Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
. Fascinating stuff.

Interesting, I agree. I can't see the connection with contemporary climate change, but if you can make that connection then I will be the first to spread the news.

I think that going back to school in later life and getting a CSE in any subject is most admirable. GB left school early in his life, as was the way in his younger days, and went to work for a bank. I don't know for sure, but I bet he never had a day's unemployment. I will also share with you the fact that he looked after his staff at his hotel way beyond the call of duty. You should hear what they say about him. He was a great bloke when I shared an office with him too. He's a total bloody disaster on the subject of climate change, though!!!
[Rep]

I agree you need strong academic background to do this sort of thing. At the very minimum you need core subjects like A level maths or else the subject is just descriptive, as in what you get on TV about these subjects. The same goes for climate science, it's not easy to grasp the subject and quite impossible if you only have a few O levels or equivalent understanding.

Most people approach it from the political side and that's fair enough because it is of crucial political importance. The sort of money they are talking about to 'tackle' it is something like 5% GDP on a worldwide basis. For such a decision to be made most people would agree that the science needs to be open and transparent, and really it is the job of politicians to make sure the game is fair. If he could do one thing and force the government to publish all its data then he would have done a grand job and give others, including world experts the data they need. They are already highly frustrated by the way the people claiming this climate catastrophe refuse to hand over the data. I think Richard Lindzen was one who mentioned it. That's all they ask for, a level playing field where this can be thrashed out scientifically.
[Rep]

BVL wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Most people approach it from the political side and that's fair enough because it is of crucial political importance. The sort of money they are talking about to 'tackle' it is something like 5% GDP on a worldwide basis. For such a decision to be made most people would agree that the science needs to be open and transparent, and really it is the job of politicians to make sure the game is fair. If he could do one thing and force the government to publish all its data then he would have done a grand job and give others, including world experts the data they need. They are already highly frustrated by the way the people claiming this climate catastrophe refuse to hand over the data. I think Richard Lindzen was one who mentioned it. That's all they ask for, a level playing field where this can be thrashed out scientifically.

In my opinion this whole paragraph is false & misguided. Quite simply, the scientific data the 'politicians' use to derive policy is in the public domain. Furthermore this data is the distillate from international bodies such as the IPCC, or national bodies like NASA, NOAA etc. originally validated from peer-reviewed science.

There is less clarity in the economic community about how GW problems should be tackled.
The Stern report was the first realistic attempt to calculate economic costs of CC and studied in detail the economic implications of several of the temperature rise scenarios from IPCC data.
However, many of those inculcated with the Exxon derived doubt philosophy (do nothing), then tried to critically destroy the Stern figures. Monckton was one such 'expert' and his flawed arguments were easily exposed. In fact, every attempt by Monckton to challenge the orthodoxy of AGW has been shown to be flawed.

With the gradual acceptance of AGW by all but just a few isolated activists, ( & even dubya & his administration now accept the ‘science’), the economic community is slowly realising that there is a price to pay to deal with the effects of AGW – like it or not.
The interaction between science & economics with respect to AGW was discussed recently in :-
RealClimate

(nb. The ensuing posts are probably more revealing than the article itself.)

The fundamental problem facing economies of the whole world is ‘sustainability’. Irrespective of the damage being done to the environment by current policies, continued growth by reckless usage of all raw materials is unsustainable in the long term. To develop alternatives needs ‘investment’ - which is wrongly seen as ‘cost’ by some sections of the economy.
[Rep]

The earlier discussion of Astronomy in relation to CC earlier is interesting but incomplete in my opinion. The study of the solar system, and the 'Climate' of just one planet is just a tiny aspect of the whole of Astronomy - (albeit critically important to life) - so you could argue that as a generalisation, "Astronomy and climate change - barely if at all related ".

However moving on to fact & not opinion, I would suggest you ‘experts’ go to the next step, e.g. consider WHY, (& by what mechanism) the Milankovitch cycles affect the Climate.

Report your opinions please.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
The earlier discussion of Astronomy in relation to CC earlier is interesting but incomplete in my opinion. The study of the solar system, and the 'Climate' of just one planet is just a tiny aspect of the whole of Astronomy - (albeit critically important to life) - so you could argue that as a generalisation, "Astronomy and climate change - barely if at all related ".

How barely is that then

Originally Posted by :
However moving on to fact & not opinion, I would suggest you ‘experts’ go to the next step, e.g. consider WHY, (& by what mechanism) the Milankovitch cycles affect the Climate.

