Raymond, climate

[Niall Douglas]

Why is it that so many with opinions on climate change have never 
bothered to read the most recent IPCC report?

Firstly, a *lot* of money goes into climate change research - it's 
one of THE best funded global inter-disciplinary research programs in 
existence at the moment with several hunded million dollars invested 
annually. This research outputs *hundreds* of research papers per 
year, some into the leading peer research journals. In this context, 
*one* NASA report is a drop in the ocean - in fact, the *entire* 
output from NASA is fairly small in proportion to the annual output.

Put simply, even if NASA were inventing all of its output, it 
wouldn't actually matter much to "scientific consensus".

Secondly, here's a major wakeup call: Nowhere in the (most recent) 
IPCC report does ***ANYONE*** claim that climate change is definitely 
man-made. In fact, the most recent report clearly says that HALF of 
total culmulative radiative forcing is UNEXPLAINED. This doesn't mean 
it isn't man-made, just that no one actually can prove it one way or 
another. Chances are a good chunk ISN'T man-made and the report 
explains how and why.

The IPCC report is a best attempt at a consensus of current 
scientific position. If a few more people with strong opinions on 
climate change bothered to not be so ignorant, the world would be a 
considerably better place. Unfortunately it's too easy to claim there 
are secret plans to take over the world or strip people of their 
rights blah blah etc.

In fact, people should worry considerably more what happens when 
fossil fuel price rises cause food and clean water price rises. 
Current projections have about 2bn people dying in famine and that 
will provoke large scale public disorder (i.e. read introduction of 
curfews and police state powers even in the West). This process is 
projected to begin by 2012-2013 plus or minus two years.

Cheers,
Niall


On 4 Dec 2009 at 9:19, Carsten Agger wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 07:51 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> > The link I posted (http://www.abv.org.uk/node/47) contains references
> > about the NASA fakery. I gave up in frustration to find any debunking
> > attempt based on anything more than fuzzy feeling, and the debunking
> > of the leaks is just was weak. Maybe you have some good debunking of
> > the NASA fakery that will convince a skeptic?
> > 
> 
> The reference in your link is to this posting:
> 
> http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964
> 
> I believe there's a good round-up of this sort of criticism here,
> although it doesn't address that specific article:
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/mountains-and-molehills/
> 
> 
> Seriously, the notion that NASA would be faking its temperature data to
> achieve (what?) political ends requires a conspiracy of the magnitude of
> 9/11. 
> 
> (The physical laws which would dictate that a substantial increase of
> greenhouse gases like CO2 leads to higher temperatures are really very
> simple: The Planck radiation law, the Stefan Boltzmann equation and the
> notion of emissivity as influenced by the presence of greenhouse gases.
> Global warming  basically follows from the discoveries of John Tyndall
> (1820-1893) and Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927), but I suppose they were in
> on the conspiracy too?).
> 
> best regards,
> 
> Carsten
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion