Sign in / up

back to article IPCC's 'evil twin' launches climate change sceptic's creed

A group of dissident scientists and climate researchers has affirmed that there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity cause climate change, and has called on world leaders to abandon all efforts to reduce emissions "forthwith." Issued last week at the close of the International Conference …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

  1. Spleen

    "Limited resources"

    I'm fed up of seeing the "whether the earth is warming or not, we've got limited resources, therefore we must use less". "Limited resources" has become a thought-terminating cliché in that sense. Why do we need to use less than the laws of supply and demand dictate? Exactly how much less? Who will decide the correct level? How? "Limited resources!"

    When a resource runs out, as it becomes scarcer, it will become more expensive. As it becomes more expensive, people will use less of it. Moreover, as it becomes more expensive, alternative resources and more efficient technologies that were formerly not cost-effective will become so.

    We do not need politicians and bureaucrats and grant-chasing popular scientists to tell us when we should stop using resources. The laws of supply and demand are more effective at setting the right level of consumption than any coffee-drinking circle-jerking committee, and we don't have to pay them thousands per hour in consultancy fees for the trouble.

    0 0
  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Supply and Demand in 10 years time

    "Why do we need to use less than the laws of supply and demand dictate?"

    Which supply and demand is that, if it takes 10 years to ramp up to nuclear why would we not predict what the supply and demand situation will be like in ten years and aim for that.

    It seems kind of dumb to base a decision that needs to be made 10 years in advance on out of date data.

    You tell me, do you expect a huge increase in oil in ten years time? From where and why?

    0 0
  3. Anonymous Coward
    Stop

    Scientists also contribute to the problem

    Whilst I have to agree that IPCC *may* have a valid point in some small way, I would like to know why they have these "conferences" in major cities, where you have, say, 4000 scientists and politiciant from all over the world converging in one place. Surely this is contributing significantly to the carbon footprint ?? Surely in these days of high speed Internet links and such like, they should have no problem using teleconferencing systems to be able to hold such meetings in a virtual space. IMHO, a lot of what happens in these conferences is simply a chance to get out of the lab for a few days at other people's (ie ours) expense. Please dont try telling me they dont have very nice and luxury accomodation at these events. Lets start looking at the ones pointing the finger, and point the finger back at them. Start practising what you preach.

    0 0
  4. Mark

    Re: Scientists also contribute to the problem

    So that means nobody does anything? Why?

    And compare 4000 to the millions that travel similar distances each day (why else do we need terminal 5 in Heathrow?).

    Now if they DON'T travel, how do they meet? It is, after all, global.

    Although I suspect if the meetings were in Bognor Regis, there'd be more junior grades of politician going rather than senior officials.

    But does that mean the millions can ignore the facts?

    0 0
  5. mewol
    Boffin

    Not even a scientific conference.

    The Heartland Institute paid $1000 to anyone willing to give a speech, as well as paying for their hotel, expenses, and travel costs. Hmm, I don't hear of that happening at a lot of scientific conferences.

    Furthermore, the document the NIPCC produced is "the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists." (As compared to the IPCC's hundreds and hundreds).

    According to the New York Times, "when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so."

    C'mon guys, it was just a stupid PR stunt by those whose political interests are served by denying climate change. It's hardly even deserving of argument.

    This reminds me of when you'd get 100,000 people protesting against the war, and the media would give equal time to the 300 crackpots across the street protesting in favor of the war.

    0 0
  6. Anonymous Coward
    Flame

    Supply and Demand - the alternative

    ho hum, here we go again...

    You sceptics get more and more bitter and further in denial everytime I read a new "Climate change" story. Its as if the more evidence comes out that your wrong, you just shout "la, la, la" even louder.

    At what point will you storm off in a big huff, claiming we all hate you, nobody likes you and you want to go home? Please make it soon. Don't think that the setting up of an "official" lobby group gives your rationale weight - it just gives those amongst us capable of independent and rational thought something to laugh and point at while the Earth slowly goes to Hell in a smokey diesel handcart.

    Now my 2 cents:

    - 6 Billion people and rising

    - C02, emissions and resource (non-renewable, static and renewable) consumption rising with it.

    You want to reduce these? Guess what - reduce the demand. WE are the demand. And yes, it can be done, and done "ethically", and it will have results quickier than any rubbbish measures we're coming up with now, unless someone plans to release an free, open source, mass production fusion plant next week. China managed to save itself from self-destruction years ago when it realised it had the same problem (albeit on a smaller scale), and we can do it again, and better.

    While we come up with the solutons, you sceptics can go upstairs and sulk in your bedroom while we get on with the real work of fixing the stuff we *all* broke in the first place.

    0 0
  7. Bruce

    What Global Warming?

    January 2008 - .046C BELOW the average

    February 2008 - .016C ABOVE

    Essentially, we are now back to normal temperatures.

    http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/feb-2008-rss-global-temperature-anomaly-near-zero-and-in-good-agreement-with-uah/

    Has CO2 dropped? No.

    Has Solar Output dropped? Yes.

    What causes minor fluctuations in the earths temperature? The Sun.

    0 0
  8. Mark

    Re: What Global Warming?

    Take a class on statistical analysis.

    Mr Welsh Carrot.

    0 0
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Here's proof of global warming

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_1979-2008.png

    and here

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/giss-had-uah-rss_global_anomaly_refto_1979-1990_v2.png

    and here

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/hadcrut-jan08.png

    and here

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-jan08.png

    and on and on

    Man the guy writes every day about how global warming is fake and these graphs are flat, but you can judge for yourself. I won't comment, since it's self evident from the graph.

    He has some nice photos of Mount Fuji and Mt Kilimanjaro saying they show the ice is back too since 2005.

    I did a quick search to see if I could verify it without going,

    e.g. here's Fuji with a B57 from the 1950s

    http://kalaniosullivan.com/KunsanAB/OtherUnits/Pics/3bwJackStoobMtFuji.jpg

    There's a webcam for Mt Fuji, but it's dark now, theres a 'best of the winters days' photo shot.

    http://live-fuji.jp/fuji/best/best21e.htm

    You judge, but hey, there's also one showing fresh snow which happened in 1999, which I guess is what wattsupwiththat man will take and clip on his blog.

    Here's the best collection when the snow was covered by the top

    http://live-fuji.jp/fuji/best/best24e.htm

    0 0
  10. Michael S.

    Graphs

    Taken in their entirety, I hope you realize that all of those graphs trend upward, being self-evident and all.

    0 0
  11. David Robinson

    Back to basics

    I feel that the basis on which the Co2=global warming need a re-examination.

    Co2 is claimed to re-reflect heat that was reflected by the earth back to the earth that reflected it in the first place. The second law of thermodynamics does not allow this. Heat can only travel toward cold. Some claim that a different wave length can. If it is heat then it cant. If it is not heat it is irrelevent. Even less, no lesser heat can accrue to a greater one. Heat obeys the laws of radiation and dissipates by the inverse sqaure law.

    Co2 is claimed to be able to reflect heat. It can, weakly if the heat source is infra- red. If not, then no. Infra red is 800=C. There are not many sources of that sort of heat in the atmosphere. Infra red Co2 analysers and detectors all use a red hot source to cause the Co2 to reflect. No red heat no reflection. You can check the net for infra -red analysers and detectors to see diagrams if you wish.

    Co2 is part of the air and diffused in it. When the air gets warmed it rises until it loses it at higher altitude when it then falls until it is rewarmed. It does not hang about re-reflecting. It is thus a transporter of heat away from the earth, not a blanket. This called convection and forms a major factor in weather.

    The British 1992 Antarctic expedition brought back ice cores said to be 100,000 years old having signs of an atmospheric Co2 of twenty times our current Co2. in a colder climate. Surprise, surprise, it was little published or noted. Ice cores have also been found with very much higher still Co2 during a glaciation.

    The climate may be getting warmer or cooler (the latter just lately) but Co2 has nothing to do with this.

    Dave

    0 0
  12. Steen Hive
    Boffin

    CO2? Pah!

    My own completely scientific gut says we'll have a lot more to worry about if relatively minor, CO2-induced rising sea temperatures start all that masses of lovely, unstable submarine (CH4)8(H2O)46 a-bubblin'

    0 0
  13. Mark
    Dead Vulture

    @David Robinson

    Wrong.

    No explanations, just "wrong".

    0 0
  14. Anonymous Coward
    Happy

    Credentials

    Much of the the discussion above questions the motives or credentials of people holding opinions on either side of the argument.

    One assumes that this is to attempt to validate the strength/relevance/reliability of the viewpoints being asserted by the various individuals.

    I would therefore like to add this: I understand that Al Gore, Nobel Prize winner and Head Cheerleader for the "we're all doomed" lobby also believes that the earth was created by a guy with a beard that lives in the sky.

    Oh Please!

    0 0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.