Page 12 of 1273 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422621125121012 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 12721
Like Tree662Likes

Thread: The Climate Change Debate Thread

  1. #111
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    192

    The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

    The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change - Blog it!

    To Our Media’s Shame
    “Why has the UK media, in pretty well all its forms, failed to report ‘The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change’, signed in New York on March 4, 2008?” The meeting at which the ‘Declaration’ was agreed [‘The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change’, March 2 - March 4] was attended by over 500 people (scientists, economists, policy makers, etc.), with over 100 speakers delivering keynote addresses, or participating in panel discussions. Sadly, I think we know the answer, and it is one that reflects very badly on our supine UK media [the only exception of note appears to be The Sunday Telegraph, March 9: ‘Climate dissent grows hotter as chill deepens’]. If ever evidence were needed of the dangerous ‘control’ of our media by pernicious grand narratives, then this is surely it.

    Luckily, we bloggers can break the deafening silence. Here, then, is the ‘Declaration’ for you to read for yourself, unadorned, unedited, and unfiltered by any media:

    The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

    ‘Global warming’ is not a global crisis

    We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

    Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

    Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

    Recognising that the causes and extent of recently observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

    Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing, human suffering;

    Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

    Hereby declare:

    That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity's real and serious problems.

    That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

    That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

    That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

    That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

    Now, therefore, we recommend -

    That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as An Inconvenient Truth.

    That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

    Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008. [End of Declaration]

  2. #112
    Pax
    Pax is offline
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    3,883

    The third episode of the BBC's "Climate Wars" is available from the link below.

    Earth.The.Climate.Wars.S01E03.WS.PDTV.XviD-PVR.avi

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  3. #113
    Politics.ie Regular eyeSpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    3,461

    BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Arctic ice thickness 'plummets'

    Arctic ice thickness 'plummets'

    "I think this is the first time that we can definitively say that the bulk overall volume of ice has decreased"
    TECHNOCRACY NOW! If you really don't like Murdoch's methods, keep the dish but get rid of the Sky box
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    self install in 3 minutes.

  4. #114
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    23,605

    Quote Originally Posted by zakalwe1 View Post
    thats quite a poetic (and good) explanation!

    i'm not sure if i believe it though. the romans invaded britian in a warm period (between 55bc and 43ad), the vikings settled greenland in a warm period in approx 1000ad, and we are in a warm period in 2000. spot a pattern? did the romans and vikings navel gaze about the amount of wood they were burning?
    No, because there isn't such a pattern:



    Quote Originally Posted by zakalwe1 View Post
    is our need to explain understand events out of our control (such as the movt of the sun and moon by ra/opollo etc) carried forward to today where we must ascribe (human?) blame for a possibly natural cycle.
    We have a very good explanation for it, which fits very well the observed facts. No known natural cycle fits - which means that we have the choice of accepting that the explanation that does fit (anthropogenic warming) is real, or inventing a new "natural cycle" for which we have no evidence except the effects we're seeing.
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

  5. #115
    Politics.ie Regular zakalwe1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    C'mon Leinster!!!!!
    Posts
    1,914

    1. thanks for transferring the debate to a more appropriate thread!

    2. its a nice picture. i dont understand the graphics or scale. surely the temp anamolies should be spread both sides of 0. i.e. you can't have "on average" every century in the picture below 0 or the mean. shouldn't they be spread both sides of 0? please explain.

  6. #116
    Politics.ie Member KungFugazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    363

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    No, because there isn't such a pattern:

    Lol, you are using a revised variation of the Mann's bogus hockey stick graph to back up your claims. As if that discredited squiggle or any of its stablemates gives your argument any credibility whatsoever Most modeling algorithms are going to produce the dramatic hockey stick shape no matter what. Most modelers follow Mann's thoroughly bogus methodology, leaving us with results that cannot be trusted to predict anything. There are too many uncertainties and way too many faulty assumptions. Garbage in = Garbage out. Mystic Meg and Irish physics live could do a better job.


    We have a very good explanation for it, which fits very well the observed facts. No known natural cycle fits - which means that we have the choice of accepting that the explanation that does fit (anthropogenic warming) is real, or inventing a new "natural cycle" for which we have no evidence except the effects we're seeing.
    "We have a very good explanation for it"
    Keep the gags coming, you are cracking me up.

    Have you ever heard of solar cycles Ibis?. Surely such an esteemed scholar like yourself has heard of solar cycles.
    Last edited by KungFugazi; 30th October 2008 at 07:01 PM.

