Doubting climate change science

It’s not just mainstream science that suggests that climate change is a problem of major importance, mainstream media tends to agree.

The Press has an editorial on Doubting climate change science is no joke

There are times when the Donald Trump presidency seems comical or even fun, an absurdist exercise in postmodern political theatre.

But in other ways the Trump administration is too potentially dangerous to joke about. Its approach to climate change is one of them.

Scott Pruitt, Trump’s appointee as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), has broken with global scientific consensus and argued that carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming. He told that a US news programme that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is … very challenging to do and there’s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact”.

Doubting science by claiming that a theory is just a theory without broad consensus behind it is a favoured technique of tobacco industry lobbyists and others who try to confuse or dissemble. They pretend disagreement exists where it does not or they attempt to turn very small differences into polar oppositions.

It’s not just a big business tactic, it is also a religious tactic, like on evolution.

Does this sound familiar? Discovery Institute (which also opposes climate change science)  – Ranks of Scientists Doubting Darwin’s Theory on the Rise – “Another 100 scientists have joined the ranks of scientists from around the world publicly stating their doubts about the adequacy of Darwin’s theory of evolution.”

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Nasa and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the US have all been clear that rising temperatures have been “driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere,” as a report from the latter two bodies put it in January.

As noted in US media reports, Pruitt’s statement even contradicted the position held by the EPA itself and conflicts with the laws and regulations the EPA is expected to enforce. The EPA’s own website says that “carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change”.

Most observers of US politics expected that Trump would follow through on the anti-environmental rhetoric of his campaign. They expected a retreat from positions taken by Trump’s predecessor Barack Obama. As a Trump insider explained last week, his campaign commitment was to undo Obama’s “entire climate edifice”.

Pruitt was known to be an advocate for the energy industry before his appointment by Trump. The New York Times reports that “in his previous job as the attorney general of Oklahoma, he sought to use legal tools to fight environmental regulations on the oil and gas companies that are a major part of the state’s economy”. He drafted letters to send to the EPA and other bodies pleading economic hardship if environmental rules were not relaxed and reportedly sued the EPA 14 times.

Pruitt is now expected to preside over funding cuts and a review of his agency’s role in monitoring emissions and protecting waterways. The implications of a wholesale attack on an environmental agency are enormous, and not just for the United States. There is nothing remotely funny about any of it.

Climate science is complex and evolving as more is found out about it. Claims should certainly be challenged claims are scientifically questionable, but cannot just be dismissed, just as tobacco harm could not just be dismissed because companies might lose some money and just as evolution cannot just be dismissed because some religious groups might lose some faith.

It is quite possible that the effects of climate change are a much bigger threat to the world, and to many more people in the world, than extreme Muslims and Islamic terrorism.

Many more New Zealanders are likely to be affected by increasingly severe weather events than they are by terrorism.

Doubting some climate science is healthy, if based on science.

Doubting the possible severity of climate change is understandable – but this doubt works both ways, it may turn out to be not as bad as generally predicted, but it could just as easily turn out to be worse than predicted.

Those who doubt the accuracy of current climate change science can’t have it that it is just inaccurate in a way that suits their ideology.

There is far less climate science that suggests we won’t have any problems with climate change than otherwise.

Doubting all climate science is not based on science, it is based on denial.

There must be some degree of climate change, there always has been. Science will help us learn more about it, it will help us limit our effects on it, and it will help us deal with whatever changes end up happening.

We should aim for better climate science, and not just dismiss it with claims of doubts.

 

 

Leave a comment

61 Comments

  1. Corky

     /  March 13, 2017

    I need to reiterate. Most man-made climate change skeptics like myself don’t deny the climate is changing or that man must have some small impact on climate and weather. Smog is an example.

    Our problem is with modelled climate change predictions being touted as empirical science fact. Ditto consensus. Oh, and that small matter of fraud and lies..

    Reply
    • “Our problem is with modelled climate change predictions being touted as empirical science fact.”

      Is that a fact? I don’t know of any science that claims that predictive models are “empirical science fact”. Claiming they are fact and then pointing out their inaccuracies is a common way of discrediting climate science.

      Climate models are continually being updated as more facts and probabilities and possibilities become known.

      Predictions about what might happen in the future can never be facts so it’s a bit odd to portray them as such.

