Weather specialists

Thank you Nick and Kevin for your posts

I would be delighted if we could get back to comments relating to my specific weather queries and ignore the discussion of the whole climate change debate

Jasper, as I posted above, I can give you a detailed response about the reasons behind the increase in the frequency of spring frosts if you are interested. It is almost certainly the result of global warming - and in particular the fact that different parts of the globe are warming at different rates.
 
Location
UK
Cigarettes aren't unhealthy. Sugar us fine- you just need to avoid fat. And so on....

James Halliday holds similar views to Remington.
 
The "massively loss making wind-turbine" industry that makes a hell of a lot less money than the fossil fuel industry. The blind faith that props up the rotten system is that everything will work out in the end, even as we keep pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere and temperatures keep rising, the oceans become increasingly acidic and so on and so on. Anyone who believes that climate change is the result of anything other than increasing levels of greenhouse gases is either uninformed or willfuly ignorant.

Remington, which of these two you statements do you disagree with?
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are currently higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands or millions of years (I think the figure is actually about 3.6 million).

If you accept both of those statements - and there's pretty overwhelming evidence that they are both true - then you would need to tie yourself in some pretty impressive knots to avoid the obvious outcome: the global warming that we are currently experiencing is the result of us releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Hence all this ridiculous nonsense about sunspots and some sort of global climate change industry conspiracy. As you may have guessed, the whole climate change ddenial thing really pisses me off - it's the reason why we haven't moved quickly enough to limit emissions, the reason why whole ecosystems are now under threat, the reason why people are dying right now, and yes, the reason why there will be very little 2021 Burgundy available next year.
Cigarettes aren't unhealthy. Sugar us fine- you just need to avoid fat. And so on....

James Halliday holds similar views to Remington.
Please don’t trivialise. The issues with the CC doctrine are i) that there is no conceivable evidence which will falsify the proposition; ii) that not one single alarmist prediction has proved correct. Remember Arctic free of ice by 2018; UK children would not know what snow was like: the Maldives would be submerged by rising sea levels and so on.

What warming has been recorded is, as IPCC admits, well within their modelling error margin. When, as they acknowledged, the planet ceased warming from 1995-2012 (then 2015) they posited a GW pause; something no model had predicted. This is not science but casuistry. I am surprised that anyone continues to take them seriously.

It is a pity that the principal weapon of these apostles is denigration rather than addressing the facts and engaging with the many reputable scientists who take issue with the orthodoxy.

It is difficult to take seriously anyone who believes that mankind can change the climate.

Sorry Thom that you reduce my feet to clay. They are in good shape and allow me to walk the golf course 3-4 times a week, so the clay must be good stuff.
 
Surely it's obvious from my previous posts that I don't see anything trivial in climate change and climate change science denial. The reason that there is a "CC doctrine" is that there is so much evidence to support it and no good evidence that falsifies it. And why should we expect the alarmist predictions to be correct? In my years, nay decades, of writing and reading about cliamte change, the most alarming thing I've come across is that the more conservative predictions have also not proved correct - things have happened more quickly and more extremely than expected. Are you saying that sea levels aren't rising? That the Arctic ice isn't melting? Just because those things aren't happening as quickly as someone has said, doesn't mean you throw out the whole argument. Remember the Population Bomb and all the alarmist predictions it made about overpopulation? The fact that they didn't came true doesn't mean that overpopulation isn't a problem.

No, the models didn't predict the pause in warming, but when it was noticed, scientists went back and looked for an explanation and they found one. Contrary to your assertion, this is science - that is exactly how science works. You come up with a model to explain a phenomenon, compare it to reality and if it doesn't fit, you go back and rework the model until it does fit.

I'm afraid that it's difficult to take seriously anyone who believes that humanity can't change the climate. Simply cutting down a forest can change the local climate by reducing water vapour in the air and changing the way that winds blow. Pumping enormous amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will also inevitably change the climate - that's just basic physics.

You've accused we "apostles" of not addressing the facts, but you have failed to address my direct question - which of those statements do you disagree with? I'm more than willing to debate the facts with you, but not in this thread. If someone wants to start up a dedicated (politics-free) climate change thread, I'll be there.
 
Your statements:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Agreed. So is water vapour, the main constituent of clouds. No models an handke this important climate forcing agent.
2. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are currently higher than they've been for hundreds of thousands or millions of years (I think the figure is actually about 3.6 million). From the fact that atmospheric CO2 is higher than pre-industrial levels no conclusion can be drawn about global climate trends. There is good evidence from ice cores etc that CO2 levels follow rather than precede T changes, so the direction of causality is in doubt.

The data shows that i) climate is cyclical, not linear and ii) that climate trends mimic solar activity rather than CO2.
 
I find it quite remarkable that some clearly very intelligent people exhibit these blind spots towards issues such as climate change and Covid.

On both of these issues there is a global consensus between governments and the scientific community. The world is acting in concert to fight the coronavirus and to counteract global warming. Just this week the 2 biggest CC polluters - the US and China - reached an accord. Yet we have people making the most hubristic claims that they are somehow right and the finest governmental and scientific minds across the world have somehow got it all wrong. Really? How inflated an opinion of your own intellect do you have to have to come on here and start spouting this stuff? Why on earth would anyone give more credence to your opinions than those of the scientific communities and policymakers that spend their careers on these issues

And the icing on the cake is the patronising guff implying that we’re all chumps because we can’t see what you see. Please!
 
I am asking for no more than dispassionate debate on the data. Some of the ‘finest scientific minds’ told us we were on the brink of an ice age in the 1970s - they were wrong. I claim no expertise beyond reading the evidence on both sides of the debate. Scientists have repeatedly fudged and mis-represented the data - Michael Mann (hockey stick), HadCrut, and East Anglia (leaked emails). There is a caucus of eminent scientists who have challenged conventional wisdom - eg Susan Crockford on Polar Bears, Nils Axel Morner on sea levels - and been vilified for doing so.

You accuse me of making ‘hubristic claims’; how about the 500 scientists who wrote to the UN in 2019 requesting a conference to debate this and were refused? Are you accusing them of an ‘inflated opinion’ of their own intellect? It is unfortunate that the climate lobby is reluctant to engage publicly in open debate and can think of nothing more intellectually adult than denigrating anyone who disagrees.

Nations are being asked to spend trillions of USD which many cannot afford, on net zero. Meanwhile, not one of the signatories to the Paris Climate Accord has met their obligations. As to the Chinese and Russian accord: China has committed to commissioning 600+ new coal-fired power stations in the coming years to support its Belt and Road scheme; do you really believe that they will genuinely work to reduce CO2 emissions? We need honest debate, not more virtue-signallng, scaremongering and no-platforming.
 
Last edited:
Top