WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
TECHNOLOGY. MAY 29, 2014
DANIEL B. BOTKIN, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report

“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa
Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex
environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century is considered by many
ecologists to be the classic text of the movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004′s best
textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”

Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects,
and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our
environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an
objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have,
accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted
into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we
should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will
help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC
2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.

The IPCC 2014 report is actually a series of reports, each long, complex in organization, and
extensive in scope. Since it’s not possible to discuss the Summary Reports for Policymakers in detail
today, I will highlight some of my thoughts for you here as they relate to the reports, hoping to bring a saner, more sober approach to this highly
charged issue.

1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is
not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not
apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in
language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts
or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are
experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global
biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental
change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.

5. ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.

9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that
the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental
problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be
curtailed.

10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.

11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in
language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly
settled and based on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

12. The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate models is happening and will continue to
happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1). Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against
real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report are little if any validated. This
means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically

15. Some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations.

16. The report for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability repeats the assertion of previous IPCC reports that “large fraction of
species” face “increase extinction risks” (p15). Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion. And it has been clearly shown that models
used to make these forecasts, such as climate envelope models and species-area curve models, make incorrect assumptions that lead to
erroneous conclusions, over-estimating extinction risks.

17. THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to
case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.

18. STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION: There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014 report and the Climate Change Assessment that all
change is negative and undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on
planet Earth, including people. This is the opposite of the reality: The environment has always changed and is always changing, and living things
have had to adapt to these changes. Interestingly, many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require
environmental change.

19. The summary for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability makes repeated use of the term “irreversible” changes. A species
going extinct is irreversible, but little else about the environment is irreversible.

lots more here http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf

http://www.adambandt.com/tony_abbott_is_dudding_australia_s_world-first_solar-power_breakthrough

ABBOTT DUDS WORLD-LEADING RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT
Greens Deputy Leader Adam Bandt MP today said that Tony Abbott is dudding Australia’s world-first solar-power breakthrough.

“CSIRO, ARENA and the private sector have collectively led a world-first breakthrough just as Tony Abbott is cutting their funding and undermining the country’s renewable energy industry,” said Mr Bandt.

“CSIRO has broken the world record for the hottest ‘supercritical’ steam ever.

“This breakthrough means that solar power now has the potential to heat steam to the same temperature as coal and gas-powered power stations, which could drive turbines to generate clean electricity.

“Coal-fired power stations could become solar powered.

“CSIRO, ARENA and the private sector have achieved the solar-energy equivalent of breaking the sound barrier. Meanwhile, CSIRO and ARENA face the Abbott Budget axe.

“This project needs funding to continue developing its breakthrough technology, not least to commercialise these advancements, thereby bringing the country many more benefits.

“Imagine what our country could accomplish if our clean-energy industry had the resources, subsidies and support the Abbott Government lavishes on the non-renewable, dirty coal, mining and resources industries.

“This breakthrough comes after Tony Abbott told the Minerals Council that he could think of few things worse than leaving coal in the ground.

“The Greens can think of few things worse than sacrificing our innovative industries and scientific potential just because the Prime Minister can’t see past his fossil fuel blinkers,” said Mr Bandt.

mermaids

12 Stupid Things People Care Way Too Much About

Postpocelipse said:

mermaids

its very rude to go off topic, among other things.

12 literary insults to make you weep

WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND
TECHNOLOGY. MAY 29, 2014
DANIEL B. BOTKIN, Botkin dismantles the IPCC 2014 report

“Daniel B. Botkin, a world-renowned ecologist, is Professor (Emeritus), Department of Ecology, Evolution and Marine Biology, UC Santa
Barbara, and President of The Center for The Study of The Environment, which provides independent, science-based analyses of complex
environmental issues. The New York Times said his book, Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the 21st Century is considered by many
ecologists to be the classic text of the movement.” His Environmental Science, now in its Sixth Edition, was named 2004′s best
textbook by the Textbook and Academic Authors Association.”

Since 1968 I have published research on theoretical global warming, its potential ecological effects,
and the implications for people and biodiversity. I have spent my career trying to help conserve our
environment and its great diversity of species. In doing so I have always attempted to maintain an
objective, intellectually honest, scientific approach in the best tradition of scientific endeavor. I have,
accordingly, been dismayed and disappointed in recent years that this subject has been converted
into a political and ideological debate. I have colleagues on both sides of the debate and believe we
should work together as scientists instead of arguing divisively about preconceived, emotionally based “positions.” I hope my testifying here will
help lead to a calmer, more rational approach to dealing with not only climate change but also other major environmental problems. The IPCC
2014 report does not have this kind of rational discussion we should be having. I would like to tell you why.

The IPCC 2014 report is actually a series of reports, each long, complex in organization, and
extensive in scope. Since it’s not possible to discuss the Summary Reports for Policymakers in detail
today, I will highlight some of my thoughts for you here as they relate to the reports, hoping to bring a saner, more sober approach to this highly
charged issue.

1. I want to state up front that we have been living through a warming trend driven by a variety of influences. However, it is my view that this is
not unusual, and contrary to the characterizations by the IPCC and the National Climate Assessment, these environmental changes are not
apocalyptic nor irreversible.

2. My biggest concern is that both the reports present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in
language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports are “scientific-sounding” rather than based on clearly settled facts
or admitting their lack. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

3. HAS IT BEEN WARMING? Yes, we have been living through a warming trend, no doubt about that. The rate of change we are
experiencing is also not unprecedented, and the “mystery” of the warming “plateau” simply indicates the inherent complexity of our global
biosphere. Change is normal, life on Earth is inherently risky; it always has been. The two reports, however, makes it seem that environmental
change is apocalyptic and irreversible. It is not.

4. IS CLIMATE CHANGE VERY UNUSUAL? No, it has always undergone changes.

5. ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING? Yes, CO2 rapidly.

9. What I sought to learn was the overall take-away that the reports leave with a reader. I regret to say that I was left with the impression that
the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental
problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be
curtailed.

10. ARE THERE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE REPORTS? Yes, in assumptions, use of data, and conclusions.

11. My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in
language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientific- sounding,” rather than clearly
settled and based on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

12. The two reports assume and/or argue that the climate warming forecast by the global climate models is happening and will continue to
happen and grow worse. Currently these predictions are way off the reality (Figure 1). Models, like all scientific theory, have to be tested against
real-world observations. Experts in model validation say that the climate models frequently cited in the IPCC report are little if any validated. This
means that as theory they are fundamentally scientifically

15. Some conclusions contradict and are ignorant of the best statistically valid observations.

16. The report for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability repeats the assertion of previous IPCC reports that “large fraction of
species” face “increase extinction risks” (p15). Overwhelming evidence contradicts this assertion. And it has been clearly shown that models
used to make these forecasts, such as climate envelope models and species-area curve models, make incorrect assumptions that lead to
erroneous conclusions, over-estimating extinction risks.

17. THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to
case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.

18. STEADY-STATE ASSUMPTION: There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014 report and the Climate Change Assessment that all
change is negative and undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on
planet Earth, including people. This is the opposite of the reality: The environment has always changed and is always changing, and living things
have had to adapt to these changes. Interestingly, many, if not most, species that I have worked on or otherwise know about require
environmental change.

19. The summary for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability makes repeated use of the term “irreversible” changes. A species
going extinct is irreversible, but little else about the environment is irreversible.

lots more here http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-113-SY-WState-DBotkin-20140529.pdf

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

mermaids

its very rude to go off topic, among other things.

pffft!!! You couldn’t insult your way out of a wet paper bag with a diarrhea canon!

Postpocelipse is PermeateFree

Postpocelipse is PermeateFree

I’m not trying to insult anyone.

I don’t need to insult you, your behaviour on this thread says all anybody would need to know about you

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse is PermeateFree

and The_observer

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse is PermeateFree

yup,,, nah. I don’t take time to argue with monkey-spankin arsehats…….

Bump.

The_observer said:

I’m not trying to insult anyone.

I don’t need to insult you, your behaviour on this thread says all anybody would need to know about you

Is that so? This so called behavior is a subtle suggestion that you should try over-estimating others and under-estimating yourself once in a while. Not that you do subtle……..

You morons need to get a room. And if you dont wanna engage in the debate then dont, why trash the thread? Its not as if Observer floods the forum with warming threads and thus deserve a trashing?

dv said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse is PermeateFree

and The_observer

is me

Peak Warming Man said:

Bump.

Thanks, PWM, I was in fact just looking for my arse.

AwesomeO said:

You morons need to get a room. And if you dont wanna engage in the debate then dont, why trash the thread? Its not as if Observer floods the forum with warming threads and thus deserve a trashing?

hmmmmm. obviously YOU haven’t been here long. Observer is only getting what he asked for earlier.

AwesomeO said:

You morons need to get a room. And if you dont wanna engage in the debate then dont, why trash the thread? Its not as if Observer floods the forum with warming threads and thus deserve a trashing?

thank you AwesomeO

but now the attack dogs & ankle biters will accuse you off being the O

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

You morons need to get a room. And if you dont wanna engage in the debate then dont, why trash the thread? Its not as if Observer floods the forum with warming threads and thus deserve a trashing?

hmmmmm. obviously YOU haven’t been here long. Observer is only getting what he asked for earlier.

what was it I asked for exactly?

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

You morons need to get a room. And if you dont wanna engage in the debate then dont, why trash the thread? Its not as if Observer floods the forum with warming threads and thus deserve a trashing?

hmmmmm. obviously YOU haven’t been here long. Observer is only getting what he asked for earlier.

I did say morons. Plural.

AwesomeO said:

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

You morons need to get a room. And if you dont wanna engage in the debate then dont, why trash the thread? Its not as if Observer floods the forum with warming threads and thus deserve a trashing?

hmmmmm. obviously YOU haven’t been here long. Observer is only getting what he asked for earlier.

I did say morons. Plural.

Oh well fuck you too

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

You morons need to get a room. And if you dont wanna engage in the debate then dont, why trash the thread? Its not as if Observer floods the forum with warming threads and thus deserve a trashing?

hmmmmm. obviously YOU haven’t been here long. Observer is only getting what he asked for earlier.

what was it I asked for exactly?

Oh excuse me. Did I expect you to register your own actions while you were engaged in attempted belittlement of others? Attack dogs and ankle biters huh? All the blood in your massive cock must be choking your massive brain, Mr Cut and Paste.

“19. The summary for policy makers on Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability makes repeated use of the term “irreversible” changes. A species going extinct is irreversible, but little else about the environment is irreversible.”

What a ridiculous thing for a scientifically literate person to say. Erosion of specific coastal environments, destruction of particular ecosystems, the death of the great barrier reef: these things don’t get undone by subsequently lowering the temperature or removing the CO2.

