Dr Strangeheat

The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner.
Forum rules
The place to debate matters of faith and religion in a more rigorous manner. Differing perspectives from both Christians and non-Christians are actively welcomed, but contributors should come prepared to justify their opinions and beliefs, while showing due respect to the views of others.

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Sprocket » August 12th, 2015, 2:55 pm

Good post, Val. Actually, global warming may mean that North-West Europe may get a lot colder, if the Gulf Stream gets buggered, which is one possible scenario.
A cat once got frozen to -273 C, but it's 0k now.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15788
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Pondero » August 12th, 2015, 3:44 pm

Climate has always been changing over the centuries and as for the drought in the USA. How about the drought in Prairies occurring in the 1920s. I see that we have experienced the coldest two winters in Canada, 2013 and 2014.The computer models used in predicting global catastrophe, are flawed.That is what my reading by scientists in the field and others who don't like to be conned say.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12410
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Sprocket » August 12th, 2015, 3:46 pm

And the motive of the climate change believers in wanting to con everyone? You keep avoiding that question.
A cat once got frozen to -273 C, but it's 0k now.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15788
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Pondero » August 12th, 2015, 5:09 pm

The motives have been fully explained in my earlier posts on other threads. I am not going to repeat myself.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12410
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Val » August 13th, 2015, 8:55 am

Pondero wrote:Climate has always been changing over the centuries and as for the drought in the USA. How about the drought in Prairies occurring in the 1920s. I see that we have experienced the coldest two winters in Canada, 2013 and 2014.The computer models used in predicting global catastrophe, are flawed.That is what my reading by scientists in the field and others who don't like to be conned say.


Of course Earth’s climate has changed before, no sane person would argue otherwise, But.
The persistence of weird weather patterns over North America in recent years is cause for concern
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/sept ... 92914.html
There are other patterns developing for the rest of the globe especially for us in Western Europe.
There have always been ebbs and flows, but the ebbs are getting more severe and more frequent and the flows are much stronger, our real problems will come when ebb and flow meet.
I am who I am, your approval isn't needed
User avatar
Val
 
Posts: 3421
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:22 am
Location: Ireland

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Sprocket » August 13th, 2015, 9:24 am

Pondero wrote:The motives have been fully explained in my earlier posts on other threads. I am not going to repeat myself.
The only motive I can recall you ever giving is that scientists go along with the orthodoxy in order to get the grants, but that gets us nowhere. As I've already pointed out, doubting scientists can get grants from the oil industry and other vested interests; and even if it was the case, why would grants only be available to the orthodox if it wasn't true, since it is in noone's interest to push climate change if it is false?
A cat once got frozen to -273 C, but it's 0k now.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15788
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Pondero » August 13th, 2015, 10:17 am

Sprocket wrote:
Pondero wrote:The motives have been fully explained in my earlier posts on other threads. I am not going to repeat myself.
The only motive I can recall you ever giving is that scientists go along with the orthodoxy in order to get the grants, but that gets us nowhere. As I've already pointed out, doubting scientists can get grants from the oil industry and other vested interests; and even if it was the case, why would grants only be available to the orthodox if it wasn't true, since it is in noone's interest to push climate change if it is false?



Looks like a lot of convoluted logic to me.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12410
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Sprocket » August 13th, 2015, 10:33 am

If that's your only answer, I rest my case.
A cat once got frozen to -273 C, but it's 0k now.
User avatar
Sprocket
 
Posts: 15788
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:21 am
Location: Hemel Hempstead, Herts.

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby Pondero » August 13th, 2015, 11:01 am

I honestly have difficulty understanding your question, because you don't define 'orthodoxy'. Do you mean by orthodoxy, that there is or is not man-made climate change. When I receive an answer to that question from you I will then give an answer.
If your mind is your brain and your brain is just material , would you rely on it?
John Lennox
User avatar
Pondero
 
Posts: 12410
Joined: October 25th, 2007, 11:03 am
Location: Etobicoke,Ontario, Canada

Re: Dr Strangeheat

Postby godfrey » August 13th, 2015, 11:46 am

Well, to bring things up to date. 2011 brought us a washout summer but a mild winter. 2012 had the wettest summer for 100 years, followed by a long cold winter. I wouldn't be surprised if it was about now that the Met Office discreetly withdrew its "hot dry summers and warm wet winters" pronouncement from its website, as in 2013 we had - a heatwave! I actually managed a half day in the Ogwen Valley under blue skies.

I reflected that, far from our children not knowing what snow was, for the kids in the primary school next door this was the first time in memory that they were experiencing a warm summer in England.

And the winter that followed was indeed warm and wet. The Somerset Levels were flooded for months, partly due to the Environment Agency spending the money that should have gone into river dredging on a bird sanctuary.

2014 brought another heatwave and mild winter.

As I write, the cattle in Scotland have been brought in from the fields - in August - and are eating their winter fodder because of the awful summer up there. Snow remains unmelted in some parts of the mountains. Here in the south, things are not too bad: we are on the edge between Europe, which is having a heatwave, and the Atlantic, where Iceland is having its coldest summer temperatures for decades. Parts of Ireland don't seem to be doing too well, either. The BBC, in reporting the Scottish story, did not attribute it to "climate change": they have instead discovered the jet stream.

