112 posts in this topic

Posted

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

"[bengtsson] has been a very prolific publisher and was considered one of the top scientists in the mainstream climate community," said Marc Morano, of the website ClimateDepot.com, which is devoted to questioning global warming.

Bengtsson had grown increasingly skeptical of the scientific consensus, often cited by President Obama, that urgent action is needed to curb carbon emissions before climate change exacts an irreversible toll on the planet with extreme drought, storms and rising seas levels.

Bengtsson's paper, submitted to the journal Environmental Research Letters, found that greenhouse gas emissions might be less harmful and cause less warming than computer models project. For that, Morano said, Bengtssonpaid a steep price.

more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Murdoch-owned media hypes lone metereologist's climate junk science

 

This morning I, like any of you, was disappointed to see that the frontpage of The Times carried a story by the paper's environment editor, Ben Webster, which read, 'Scientists in cover-up of "damaging" climate view.'

Variations of the story had been plastered everywhere, spearheaded by Murdoch-owned outlets, repeated uncritically by others.

(...)

But even a cursory glance reveals how thin these stories are.

(...)

What we're seeing here, then, isn't really journalism at all. Whatever its intent, in effect, it amounts to little more than glorified industry PR calling itself 'news.'

The real story is how the IPCC's projections and solutions are likely to be far too conservative, having been 'diluted' by pressure from the world's biggest fossil fuel polluters.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/16/murdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I believe instead of focusing on global warming or its newer catch all phrase 'climate change',

GW believers should focus on how excessive fossil/carbon emission are pose harmful health problem for humans and other lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The real story is how the IPCC's projections and solutions are likely to be far too conservative, having been 'diluted' by pressure from the world's biggest fossil fuel polluters.

That's a joke. The IPCC's forecasts have been consistently wrong. Even their 'conservative' projections have been way off compared with observed temperature changes. It's time to admit that climate models are based on unfounded assumptions about how the earth will react to increased Co2 levels.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I believe instead of focusing on global warming or its newer catch all phrase 'climate change',

GW believers should focus on how excessive fossil/carbon emission are pose harmful health problem for humans and other lives.

That's the thing, carbon dioxide itself isn't a pollutant despite what the AGW propaganda machine would have us believe. Unfortunately, all this focus on the climate takes away from the fact that real environmental damage is being done on a daily basis through deforestation/destruction of animal habitats, chemical and pesticide pollution of the water supply, and numerous other issues such poverty, inequality, and lack of essential medicines for the third world.
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

co2 isn't a pollutant it contributes to the greenhouse effect, theres a difference and they are both harming the planet in different ways. 

 

more trash posted from fox, its poor science and was rejected based on false assumptions.

 

the real conspiracy is that only studies funded by fossil fuel companies come to the opposite conclusion of what 97% of other scientist observe and that only conservative/murdoch owned media perpetuate the "debate" when its already settled. as long as theres doubt people will do nothing and old money companies get to make money and leave the people with the bill and destruction 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

CO2 isn't the only emission resulted from using the fossil fuels,

it may also produce CO carbon monoxide which is pollutant and harmful to health,

As most fossil fuel burning also involves taking air,

that mean the fossil fuel burning may also reacts with nitrogen & hydrogen which is abundant on this planet atmosphere,

and most of those reaction results are dangerous for health and

when enough of that reach the clouds it may also alter the rain acidity

and again that also bad as it make the water from rain became less usable and dangerous for other lives.

Most fossil fuel also contain sulfur, again the reactions with sulfur will makes an emission harmful to health not to mention very pollutant.

So, why GW believer & its partner the A-GW focus too much on CO2?

There are more immediate concern than need to be addressed about fossil fuel than what global warming and anti-gw would loves to waste their time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

the real conspiracy is that only studies funded by fossil fuel companies come to the opposite conclusion of what 97% of other scientist observe

Unfortunately, that 97% figure once again comes from carefully cherry picked peer reviewed scientific papers so that the result fits the agenda. The reality is, out of 11,944 papers on global climate change published from 1991 to 2012, only 64 explicitly endorsed the IPCC
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

CO2 isn't the only emission resulted from using the fossil fuels,

it may also produce CO carbon monoxide which is pollutant and harmful to health,

Absolutely, and that's why it's imperative to use the latest technology which mitigates those pollutants. Unfortunately, countries like China and India don't employ such technologies. Thus, you get situations like Beijing, where it's deleterious to one's health just walking the streets.