AwesomeO said:

Postpocelipse said:

AwesomeO said:

You morons need to get a room. And if you dont wanna engage in the debate then dont, why trash the thread? Its not as if Observer floods the forum with warming threads and thus deserve a trashing?

hmmmmm. obviously YOU haven’t been here long. Observer is only getting what he asked for earlier.

I did say morons. Plural.

Just thought I’d give the guy a taste of what people hold back while he is sunning his obvious and irrefutable genius like forums are an IQ comp rather than a discussion device. Won’t bore anyone further with the exercise. Cheers.

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/congress-tells-scientists-ipcc-climate-report-not-science

Boris said:

http://www.iflscience.com/environment/congress-tells-scientists-ipcc-climate-report-not-science

From factualising fiction to fictionalising fact. Legislation is a free-energy machine. Or is it an entropy enhancer? Either way,,,,,, how totally awesome is politics?

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse is PermeateFree

Not so. I have no idea who Postpocelipse is.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Postpocelipse is PermeateFree

Not so. I have no idea who Postpocelipse is.

aaah but! It was a clever insult was it not?

Just for the record, it seems this is required here too.

Would seem Botkin does not hold much sway with the President either, which is probably not helped with Botkin being a Republican.

In a new, major policy decision, Obama will bypass Congress with a plan forcing power plants to cut their emissions by 30% (from 2005 levels) over 15 years.

>>> http://uwwoonp.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/daniel-b-botkin-attempts-to-delude-on.html
<<<

A blog by Maurice Lanselle

WhoTF is Maurice Lanselle?

About me (Maurice Lanselle)

Gender Male
Location Alsace, France
=============
sorry, that’s all folks

To Postpocelipse;

sorry for exposing your secret of having a small penis to all here at this forum.

My actions have obviously hit a raw nerve as your small penis must have caused

you much grief throughout your life. Not only in regard to your attempted sexual liaisons,

but your standing among your male peers, who, I’m sure, 97% of giggle at your junior member

each & every time it is spotted.

So again, sorry about your small penis Postpocelipse

regards

T.O

The_observer said:

>>> http://uwwoonp.blogspot.com.au/2007/10/daniel-b-botkin-attempts-to-delude-on.html
<<<

A blog by Maurice Lanselle

WhoTF is Maurice Lanselle?

About me (Maurice Lanselle)

Gender Male
Location Alsace, France
=============
sorry, that’s all folks

Well Observer, Maurice Lanselle is no different to you or I, that is someone with an opinion of Botkin and who argued quite convincingly of the weaknesses of Botkin’s general opinions regarding Global Warming. So instead of going to some trouble to compose a reply to your usual misinformation and to have it dismissed by a wave of your hand, I decided to reproduce it here in a lengthy format not unknown to you.

Geological Society of Australia

A position statement on climate change, published by Geological Society of Australia in 2009 said
the society was concerned about the potentially harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions and favoured
“strong action to substantially reduce current levels’’.

“Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which has
been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature,’’ it said.
“Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising
sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate
and extreme weather events.”
======================================

97% of all scientists I hear you thinking.

Wrong!

This was the statement position of the Geological Society of Australia Executive Committee.

http://scentofpine.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gsa-position-statement-and-recommendations-e28093-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-change-july-2009.pdf

It was not the statement of its more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academia, industry, government and research organisations.

Pure politics!

What was the reaction from its over 2,000 members?

Publication of the position statement caused an uproar among members and led to a revised statement, after wide consultation.

The revised statement said:

“Geological evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate system is inherently
and naturally variable over timescales from decades to millions of years.

“Regardless of whether climate change is from natural or anthropogenic causes,
or a combination of both, human societies would benefit from knowing what to expect
in the future and to plan how best to respond.

“The GSA makes no predictions or public policy recommendations for action on climate
beyond the generally agreed need for prudent preparations in response to potential hazards,
including climate change.”

In a short statement published in the latest edition of the society newsletter,Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton says:

“After a long and extensive and extended consultation with society members, the GSC executive committee has decided
not to proceed with a climate change position statement.’’

>>> (in other words, the politicised Executive Committee refused to publish the majority view of its own 2,000 member scientists that make up the Siciety) <<<

“As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However,
diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.

“The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would
not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.

97% of all scientists,,, Pigs Arse, what a joke!……….(not giggling)

(Hat tip to PWM)

The_observer said:

Geological Society of Australia

A position statement on climate change, published by Geological Society of Australia in 2009 said
the society was concerned about the potentially harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions and favoured
“strong action to substantially reduce current levels’’.

“Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which has
been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature,’’ it said.
“Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising
sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate
and extreme weather events.”
======================================

97% of all scientists I hear you thinking.

Wrong!

This was the statement position of the Geological Society of Australia Executive Committee.

http://scentofpine.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/gsa-position-statement-and-recommendations-e28093-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-climate-change-july-2009.pdf

It was not the statement of its more than 2000 Australian earth scientists from academia, industry, government and research organisations.

Pure politics!

What was the reaction from its over 2,000 members?

Publication of the position statement caused an uproar among members and led to a revised statement, after wide consultation.

The revised statement said:

“Geological evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate system is inherently
and naturally variable over timescales from decades to millions of years.

“Regardless of whether climate change is from natural or anthropogenic causes,
or a combination of both, human societies would benefit from knowing what to expect
in the future and to plan how best to respond.

“The GSA makes no predictions or public policy recommendations for action on climate
beyond the generally agreed need for prudent preparations in response to potential hazards,
including climate change.”

In a short statement published in the latest edition of the society newsletter,Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton says:

“After a long and extensive and extended consultation with society members, the GSC executive committee has decided
not to proceed with a climate change position statement.’’

>>> (in other words, the politicised Executive Committee refused to publish the majority view of its own 2,000 member scientists that make up the Siciety) <<<

“As evidenced by recent letters to the editor … society members have diverse opinions on the human impact on climate change. However,
diversity of opinion can also be divisive, especially when such views are strongly held.

“The executive committee has therefore concluded that a climate change position statement has the potential to be far too divisive and would
not serve the best interests of the society as a whole ,” the statement says.

97% of all scientists,,, Pigs Arse, what a joke!……….(not giggling)

(Hat tip to PWM)

_____________________________________________________________________________

It is 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTIST Observer, not geologists, who are NOT climate scientists and probably know little more about climate science than you or I. So please don’t get carried off by your pig’s arse.

You might have heard that President Obama, is now taking a positive stand on global warming, and despite most other countries already adopting co2 reduction methods, America’s influence will push it along even faster. This news must be a big disappointment for you and fossil fuel miners, as it is really a slap in the face for all climate change deniers and says quite distinctly that your greedy, self-cantered days are numbered.

>>> It is 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTIST Observer, not geologists
<<<

You have admitted that the evidence to prove your ‘97% of CC scientists agree’
(on what who knows) doesn’t exist, phactFree. Now go away.

The Geological Society of Australia controversy clearly proves, again, that the positions statements on CC by >> US << Society’s are the
political works of their Boards, and in no way reflect the views of their Membership overall who are almost never asked,
yet alone polled on their opinions.

In this prime example of political posturing, designed to aid in the delusion of a consensus, the position taken on CC by Geological Society of
Australia Executive Committee, in a published political statement in 2009, now withdrawn, and the views of the scientists that make up the Society Membership have
proven to be significantly different.

To argue that geologists do not make up part of the climate scientist community, and that their opinion is not relevant is absurd, or ignorant, or,
as in this case, a straw man. But if one wants to use the argument that only atmospheric physicists for example qualify then CC statements
supporting action, published by US Societies’ Boards such as The Geological Society of America, The American Medical Association,
American Chemical Society are also irrelevant.

>>>>>>>>>You might have heard that President Obama, is now taking a positive stand on global warming, and despite most other countries already adopting co2 reduction methods, America’s influence will push it along even faster. This news must be a big disappointment for you and fossil fuel miners, as it is really a slap in the face for all climate change deniers and says quite distinctly that your greedy, self-cantered days are numbered.<<<<<<

Its that sort of rant that shows a level of ignorance falling below moronic
and an ideology that is purely political & devoid of science.

You are so unbelievably ignorant Observer. So now you think a Geologist is also a Climate Scientist, how dumb is that?

Let me tell you a little about science and scientists. Well nature is so vast a subject that nobody can study every aspect of it, so they specialise in certain areas, whereby those in a specific area do not try to dictate to scientists in another area, because they know they would have a great deal more expertise than themselves. So if what they are researching overlaps with another field of study, they will request someone from that field to check their work and more often add to it. So you see Observer, being a geologist is very different to that of a Climate Scientist.

NASA states the situation succinctly:

>>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.<<

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

PermeateFree said:

You are so unbelievably ignorant Observer. So now you think a Geologist is also a Climate Scientist, how dumb is that?

Let me tell you a little about science and scientists. Well nature is so vast a subject that nobody can study every aspect of it, so they specialise in certain areas, whereby those in a specific area do not try to dictate to scientists in another area, because they know they would have a great deal more expertise than themselves. So if what they are researching overlaps with another field of study, they will request someone from that field to check their work and more often add to it. So you see Observer, being a geologist is very different to that of a Climate Scientist.

NASA states the situation succinctly:

>>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.<<

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

In observer’s defense we do ask actors & pop stars about things like climate change & publish their totally amateur pronouncements.

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

You are so unbelievably ignorant Observer. So now you think a Geologist is also a Climate Scientist, how dumb is that?

Let me tell you a little about science and scientists. Well nature is so vast a subject that nobody can study every aspect of it, so they specialise in certain areas, whereby those in a specific area do not try to dictate to scientists in another area, because they know they would have a great deal more expertise than themselves. So if what they are researching overlaps with another field of study, they will request someone from that field to check their work and more often add to it. So you see Observer, being a geologist is very different to that of a Climate Scientist.

NASA states the situation succinctly:

>>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.<<

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

In observer’s defense we do ask actors & pop stars about things like climate change & publish their totally amateur pronouncements.

Opinion is one thing, but to present information as the absolute truth, as does The_observer is quite another.

PermeateFree said:

You are so unbelievably ignorant Observer. So now you think a Geologist is also a Climate Scientist, how dumb is that?

Let me tell you a little about science and scientists. (giggles) Well nature is so vast a subject that nobody can study every aspect of it, so they specialise in certain areas, whereby those in a specific area do not try to dictate to scientists in another area, because they know they would have a great deal more expertise than themselves.

Past climates — evidence

How do we know about the different climates that Britain has experienced in the past?

Geologists find evidence in all sorts of places.

Rocks

Fossils

Pollen and spores

Microfossils

Landscape

Oxygen isotopes

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/pastClimatesEvidence.html?src=topNav

PermeateFree said:

Tamb said:

PermeateFree said:

You are so unbelievably ignorant Observer. So now you think a Geologist is also a Climate Scientist, how dumb is that?

Let me tell you a little about science and scientists. Well nature is so vast a subject that nobody can study every aspect of it, so they specialise in certain areas, whereby those in a specific area do not try to dictate to scientists in another area, because they know they would have a great deal more expertise than themselves. So if what they are researching overlaps with another field of study, they will request someone from that field to check their work and more often add to it. So you see Observer, being a geologist is very different to that of a Climate Scientist.

NASA states the situation succinctly:

>>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.<<

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

In observer’s defense we do ask actors & pop stars about things like climate change & publish their totally amateur pronouncements.

Opinion is one thing, but to present information as the absolute truth, as does The_observer is quite another.

Sadly, very many people take these pop star pronouncements as absolute truth.

Using your logic then, count out the CC statements

supporting action, published by US Societies’ Boards such as The Geological Society of America,

The American Medical Association,

American Chemical Society are also irrelevant.

:)))))

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

You are so unbelievably ignorant Observer. So now you think a Geologist is also a Climate Scientist, how dumb is that?

Let me tell you a little about science and scientists. (giggles) Well nature is so vast a subject that nobody can study every aspect of it, so they specialise in certain areas, whereby those in a specific area do not try to dictate to scientists in another area, because they know they would have a great deal more expertise than themselves.

Past climates — evidence

How do we know about the different climates that Britain has experienced in the past?

Geologists find evidence in all sorts of places.

Rocks

Fossils

Pollen and spores

Microfossils

Landscape

Oxygen isotopes

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/pastClimatesEvidence.html?src=topNav

But they are not studying living things like todays flora and fauna, they have little or no idea how they will react to climate change (other than there have been past mass extinctions), nor do the have knowledge of the current climate reaction to today’s stimuli. Geologist look at things that have been, they are not looking at what is currently happening (climate wise).

PermeateFree said:

NASA states the situation succinctly:

>>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.<<

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

From: PermeateFree
Observer, you are renown for going to extraordinary lengths to push your deniers crap against vast amounts of evidence from 97% of climate scientists

Every new piece of research that is carried out points to the catastrophic outcome of global warming and that is not my opinion, but the opinion of 97% of climate scientists.

Personally, I am not a climate scientist and only repeat what 97% of climate scientists produce

There is no such thing as a natural climate change

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities

You are so easily proved wrong Observer, Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
====================================================================

The observer said: Date: 1/06/2014 10:00:22 ID: 540660

Your NASA link does not prove your point. It is the position taken by Boards of Directors of various
US organisations, not scientists.

So, I ask again for you to link proof that 97% of scientists agree & what they agree on.
=====================================================================
From: PermeateFree Date: 1/06/2014 16:40:40 ID: 540788

The above is a good example of how you operate Observer,
by demanding people produce evidence that has obviously not been collected
then you pronounce them and their arguments false because they cannot produce them.

From: The observer Date: 1/06/2014 17:37:03 ID: 540864

Right then, you have now actually admitted that there is no proof of the absurd 97% argument!

End of story!

Giggles

The_observer said:

Using your logic then, count out the CC statements

supporting action, published by US Societies’ Boards such as The Geological Society of America,

The American Medical Association,

American Chemical Society are also irrelevant.

:)))))

I suggest you have a good look at the link below Observer of a highly respected organisation coordinating the views of Climate Scientific Institutions.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013
A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in a flawed paper by John Cook et al published in a new and
unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal,
reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the
true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook
himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

And yet another Paper debunking Cook’s cooked figures-

A new paper by Dr. Richard Tol published today in ScienceDirect, journal of Energy Policy, shows that the Cook et al. paper claiming that there
is a 97% consensus among scientists is not just impossible to reproduce (since Cook is withholding data) but a veritable statistical train wreck
rife with bias, classification errors, poor data quality, and inconsistency in the ratings process. The full paper is available below.

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis

Richard S.J. Tol dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.045

Abstract

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024).
This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement.
Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is
low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.

Conclusion and policy implications

The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports
the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al.,
however, failed to demonstrate this. Instead, they gave further cause to those who believe that climate researchers are secretive (as data were
held back) and incompetent (as the analysis is flawed).

It will take decades or longer to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to zero—the only way to stabilize its atmospheric concentration. During that
time, electoral fortunes will turn. Climate policy will not succeed unless it has broad societal support, at levels comparable to other public
policies such as universal education or old-age support. Well-publicized but faulty analyses like the one by Cook et al. only help to further
polarize the climate debate.

giggles :))))))

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

NASA states the situation succinctly:

>>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.<<

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

From: PermeateFree
Observer, you are renown for going to extraordinary lengths to push your deniers crap against vast amounts of evidence from 97% of climate scientists

Every new piece of research that is carried out points to the catastrophic outcome of global warming and that is not my opinion, but the opinion of 97% of climate scientists.

Personally, I am not a climate scientist and only repeat what 97% of climate scientists produce

There is no such thing as a natural climate change

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities

You are so easily proved wrong Observer, Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
====================================================================

The observer said: Date: 1/06/2014 10:00:22 ID: 540660

Your NASA link does not prove your point. It is the position taken by Boards of Directors of various
US organisations, not scientists.

So, I ask again for you to link proof that 97% of scientists agree & what they agree on.
=====================================================================
From: PermeateFree Date: 1/06/2014 16:40:40 ID: 540788

The above is a good example of how you operate Observer,
by demanding people produce evidence that has obviously not been collected
then you pronounce them and their arguments false because they cannot produce them.

From: The observer Date: 1/06/2014 17:37:03 ID: 540864

Right then, you have now actually admitted that there is no proof of the absurd 97% argument!

End of story!

Giggles

Typical of you Observer of making Strawmen from a careful selection of snippets from previous posts that in most instances are taken completely out of context.

So as not to get lost your normal avalanche of crap, I shall address one aspect in my next post.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

Using your logic then, count out the CC statements

supporting action, published by US Societies’ Boards such as The Geological Society of America,

The American Medical Association,

American Chemical Society are also irrelevant.

:)))))

I suggest you have a good look at the link below Observer of a highly respected organisation coordinating the views of Climate Scientific Institutions.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

The Geological Society of Australia controversy clearly proves, again, that the positions statements on CC by >> US << Society’s are the
political works of their Boards, and in no way reflect the views of their Membership overall who are almost never asked,
yet alone polled on their opinions.

In this prime example of political posturing, designed to aid in the delusion of a consensus, the position taken on CC by Geological Society of
Australia Executive Committee, in a published political statement in 2009, now withdrawn, and the views of the scientists that make up the Society Membership have
proven to be significantly different.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

NASA states the situation succinctly:

>>Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.<<

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

From: PermeateFree
Observer, you are renown for going to extraordinary lengths to push your deniers crap against vast amounts of evidence from 97% of climate scientists

Every new piece of research that is carried out points to the catastrophic outcome of global warming and that is not my opinion, but the opinion of 97% of climate scientists.

Personally, I am not a climate scientist and only repeat what 97% of climate scientists produce

There is no such thing as a natural climate change

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities

You are so easily proved wrong Observer, Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
====================================================================

The observer said: Date: 1/06/2014 10:00:22 ID: 540660

Your NASA link does not prove your point. It is the position taken by Boards of Directors of various
US organisations, not scientists.

So, I ask again for you to link proof that 97% of scientists agree & what they agree on.
=====================================================================
From: PermeateFree Date: 1/06/2014 16:40:40 ID: 540788

The above is a good example of how you operate Observer,
by demanding people produce evidence that has obviously not been collected
then you pronounce them and their arguments false because they cannot produce them.

From: The observer Date: 1/06/2014 17:37:03 ID: 540864

Right then, you have now actually admitted that there is no proof of the absurd 97% argument!

End of story!

Giggles

Typical of you Observer of making Strawmen from a careful selection of snippets from previous posts that in most instances are taken completely out of context.

So as not to get lost your normal avalanche of crap, I shall address one aspect in my next post.

whatever dude, the statements by societies Boards are political and are not the views of the members

;)

Tamb said:

Sadly, very many people take these pop star pronouncements as absolute truth.

I suppose some people do, but I haven’t seen anyone here quote a pop star or actor as absolute truth.

Most people here don’t take the statements of scientists as being absolute truth either.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tamb said:

Sadly, very many people take these pop star pronouncements as absolute truth.

I suppose some people do, but I haven’t seen anyone here quote a pop star or actor as absolute truth.

Most people here don’t take the statements of scientists as being absolute truth either.

well scientists do research and come to conclusions, & often their conclusions differ from each others

>>The observer said: Date: 1/06/2014 10:00:22 ID: 540660

Your NASA link does not prove your point. It is the position taken by Boards of Directors of various
US organisations, not scientists.

So, I ask again for you to link proof that 97% of scientists agree & what they agree on.<<

So you think NASA is lying, now where have I heard that before, oh yes it was from you when you claimed all but 3% of Climate Scientists were lying and on the take. By the way Observer, do you think there was actually a moon landing, or was this another example of NASA lying?

Organisations have spokesmen Observer, and I have personally known 2 Directors over a number of years, of a large State scientific organisation and I can assure you they would never dream of misrepresenting the views of their staff. These people are scientists themselves and not purely a mouthpiece as you have us believe.

Deniers like you Observer are very rare in scientific institutions and with the close inner working relationships would be well known, even in very large organisations you people stand out like a sore thumb. Therefore if NASA says from a consensus of scientific institutions that 97% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, it would be the views of the vast majority of their staff. Observer you may be part of a highly vocal group of Global Warming Deniers, but in climate science circles, you are so small a minority that personally you don’t matter.

The only people you and people like you can influence, is the dumb and ignorant, or perhaps those too busy creating co2 emissions.

PermeateFree said:

Organisations have spokesmen Observer, and I have personally known 2 Directors over a number of years, of a large State scientific organisation and I can assure you they would never dream of misrepresenting the views of their staff. These people are scientists themselves and not purely a mouthpiece as you have us believe.

The Geological Society of Australia controversy clearly proves, again, that the positions statements on CC by >> US << Society’s are the
political works of their Boards, and in no way reflect the views of their Membership overall who are almost never asked,
yet alone polled on their opinions.

In this prime example of political posturing, designed to aid in the delusion of a consensus, the position taken on CC by Geological Society of
Australia Executive Committee, in a published political statement in 2009, now withdrawn, and the views of the scientists that make up the Society Membership have
proven to be significantly different.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Organisations have spokesmen Observer, and I have personally known 2 Directors over a number of years, of a large State scientific organisation and I can assure you they would never dream of misrepresenting the views of their staff. These people are scientists themselves and not purely a mouthpiece as you have us believe.

The Geological Society of Australia controversy clearly proves, again, that the positions statements on CC by >> US << Society’s are the
political works of their Boards, and in no way reflect the views of their Membership overall who are almost never asked,
yet alone polled on their opinions.

In this prime example of political posturing, designed to aid in the delusion of a consensus, the position taken on CC by Geological Society of
Australia Executive Committee, in a published political statement in 2009, now withdrawn, and the views of the scientists that make up the Society Membership have
proven to be significantly different.

Observer, geologists are NOT climate scientists!

PermeateFree said:

Observer, geologists are NOT climate scientists!

Life’s too short to argue CC threads in SSSF. Still can probably allow 30sec a month or so.

Personally I don’t like over-settling or over-fencing science. I think at least many geologists have paleographic and earth chemistry expertise that is relevant to at least part of climate science.

OTOH the other-people-are-political-I’m-just-evidence-based schtick (as Botkin also pulls) is a bit lame.

MartinB said:

PermeateFree said:

Observer, geologists are NOT climate scientists!

Life’s too short to argue CC threads in SSSF. Still can probably allow 30sec a month or so.

Personally I don’t like over-settling or over-fencing science. I think at least many geologists have paleographic and earth chemistry expertise that is relevant to at least part of climate science.

OTOH the other-people-are-political-I’m-just-evidence-based schtick (as Botkin also pulls) is a bit lame.

With a big emphasis on the paleo and relatively little on current climatic events.

What exactly is a climate scientist anyway?

buffy said:

What exactly is a climate scientist anyway?

I expect it is a scientist who studies the climate. Big call I know.

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

What exactly is a climate scientist anyway?

I expect it is a scientist who studies the climate. Big call I know.

Well, yes, but we used to have meteorologists. What is the difference? And when was the climate scientist term coined?

buffy said:

Well, yes, but we used to have meteorologists. What is the difference? And when was the climate scientist term coined?

I imagine there is a fair distinction between short term and long term forcasting.

guessing that it could have come from paleoclimatology. studying past trends to see how the environment could have affected, say, human evolution. amongst other things.

JudgeMental said:

guessing that it could have come from paleoclimatology. studying past trends to see how the environment could have affected, say, human evolution. amongst other things.

Actually, it’s really new….

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/climogy.htm

The first part of that is an outline. There is a lot more to read if you want to.

buffy said:

What exactly is a climate scientist anyway?

Magdalena the ch 10 weather girl

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

The scientific study field of paleoclimate begun to form in the early 19th century, when discoveries about glaciations and natural changes in Earth’s climate past helped to identify the process of the greenhouse effect.

Dropbear said:

buffy said:

What exactly is a climate scientist anyway?

Magdalena the ch 10 weather girl

She’s Hot, like the climate is

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

What exactly is a climate scientist anyway?

I expect it is a scientist who studies the climate. Big call I know.

Well, yes, but we used to have meteorologists. What is the difference? And when was the climate scientist term coined?

when funding for climate science went from million$ to Billion$

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

The_observer said:

when funding for climate science went from million$ to Billion$

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

exposed? uh-oh. we’re using something we invented and mindlessly rely on to study something we inadvertently rely on and conscientiously ignore.

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

when funding for climate science went from million$ to Billion$

http://joannenova.com.au/2009/07/massive-climate-funding-exposed/

exposed? uh-oh. we’re using something we invented and mindlessly rely on to study something we inadvertently rely on and conscientiously ignore.

go west young man

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

buffy said:

What exactly is a climate scientist anyway?

I expect it is a scientist who studies the climate. Big call I know.

Well, yes, but we used to have meteorologists. What is the difference? And when was the climate scientist term coined?

A meteorologist studies the weather, and a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.

I don’t know when the term was first used, quite some time ago, I’m sure.

>>> a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.<<<

and that includes, among other disciplines, geologists.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I expect it is a scientist who studies the climate. Big call I know.

Well, yes, but we used to have meteorologists. What is the difference? And when was the climate scientist term coined?

A meteorologist studies the weather, and a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.

I don’t know when the term was first used, quite some time ago, I’m sure.

I have a book called “Methods in Climatology” by Victor Conrad, published in 1944.

The_observer said:

>>> a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.<<<

and that includes, among other disciplines, geologists.

well no… a geologist studies the geology of the earth. There are however Paleoclimatologists; these people study the earth’s climate in the past and in order to do this they use information contained in the geological record.

morrie said:

I have a book called “Methods in Climatology” by Victor Conrad, published in 1944.

From The Answer to Everything:
“History

Chinese scientist Shen Kuo (1031–1095) inferred that climates naturally shifted over an enormous span of time, after observing petrified bamboos found underground near Yanzhou (modern day Yan’an, Shaanxi province), a dry-climate area unsuitable for the growth of bamboo.

Early climate researchers include Edmund Halley, who published a map of the trade winds in 1686 after a voyage to the southern hemisphere. Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) first mapped the course of the Gulf Stream for use in sending mail from the United States to Europe. Francis Galton (1822-1911) invented the term anticyclone. Helmut Landsberg (1906-1985) fostered the use of statistical analysis in climatology, which led to its evolution into a physical science.”

• Francis Galton (1822-1911) invented the term anticyclone

What a day that was, I remember it well…

You’re an old school old fart, morrie ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Conrad

Victor Conrad was an Austrian-American physicist, seismologist and meteorologist. He was the first director of the Austrian seismological service, and a reputed academician of international accomplishment. He was politically victimized twice, in 1919 for his ethnicity and in 1934 as a socialist. He emigrated to the United States in 1938, continuing his academic career in New York, California and at Cambridge. Conrad’s scientific work is documented in more than 240 papers concerning meteorology, climatology and seismology. He first deduced the continental crust transition structure what is now named the Conrad discontinuity.

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

>>> a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.<<<

and that includes, among other disciplines, geologists.

well no… a geologist studies the geology of the earth. There are however Paleoclimatologists; these people study the earth’s climate in the past and in order to do this they use information contained in the geological record.

well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate
change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

Well, yes, but we used to have meteorologists. What is the difference? And when was the climate scientist term coined?

A meteorologist studies the weather, and a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.

I don’t know when the term was first used, quite some time ago, I’m sure.

I have a book called “Methods in Climatology” by Victor Conrad, published in 1944.

Conrad quotes Oliver Fassig “The Climate of Baltimore”, 1906, who introduces the terms ‘Static Climatology and Dynamic Climatology’.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

Well, yes, but we used to have meteorologists. What is the difference? And when was the climate scientist term coined?

A meteorologist studies the weather, and a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.

I don’t know when the term was first used, quite some time ago, I’m sure.

I have a book called “Methods in Climatology” by Victor Conrad, published in 1944.

I know a Spray Tan Technician who considers herself a Tanologist

Did Victor Conrad, call himself a climatologist Morrie?

Victor Conrad was an Austrian-American physicist, seismologist and meteorologist
<<<

that answered my question

Rather than obsessing about labelling individuals as climate scientists or not, I think that it is more productive to think of the field of climate science.

Now this is still quite a large – no one person will cover all of – and permeable – there will be aspects that are hard to say whether are in or out of – field.

Nonetheless, thrre will be some people whose work is clearly mostly inside this field, and such people can clearly be called climate scientists.

There will also be many people whose work is not mainly inside this field, but which intersects signigicantly with parts of it. Whether or not one calls these people climate scientists is a matter of taste and not, I think, very important.

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

>>> a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.<<<

and that includes, among other disciplines, geologists.

well no… a geologist studies the geology of the earth. There are however Paleoclimatologists; these people study the earth’s climate in the past and in order to do this they use information contained in the geological record.

well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate
change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?

Many scientific agencies hold position on these sorts of matters… I can’t say upon what basis they formed their opinion but I’m guessing it was based on data published by climatologists.

>>>Rather than obsessing about labelling
individuals as climate scientists or not,
I think that it is more productive to think
of the field of climate science.
<<<

I agree

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

well no… a geologist studies the geology of the earth. There are however Paleoclimatologists; these people study the earth’s climate in the past and in order to do this they use information contained in the geological record.

well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate
change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?

Many scientific agencies hold position on these sorts of matters… I can’t say upon what basis they formed their opinion but I’m guessing it was based on data published by climatologists.

Then my corner shop fruiterer should publish a [position statement.

and my plumber, and etc

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate
change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?

Many scientific agencies hold position on these sorts of matters… I can’t say upon what basis they formed their opinion but I’m guessing it was based on data published by climatologists.

Then my corner shop fruiterer should publish a

sure, if they want… I mean, you state your position…

I only hope that before Con and Luigi sate their position on the matter that they consult the relevant literature, educated themselves about basic scientific concepts and think critically about the evidence.

• I only hope that before Con and Luigi

Stereotypes much?

furious said:

• I only hope that before Con and Luigi

Stereotypes much?

sorry… Dimi and Lorenzo… better??

I think it is not a big leap to call someone who published a book on climatology, a climatologist. In any case, in his introduction, Conrad seeks to extract the science of climatology as a field of its own from within the realm of geography, wherein it had previously been taught.

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

Many scientific agencies hold position on these sorts of matters… I can’t say upon what basis they formed their opinion but I’m guessing it was based on data published by climatologists.

Then my corner shop fruiterer should publish a

sure, if they want… I mean, you state your position…

I only hope that before Con and Luigi sate their position on the matter that they consult the relevant literature, educated themselves about basic scientific concepts and think critically about the evidence.

but why would they bother publishing a statement if the subject is not their field of expertise?

politics

diddly-squat said:

furious said:

• I only hope that before Con and Luigi

Stereotypes much?

sorry… Dimi and Lorenzo… better??

what about Kath & Kim

The_observer said:

but why would they bother publishing a statement if the subject is not their field of expertise?

politics

They are certainty better qualified to speak with authority on matter of fruit sales and plumbing… but this doesn’t stop them from forming an informed opinion. Of course the issue with this is that interpreting much of the detailed evidence as well as the details of climate models requires a very specific knowledge. so either they can go back to school and gain a PhD in a particular area of climate science or they will have to be content with critical examination of the recommendations of experts. Much in the same way a climate scientist would listen to them on matters relating their particular expertise.

diddly-squat said:

sure, if they want… I mean, you state your position…

I only hope that before Con and Luigi sate their position on the matter that they consult the relevant literature, educated themselves about basic scientific concepts and think critically about the evidence.

And of course academic and industry bodies concerned with the sustainable production of fruit would certainly have legitimate grounds for making a statement in this area, having studied the science and the possible consequences in their area of concern.

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

but why would they bother publishing a statement if the subject is not their field of expertise?

politics

They are certainty better qualified to speak with authority on matter of fruit sales and plumbing… but this doesn’t stop them from forming an informed opinion. Of course the issue with this is that interpreting much of the detailed evidence as well as the details of climate models requires a very specific knowledge. so either they can go back to school and gain a PhD in a particular area of climate science or they will have to be content with critical examination of the recommendations of experts. Much in the same way a climate scientist would listen to them on matters relating their particular expertise.

personally I believe geologists understand climate very well & make up part of climatology research

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

but why would they bother publishing a statement if the subject is not their field of expertise?

politics

They are certainty better qualified to speak with authority on matter of fruit sales and plumbing… but this doesn’t stop them from forming an informed opinion. Of course the issue with this is that interpreting much of the detailed evidence as well as the details of climate models requires a very specific knowledge. so either they can go back to school and gain a PhD in a particular area of climate science or they will have to be content with critical examination of the recommendations of experts. Much in the same way a climate scientist would listen to them on matters relating their particular expertise.

personally I believe geologists understand climate very well & make up part of climatology research

I’d suggest it’s less about understating the ‘climate’ and more about understanding the effect the atmosphere has the production of certain minerals… but hey, I’m not a geologist…

>>>And of course academic and industry bodies concerned with the sustainable production of fruit would certainly have legitimate grounds for making a statement in this area, having studied the science and the possible consequences in their area of concern.
<<<

well production is better in a warmer world with more CO2

The_observer said:

>>>And of course academic and industry bodies concerned with the sustainable production of fruit would certainly have legitimate grounds for making a statement in this area, having studied the science and the possible consequences in their area of concern.
<<<

well production is better in a warmer world with more CO2

unless of course changes in the climate mean that we need to radically rethink where and how we optimise food production.

The_observer said:

>>>And of course academic and industry bodies concerned with the sustainable production of fruit would certainly have legitimate grounds for making a statement in this area, having studied the science and the possible consequences in their area of concern.
<<<

well production is better in a warmer world with more CO2

so you are admitting you want the climate warmer?

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

>>>And of course academic and industry bodies concerned with the sustainable production of fruit would certainly have legitimate grounds for making a statement in this area, having studied the science and the possible consequences in their area of concern.
<<<

well production is better in a warmer world with more CO2

unless of course changes in the climate mean that we need to radically rethink where and how we optimise food production.

well the changes (natural) so far are of benefit, to fruit, & stuff thats green and grows in the ground

The_observer said:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

A meteorologist studies the weather, and a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.

I don’t know when the term was first used, quite some time ago, I’m sure.

I have a book called “Methods in Climatology” by Victor Conrad, published in 1944.

I know a Spray Tan Technician who considers herself a Tanologist

Did Victor Conrad, call himself a climatologist Morrie?

page viii “These efforts are of fundamental importance not only for the climatologist, but also for everyone who is interested in the climatological series”

Postpocelipse said:

The_observer said:

>>>And of course academic and industry bodies concerned with the sustainable production of fruit would certainly have legitimate grounds for making a statement in this area, having studied the science and the possible consequences in their area of concern.
<<<

well production is better in a warmer world with more CO2

so you are admitting you want the climate warmer?

i said nothing of the sort.

what I will say is that the world has been much warmer for a lot of the time

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

>>>And of course academic and industry bodies concerned with the sustainable production of fruit would certainly have legitimate grounds for making a statement in this area, having studied the science and the possible consequences in their area of concern.
<<<

well production is better in a warmer world with more CO2

unless of course changes in the climate mean that we need to radically rethink where and how we optimise food production.

well the changes (natural) so far are of benefit, to fruit, & stuff thats green and grows in the ground

that is a very generalised statement, much of the world’s food production occurs in a very narrow band (in terms of rainfall and temperature).. even small change to the climate may radically effect the extent of the globe over which food production is possible.

morrie said:

The_observer said:

morrie said:

I have a book called “Methods in Climatology” by Victor Conrad, published in 1944.

I know a Spray Tan Technician who considers herself a Tanologist

Did Victor Conrad, call himself a climatologist Morrie?

page viii “These efforts are of fundamental importance not only for the climatologist, but also for everyone who is interested in the climatological series”

But the discipline with that exact name did not exist.

Victor Conrad was an Austrian-American physicist, seismologist and meteorologist

He worked in the field of climate

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

unless of course changes in the climate mean that we need to radically rethink where and how we optimise food production.

well the changes (natural) so far are of benefit, to fruit, & stuff thats green and grows in the ground

that is a very generalised statement, much of the world’s food production occurs in a very narrow band (in terms of rainfall and temperature).. even small change to the climate may radically effect the extent of the globe over which food production is possible.

higher global average temps allows stuff to grow at higher altitudes & latitudes

The_observer said:

morrie said:

The_observer said:

I know a Spray Tan Technician who considers herself a Tanologist

Did Victor Conrad, call himself a climatologist Morrie?

page viii “These efforts are of fundamental importance not only for the climatologist, but also for everyone who is interested in the climatological series”

But the discipline with that exact name did not exist.

Victor Conrad was an Austrian-American physicist, seismologist and meteorologist

He worked in the field of climate

Poor old Conrad. He lectured in climatology at university for all those years without realising that it didn’t exist.

morrie said:

The_observer said:

morrie said:

page viii “These efforts are of fundamental importance not only for the climatologist, but also for everyone who is interested in the climatological series”

But the discipline with that exact name did not exist.

Victor Conrad was an Austrian-American physicist, seismologist and meteorologist

He worked in the field of climate

Poor old Conrad. He lectured in climatology at university for all those years without realising that it didn’t exist.

I cannot see where he held qualifications stating climatology, only physics, seismology and meteorology

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

well the changes (natural) so far are of benefit, to fruit, & stuff thats green and grows in the ground

that is a very generalised statement, much of the world’s food production occurs in a very narrow band (in terms of rainfall and temperature).. even small change to the climate may radically effect the extent of the globe over which food production is possible.

higher global average temps allows stuff to grow at higher altitudes & latitudes

not necessarily…

A Short History of Climatology

Newton didn’t call himself a physicist but he certainly was one…

If a person has a Bachelor of Science with Honours, but does that qualify one to be a scientist, or a physicist, or a botanist or a climatologist or even a geologist?

Michael V said:

If a person has a Bachelor of Science with Honours, but does that qualify one to be a scientist, or a physicist, or a botanist or a climatologist or even a geologist?

Well, quite. That’s why I draw attention to the intersubjective nature of these things. It’s about how a person relates to all of the other people in the self-constituted field rather than about some formal qualification intrinsic to the person themselves.

What about this guy, hey?

Alfred Wegener – an interesting read

Michael V said:

If a person has a Bachelor of Science with Honours, but does that qualify one to be a scientist, or a physicist, or a botanist or a climatologist or even a geologist?

I’ve always understood the term scientist is one who is involved in research.

A degree in any field does not make one a scientist.

Michael V said:

A Short History of Climatology

Coughs politely.

Anyway, whatever you want to call it, people have been conducting scientific studies of the climate for 100’s of years.

Michael V said:

If a person has a Bachelor of Science with Honours, but does that qualify one to be a scientist, or a physicist, or a botanist or a climatologist or even a geologist?

What Kind Of Training Does A Climatologist Need?

TAFE Courses Online

Climatologists typically need at least a bachelor degree in climatology or other related field. Some employers prefer applicants with a *master
or doctorate degree* and extensive experience. Prospective climatologists often complete courses in climatology, atmospheric science,
meteorology, physics, mathematics, astronomy, and oceanography. Many aspiring climatologists complete internships while pursuing their
education to gain practical experience in the field. Most employers provide some on the job training to enable new climatologists to learn the
policies and procedures. Climatologists must complete continuing education throughout their careers to keep their skills current and stay up to
date with advancements in the field.

What Are The Prospects For A Career As A Climatologist?

Employment of climatologists is expected to grow faster than average for all professions, increasing 15% through 2018 (1).
The ever-changing climate and increased demand for research on weather and climate patterns will drive job growth.

How Much Do Climatologists Make?

As of 2012, the average annual salary for climatologists is $56,000; average annual climatologist salaries vary greatly on location, employer, education, experience, and benefits (2).

A Brief History of Meteorology and Climatology from 1900 to 1950 at the University of Washington
by P.E. Church

Meteorology and or Climatology at the University has had a long history because courses have been offered for many years. A library search of
the University catalogs of courses offered goes back to 1900–01. In this issue a course called “Meteorology” was described with the added note
that the text was Davis, Elementary Meteorology. Though there are no catalogs prior to 1900–01 it is likely that meteorology was first offered in
1895 or 1896, though this is suspicion on the writer’s part, because the President of the University from 1895 to March 1897 was Mark
Harrington who from 1891 to 1895 was Chief of the U.S. Weather Bureau and was likely to have been instrumental in seeing that the young
university offered meteorology; he may have taught the course, if there was one at that time, while in residence. At any rate the course was in
the catalogs for 1902–03 through 1903–04 with Waldo, Elementary Meteorology listed as the text for those two years. No course was listed or
announced in the 1904–05 catalog; this was the year when Geology was organized as a Department.

Beginning with the 1905–06 academic year a course titled “Meteorology” was listed for the first semester in the Geology Department with Prof.
Henry Landes as the Professor, Asst. Prof. (no name given) and the laboratory work was under a Mr. G.N. Salisbury who was an employee of
the U.S. Weather Bureau Office in Seattle. This course was apparently continued each year until the 1910–1911 academic year when the title
was changed to “Climatology” and an Asst. Professor, Edwin J. Saunders, a new man, was listed as doing the lecturing while Mr. Salisbury was
still in charge of laboratory work. This arrangement continued uninterrupted (except for the semester it was given) until 1917–1918. At that time
the course was renamed “Meteorology and Elementary Climatology” and a new course #142 “Climatic Problems of the War in Western
Europe” was listed. Both Prof. Saunders gave these courses and both were listed as “War Courses.” Mr. Salisbury’s name did not appear that
year or in any succeeding years.

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/about/history_brief.shtml

MartinB said:

Michael V said:

If a person has a Bachelor of Science with Honours, but does that qualify one to be a scientist, or a physicist, or a botanist or a climatologist or even a geologist?

Well, quite. That’s why I draw attention to the intersubjective nature of these things. It’s about how a person relates to all of the other people in the self-constituted field rather than about some formal qualification intrinsic to the person themselves.

This is getting closer to what I was trying to get at. Is there an actual degree in climate science? Or something like it? If there is, I suspect it’s a pretty recent thing, probably in the last 15-20 years. I understand the amalgamation of different fields. But even the term ‘climate’ has a different meaning now from even the early 1900s. Back then I’m fairly certain it was pretty much interchangeable with weather. Which is definitely not the case now. People moved to a different climate for their health. Mainly it simply meant they went somewhere warmer or drier.

buffy said:

MartinB said:

Michael V said:

If a person has a Bachelor of Science with Honours, but does that qualify one to be a scientist, or a physicist, or a botanist or a climatologist or even a geologist?

Well, quite. That’s why I draw attention to the intersubjective nature of these things. It’s about how a person relates to all of the other people in the self-constituted field rather than about some formal qualification intrinsic to the person themselves.

This is getting closer to what I was trying to get at. Is there an actual degree in climate science? Or something like it? If there is, I suspect it’s a pretty recent thing, probably in the last 15-20 years. I understand the amalgamation of different fields. But even the term ‘climate’ has a different meaning now from even the early 1900s. Back then I’m fairly certain it was pretty much interchangeable with weather. Which is definitely not the case now. People moved to a different climate for their health. Mainly it simply meant they went somewhere warmer or drier.

Links in the thread answer the question.

People have been studying climate science for 100’s of years, and there have been university courses in climatology since at least the early 20th Century. The word “climate” would not have had a significantly different meaning in 1999, 1994, or even when Morrie’s book was written.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

MartinB said:

Well, quite. That’s why I draw attention to the intersubjective nature of these things. It’s about how a person relates to all of the other people in the self-constituted field rather than about some formal qualification intrinsic to the person themselves.

This is getting closer to what I was trying to get at. Is there an actual degree in climate science? Or something like it? If there is, I suspect it’s a pretty recent thing, probably in the last 15-20 years. I understand the amalgamation of different fields. But even the term ‘climate’ has a different meaning now from even the early 1900s. Back then I’m fairly certain it was pretty much interchangeable with weather. Which is definitely not the case now. People moved to a different climate for their health. Mainly it simply meant they went somewhere warmer or drier.

Links in the thread answer the question.

People have been studying climate science for 100’s of years, and there have been university courses in climatology since at least the early 20th Century. The word “climate” would not have had a significantly different meaning in 1999, 1994, or even when Morrie’s book was written.

in other words, climate science is well defined and not some new fan-dangled invention

buffy said:

But even the term ‘climate’ has a different meaning now from even the early 1900s. Back then I’m fairly certain it was pretty much interchangeable with weather. Which is definitely not the case now.

Climate change has a different meaning now than 20 years ago-

. BOTKIN’S # 13

13. The reports suffers from the use term “climate change” with two meanings: natural
and human-induced. These are both given as definitions in the IPCC report and are
not distinguished in the text and therefore confuse a reader.
(The Climate Change assessment uses the term throughout including its title, but never defines it.)
There are places in the reports where only the second meaning—human induced—-makes sense, so
that meaning has to be assumed. There are other places where either meaning could be
applied.

In those places where either meaning can be interpreted, if the statement is
assumed to be a natural change, then it is a truism, a basic characteristic of Earth’s
environment and something people have always know and experienced. If the
meaning is taken to be human-caused, then in spite of the assertions in the report,
the available data do not support the statements.
===========

This is the case everywhere now. ‘Climate change’ is continually used when anthropogenic should precede it.

And carbon is used by many when they are talking about carbon dioxide.

• And carbon is used by many when they are talking about carbon dioxide.

And when the kids say “wicked” they actually mean “cool”…

buffy said:

This is getting closer to what I was trying to get at. Is there an actual degree in climate science? Or something like it? .

Climate Science Courses

UNSW offers a number of individual Climate Science courses.

Climate Science
Code Course Title Units of Credit
CLIM1001 Introduction to Climate Change 6
CLIM2001 Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science 6
CLIM3001 Climate Systems Science 6
CLIM4000 Climate Science (Honours Project) 24

furious said:

• And carbon is used by many when they are talking about carbon dioxide.

And when the kids say “wicked” they actually mean “cool”…

that’s sick… (and mint at the same time)

The_observer said:

buffy said:

This is getting closer to what I was trying to get at. Is there an actual degree in climate science? Or something like it? .

Climate Science Courses

UNSW offers a number of individual Climate Science courses.

Climate Science
Code Course Title Units of Credit
CLIM1001 Introduction to Climate Change 6
CLIM2001 Fundamentals of Atmospheric Science 6
CLIM3001 Climate Systems Science 6
CLIM4000 Climate Science (Honours Project) 24

Introduction to Climate Change – CLIM1001

Description

Increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution are changing our climate in dramatic ways. Climate change is now an issue confronting many disciplines, from architecture, engineering and business through to environmental science, public health, law, economics and policy. This course will cover the basics of climate change science, the potential impacts of future climate change, and how national and international policy has attempted to mitigate the associated risks. Lectures on different related fields will give a range of perspectives on the nature of the challenges associated with climate change. These will be supplemented with tutorials focussed on discussion and problem solving.

======================

The course should be called – Introduction to Anthropogenic Climate Change hypothesis.

diddly-squat said:

furious said:

• And carbon is used by many when they are talking about carbon dioxide.

And when the kids say “wicked” they actually mean “cool”…

that’s sick… (and mint at the same time)

It’s all nails really.

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

furious said:

• And carbon is used by many when they are talking about carbon dioxide.

And when the kids say “wicked” they actually mean “cool”…

that’s sick… (and mint at the same time)

It’s all nails really.

10/10 have not heard that one

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

>>> a climatologist, or climate scientist, studies the climate.<<<

and that includes, among other disciplines, geologists.

well no… a geologist studies the geology of the earth. There are however Paleoclimatologists; these people study the earth’s climate in the past and in order to do this they use information contained in the geological record.

well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate
change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?

It might be worth noting that a substantial number of geologists are employed by the mining industry, which should we forget, includes fossil fuels. Vested interests and self-justification would I think play a very large part in their attitude towards Global Warming.

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

well the changes (natural) so far are of benefit, to fruit, & stuff thats green and grows in the ground

that is a very generalised statement, much of the world’s food production occurs in a very narrow band (in terms of rainfall and temperature).. even small change to the climate may radically effect the extent of the globe over which food production is possible.

higher global average temps allows stuff to grow at higher altitudes & latitudes

Presumably this is after the permafrost has melted, thereby releasing vast quantities of co2 and methane to increase the impact of global warming considerably.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

well no… a geologist studies the geology of the earth. There are however Paleoclimatologists; these people study the earth’s climate in the past and in order to do this they use information contained in the geological record.

well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate
change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?

It might be worth noting that a substantial number of geologists are employed by the mining industry, which should we forget, includes fossil fuels. Vested interests and self-justification would I think play a very large part in their attitude towards Global Warming.

you might think that, but in my experience many of the professional scientists and engineers employed by the mining industry are able to form their opinions based on evidence…

It might also surprises to you learn that the overwhelming majority of the coal exported from this country isn’t used to generate electricity… just like much of the world’s crude oil production isn’t used to make (combustion) fuels… I think people often forget that there would still be a requirement for fossil fuel production even if there was no fossil fuel generated electricity.

The_observer said:

diddly-squat said:

The_observer said:

>>>And of course academic and industry bodies concerned with the sustainable production of fruit would certainly have legitimate grounds for making a statement in this area, having studied the science and the possible consequences in their area of concern.
<<<

well production is better in a warmer world with more CO2

unless of course changes in the climate mean that we need to radically rethink where and how we optimise food production.

well the changes (natural) so far are of benefit, to fruit, & stuff thats green and grows in the ground

It is not the average increase in global warming that adversely affects the growth of fruit trees etc., but the extremes in temperature, plus drought or even floods. When temperatures get too high the fruit will actually cook on the tree, not to mention the burnt foliage of vegetables, and that is providing you are not in a severe drought when you can’t grow anything.

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate
change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?

It might be worth noting that a substantial number of geologists are employed by the mining industry, which should we forget, includes fossil fuels. Vested interests and self-justification would I think play a very large part in their attitude towards Global Warming.

you might think that, but in my experience many of the professional scientists and engineers employed by the mining industry are able to form their opinions based on evidence…

It might also surprises to you learn that the overwhelming majority of the coal exported from this country isn’t used to generate electricity… just like much of the world’s crude oil production isn’t used to make (combustion) fuels… I think people often forget that there would still be a requirement for fossil fuel production even if there was no fossil fuel generated electricity.

So they make compost out of it do they? Fossil fuels are mined to burn (regardless of reason) and thereby releasing the sequestered co2. As for professional scientists making up their minds on the evidence presented. Well if they are presented with the sort of crap that The_observer presents, it is much easier to justify what you do and your big wage, plus all the other luxuries you have grown accustomed.

>>>Well if they are presented with the sort of crap that The_observer presents<<<

giggles

The_observer said:

>>>Well if they are presented with the sort of crap that The_observer presents<<<

giggles

Are you a transvestite Observer?

diddly-squat said:

It might also surprises to you learn that the overwhelming majority of the coal exported from this country isn’t used to generate electricity… just like much of the world’s crude oil production isn’t used to make (combustion) fuels… I think people often forget that there would still be a requirement for fossil fuel production even if there was no fossil fuel generated electricity.

PermeateFree said:

So they make compost out of it do they? Fossil fuels are mined to burn (regardless of reason) and thereby releasing the sequestered co2. As for professional scientists making up their minds on the evidence presented. Well if they are presented with the sort of crap that The_observer presents, it is much easier to justify what you do and your big wage, plus all the other luxuries you have grown accustomed.

Certainly, coal, oil, and natural gas are used as fuels and so they make big contributions to atmospheric CO₂. But that’s not all we do with them.

High quality coal is used to make steel; some of the carbon in steel making does get oxidised, but quite a lot becomes part of the alloy. China likes our black coal for steel-making because it has a very low sulfur content; sulfur is not a desirable contaminant in steel. China is our biggest coal buyer, and as Diddly said, most of that ends up as steel.

Oil (and to an extent natural gas) is used as a feedstock for the diverse petrochemical industry, which makes a vast range of chemicals including polymers (aka plastics), medicines, agricultural chemicals, etc.

PM 2Ring said:

diddly-squat said:

It might also surprises to you learn that the overwhelming majority of the coal exported from this country isn’t used to generate electricity… just like much of the world’s crude oil production isn’t used to make (combustion) fuels… I think people often forget that there would still be a requirement for fossil fuel production even if there was no fossil fuel generated electricity.

PermeateFree said:

So they make compost out of it do they? Fossil fuels are mined to burn (regardless of reason) and thereby releasing the sequestered co2. As for professional scientists making up their minds on the evidence presented. Well if they are presented with the sort of crap that The_observer presents, it is much easier to justify what you do and your big wage, plus all the other luxuries you have grown accustomed.

Certainly, coal, oil, and natural gas are used as fuels and so they make big contributions to atmospheric CO₂. But that’s not all we do with them.

High quality coal is used to make steel; some of the carbon in steel making does get oxidised, but quite a lot becomes part of the alloy. China likes our black coal for steel-making because it has a very low sulfur content; sulfur is not a desirable contaminant in steel. China is our biggest coal buyer, and as Diddly said, most of that ends up as steel.

Oil (and to an extent natural gas) is used as a feedstock for the diverse petrochemical industry, which makes a vast range of chemicals including polymers (aka plastics), medicines, agricultural chemicals, etc.

It’s ok, PF doesn’t use any of that stuff.

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

It might be worth noting that a substantial number of geologists are employed by the mining industry, which should we forget, includes fossil fuels. Vested interests and self-justification would I think play a very large part in their attitude towards Global Warming.

you might think that, but in my experience many of the professional scientists and engineers employed by the mining industry are able to form their opinions based on evidence…

It might also surprises to you learn that the overwhelming majority of the coal exported from this country isn’t used to generate electricity… just like much of the world’s crude oil production isn’t used to make (combustion) fuels… I think people often forget that there would still be a requirement for fossil fuel production even if there was no fossil fuel generated electricity.

So they make compost out of it do they? Fossil fuels are mined to burn (regardless of reason) and thereby releasing the sequestered co2. As for professional scientists making up their minds on the evidence presented. Well if they are presented with the sort of crap that The_observer presents, it is much easier to justify what you do and your big wage, plus all the other luxuries you have grown accustomed.

Until we can find a better carbon source there will be a need for coal as a part of the steal making process and the long chain hydrocarbons used to make plastics, lubricants, paraffins, waxes and asphalt all come from crude oils.

I’ve worked in the coal industry for 15 years and I can safely say that the vast majority of the scientists and engineers that I know and have spoken with all understand the ramifications of burning the products they produce. The industry understands that it can’t just stick its head in the sand on the issue and that it needs to adapt to a changing world – one with an ever increasing mix of power generation sources.

>>>It might be worth noting that a substantial number of geologists are employed by the mining industry, which should we forget, includes fossil fuels. Vested interests and self-justification would I think play a very large part in their attitude towards Global Warming.
<<<

FW

jjjust moi said:

PM 2Ring said:

diddly-squat said:

It might also surprises to you learn that the overwhelming majority of the coal exported from this country isn’t used to generate electricity… just like much of the world’s crude oil production isn’t used to make (combustion) fuels… I think people often forget that there would still be a requirement for fossil fuel production even if there was no fossil fuel generated electricity.

PermeateFree said:

So they make compost out of it do they? Fossil fuels are mined to burn (regardless of reason) and thereby releasing the sequestered co2. As for professional scientists making up their minds on the evidence presented. Well if they are presented with the sort of crap that The_observer presents, it is much easier to justify what you do and your big wage, plus all the other luxuries you have grown accustomed.

Certainly, coal, oil, and natural gas are used as fuels and so they make big contributions to atmospheric CO₂. But that’s not all we do with them.

High quality coal is used to make steel; some of the carbon in steel making does get oxidised, but quite a lot becomes part of the alloy. China likes our black coal for steel-making because it has a very low sulfur content; sulfur is not a desirable contaminant in steel. China is our biggest coal buyer, and as Diddly said, most of that ends up as steel.

Oil (and to an extent natural gas) is used as a feedstock for the diverse petrochemical industry, which makes a vast range of chemicals including polymers (aka plastics), medicines, agricultural chemicals, etc.

It’s ok, PF doesn’t use any of that stuff.

So are you two saying the burning of coal for steel manufacture does not produce co2?

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

you might think that, but in my experience many of the professional scientists and engineers employed by the mining industry are able to form their opinions based on evidence…

It might also surprises to you learn that the overwhelming majority of the coal exported from this country isn’t used to generate electricity… just like much of the world’s crude oil production isn’t used to make (combustion) fuels… I think people often forget that there would still be a requirement for fossil fuel production even if there was no fossil fuel generated electricity.

So they make compost out of it do they? Fossil fuels are mined to burn (regardless of reason) and thereby releasing the sequestered co2. As for professional scientists making up their minds on the evidence presented. Well if they are presented with the sort of crap that The_observer presents, it is much easier to justify what you do and your big wage, plus all the other luxuries you have grown accustomed.

Until we can find a better carbon source there will be a need for coal as a part of the steal making process and the long chain hydrocarbons used to make plastics, lubricants, paraffins, waxes and asphalt all come from crude oils.

I’ve worked in the coal industry for 15 years and I can safely say that the vast majority of the scientists and engineers that I know and have spoken with all understand the ramifications of burning the products they produce. The industry understands that it can’t just stick its head in the sand on the issue and that it needs to adapt to a changing world – one with an ever increasing mix of power generation sources.

All very interesting, but this is NOT the argument. That is why the geologists could not agree on why global warming was happening, as posed by a question from The_observer and I suggested it was likely because of the higher percentage of geologists employed by mining companies.

The_observer said:

>>>It might be worth noting that a substantial number of geologists are employed by the mining industry, which should we forget, includes fossil fuels. Vested interests and self-justification would I think play a very large part in their attitude towards Global Warming.
<<<

FW

Give us another giggle girlie.

PM 2Ring said:

High quality coal is used to make steel; some of the carbon in steel making does get oxidised, but quite a lot becomes part of the alloy. China likes our black coal for steel-making because it has a very low sulfur content; sulfur is not a desirable contaminant in steel. China is our biggest coal buyer, and as Diddly said, most of that ends up as steel.

PermeateFree said:

So are you two saying the burning of coal for steel manufacture does not produce co2?

I’m certainly not saying that.

As I said above, some of the coal consumed in steel manufacture certainly does become CO₂, (some through direct burning with atmospheric oxygen, some through the reduction of iron oxide in the process of smelting iron ore), but quite a lot of the carbon becomes alloyed with the iron (and other metals) in the steel, effectively sequestering it.

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

PM 2Ring said:

Certainly, coal, oil, and natural gas are used as fuels and so they make big contributions to atmospheric CO₂. But that’s not all we do with them.

High quality coal is used to make steel; some of the carbon in steel making does get oxidised, but quite a lot becomes part of the alloy. China likes our black coal for steel-making because it has a very low sulfur content; sulfur is not a desirable contaminant in steel. China is our biggest coal buyer, and as Diddly said, most of that ends up as steel.

Oil (and to an extent natural gas) is used as a feedstock for the diverse petrochemical industry, which makes a vast range of chemicals including polymers (aka plastics), medicines, agricultural chemicals, etc.

It’s ok, PF doesn’t use any of that stuff.

So are you two saying the burning of coal for steel manufacture does not produce co2?

not at all… only that, unlike electricity production, there is no currently viable technological method to make steel any other way.

One the advantages of the steel making process in this regard is that it is a very controlled process and even many of the byproducts (such as the combustion gases) are scrubbed off for either commercial sale or sequestration of some form (rather than simply being pumped out into the atmosphere)

PM 2Ring said:

PM 2Ring said:

High quality coal is used to make steel; some of the carbon in steel making does get oxidised, but quite a lot becomes part of the alloy. China likes our black coal for steel-making because it has a very low sulfur content; sulfur is not a desirable contaminant in steel. China is our biggest coal buyer, and as Diddly said, most of that ends up as steel.

PermeateFree said:

So are you two saying the burning of coal for steel manufacture does not produce co2?

I’m certainly not saying that.

As I said above, some of the coal consumed in steel manufacture certainly does become CO₂, (some through direct burning with atmospheric oxygen, some through the reduction of iron oxide in the process of smelting iron ore), but quite a lot of the carbon becomes alloyed with the iron (and other metals) in the steel, effectively sequestering it.

I cannot see why you are defending the use of coal in the production steel and although some is sequestered, had it remained in the ground all was sequestered. Not a good argument I would have thought. Anyway as I said before this aspect is not the argument.

PM 2Ring said:

PM 2Ring said:

High quality coal is used to make steel; some of the carbon in steel making does get oxidised, but quite a lot becomes part of the alloy. China likes our black coal for steel-making because it has a very low sulfur content; sulfur is not a desirable contaminant in steel. China is our biggest coal buyer, and as Diddly said, most of that ends up as steel.

PermeateFree said:

So are you two saying the burning of coal for steel manufacture does not produce co2?

I’m certainly not saying that.

As I said above, some of the coal consumed in steel manufacture certainly does become CO₂, (some through direct burning with atmospheric oxygen, some through the reduction of iron oxide in the process of smelting iron ore), but quite a lot of the carbon becomes alloyed with the iron (and other metals) in the steel, effectively sequestering it.

nice work PM… further to this much of the oxidation in a (blast or arc) furnace occurs as a result of the formation of metal oxides, not gaseous products.

PermeateFree said:

PM 2Ring said:

PM 2Ring said:

High quality coal is used to make steel; some of the carbon in steel making does get oxidised, but quite a lot becomes part of the alloy. China likes our black coal for steel-making because it has a very low sulfur content; sulfur is not a desirable contaminant in steel. China is our biggest coal buyer, and as Diddly said, most of that ends up as steel.

PermeateFree said:

So are you two saying the burning of coal for steel manufacture does not produce co2?

I’m certainly not saying that.

As I said above, some of the coal consumed in steel manufacture certainly does become CO₂, (some through direct burning with atmospheric oxygen, some through the reduction of iron oxide in the process of smelting iron ore), but quite a lot of the carbon becomes alloyed with the iron (and other metals) in the steel, effectively sequestering it.

I cannot see why you are defending the use of coal in the production steel and although some is sequestered, had it remained in the ground all was sequestered. Not a good argument I would have thought. Anyway as I said before this aspect is not the argument.

the argument was “the burning of fossil fuels and resultant production of atmospheric CO2 means that people employed in the fossil fuel industry are somehow ignorant of the facts out of pure self interest” which is, I can assure you, incorrect.

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

jjjust moi said:

It’s ok, PF doesn’t use any of that stuff.

So are you two saying the burning of coal for steel manufacture does not produce co2?

not at all… only that, unlike electricity production, there is no currently viable technological method to make steel any other way.

One the advantages of the steel making process in this regard is that it is a very controlled process and even many of the byproducts (such as the combustion gases) are scrubbed off for either commercial sale or sequestration of some form (rather than simply being pumped out into the atmosphere)

In case you haven’t noticed diddly, I am not arguing the benefits or otherwise of coal production required to maintain our current lifestyle, and of which we must continue to do so in order to maintain it. But I am arguing that a substantial portion of geologist are employed by the mining industry and it is from this quarter most of the global warming objection is coming from. Please remember, if we were not burning fossil fuels to the extent we are, we would not have a global warming problem.

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

PM 2Ring said:

I’m certainly not saying that.

As I said above, some of the coal consumed in steel manufacture certainly does become CO₂, (some through direct burning with atmospheric oxygen, some through the reduction of iron oxide in the process of smelting iron ore), but quite a lot of the carbon becomes alloyed with the iron (and other metals) in the steel, effectively sequestering it.

I cannot see why you are defending the use of coal in the production steel and although some is sequestered, had it remained in the ground all was sequestered. Not a good argument I would have thought. Anyway as I said before this aspect is not the argument.

the argument was “the burning of fossil fuels and resultant production of atmospheric CO2 means that people employed in the fossil fuel industry are somehow ignorant of the facts out of pure self interest” which is, I can assure you, incorrect.

This is the post that started it, NOT your interpretation.

>>>Please remember, if we were not burning fossil fuels to the extent we are, we would not have a global warming problem.<<<

we don’t have a global warming problem.

you have a global warming problem

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

So are you two saying the burning of coal for steel manufacture does not produce co2?

not at all… only that, unlike electricity production, there is no currently viable technological method to make steel any other way.

One the advantages of the steel making process in this regard is that it is a very controlled process and even many of the byproducts (such as the combustion gases) are scrubbed off for either commercial sale or sequestration of some form (rather than simply being pumped out into the atmosphere)

In case you haven’t noticed diddly, I am not arguing the benefits or otherwise of coal production required to maintain our current lifestyle, and of which we must continue to do so in order to maintain it. But I am arguing that a substantial portion of geologist are employed by the mining industry and it is from this quarter most of the global warming objection is coming from. Please remember, if we were not burning fossil fuels to the extent we are, we would not have a global warming problem.