So global warming has let me down badly. Am I worried about it? No - because the globe isn't warming. Satellite data shows no warming for 18 years 7 months, though the developing El Nino may cause an uptick. Hence, no doubt, the replacement some years ago of "global warming" by "climate change". How daft can you get? Of course the climate changes; but it's convenient to be able to label anyone who disagrees with CAGW as a "climate change denialist". I'll stick with "global warming".

This is just my personal take on global warming; I don't want, and don't intend if I can help it, to get into an argument about it. But as far as I can see, there is no evidence at all for CAGW: all the bogeymen and scare stories have failed to come true. Our kids know what snow is. The polar bear population is healthy. The Arctic will not be ice free by 2015. America is not being ravaged by hurricanes and tornados ... I could go on. All the computer models' forecasts have exaggerated global temperature.

Given the climate establishment's track record as outlined above, why on (globally unwarmed) earth should anyone pay attention to their pronouncements? In the words of Victor Meldrew, I don't believe it. Somebody show me some unequivocal evidence of global warming.

But if the earth's climate doesn't give me cause for concern, the intellectual climate does. "The science is settled." A bit strange, given how young climatology is as a science. Bristlecone pines were reliable proxies for temperature, till it was discovered that they weren't. Models aren't science, they are models. One would think that the models should be adjusted to fit the data; not here: the data are adjusted to fit the models.

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
"I homogenise them, sir."


I suppose I had better mention Michael Mann's Hockey Stick model, which gives a hockey stick no matter what data you feed it.

Lastly - although as I said, I don't want to get into a pointless barney - I should address Steve's repeated query as to the motive for all this, and also the matter of the Mediaeval Warm Period.


Snoopy (typing): This is a story of Greed.
Lucy: I'm interested to see you're writing a story about greed. It's good to know you authors understand fundamental human motives.
Snoopy (typing): Joe Greed was born in a small town in Colorado.

The one great principle of the climate industry is, to make business for itself (apologies to Charles Dickens).


Apparently the Climate Change Business Journal estimates the value of the climate industry at $1.5 trillion. I say apparently, because the report itself costs $995 which I'm not spending. That's 1.5 trillion reasons to push global warming. I can well believe the figure. Remember Amazongate? Interested parties, including the WWF, hoped to trouser $60 billion in "carbon credits".

I can imagine where a marginal amount of that goes:

    - Michael Mann's legal expenses
    - the RealClimate blog (registered by Betsy Ensley, an environmental activist with Environmental Media Services, itself part of the well-known Fenton Communications; h/t The Hockey Stick Illusion, Andrew Montford)
    - the Psychology Department at my son's university, which is being paid EU money to come up with ways in which climate change legislation can be foisted on ("made more acceptable to") the masses. (Question: what's the difference between the EU and Russia? Answer: The Russians get to elect their president.)
    - I thought of other ways, but I've forgotten them.

And lastly, to the MWP (my emphases). The whole testimony is worth reading carefully:

Statement of Dr. David Deming (to the US Senate committee on the Environment & Public Works)
University of Oklahoma
College of Earth and Energy
Climate Change and the Media

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and distinguished guests, thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor's degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me.

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th century. Warmer climate brought a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art to Europe during the High Middle Ages.

The existence of the MWP had been recognized in the scientific literature for decades. But now it was a major embarrassment to those maintaining that the 20th century warming was truly anomalous. It had to be "gotten rid of."

In 1769, Joseph Priestley warned that scientists overly attached to a favorite hypothesis would not hesitate to "warp the whole course of nature." In 1999, Michael Mann and his colleagues published a reconstruction of past temperature in which the MWP simply vanished. This unique estimate became known as the "hockey stick," because of the shape of the temperature graph.

Normally in science, when you have a novel result that appears to overturn previous work, you have to demonstrate why the earlier work was wrong. But the work of Mann and his colleagues was initially accepted uncritically, even though it contradicted the results of more than 100 previous studies. Other researchers have since reaffirmed that the Medieval Warm Period was both warm and global in its extent.

There is an overwhelming bias today in the media regarding the issue of global warming. In the past two years, this bias has bloomed into an irrational hysteria. Every natural disaster that occurs is now linked with global warming, no matter how tenuous or impossible the connection. As a result, the public has become vastly misinformed on this and other environmental issues.

Earth's climate system is complex and poorly understood. But we do know that throughout human history, warmer temperatures have been associated with more stable climates and increased human health and prosperity. Colder temperatures have been correlated with climatic instability, famine, and increased human mortality.

The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.



The words of Job are ended. Thank you for listening.
Milligan nodded. What was the use? After all, if Albert Einstein stood for a thousand years in front of fifty monkeys explaining the theory of relativity, at the end, they'd still be just monkeys.
- Spike Milligan, Puckoon
godfrey
 
Posts: 105
Joined: August 13th, 2010, 4:43 pm
Location: South West

PreviousNext

Return to In depth

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron