Hasbeen...if the hard questions are not asked....how will we learn?

Planet3

To Poirot and Robert.

I have lived through a time when scientists claimed that planet Earth was headed towards a new Ice Age, and wonder of wonders, the last time I visited an ABC shop there was a new DVD for sale produced by scientists claiming the same thing. Now, I may only be an "amateur" but I know that the planet can not warm and cool at the same time.

I have lived through a time when a book was published in the 70's that was written by a bunch of scientists who claimed that the human race would run out of food and fuel within thirty years. Wrong again. Net came the Millennium bug. Wrong again.

I am also aware that the most reliable predictor for human behaviour is self interest, and with climate change scientists at war with geologists over 'man made global warming" then it is reasonable to assume that climate change scientists conclusions may be affected by their need for economic security and further research stipends.

Especially when they have been caught lying (climategate and "the Himalayan glaciers are disappearing).

Their credibility is further eroded when every time an extreme weather effect happens they automatically blame it on global warming. Some prominent climate change advocate fool even claimed that Australia had never had bushfires in September, which even I knew from memory was plainly wrong.

Now Lyn claims that the scientific debate is over. That is not how I see it, as a matter of fact, it seems to be warming up. People who claim that they are so obviously right but who never address the glaring facts which counter their claims, while personally attacking their opponents as mentally deranged, simply make me more liable to be suspicious of their real motives.

LEGO that is really strange. Because I don’t remember a consensus among scientists claiming there was going to be an ice age in the 1970s.

It seems a review of the literature agrees with me http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1. There were a handful (6 actually) scientific papers published in the 1970s suggesting the Earth would cool in the near future. Most did not predict an ice age. In contrast through the same period there were 37 scientific papers suggesting increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to global warming. Here is the key figure from that paper http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/1970s_papers.gif

Just goes to show, you shouldn’t believe what you read in the press.

LEGO,

Lots of points.

Regarding glacial retreat:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers-growing-intermediate.htm

"The vast majority of glaciers are receding. And importantly, the shrinking trend is increasing (eg - 77% in 2002, 94% in 2003)."

What you should understand is that although their are some scientists who differ, the vast majority agree on AGW in areas pertinent to their expertise.

There is not a "war" between geologists and other scientists, just because Plimer made a splash with his book. (I believe there are many errors pointed out in it)

Those scientists involved in "so-called" climategate were "exonerated".

The Y2K bug was not problem because a lot of people worked very hard to address the problems foreseen before they could occur.

Regarding the early onset bushfires. I think you'll find that scientists were more likely to be circumspect on that issue - merely stating that a warmer world will inevitably lead to warmer summers and longer fire seasons. I believe it was the magnitude of the recent fires so early in the season which made people sit up and take notice, not necessarily the fact that a fire could erupt so early.

In fact scientists are the real skeptics, not the fake ones. It's part of their training to understand that the science is never settled.

However, with overwhelming evidence pointing to AGW, they are bound to publish their findings.

Do you remember the case of skeptic Richard Muller?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?_r=0

He was a well known skeptic and the darling of other fake "skeptics" until he and his team delivered conclusions at odds with those "expected".

If you read the article you'll see he is still skeptical in some areas (hurricanes, polar bears, etc) but overall is convinced of the link between rising CO2 and warming. (it's a good article written by him - hope you'll read it)

If you're seeking "glaring facts" you'd do better to research more seriously than rely on "one offs" bandied about in the blogosphere..

"Hasbeen...if the hard questions are not asked....how will we learn?"

Planet3

If they actually asked any questions, or said something new, I'd be interested, but the blind repetition of ancient papers, long discredited, does become a bit boring.

Hell I think Poirot still quotes the hockey stick fairytale.

Incidentally has there ever been an apology for that bit of fraudulent "science"? Nah, of course not, it was from a climate scientists. How would you separate just one of their lies, from the rest.

You can keep on waffling your no substance variety of "skepticism", Hasbeen.

This is the future of politically inspired and belligerent AGW denial.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/nov/06/global-warming-science-denial-losing-position

"In yesterday's Virginia governor's race, Terry McAuliffe's win over anti-science Republican Ken Cuccinelli is showing that being a climate-change denier is a losing political position. Certainly the election was about many issues, but climate change was the most striking difference between the two candidates. Virginia's voters clearly rejected Cuccinelli's attacks against climate scientists and his head-in-the-sand views.

Ken Cuccinelli has a history of not only discounting scientists but spending taxpayers' money to actively attack them. In 2010, he began a witch hunt and accused climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann of fraud. In the end, Cuccinelli's crusade wasted hundreds of thousands of hard-earned taxpayer dollars – waste that Virginia voters did not forget."

So the "Hockey Stick" guy wins in the end.

Tra la la.....