Report your opinions please.

Why don't you tell us if you know or would it effect your stance
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
In fact, every attempt by Monckton to challenge the orthodoxy of AGW has been shown to be flawed.

Where please

Originally Posted by :
With the gradual acceptance of AGW by all but just a few isolated activists, ( & even dubya & his administration now accept the ‘science’), the economic community is slowly realising that there is a price to pay to deal with the effects of AGW – like it or not.

I can only quote Joeseph Goebbels here



“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
Sorry but what standards are those? I hear Graham Booth is being criticised for making a claim without evidence by someone who is making the counter claim without evidence.

OK. I didn't know who Graham Booth was/is. If neither side of the dispute has evidence it is surely a non-event?

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
A proper scientist goes by evidence and not who is saying it and it is exactly this point where it turns from science into politics.

I think we should all go by evidence rather than who says it. More than once here I have suggested that people read the IPCC report rather than what is written about it.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
The main issue is the claim global warming is caused by manmade CO2 emissions, not the temperature of the surface at any given time. I have seen the data and I'm still to be remotely convinced there is any real evidence.

Specifically
What in the data fails to convince you? Be specific if you can.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
I also don't trust that IPCC computer model, in fact in all probability that was a deliberate scam.

Not all the data in the IPCC report uses computer modeling. If all the data presented depended on a single computer model and nothing else you'd have a good point.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
You see if there was sufficient evidence they would not need to scam it and I'm talking about incorrect mathematics used in the statistical processing of the data so that it skews results, indeed doing the opposite to what is correct from a statistical point of view.

If I remember correctly, there was a study cited in this forum disputing the mathematical basis which was debunked. Maybe there are others.

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov:
Remember also the greenhouse effect due to manmade CO2 is only 0.12% of the total greenhouse effect. Now how does that lead to catastrophe and a thermal runaway condition, bearing in mind CO2 has varied widely over the planet's history? How can these scientists be so sure?

Perhaps it's about equilibrium. There are natural CO2 sources and sinks. As long as they remain in balance atmospheric CO2 would remain a constant. That CO2 concentration has been increasing and at an increasing rate suggests that equilibrium is not being maintained.
I can't claim to know why that is. My first degree is in electrical engineering, an applied science. It, in no way, equips me to be authorative on climate science, another applied science. At best it might help me to look at numerical data and have some understanding of what it means.
But not how to apply it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
BVL wrote:-


In my opinion this whole paragraph is false & misguided. Quite simply, the scientific data the 'politicians' use to derive policy is in the public domain.

So are you saying the Wikipedia entry I highlighted is false then? Would you care to provide some evidence for that like I did in the first place? I don't take anything you say on trust and nor any green campaigner, I have seen the frauds committed in relation to this green politic. They have shown themselves to be some of the most dishonest of any politician I have witnessed.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Besoeker:
I think we should all go by evidence rather than who says it. More than once here I have suggested that people read the IPCC report rather than what is written about it.
Specifically
What in the data fails to convince you? Be specific if you can.

OK the historical graphs of CO2 and temperature is one of the main points of contention. The medieval warming period was deleted from the IPCC's account of history and that is a major accepted fact. They basically do not show any trend like what you would expect if their conjecture were correct. It has a habit of falling off in places which suggest there are other factors at work of far greater significance, and this does not surprise me given the other variables are far more dominant. The graphs of CO2 vs. temperature do not prove CO2 causes temperature rise and could more easily indicate the other way around, i.e. temperature drives CO2 levels. So that is what I think about when I disagree the evidence is incontrovertible, it is nothing of the sort and that's before we get into the deliberate fixing of the data. That's just downright dishonest.
[Rep]

Some thought provoking stuff by Russell Seitz ( yes I know he is not a climate scientist but as far as I know there are no union or guild restrictions on people talking about climate change are there ?)

ADAMANT: Climate Wars_
I like the link to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

scroll down to Due Diligence for this link
ADAMANT: DUE DILIGENCE : The 10 Climate Questions

gives food for thought and work done by the Beeb gosh

and also leads down to this link

RealClimate

a very interesting discussion at the bottom last post in May this year
I'm sure some of the posters may be climate scientists as well

another web resource which may be of interest for those wishing to enquire and make up their own minds rather then be spoon fed by Al Gore and his "friends"

CO2 Science
[Rep]