      Reply
      • Trevors_Elbow

         /  March 13, 2017

        But we hear all the time Pete – the science is settled. Any challenge to that and out comes the “Denier” claim.

        It is telling that the language has morphed around this issue from Anthropogenic Global Warming to Climate Change… climate change is undeniable, whereas AGW is highly questionable as is Mans role in climate change. Our ability to chnage global climate pales in to insignificance compared to orbital wobbles in the plants trip around the sun and alos the Suns energy output variations….

        Rapid changes in climate on earth have happen many times…. Ice Ages come on pretty fast in geological time as do events like the one that dried out the South West of the US.

        The problem here is tax and spend socialists have weaponised Climate Change as an attack vector on capitalist based economic theory – and elevated it to quasi-religious, hence the Denier tag used to shout down any debate

        Personal I am convinced the earths climate is changing – I just don’t trust the modelling given how complex the system is and how many variables there are on the input side.

        It would be helpful if the media didn’t tag every weather event as due to “Global Warming”

        Reply
        • Who says that the science is settled?

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  March 13, 2017

            Al Gore? Barack Obama?

            http://www.thescienceisstillsettled.com/
            “In testimony to Congress about global warming, Al Gore declared that “the science is settled” and he was right…”

            http://time.com/4308518/climate-change-settled-science/
            “Obama tried to move on, echoing something the scientists had been saying for a long time:
            “The debate is settled,” he said, “climate change is a fact.” “

            Reply
          • PDB

             /  March 13, 2017

            Similar to the ‘97% of climate experts support man-mad climate change’ nonsense………….

            Reply
            • PDB

               /  March 13, 2017

              Michael Crichton

              “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”

          • Trevors_Elbow

             /  March 13, 2017

            Oh please Pete – It is an oft repeated phrase constantly stuck in the debate whenever its discussed. You know this and you are being deliberately oblique and trying a small diversion tactic….

            And that is the problem with the whole debate isn’t it?

            We have Governments making rules and regs – based on “science” when the science isn’t completely settled. And it all looks suspiciously like a cover for other policies and objectives….

            Reply
            • PDB

               /  March 13, 2017

              More importantly it is taking public attention & money away from more urgent & REAL environmental concerns right on our back doorstep.

      • MaureenW

         /  March 13, 2017

        You didn’t mention “man-made” Pete. Everyone knows the climate can and does change.

        What is the other argument you are trying to make that requires people to suspend belief?

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  March 13, 2017

          PG is unfortunately one of many alarmists who change the actual debate from ‘is climate change predominantly man-made’ to ‘is climate change happening’.

          The climate has obviously changed from day-dot so to paint people as ‘climate change deniers’ is but diversionary tactics in order to label those people as loonies and avoid the real discussion of ‘man-made’ climate change.

          Reply
      • David

         /  March 13, 2017

        “Climate models are continually being updated as more facts and probabilities and possibilities become known.”

        Are they? Why are they still diverging from observable fact then?

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  March 13, 2017

          They’re getting better at predicting what weather we just had after we just had it. Come on, be fair.

          Reply
  2. David

     /  March 13, 2017

    Trouble is the global warmists have been caught either bare faced lying or manipulating data and if the science was settled they wouldnt have to behave unethically.
    The “science is settled” was based on a questionaire that went out to all sorts of various scientists in a way that was so ambiguous the answer was pre determined.
    Isnt the non existent global warming supposed to be hiding in the ocean somewhere, the growing glaciers in NZ are a local phenomenum etc etc.

    Reply
  3. Brown

     /  March 13, 2017

    I think the claim that we “dismiss” it is nonsense. We deniers just want some scientific debate based on facts rather computer modeling and shouting when challenged. We deniers also want politicians out of the loop.

    Reply
  4. PDB

     /  March 13, 2017

    Australian professor Ian Plimer

    “The Earth is an evolving dynamic system. Current changes in climate, sea level and ice are within variability. Atmospheric CO2 is the lowest for 500 million years. Climate has always been driven by the Sun, the Earth’s orbit and plate tectonics and the oceans, atmosphere and life respond. Humans have made their mark on the planet, thrived in warm times and struggled in cool times. The hypothesis tha humans can actually change climate is unsupported by evidence from geology, archaeology, history and astronomy. The hypothesis is rejected. A new ignorance fills the yawning spiritual gap in Western society. Climate change politics is religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. Its triumph is computer models unrelated to observations in nature. There has been no critical due diligence of the science of climate change, dogma dominates, sceptics are pilloried and 17th Century thinking promotes prophets of doom, guilt and penance. When plate tectonics ceases and the world runs out of new rocks, there will be a tipping point and irreversible climate change. Don’t wait up.”

    Reply
  5. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  March 13, 2017

    We should aim for better climate science,

    I agree… and how about we start at that hoary old chestnut…. The NZ Temperature Record.

    NIWA insists that NZ’s temperature rose by 0.98degC between 1909 and 2015.
    https://www.niwa.co.nz/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temperature-record
    The evidence for this has not been published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

    We learned in 2010 that NIWA had somehow lost the source data for the Temperature record.

    In 2010 Dr Wayne Mapp (Minister of Science) told Parliament that NIWA would carry out a review of its work on the NZ Temperature Record and during the 2010/2011 financial year would submit the work as a paper to a scientific journal.

    Well, we are coming up to 7 years since that work was meant to see the light of day.

    It has been over 2 years since De Freitas et al published their work on the NZ Temperature Record indicating that the temperature rise was only 0.28 deg C/ Century (1909-2009)
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10666-014-9429-z

    Now if the De Freitas Paper is “stuffed with errors”, as some folks contend, then surely these “errors” would have been addressed in a rebuttal scientific paper. But no such rebuttal has been published in an independent peer-reviewed scientific journal.

    So from my point of view, either NIWA has deceived us by telling Parliament that they would be presenting for scientific (and public )scrutiny the evidence for their version of the NZ Temperature Record, or NIWA is incredibly slack.

    Reply
  6. PDB

     /  March 13, 2017

    PG: Doubting the possible severity of climate change is understandable – but this doubt works both ways, it may turn out to be not as bad as generally predicted, but it could just as easily turn out to be worse than predicted.

    Climate computer forecasts have in almost all cases been overstated.

    Reply
  7. Alan Wilkinson

     /  March 13, 2017

    Quite frankly the Press editorial is yet another disgrace to journalism as Judith Curry’s article linked yesterday makes quite clear.

    I’m well over the ignorant stupidity of most journalism on the subject.

    Reply
  8. Griff

     /  March 13, 2017

    Oh look maggy and Alan

    Maggy [Griff, you may not be aware of how things operate here but please refer people by their name and respectfully, don’t diss them personally. PG]
    Their paper will sink into the dark corners of obviously wrong science and be ignored.
    You see [deleted inappropriate reference – PG] it is trivially easy to rebut it .
    They use Hokitika to adjust the Auckland and Wellington records.
    The temperature in Hokitika is effected greatly by wind direction .
    The pdo results in Hokitki sometimes getting far more wind off the sea hence warmer than
    when it runs from the high mountain range inland.
    One way temperature is going to be higher than the other .The same effect does not exist in wellington or Auckland to anywhere like the same degree .
    Of course NIWA has another series that has been pointed out to you many times Maggy.
    Here https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/temperature-trends-from-raw-data
    No adjustments !Unsurprisingly it shows the same as the seven station series.

    Fox ,Franz .
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/831925506035609600/photo/1
    Opps mother piece of dribble puled from an orifice .
    You can see the phase of the PDO when the Glacial advance was from more onshore wind pushing more snow onto the catchment so allowing the coastal glaciers to advance.
    Just referencing Fox and Franz ignores those Glaciers that are not so effected by coastal winds and resulting snow is yet another cherry pick .
    PDO Phase
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation#/media/File:PDO.svg

    As to climate models.
    John Crusty is telling fibs with his distorted rubbish.
    There are multiple issues with the graphs he bandy’s around on blogs as there are with his mates Roy Spencers.
    Henson et al 1988.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/839831750570303488/photo/1
    Cimp3
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/839822846452957185/photo/1
    Cimp5
    https://mobile.twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/821756337864458243/photo/1

    I see we have the gibbering “they changed the name” .
    Global warming is from us adding co2 and other green house gasses to the atmosphere.
    Climate change is the resulting effect..
    The IPCC est 1988 is of course the world scientific body that collates the research from around the globe .
    Note how it says climate change in the title.
    Here is a paper from 1949
    CAN CARBON DIOXIDE INFLUENCE CLIMATE?
    Authors
    G. S. Callendar
    First published: October 1949
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1477-8696.1949.tb00952.x/abstract

    You are denying basic well supported physics my dear’s.
    Nature will not listen to your gibbering or your futile attempt to distort reality as we know it .
    The result of climate change will indeed be catastrophic Because for to long many have believed such nonsense as you two spurt .

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  March 13, 2017

      Nuts. Just nuts.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  March 13, 2017

      So eighty years of un-tampered-with data shows a trend of about 1.4C per century with no acceleration. Which is pretty much what the sceptics have been saying and is no cause for alarm. But you are alarmed. Enough said.

      Reply
      • Griff

         /  March 13, 2017

        I know it is hard for you Alan.
        The warming we have already had is only the beginning .
        The delay between us emitting CO2 and it effect on the atmosphere is more than forty years.
        We have yet to see thew warming from the last twenty years of Indian and Chinese expansion.
        Co2 has risen recently at a rate never seen before as natural sinks have become saturated.

        As we have totally failed to address this problem we may see well over 3 C warming by the end of this century .
        At lest 2C is already unavoidable.
        To place that in perspective 5 degrees colder than today had 1000m of ice over what is now New York city .

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  March 13, 2017

          Why is the delay between you & Alan emitting CO2 & its effect on the atmosphere more than 40 years, out of interest?

          Reply
            • Gezza

               /  March 13, 2017

              Well, whatever – reading on further down Alan seems to have decided, like the character in The Search For The Holy Grail, to simply emit methane in Griff’s general direction & leave the thread.

            • PDB

               /  March 13, 2017

              Though Griff is being somewhat dishonest – even alarmists have now said it is more like a decade which doesn’t explain in the late 1970’s why scientists believed a new ice age was upon us when temperatures were cooling between the 1940’s-1970’s whilst CO2 emissions had been growing considerably throughout the entire 20th century.

              http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  March 13, 2017

            Good question, Gezza. Mainly because the alarmists are disconcerted by reality at present. They’ve invented the oceans as a carbon sink to explain it. They haven’t explained why it hasn’t been busy reaching equilibrium in rates and emissions/absorptions since pre-industrial nirvana (1750s). In other words we would expect a smooth accelerating curve, not some kind of “nothing happening/whoops, disaster” nonsense.

            But you won’t get any sense out of Griff. He’s addicted to frightening himself.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  March 13, 2017

              I know questions, Al. Nobody knows more about questions than me. I ask the best questions. They’re beautiful things. They’re amazing.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  March 13, 2017

              Yes, but are your awake yet, G?

            • Gezza

               /  March 13, 2017

              Not really. Haven’t found it necessary to apply full consciousness to anything yet

            • Pete Kane

               /  March 13, 2017

              Most sound Mr G.

    • MaureenW

       /  March 13, 2017

      @ Griff
      “..Nature will not listen to your gibbering or your futile attempt to distort reality as we know it ..”
      Nor yours Griff, for this is one of the craziest rants I’ve seen on here.

      By the way, who exactly is “we”?

      Reply
      • Griff

         /  March 13, 2017

        We?
        Only the scientist who study climate change and every major significant scientific body on the planet.
        Those that deny global warming are a very small minority .
        Less than 3% of those who publish on the subject .
        Most who deny the consensus pinion of the worlds scientific body have ether ideological ideas that get in the way of their scientific objectivity.
        Or are nothing but shrills working for the oil and coal industry’s attempts to obscure reality and preserve their profits

        For example
        Roy Spencer is a creationist who maintains that as god made the earth it can not changed by man. For a scientist to come from this position makes his output nothing but a reflection of his faith .
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornwall_Alliance
        Or Willie Soon formally of Harvard and the Smithsonian who failed to reveal the conflict of interest of being paid by a coal company to produce his “Science” and was told to stop using both body’s reputation to peddle his nonsense.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  March 13, 2017

          Griff: “Those that deny global warming are a very small minority”.

          You’ve let yourself down Griff as ‘consensus’ is not ‘science’ – Barry Marshall was in a minority of a handful who took on the establishment on the cause of ulcers and was proven correct even though he was written off as a nut, struggled to get funding for research into his theory, and was told ‘the science is settled’ on the matter.

          As Alan pointed out the untampered with temperature data you produced shows minor warming in line with rates of increase since the little ice age (which is what the sceptics are saying) and your answer is ‘wait and see’ until the CO2 kicks in? I won’t hold my breath……happy hockey sticks!

          Reply
  9. Griff

     /  March 13, 2017

    Yip Alan

    [Stick to debating issues and leave out the personal dissing. PG]

    I made some points .
    Feel free to address them in a well supported way.
    Not from [deleted inappropriate dexcriptions – PG]

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  March 13, 2017

      Done, and finished with you.

      Reply
      • Griff

         /  March 13, 2017

        Toys, cot, floor..
        Oh dear.
        How mature.

        Tampered data Alan ?. Anyone who has ever worked in a lab knows about the need to adjust readings for errors .
        .
        Did you know the result of all the “tampering” with the global record is is to lower the warming trend .?

        Due to the change from using canvas buckets chucked over the side to measuring sea temperature using engine intake pipes . A wet canvas bucket will cool slightly as you pull it up the side of a vessel .

        The reality of the adjustments is the opposite to what many who deny climate change tell us.is being done.
        Maybe its all a plot by evil scientists to hide the true warming trend from us? {sarc}
        Or maybe it is just well justified adjustments to insure accuracy of a data set pressed into showing a level of accuracy it was originally not designed to provide.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  March 13, 2017

          As your graph is not titled it is impossible to see what it is depicting but it is obviously false as the opposite has actually happened as in these graphs where earlier 20th century temperatures have been decreased due to homogenization……..

          Reply
    • Trevors_Elbow

       /  March 13, 2017

      geez Griff….. long time no see. Why are you not on Kiwiblog???

      Reply
      • Griff

         /  March 13, 2017

        Copped a two month ban for calling [Please don’t bring personal like that here from other blogs. PG]

        Reply
  10. I understand that sea temperatures taken in1770 in the south of NZ were identical when tested last year as I recall (Please don’t ask me to find the reference as I don’t have the time.). It seems to me that the average temperature of the oceans and seas will represent the only scientific proof of global warming. The calculation is of the total volume of the seas, times the calorific value of changes in temperatures (up or down) that will give a gross value for the changes in Global temperatures due to all causes. Comparison of the changes in values over say 100 years and the last 10 years would give us a baseline for answering the question. The atmosphere of the globe is a closed model. We can calculate what comes in and what goes out. Logically the difference in what is and what it should be can be attributed to human and other life and natural causes (volcanoes, ash etc). At the same time we have to record and consider the changes in the solar energy impacting on the globe by the Sun heating or cooling, and the changes in relative position of Sun, Earth and Moon. This should not be beyond the capacity of those clever Maths and IT Chaps and Chapesses to produce the appropriate algorithm to resolve the question once and for all!
    Now, if you don’t have time to assimilate that, I suggest you listen to what your body is telling you, and I have to say that yes, there is climate change, but its colder now than I recall aver the last 76 years -how about you?

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  March 13, 2017

      no where near as cold now.In winter in Auckland when I went to primary school you could crunch’ the grass under your feet,your hands froze when riding a bike,and puddles would ice over.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  March 13, 2017

      Economic and environmental vandals refuse to accept anything that would stymie them making profits by exploiting the worlds resources…and labour.Thats the…reality…..and you know..it.Just like you know Chinese foreign buyers are more than 1% in Auckland.

      Reply
    • From your link:

      The years rolled along and I still assumed global warming was a man-made catastrophe—until I finally started to study the science of the issue. At that point, two minor pieces of information helped to trigger a real curiosity for me—and led me to realize that the issue was far more complicated than I had always believed.

      The first was learning that man produces only a tiny portion of all CO2 released into the atmosphere each year. In contrast, for example, termites alone release far more CO2 annually (and by several orders of magnitude) than all the burning of fossil fuels.

      That links to:

      According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world.

      http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html

      Somewhat dated.

      And somewhat different to fossil fuel emissions – the emissions released by termites was recently stored by plants which the termites consumed.
      Fossil fuel use releases CO2 into the environment that has not been part of the ecosystem for millions of years.

      And termites mostly emit methane.

      Green house gas emissions from termite ecosystem

      …data indicate that while there are large variations in the amount of CH4 produced by
      different species, the total methane addition due to termites is probably less than 15 Tg per year, thus
      making a contribution of less than 5% to global CH4 emissions.

      http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajest/article/download/71907/60865

      As for overall methane emissions:

      There are both natural and human sources of methane emissions. The main natural sources include wetlands, termites and the oceans. Natural sources create 36% of methane emissions. Human sources include landfills and livestock farming. But the most important source being the production, transportation and use of fossil fuels. Human-related sources create the majority of methane emissions, accounting for 64% of the total.

      http://whatsyourimpact.org/greenhouse-gases/methane-emissions

      Reply
    • Griff

       /  March 13, 2017

      From your link

      The point is I had been barraged with so much global warming hysteria that I figured CO2 must comprise one percent or five percent or 10 percent of the atmosphere. But since it was only 0.04 percent, it seemed to me that the people making the case for global warming should be more careful, and not exaggerate their claims—to not lose credibility.

      The reason why i became a believer in global warming is the illogical crap posted by those who deny it and the sources they get the nonsense from.
      There is not much of a substance it can have little effect ..
      Go eat a half a teaspoon of arsenic I am sure it will have no effect after all all it is less than .0.04% of your body weight ..
      Most of the atmosphere is transparent to infra red radiation.
      Water vapor and co2 along with a few other trace gasses are not .
      Basic physic discovered well over a hundred years ago.
      http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
      On the Influence of Carbonic Acid
      in the Air upon the Temperature of
      the Ground
      Svante Arrhenius
      Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
      Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276

      Carbonic Acid is of course CO2..

      Reply
  11. Dennis N Horne

     /  March 14, 2017

    The blunt truth is that people who think they know more than some ten thousand publishing expert climate scientists and the global community of scientists as represented by the Royal Society of London, National Academy of Sciences of the United States, American Association for the Advancement of Science … are, despite what they say, simply using a well understood psychological defence mechanismto avoid reality :

    “Psychology and global warming: why we can’t seem to prevent the coming disaster (revised 2016) Published on Nov 17, 2015. Prof Jerry Kroth.

    People who crack on “consensus isn’t science” don’t know what they’re talking about. Science is a process which produces evidence and evidence that the preponderance of scientists mostly agree helps to explain the universe IS scientific knowledge. Science.

    http://www.jamespowell.org
    James Powell: “For 2013 and 2014, I found that only 5 of 24,210 articles and 4 of 69,406 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming, showing that the consensus on AGW is above 99.9% and likely verges on unanimity.” Any scientist who disagreed with hs classification could write and have it changed.

    Man-made global warming/climate change is here now and will disrupt civilisation. We must move to renewables and better utilisation of energy. It’s not going to be easy and we’ve already wasted 25 years. The greater the delay now the harder it’s going to be.

    Max Planck said: Science advances one funeral at a time.

    So come on you incorrigible deniers, still a chance for you to make some contribution to mankind’s future…

    Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  March 14, 2017

      Here we go *Dennis*…..

      …and as Wayne sez, “It sure as hell ain’t going to put him on side with any of his new South Island neighbors running *Beef or Dairy* farms 😡

      https://www.nbr.co.nz/opinion/steak-could-be-cause-climate-change-peter-thiel

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  March 14, 2017

        Thiel is briliant..paid 1mil to become a non resident NZ citizen(shades of Tonga)mesmirised the govt to give him a guaranteed no downside investment ‘opportunity’ ….cashed it up..for a 12 mil profit…so how to make 11mil ..the easy..way…thanks National….next up..does anyone know any sharia law Saudi sheiks that need a leg up…send your recommendations to c/o M.McCully..National minister for Wine and…sleaze.

        Reply
  12. Dennis N Horne

     /  March 14, 2017

    Yeah. The A B C D of denial: Anything But Carbon Dioxide.

    The current global warming is being driven by our CO2. The science is incontrovertible and the evidence unambiguous.

    Richard Alley – 4.6 Billion Years of Earth’s Climate History: The Role of CO2
    National Academy of Sciences. Published on Jun 1, 2015

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/mar/13/the-fossil-fuel-industrys-invisible-colonization-of-academia
    Corporate capture of academic research by the fossil fuel industry…

    […]
    After years conducting energy-related research at Harvard and MIT, we have come to discover firsthand that this pattern is systemic. Funding from Shell, Chevron, BP, and other oil and gas companies dominates Harvard’s energy and climate policy research, and Harvard research directors consult for the industry. These are the experts tasked with formulating policies for countering climate change, policies that threaten the profits – indeed the existence – of the fossil fuel industry.

    Down the street at MIT, the Institute’s Energy Initiative is almost entirely funded by fossil fuel companies, including Shell, ExxonMobil, and Chevron. MIT has taken $185 million from oil billionaire and climate denial financier David Koch, who is a Life Member of the university’s board.
    […]
    Fossil fuel interests – oil, gas, and coal companies, fossil-fuelled utilities, and fossil fuel investors – have colonized nearly every nook and cranny of energy and climate policy research in American universities, and much of energy science too. And they have done so quietly, without the general public’s knowledge.

    For comparison, imagine if public health research were funded predominantly by the tobacco industry. [continues]

    Yes, imagine! We’d all be brainwashed. Wouldn’t we. We’d be ignoring every scientific academy on Earth and citing a retired accountant’s notrickszone and other loony sites, pleading “Not Guilty” on the grounds of insanity, perhaps?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  March 14, 2017

      I prefer simply to look at the thermometers and tide gauges, Dennis. As you well know they show simply a steady slow rise that is not alarming. But I know common sense is not in your nature and nothing so obvious will stop your wild-eyed ranting.

      Reply
      • Dennis N Horne

         /  March 14, 2017

        You prefer to look? Well, since about ten thousand expert climate scientists and the RS, NAS and AAAS all see the same persuasive evidence and you don’t I think it’s safe to say you are looking up a rather dark place.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  March 14, 2017

          You are such a hopeless bullshitter, Dennis. What exactly do your ten thousand expert climate scientists say? Of course most of them are not particularly expert at all and what they agree on is pretty much something that most sceptics would say – that human activity affects climate in various ways. But the questions of how much and what if anything can be done about it remain both unknown and unscientific.

          Reply
  13. Dennis N Horne

     /  March 14, 2017

    Alan Wilkinson thinks he can give lessons to the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society …

    Alan Wilkinson, a chemist. Believing he knows more than the American Chemical Society …

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2014/may/release-of-national-climate-assessment-demands-action-official-statement.html
    American Chemical Society. WASHINGTON, May 7, 2014 — Yesterday’s release of the third National Climate Assessment (NCA) should serve as a claxon call for policymakers and the general public to take action to address and mitigate the observable and documented adverse climate disruption impacts being observed in every region and key economic sector of the United States.

    These impacts, which have been observed and measured, are wreaking havoc with our society. This is a not a theoretical assessment; this report cites changes we are all observing and with which we are living. The future climate trends outlined in the report are even more dire. We should all be deeply concerned.

    Of the report’s five major findings, the fifth describes the disturbing probable outcome of climate disruption currently being observed:

    “Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food and water.”

    ACS has long held the position that climate change is real and serious and that our nation needs strong policies and actions to protect against further adverse impacts, and we need to address the impacts we are already observing.

    For 14 years, ACS has held a climate change policy position, which has been strengthened and updated routinely as new scientific analyses became available. Read the current public policy statement on climate change…

    https://www.acs.org/content/dam/acsorg/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange/climate-change.pdf
    The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Chemistry is at the heart of understanding the climate system and integral to addressing the development and deployment of new emission reduction technologies and clean energy alternatives. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity.
    Unmitigated climate change will lead to increases in extreme weather events and will cause significant sea level rise, causing property damage and population displacement. It also will continue to degrade ecosystems and natural resources, affecting food and water availability and human health, further burdening economies and societies. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will accelerate and compound the effects and risks of
    climate change well into the future. International cooperation will be crucial to addressing climate change, and continued U.S. participation in efforts such as the Paris Agreement is essential. Many solutions to reduce GHG … [continues]

    To assist its members, policymakers and the general public understand the science behind our climate, the ACS created an online Climate Science Toolkit of scientific information and resources:

    https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience.html?_ga=1.42861797.1146787190.1489479938

    So, Alan. Instead of persisting with your bluff and bluster why don’t you put some time and effort into learning some climate science?

    I know I’ve suggested this before. I guess you really do think you know what you’re talking about. Sad.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s