Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Interesting read, especially the part where the scientist publishing the study got hate mail from global warming wackos:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cJmTTMTn

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Geologists have been saying this for years...

Geologists-pah! What do they know.

The Green Git wrote:The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.[/i][/b]

lol to the average britain who is familiar with the daily mail that quote sounds hilarious. Hers an cross atlantic translation of that last bit for you...

The Daily Mail wrote:...say what we have decided are the world’s most eminent climate scientists.[/i][/b]

So are we now saying that climate change is real? Is that the new Right Wing crock?

Anyone who's ever read any of the science stuff in the Daily Mail can tell you it's not a reliable source for anything, let alone actual science.

It's quite well known over here that this paper is attempting to divide every single thing in the known universe into two groups, those that cause cancer and those that cure cancer.

Coffee apparently does both...

I heard that on the now show as well! there's a blog tracking them somewhere apparently...

EDIT: found it

http://thedailymailoncologicalontologyproject.wordpress.com/

EDIT 2: too bad they gave up...

This is why I prefer ther term Climate Change to Global Warming. We know that pollution and environmental changes will have a knock on effect, we just dont know exactly what.

We cannot accurately predict weather beyond a few days at most, and only for a few hours with precision, long term changes are evwen more random. whether the weather gets colder or hotter doesnt effect everyone the same, a global rise will mean some places get colder for a sustained period and vice versa.

The only thing we can be certain of is that the more we spew junk into the seas and atmosphere and the more rainforest we destroy the more we destabilise the climate. An unstanble climate means and unstable biosphere and that is a shitstorm.

Exactly which gak storm is not really relevant as it doesnt effect rthe politics of the issue. What we get is a pissing contest of various scientific groups trying to predict change and those who would lose out by efective control using the disagreements as proof of lack and an excuse to do nothing thus safeguarding their profits.

I wish the environmentalists stopped trying to make their own names and looked at the core issue, the causes, and not the effects. We already know the effects are going to be bad as with the climate ALL destabilising change is bad. Keep a focus on the causes, pollution overpopulation destruction of natural habitats; its the only way to reach a focus that actually matters.

Tuvalu?
http://www.tuvaluislands.com/warming.htm

I heard someone mentioning this as a canary, any thoughts?

The volume of ice is greater than that of water. That's why global freezing is raising water levels.

You need to look up Archimedes's Law.

He's not the boss of me.

Maybe not, but don't disturb his circles!


Oh god what an awful historical joke. I'm done here.

The Green Git wrote:Interesting read, especially the part where the scientist publishing the study got hate mail from global warming wackos:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cJmTTMTn

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

That's a really poor article. Even by the standards of The Daily Mail, it's really, shockingly deceptive.

The article gives every impression that the report produced by Dr Latif questions the idea of climate change. But if you go and read his report you'll find it says "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming".

When asked about climate change Prof Latif said "If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily."

He accepts climate change as a reality, but is undertaking research into natural fluctuations of the Earth that he is predicting will offset global warming for a decade. That doesn't fit the shocking truth that global warming is made up! so Prof Latif is grossly misquoted instead.

Of course, this isn't just The Daily Mail. A lot of science reporting is that bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Geologists have been saying this for years...

Scientists have been wandering into fields in which they have no training for years. The result is always the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:Geologists-pah! What do they know.

They know about the formation of mountains. They know where nickel deposits are most likely. They don't know climatology, because it isn't their field of expertise.

If you wanted to know if a bridge design was going to stand, you wouldn't consult with a particle physicist, you'd consult with an engineer. When you want to know about climate change, you listen to climatologists, not geologists. Unless the geologists are telling you what you want to hear.

I want my global warming godamnit!

Orkeosaurus wrote:He's not the boss of me.

Wait..I thought I was.

GG

sebster wrote:They know about the formation of mountains. They know where nickel deposits are most likely. They don't know climatology, because it isn't their field of expertise.

Actually the two are quite intertwined. They are able to see the effects and record of the climate in the rock and earth itself. I went to a series of lectures while I was in college to explain the link. Indeed, many geologists at Baylor were also experts in the field of Climatology. Of course most geologists are Man-Made Global Warming skeptics, so it is easier to dismiss their opinions as invalid then to actually examine their findings....

sebster wrote:If you wanted to know if a bridge design was going to stand, you wouldn't consult with a particle physicist, you'd consult with an engineer. When you want to know about climate change, you listen to climatologists, not geologists. Unless the geologists are telling you what you want to hear.

