The Climate Change Debate Thread

[Fortesbrand]

Al Gore , in an interview in 2006 in Grist Magazine (a progressive green zine), suggested that

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

An interview with accidental movie star Al Gore | Grist

Is this not an open invitation to engage in fraud? What else could " I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is" mean?

I concede that I my initial impression of the use of word "trick" in the East Anglia e-mails led me to believe that it meant a fraudulent massaging of the figures (especially when it explicitly referred in relation "to hide the decline").

Could someone explain to me how "appropriate to have an over-representation of the facts" is an innocent expression?

[Son_Of_The_Republic]

Climate Change: A new study shows that Earth's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from all sources, including man, has remained unchanged for 160 years. As it turns out, there may be no carbon to offset.

A major tenet of the global warming religion, straight from the Book of Gore, has been that the ability of the earth to handle increasing CO2 emissions is finite and that once the "tipping point" is reached, the earth will warm uncontrollably. Well, another climate domino has fallen — the myth that man-made CO2 is leading to climate catastrophe.

This "settled science" has been upended by an unsettling (for warm-mongers) new study out of the University of Bristol in England. Unlike the Climate-gate charlatans at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Wolfgang Knorr of Bristol's Earth Sciences Department followed the data where it led instead of trying to manipulate it to "hide the decline" in global temperatures the earth has experienced in the last decade.

Investors.com - The CO2 Lie

[Fortesbrand]

Continuing decline in the growth rate of the atmospheric methane burden

Abstract

The global atmospheric methane burden has more than doubled since pre-industrial times,, and this increase is responsible for about 20% of the estimated change in direct radiative forcing due to anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions. Research into future climate change and the development of remedial environmental policies therefore require a reliable assessment of the long-term growth rate in the atmospheric methane load. Measurements have revealed that although the global atmospheric methane burden continues to increase with significant interannual variability,, the overall rate of increase has slowed,. Here we present an analysis of methane measurements from a global air sampling network that suggests that, assuming constant OH concentration, global annual methane emissions have remained nearly constant during the period 1984-96, and that the decreasing growth rate in atmospheric methane reflects the approach to a steady state on a timescale comparable to methane's atmospheric lifetime. If the global methane sources and OH concentration continue to remain constant, we expect average methane mixing ratios to increase slowly from today's 1,730nmolmol-1 to ~1,800nmolmol-1, with little change in the contribution of methane to the greenhouse effect.

[SIZE="1"]emphases added[/SIZE]

Looks like we don't have to worry too much about this particular positive feedback mechanism.

[sharper]

Looks like we don't have to worry too much about this particular positive feedback mechanism.

Why on Earth are you publishing the abstract of an 12 year old study covering a period that ended 14 years ago as if it was relevant to future feedback?

Somewhat more recently

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Greenhouse Gases Continue to Climb Despite Economic Slump

Methane levels rose in 2008 for the second consecutive year after a 10-year lull. Atmospheric concentrations increased by 4.4 molecules for every billion molecules of air, bringing the total global concentration up to 1788 parts per billion, according to NOAA data.

Pound for pound, methane is 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but there’s far less of it in the atmosphere and is measured in parts per billion. When related climate affects are taken into account, methane’s overall climate impact is nearly half that of carbon dioxide.

[Theowolfe]

Another example of how the growing scepticism is flushing out bogus claims and bad journalism.

There is no scientific evidence that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035, as claimed by the IPCC.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ef=environment

[Húrin]

Perhaps we could revive this thread as the Climate Change Debate Thread? It would be preferable to turning my threads and other peoples threads into simultaneous arguments about the same thing.

[Itchy ClickFinger]

Perhaps we could revive this thread as the Climate Change Debate Thread? It would be preferable to turning my threads and other peoples threads into simultaneous arguments about the same thing.

Exactly What climate change would you be referring to ?

[Húrin]

Exactly What climate change would you be referring to ?

Any kind you like... you won't find me in here wasting my finger muscles with the creationist set.

[Húrin]

Might as well drop this in:

Lord Monckton claims to read a treaty that doesn't exist, 14/10/2009

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40"]YouTube- Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?[/ame]

[imokyrok]

Might as well drop this in:

Lord Monckton claims to read a treaty that doesn't exist, 14/10/2009

YouTube- Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

Crikey - I can see why he's so popular with the conspiracy brigade.