 

So, why GW believer & its partner the A-GW focus too much on CO2?

There are more immediate concern than need to be addressed about fossil fuel than what global warming and anti-gw would loves to waste their time.

I completely agree. There are real pollutants (not Co2) we should be worried about that are harming people's health. Not only that, but pesticides and other chemicals contaminating our water supplies. It's funny though, we don't see governments in a hurry to do anything about those do we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Unfortunately, that 97% figure once again comes from carefully cherry picked peer reviewed scientific papers so that the result fits the agenda. The reality is, out of 11,944 papers on global climate change published from 1991 to 2012, only 64 explicitly endorsed the IPCC

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

An individuals dissent is worth nothing. This ###### is painful to read.

 

Our species is so ######ed.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Unfortunately, that 97% figure once again comes from carefully cherry picked peer reviewed scientific papers so that the result fits the agenda. The reality is, out of 11,944 papers on global climate change published from 1991 to 2012, only 64 explicitly endorsed the IPCC

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wish I knew the truth, knew what to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wish I knew the truth, knew what to believe.

 

This is what happens when politics interferes in science.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

CO2 isn't the only emission resulted from using the fossil fuels,

it may also produce CO carbon monoxide which is pollutant and harmful to health,

As most fossil fuel burning also involves taking air,

that mean the fossil fuel burning may also reacts with nitrogen & hydrogen which is abundant on this planet atmosphere,

and most of those reaction results are dangerous for health and

when enough of that reach the clouds it may also alter the rain acidity

and again that also bad as it make the water from rain became less usable and dangerous for other lives.

Most fossil fuel also contain sulfur, again the reactions with sulfur will makes an emission harmful to health not to mention very pollutant.

So, why GW believer & its partner the A-GW focus too much on CO2?

There are more immediate concern than need to be addressed about fossil fuel than what global warming and anti-gw would loves to waste their time.

 

Sulfur is indeed present in coal: it represent from 1% to 3%

It is quite, when burning coal.

S + O2 -> SO2

2 SO2 + O2 -> SO3

H2O + SO3 -> H2SO4

There, you have your sulphuric acid and your acid rain.

 

However, there have plenty of development in Flue-Gas Desulfurization which removes Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) from exhaust gases of fossil fuel power plants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization)

 

So, as bad as Sulphur is, technology is there to prevent acid rains.Sulphur emissions are therefore manageable

 

Of course, there are other pollutants in coal such as uranium, thorium or other toxic heavy metals but these are at ppm level. Of course, when you are burning millions of tons of coal, you are going to release some in the atmosphere, but still much less than carbon which represents 60% for lignite coals to around 90% of anthracite coals.

C + O2 -> CO2

 

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas effect, greenhouse gases causes the temperature patterns to change, Temperature patterns causes Weather patterns changes: with unusual phenomenon appearing.

Temperatures patterns changes affects biological changes: weak winters do not kill certain insects larvae, certain species can access territory they could not access before: for example: the palludism carrying mosquitos.

 

Carbon dioxide is also a weak acid

CO2 + H2O <-> H2CO3

 

Carbonic acid can react with carbonate

 

Ca + H2CO3 <-> 2 H+ + CaCO3

 

Where are carbonate present? Oceans as in the form of corals, foraminiferas, coccolithophore algae.

If more CO2 is released, the oceans are going to see their acidity increased and all these organisms are going to be affected: organisms that are the base of the oceanic food chains, phytoplankton that are part of the photosynthesis process.

 

Speaking of which, someone will say at some point: but dioxide carbon is good for plants for photosynthesis

Why, yes .... That would be true if forests were not systematically destroyed

 

So, much more CO2 is released in the atmosphere and its effects are multiple 

 

There, happy to have the importance of CO2 emissions explained?

 

After that, as far as the original article is concerned, well, as Andre rightfully pointed, I find extremely ironic that an organization part of the Murdoch group who has a significant track record of lies, deceptions, fabrications of all sorts in order to push their own political agenda is calling out others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'd love a source for that because it seems awfully made up.

That comes from the scientific consensus paper by John Cook et al 2013.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I wish I knew the truth, knew what to believe.

When science is twisted for the sake of political ideologies, it's no longer science. It's just another religion.

 

The truth is, no one knows what's going to happen when Co2 increases in the atmosphere. Our best guess is to look at the historical record millions of years ago. At that time, Co2 was 10 times higher than what it is today. Life existed during those periods. The apocalyptic IPCC predictions, even their most conservative estimates, have been proven wrong time and again against observed temperature changes.

 

The problem with most of the policies such as green taxes, is that it hits the poorest members of society. It doesn't effect billionaires who continue to run five cars, three houses, and private jets. It does effect the average person when they can't afford to pay their heating bills, or fill up their car.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That comes from the scientific consensus paper by John Cook et al 2013.

5. Conclusion

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

Contributing to this 'consensus gap' are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510?000 campaign whose primary goal was to 'reposition global warming as theory (not fact)'. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008).

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (All

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

When science is twisted for the sake of political ideologies, it's no longer science. It's just another religion.

 

The truth is, no one knows what's going to happen when Co2 increases in the atmosphere. Our best guess is to look at the historical record millions of years ago. At that time, Co2 was 10 times higher than what it is today. Life existed during those periods. The apocalyptic IPCC predictions, even their most conservative estimates, have been proven wrong time and again against observed temperature changes.

 

The problem with most of the policies such as green taxes, is that it hits the poorest members of society. It doesn't effect billionaires who continue to run five cars, three houses, and private jets. It does effect the average person when they can't afford to pay their heating bills, or fill up their car.

Going to need a source on the IPCC models, preferably one you've actually read.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The truth is, no one knows what's going to happen when Co2 increases in the atmosphere. Our best guess is to look at the historical record millions of years ago. At that time, Co2 was 10 times higher than what it is today. Life existed during those periods. The apocalyptic IPCC predictions, even their most conservative estimates, have been proven wrong time and again against observed temperature changes.

 

I am going to dispute that part of the post on two points.

1 - We do know what happens when CO2 is released in the atmosphere: Chemical equations are known: I have posted them 4 posts above. The scientific literature on it is abundant.

2 - The CO2 was higher during the geological times? Certainly. Is it relevant for today? Not really. Different planet, different lifeforms: the only relevant question is about us in 2014 and later. Can we adapt to the climatic changes we are provoking?

What about the billion of people living near oceans? What about the access of water? Can a globalized economy handle continental scale weather catastrophes?

 

The thing is: all this carbon has been buried in geological layers for eons and it tooks millions of years to trap it there. It took humanity 200 years to put a large part of back in the atmosphere, destabilizing the fragile equilibrium we had and we are the prime victim of that destabilization

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012).

So climate scientists and politicians are conducting a PR campaign to advocate their position. Why am I not surprised. Since when has science needed a consensus to prove something is true. If the evidence alone was so convincing, why is there so much money being spent to sway the public? This all reeks of propaganda and political spin.

The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse'

Collapse? It never existed in the first place except in the same kind of fraudulent manner that tree rings and the hockey stick were employed. When only 64 scientific climate change papers out of 11,944 explicitly agree with the IPCC's 'consensus', it's more like a consensus of needles in a haystack.

The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research

And this is typical of the propaganda. The only metrics focused on are papers explicitly rejecting AGW and those that don't. Just ignore the fact that most of the papers don't even take a position. That's right, out of the thousands of peer reviewed scientific climate change papers, most don't even take a position one way or the other. And even of the ones that do, only 64 explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.