The same could be said of those attempting to discredit their ideas. Your comparison is rather faulty. You know that I am no fan of either side, both being dominated by extremists, but the link between the Earth Sciences, as they are called, is very strong. They do cross over into each others domains of expertise much more then you realize.

JEB_Stuart wrote:Actually the two are quite intertwined. They are able to see the effects and record of the climate in the rock and earth itself. I went to a series of lectures while I was in college to explain the link. Indeed, many geologists at Baylor were also experts in the field of Climatology. Of course most geologists are Man-Made Global Warming skeptics, so it is easier to dismiss their opinions as invalid then to actually examine their findings....

It's hard for me to dismiss their findings at a specific level because I'm not a scientist. All I can do is hear both sides and try to reach my own conclusion. The decisive factors for me are the overwhelming belief held by the people active in the field of climatology (97% believe climate change is caused by man), and the number of people opposed to climatology who are caught grossly misrepresenting the science. This Daily Mail article is a classic example - the whole article is about doubting global warming, but if you go and read the actual report you'll find the author is a strong believer in global warming, and is predicting an event that will temporarily reduce the effects of warming.

The lie in that article will pass by without a whimper, just as the gross misrepresentations of geo-engineering in Superfreakonomics went by with barely a challenge. But if you hack 10 years worth of emails and find two quotes that sound bad when taken out of context... well that's an international media event.

The same could be said of those attempting to discredit their ideas. Your comparison is rather faulty. You know that I am no fan of either side, both being dominated by extremists, but the link between the Earth Sciences, as they are called, is very strong. They do cross over into each others domains of expertise much more then you realize.

We had this conversation before, and you complained about the extremists on both sides. I mentioned the Stern report, which didn't have any of that extremism - it just took the commonly held science and formed an economic argument - finding it'd be much cheaper to control emissions now than to restructure the economy in the wake of global warming. It's a completely practical approach, you can't dismiss it as more extremism can you?

And you're probably right, maybe I don't give geologists sufficient credit. I've been involved in debates on this issue for a long time now, and it is just so rare that any of the anti-climate change research comes from a respectable body with credible methodolgy. In the last debate I looked into the big research discovery someone posted, to find it was produced by a retired school teacher, who took historical temperature recordings at face value and declared that temperatures shot up and down all the time... without ever considering fluctuations might be due to the low quality of instruments used at the time.

The links always end up being from a guy like that, or it's a geologist employed by an oil company, or a conservative think tank where it's rare anyone involved has a bachelors in science.

JEB_Stuart wrote:They do cross over into each others domains of expertise much more then you realize.

Dogma's time to shine!

Anyway, climatologists are climatologists because they say sensible things about the climate. Geologists are geologists because they say sensible things about geology.

Smart people are smart, and occasionally they have insight into the workings of the world. Other times they don't.


Titles are irrelevant.

sebster wrote:That's a really poor article. Even by the standards of The Daily Mail, it's really, shockingly deceptive.

The article gives every impression that the report produced by Dr Latif questions the idea of climate change.

Ah... when you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. That's very original.

Is this a misquote then?

"Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

'This isn't just a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while'

But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’ "

sebster wrote:

JEB_Stuart wrote:Geologists have been saying this for years...

Scientists have been wandering into fields in which they have no training for years. The result is always the same.

There will be no dissent! The Climate Wackos have spoken. Silence infidel, or we cut off your... oh wait that's the other radical group.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:The article gives every impression that the report produced by Dr Latif questions the idea of climate change. But if you go and read his report you'll find it says "global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming".

When asked about climate change Prof Latif said "If my name was not Mojib Latif, my name would be global warming. So I really believe in Global Warming. Okay. However, you know, we have to accept that there are these natural fluctuations, and therefore, the temperature may not show additional warming temporarily."

Source please. Where can I get this report?

The Green Git wrote:
Ah... when you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. That's very original.

Is this a misquote then?

"Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

'This isn't just a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while'

But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’ "

Did you not read what you quoted? Because the quote you've just pointed to is a great example of the inherent deception of the piece. It alludes to climate change as though it can only describe a positive shift in aggregate temperature, when that is not what the term actually means.

The last comment, about the lack of reliable models, is not connected to anything which precedes it. It reads as a very, very desperate attempt to bend this man's words.

You talk about people wearing blinders: pull the wool out of your very bitter eyes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

The Green Git wrote:
Source please. Where can I get this report?

Here.

The Green Git wrote:Ah... when you don't like the message, shoot the messenger. That's very original.

