it gets the better they grow from my scientific background in Horticulture, but excessive CO2 with pollution isn't good.

Don't freak out, don't have as many children,use protection, but there is a difficulty in that too, who will help you when you're older? I'll never have a child so you all can divy up my carbon footprint. When crude doubles to $200 a barrel we'll see some real changes happening. Crunch time. Till then take a chill pill.

ah I think the second whiskey has struck.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
I am also not convinced that warming means the end of mankind. Indeed, mankind seems to have flourished during this and the previous interglacial period. And I guess Neanderthal flourished likewise.

I know lot of folk at the Tyndall in UEA Don...this rumour is always a source of amusement to them.

I agree Don, I've said above...I don't go along with these being the 'latter days' - I think mankind will flourish for ages yet. But behaviour will change...and many lives will be lost. But my kids, and her kids will have some good and bad times (as it should be).

quote:

Put the clocks back 500 years. The "scientists of the day" were adamant that the world was flat.

Don,

These people weren't scientists.

quote:

These people weren't scientists.

They thought they were, what makes us all so sure things haven't changed?

Cheers

Don

The wheels have really come off the AGW bandwagon.

The actions of the Hadley Centre have cast serious doubts on the integrity and validity of their already alarmist rhetoric and long range predictions of doom.

The Hadley Centre is sponsored by the Met. Office - you know, the people who forecast the "barbecue summer"...

Interestingly Tuvalu and the Maldives are still above water and there is no evidence that sea levels have risen or will rise.

An alternative view:

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/

Don,

No they didn't. I'm not really the one to give a proper account of the set of methods and practices that distinguish scientists from medieval authorities or to give an account of how those methods and practices evolved, but essentially THEY're what's changed. And they're why the Royal Society (representing a very broad concensus of scientific opinion)are much more likely to be right about these issues than Jeremy Clarkson or Terry Wogan. Or anyone who would rather trust their own eyes and ears.

Anyone who brings up the flat earth thing either doesn't get the point of what science is or isn't really thinking about what they're saying. Sorry.

quote:

Don,...... Sorry

David, Your appology is accepted.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Derry:
Interestingly Tuvalu and the Maldives are still above water and there is no evidence that sea levels have risen or will rise.
]

kinell! Doubting CC is one thing, but SLR? What are you on mate...? How much evidence do you need? I work with this stuff every day and SLR is simply a fact...what do you think is happening to glacial melt? If we're arguing over this...we really are in trouble!

Mat

My earlier comment about a 5 year horizon related to schemes such as the Thames Gateway development. Should we be allowing such development, nevermind encouraging it?

A friend of mine noted that large numbers of Dutch people are buying up second homes in Hungary, as a refuge against SLR - ie migration - probably more or less what our ancsestors did.

Cheers

Don