The devil lies in the detail as they say. And the pivotal word in that statement is 'endorses'. Endorse does not mean they explicitly stated that humans are the primary cause of global warming. What they did to arrive at that 97.2% figure was to take a very broad range of opinions on the subject and conflate them. The truth is most don't agree with the opinion that humans are the primary driver of global warming.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So climate scientists and politicians are conducting a PR campaign to advocate their position. Why am I not surprised. Since when has science needed a consensus to prove something is true. If the evidence alone was so convincing, why is there so much money being spent to sway the public? This all reeks of propaganda and political spin.

Collapse? It never existed in the first place except in the same kind of fraudulent manner that tree rings and the hockey stick were employed. When only 64 scientific climate change papers out of 11,944 explicitly agree with the IPCC's 'consensus', it's more like a consensus of needles in a haystack.

And this is typical of the propaganda. The only metrics focused on are papers explicitly rejecting AGW and those that don't. Just ignore the fact that most of the papers don't even take a position. That's right, out of the thousands of peer reviewed scientific climate change papers, most don't even take a position one way or the other. And even of the ones that do, only 64 explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of global warming.

The devil lies in the detail as they say. And the pivotal word in that statement is 'endorses'. Endorse does not mean they explicitly stated that humans are the primary cause of global warming. What they did to arrive at that 97.2% figure was to take a very broad range of opinions on the subject and conflate them. The truth is most don't agree with the opinion that humans are the primary driver of global warming.

Excuse me ? The *** ? This is what YOU presented to backup your claim

http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1213895-scientific-world-accused-of-muzzling-dissenters/?view=findpost&p=596408249

 

You pulled a Monckton, You cited a source that entirely disagrees with your claim.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

1 - We do know what happens when CO2 is released in the atmosphere: Chemical equations are known: I have posted them 4 posts above. The scientific literature on it is abundant.

What I meant to say was, we don't know how much warming adding Co2 to the atmosphere will cause. That's the real unknown, and something the models have all failed to predict. No one's disputing that Co2 is a green house gas or that adding it to the atmosphere will cause warming - the question is how much

the only relevant question is about us in 2014 and later. Can we adapt to the climatic changes we are provoking?

Except that how much the climate is going to change is very much up for debate. a 0.8c increase over 150 years for instance isn't something to be concerned about.

What about the billion of people living near oceans? What about the access of water? Can a globalized economy handle continental scale weather catastrophes?

Okay. Let's assume for a moment that the IPCC's dire predictions are correct (which they aren't), what are we going to do about it? The UK only accounts for about five percent of the Co2 produced globally. Even if we (the UK) stopped all carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow, how will that help when India and China are building new coal power stations on a daily basis? I'm a realist, and if you can convince me that you can get China and India to do that within the next decade, I'd accept the UK green taxes. But we know that's never going to happen.

We all want to move away from fossil fuels eventually, but penalising average brits through taxation in order to subsidise a financially unsustainable renewable like Wind is scandalous. Especially when it's going to make absolutely no difference as long as the US, China, and India continue to burn them unabated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You pulled a Monckton, You cited a source that entirely disagrees with your claim.

I cited the original paper which made the 97% claim and how it arrived at that figure. I didn't say the paper agreed with what I said. The how part is the interesting thing. The first thing it does is discard any paper which doesn't take a position one way or the other. So to say that 97% of all climate scientists endorse AWG as the primary driver for climate change is a bold faced and statistical lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

What I meant to say was, we don't know how much warming adding Co2 to the atmosphere will cause. That's the real unknown, and something the models have all failed to predict. No one's disputing that Co2 is a green house gas or that adding it to the atmosphere will cause warming - the question is how much

 

post-69836-0-42864900-1400427551.png

 

Answer: since the industrial revolution, the annual mean concentration has increased from 280 ppm to 395 ppm. And the rate is steadily increasing at 2 ppm / year

 

Here is the global carbon emission since 1800

 

post-69836-0-74238800-1400427920.png

 

 

Except that how much the climate is going to change is very much up for debate. a 0.8c increase over 150 years for instance isn't something to be concerned about.

 

On a global scale, yes, it is 0.8

post-69836-0-14464900-1400428373.jpg

post-69836-0-88915200-1400428589.jpg

post-69836-0-18400200-1400428616.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.