No, when an article misrepresents the science involved, you criticise the article. You’re right that it isn’t original, it’s very common because it’s how things are supposed to work. The only way you can disagree with that is if you were to argue the science was accurately represented. Good luck with that.

Is this a misquote then?

I was referring to coverage of Prof Latif’s work, which was badly misrepresented. You’re quoting another scientist involved, Prof Tsonis. I do not believe Prof Tsonis’ work was misrepresented in the same way Prof Latif’s was… probably because Prof Tsonis’ opinion is somewhat closer to the story the Mail would like to tell.

Although, given both men clearly and explicitly state that they there is an man made source to some of the global warming, I have no idea why you used this article to declare that the science isn't settled.

There will be no dissent! The Climate Wackos have spoken. Silence infidel, or we cut off your... oh wait that's the other radical group.

No, science is full of dissent. But, like the original assertions, that dissent should be assessed for the quality of its reasoning and the science behind it. To the extent that dissent consists of a misleading article in the Daily Mail, I think scorn is welcome.

Source please. Where can I get this report?

His 2008 piece in Nature, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

But a far stronger statement is given in his interview with NPR; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120668812&ft=1&f=1007

RAZ: So based on your research, if I have this right, climate change, particularly a warming of the Earth's climate, is still the trend. It's just been slowed down for the last few years because of ocean currents, changes in ocean currents.
Dr. LATIF: Exactly. So - and this is the reason, because we have the short-term climate fluctuation, therefore, it doesn't make sense to look at short periods to assess the human impact on climate. So you have to consider several decades. Only then you see basically the long-term warming trend, and therefore, we can't really draw any inferences from this hold in the last 10 years or so, you know, with regard to global warming.

Here's a post I tried to make about 24hrs ago, but dakka wouldn't let me - still seems relevant however:

sebster wrote:
The links always end up being from a guy like that, or it's a geologist employed by an oil company, or a conservative think tank where it's rare anyone involved has a bachelors in science.

That's the disadvantage Geologists have when it comes to publishing evidence climate change - While they they access to some excellent evidence, being able to unearth (*ahem*) core samples and data regarding past ice ages or periods of severe climate change, like all Scientists they are disadvantaged by who funds them, and most Geologists as a result are in the 'plunder for fossil fuels! yay!' camp, since it's the corporations with that ethos that fund their research.
One of my best friends I'll never be able to agree with, because she's a Geologist and therefore of that view.

Regarding Bad Science, here's a hotlink from PhD comics http://www.phdcomics.com/:


and a link to Ben Goldacre's lovely Bad Science Blog: http://www.badscience.net/

In the UK we recently had a big hoo-ha over Politicians trying to discredit a Science Advisor for publicly telling the world what his research has shown, instead of what they want the results to be. Journalists have a similar issue with Science, in that they want to sell newspapers, so putting a sensationalist spin on a story is much better than just quoting the actual results of the research. It's what they do for a living - the problem is, the majority of us don't think about their motivations, instead just trusting that if it's in print, it must be true.

The Daily Mail is the most famed for this, but certainly not the only one. It's definitely the most fun to rip the out of though

@Captain Roderick

Nice to know there's someone else on here who listens to the Now Show and reads Ben Goldacre's blog. Don't suppose you listen to the News Quiz too?

@ Natorum - I live for and love all the Friday night 6:30 R4 comedies. Got into R4 a few years back, don't care if it makes me seem old and horribly middle class - I love it!

Did you ever listen to 'the secret world?' I managed to find the whole series as a torrent (I won't link to it, 'cos that's naughty) and it was absolutely superb. the conversations between Alastair Darling, Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelsson were just priceless

@ Captain Roderick

I listen to most of my radio on the bbc iplayer and I love most of the radio 4 stuff they have on there. I may not be middle class but I am old .

Never listened to 'the secret world' I'll have a trawl through some torrent sites and see what I can dig up, cheers for the heads up!

Stay tuned for more outrage after this important commerical break!

OH MY GOD THE BEES ARE DISAPPEARING

*looks outraged*

Captain Roderick wrote:OH MY GOD THE BEES ARE DISAPPEARING

*looks outraged*

They figured out what was doing that. A parasitic mite from south africa if I recall correctly was damaging the bees ability to return to the colony. They would fly off to forage, get lost, then die. They are in the process of engineering a bee thats much more diligent about hygiene right now, since the mites are too small for the bees currently to perceive as a threat.

I think GM bees may cause left-wing Guardian readers (like me) terrible headaches for years to come.