  7. #117
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    23,605

    Quote Originally Posted by KungFugazi View Post
    Lol, you are using a revised variation of the Mann's bogus hockey stick graph to back up your claims. As if that discredited squiggle or any of its stablemates gives your argument any credibility whatsoever Most modeling algorithms are going to produce the dramatic hockey stick shape no matter what. Most modelers follow Mann's thoroughly bogus methodology, leaving us with results that cannot be trusted to predict anything. There are too many uncertainties and way too many faulty assumptions. Garbage in = Garbage out. Mystic Meg and Irish physics live could do a better job.
    Nope, the "discrediting" is what's now out of date - the 'hockey stick' has been updated (9th September paper) with all the recent data, and is robust.

    Quote Originally Posted by KungFugazi View Post
    "We have a very good explanation for it"
    Keep the gags coming, you are cracking me up.

    Have you ever heard of solar cycles Ibis?. Surely such an esteemed scholar like yourself has heard of solar cycles.
    Studied them at college, thanks - Milankovich cycles, Maunder, North Atlantic Decadal Oscillations, de yada de yada.

    They've all been studied, and none of them fit, whereas anthropogenic warming does. All you're doing is waving a wand and saying "solar cycles - abracadabra", but none of them fit.
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

  8. #118
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    23,605

    Quote Originally Posted by zakalwe1 View Post
    1. thanks for transferring the debate to a more appropriate thread!

    2. its a nice picture. i dont understand the graphics or scale. surely the temp anamolies should be spread both sides of 0. i.e. you can't have "on average" every century in the picture below 0 or the mean. shouldn't they be spread both sides of 0? please explain.
    The anomalies are in relation to the 1980 global average temperature. Same for this one, which is the instrumental record:



    So if the height of the Medieval Warm Period has an anomaly of 0, that means it was as warm as 1980 at its peak, whereas the depths of the Little Ice Age were 0.6 degrees colder on average than 1980. We're currently 0.4 degrees above the 1980 figure, and above the height of the Medieval Warm Period.
    Last edited by ibis; 30th October 2008 at 09:35 PM.
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

  9. #119
    Politics.ie Member KungFugazi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    363

    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    Nope, the "discrediting" is what's now out of date - the 'hockey stick' has been updated (9th September paper) with all the recent data, and is robust.
    It is still based on Mann's flawed methodology. Garbage in=Garbage out. No doubt back in 2001 you and the rest of the faithful would have defended MBH98 to the hilt. Now that it has been proved to be so laughably inaccurate that even the IPCC were too embarrassed to include it in their report last year a new and "improved" hokey stick (misspelling intentional) has popped out of the woodwork. Keep shifting the goalposts lads, convince humanity that they are to blame, then tax them for living, nice work if you can get it eh.

    Extract from "The First Global Revolution"
    "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
    Published in 1991.


    Quote Originally Posted by ibis View Post
    They've all been studied, and none of them fit, whereas anthropogenic warming does. All you're doing is waving a wand and saying "solar cycles - abracadabra", but none of them fit.
    Are you trying to say that solar activity has no impact on global temperature?. You and your ilk wave a wand and expect people to believe that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming/climate change yet you dismiss out of hand that Solar activity has anything to do with global temperature fluctuation, amazing.The earth is heats up because of increased Solar activity. CO2 rises come later. CO2 is a side effect, not the cause.

  10. #120
    Politics.ie Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    23,605

    Quote Originally Posted by KungFugazi View Post
    It is still based on Mann's flawed methodology. Garbage in=Garbage out. No doubt back in 2001 you and the rest of the faithful would have defended MBH98 to the hilt. Now that it has been proved to be so laughably inaccurate that even the IPCC were too embarrassed to include it in their report last year a new and "improved" hokey stick (misspelling intentional) has popped out of the woodwork. Keep shifting the goalposts lads, convince humanity that they are to blame, then tax them for living, nice work if you can get it eh.
    You're still not paying any climate taxes, and politicians have been extremely reluctant to accept that climate change needs action.

    Quote Originally Posted by KungFugazi View Post
    Extract from "The First Global Revolution"
    Published in 1991.

    Are you trying to say that solar activity has no impact on global temperature?. You and your ilk wave a wand and expect people to believe that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming/climate change yet you dismiss out of hand that Solar activity has anything to do with global temperature fluctuation, amazing.The earth is heats up because of increased Solar activity. CO2 rises come later. CO2 is a side effect, not the cause.
    No, I'm pointing out that none of the solar cycles fit the bill. As a result, saying "hey the Sun affects climate" is a so what? - it does, but current solar changes don't fit the climate changes we're seeing.
    Never let the best be the enemy of the good.

Similar Threads

  1. UK Climate Change ad
    By thebrom in forum Environment
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 30th November 2009, 12:30 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 24th October 2007, 04:37 PM
  3. Climate Change and Sex.....
    By Barra Roantree in forum Environment
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 1st September 2007, 07:09 PM
  4. Is Climate Change really the problem?
    By Simon.D in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 21st April 2006, 05:28 PM