OK… well I’m here telling you that in the direct experience of someone that is a stooge of the fossil fuel industry, what you are suggesting isn’t correct. There are outspoken nobs in every part of life, but the mining industry, as a whole, isn’t ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon.

>>>But I am arguing that a substantial portion of geologist are employed by the mining industry and it is from this quarter most of the global warming objection is coming from.
<<<

astrophysicists are known to be sceptical, what’s their excuse?

The_observer said:

>>>Please remember, if we were not burning fossil fuels to the extent we are, we would not have a global warming problem.<<<

we don’t have a global warming problem.

you have a global warming problem

Most of the world think we have a global warming problem, you are very much in a minority Observer, only with your head deeply shove in the place the sun don’t shine, is why you cannot see it.

PermeateFree said:

I cannot see why you are defending the use of coal in the production steel and although some is sequestered, had it remained in the ground all was sequestered. Not a good argument I would have thought. Anyway as I said before this aspect is not the argument.

Huh? Steel is an alloy principally consisting of iron and carbon. So you can’t make steel without using carbon. Obviously, steel is a very important alloy in the modern world.

The refining of metals and production of various alloys tends to be fairly energy-intensive. Yes, it could be done with less carbon dioxide produced than is currently the case, but until alternative energy sources become much cheaper it’s economically prohibitive to do so.

But my main reason for responding to this thread was simply to confirm Diddly’s point that a significant percentage of the coal used in steel production does not end up as CO₂, and that it can be misleading to compare coal quantities used in steel manufacture with those used in power generation unless you take the carbon sequestered in steel into account.

And as Diddly points out, it’s relatively easy for steel makers to capture (and on-sell) the CO₂ (and other gases) they make, although I have no idea how much of that goes on. In contrast, capture of CO₂ at a coal-burning power station is technically difficult, and if the coal is low grade, with a high level of sulfur and other contaminants, it can be downright hazardous.

PermeateFree said:

Most of the world think we have a global warming problem

not true

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

not at all… only that, unlike electricity production, there is no currently viable technological method to make steel any other way.

One the advantages of the steel making process in this regard is that it is a very controlled process and even many of the byproducts (such as the combustion gases) are scrubbed off for either commercial sale or sequestration of some form (rather than simply being pumped out into the atmosphere)

In case you haven’t noticed diddly, I am not arguing the benefits or otherwise of coal production required to maintain our current lifestyle, and of which we must continue to do so in order to maintain it. But I am arguing that a substantial portion of geologist are employed by the mining industry and it is from this quarter most of the global warming objection is coming from. Please remember, if we were not burning fossil fuels to the extent we are, we would not have a global warming problem.

OK… well I’m here telling you that in the direct experience of someone that is a stooge of the fossil fuel industry, what you are suggesting isn’t correct. There are outspoken nobs in every part of life, but the mining industry, as a whole, isn’t ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon.

So you are saying all geologists and people working in the mining industry are not ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon. Well perhaps they just don’t care.

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

PermeateFree said:

In case you haven’t noticed diddly, I am not arguing the benefits or otherwise of coal production required to maintain our current lifestyle, and of which we must continue to do so in order to maintain it. But I am arguing that a substantial portion of geologist are employed by the mining industry and it is from this quarter most of the global warming objection is coming from. Please remember, if we were not burning fossil fuels to the extent we are, we would not have a global warming problem.

OK… well I’m here telling you that in the direct experience of someone that is a stooge of the fossil fuel industry, what you are suggesting isn’t correct. There are outspoken nobs in every part of life, but the mining industry, as a whole, isn’t ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon.

So you are saying all geologists and people working in the mining industry are not ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon. Well perhaps they just don’t care.

their evil & spank their grandchildren

The_observer said:

>>>But I am arguing that a substantial portion of geologist are employed by the mining industry and it is from this quarter most of the global warming objection is coming from.
<<<

astrophysicists are known to be sceptical, what’s their excuse?

SOME astrophysicists are known to be sceptical, what’s their excuse? There are a lot of people so busy doing their normal business that they don’t get deeply involved with other things.

PermeateFree said:

Please remember, if we were not burning fossil fuels to the extent we are, we would not have a global warming problem.

Agreed. But the dilemma is that if we were not burning fossil fuels to the extent we are, we would have a global energy problem and hence a global economic problem. True, such a world would have a lower rate of burning currently sequestered carbon, OTOH, it wouldn’t have the resources necessary to develop alternative energy sources and transition to them.

PM 2Ring said:

PermeateFree said:

I cannot see why you are defending the use of coal in the production steel and although some is sequestered, had it remained in the ground all was sequestered. Not a good argument I would have thought. Anyway as I said before this aspect is not the argument.

Huh? Steel is an alloy principally consisting of iron and carbon. So you can’t make steel without using carbon. Obviously, steel is a very important alloy in the modern world.

The refining of metals and production of various alloys tends to be fairly energy-intensive. Yes, it could be done with less carbon dioxide produced than is currently the case, but until alternative energy sources become much cheaper it’s economically prohibitive to do so.

But my main reason for responding to this thread was simply to confirm Diddly’s point that a significant percentage of the coal used in steel production does not end up as CO₂, and that it can be misleading to compare coal quantities used in steel manufacture with those used in power generation unless you take the carbon sequestered in steel into account.

And as Diddly points out, it’s relatively easy for steel makers to capture (and on-sell) the CO₂ (and other gases) they make, although I have no idea how much of that goes on. In contrast, capture of CO₂ at a coal-burning power station is technically difficult, and if the coal is low grade, with a high level of sulfur and other contaminants, it can be downright hazardous.

Are you reading my posts PM2, because it does not sound like you are. You seem to be in a world of your own.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

diddly-squat said:

OK… well I’m here telling you that in the direct experience of someone that is a stooge of the fossil fuel industry, what you are suggesting isn’t correct. There are outspoken nobs in every part of life, but the mining industry, as a whole, isn’t ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon.

So you are saying all geologists and people working in the mining industry are not ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon. Well perhaps they just don’t care.

their evil & spank their grandchildren

Is that what happened to you Observer?

PermeateFree said:

PM 2Ring said:

PermeateFree said:

I cannot see why you are defending the use of coal in the production steel and although some is sequestered, had it remained in the ground all was sequestered. Not a good argument I would have thought. Anyway as I said before this aspect is not the argument.

Huh? Steel is an alloy principally consisting of iron and carbon. So you can’t make steel without using carbon. Obviously, steel is a very important alloy in the modern world.

[…]

Are you reading my posts PM2, because it does not sound like you are. You seem to be in a world of your own.

I was answering your question about why I’m defending the use of coal in steel making.

PM 2Ring said:

PermeateFree said:

PM 2Ring said:

Huh? Steel is an alloy principally consisting of iron and carbon. So you can’t make steel without using carbon. Obviously, steel is a very important alloy in the modern world.

[…]

Are you reading my posts PM2, because it does not sound like you are. You seem to be in a world of your own.

I was answering your question about why I’m defending the use of coal in steel making.

You did a damn site more than that.

PermeateFree said:

So you are saying all geologists and people working in the mining industry are not ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon. Well perhaps they just don’t care.

FWIW, on this forum there are a couple of scientists &/or engineers who are climate change agnostics or skeptics. OTOH, the geologists / geophysicists here who are (or have been) working in the mining industry agree that anthropogenic climate change is a thing to be concerned about.

PermeateFree said:

So you are saying all geologists and people working in the mining industry are not ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon. Well perhaps they just don’t care.

I’m pretty sure he didn’t say “all”.

From my experience, which includes many in the mining industry, and in engineering construction generally, there are many who are concerned about climate change, who support effective action to reduce emissions, and there are many who see it as “somebody else’s problem”, and not part of their job to worry about it. I doubt that there are many who see it as a big problem, but argue against it because of their personal short term material interests, although I’m sure such people exist.

In the case of geologist it seems there is a small but influential minority who think their knowledge of climate history over geological time scales gives them a special understanding of the climate, whereas this perspective in reality blinds them to the very significant differences in the world today to the world of 10,000 years ago, and even more so to the world of 100’s of millions of years ago.

In short, adopting a cynical attitude about the motives of those who do not see ACC as a significant problem does nothing to solve the problem. It just further entrenches these people in their (mostly genuinely held) beliefs.

>>>SOME astrophysicists are known to be sceptical<<<

WTF would you know about it

>>>what’s their excuse?
There are a lot of people so busy doing their normal business that they don’t get deeply involved with other things.<<<

A list of scientists actively engaged in research revelent to the role of the sun or astrophysics in climate change
would run into the hundreds if not thousands.

ZHAO XinHua & FENG XueShang are just two.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

So you are saying all geologists and people working in the mining industry are not ignorant of the evidence in support of anthropological climate change, nor the key sources of atmospheric carbon. Well perhaps they just don’t care.

I’m pretty sure he didn’t say “all”.

From my experience, which includes many in the mining industry, and in engineering construction generally, there are many who are concerned about climate change, who support effective action to reduce emissions, and there are many who see it as “somebody else’s problem”, and not part of their job to worry about it. I doubt that there are many who see it as a big problem, but argue against it because of their personal short term material interests, although I’m sure such people exist.

In the case of geologist it seems there is a small but influential minority who think their knowledge of climate history over geological time scales gives them a special understanding of the climate, whereas this perspective in reality blinds them to the very significant differences in the world today to the world of 10,000 years ago, and even more so to the world of 100’s of millions of years ago.

In short, adopting a cynical attitude about the motives of those who do not see ACC as a significant problem does nothing to solve the problem. It just further entrenches these people in their (mostly genuinely held) beliefs.

——————————————————————————————————————-

I really think some people ought to read a few more posts than just the last half dozen, before making these ‘sage’ statements.

Below is the statement by the observer, which has been the subject of ALL my recent posts, so stop building strawmen to burn me down. Your statements are due to the tangents you have taken from the main argument and have nothing to do with what I have said. So in future I would appreciate if you would place as much weight to my posts as you do to your friends and stop following their line of thought no matter how incorrect it is.

Observer said: “well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?”

The_observer said:

>>>SOME astrophysicists are known to be sceptical<<<

WTF would you know about it

>>>what’s their excuse?
There are a lot of people so busy doing their normal business that they don’t get deeply involved with other things.<<<

A list of scientists actively engaged in research revelent to the role of the sun or astrophysics in climate change
would run into the hundreds if not thousands.

ZHAO XinHua & FENG XueShang are just two.

In your own words and to answer your question. “What the fk would you know about it.” Observer, you are so ignorant on so many things, one more is not surprising.

PermeateFree said:

I really think some people ought to read a few more posts than just the last half dozen, before making these ‘sage’ statements.

Don’t worry, I won’t trouble you again.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

I really think some people ought to read a few more posts than just the last half dozen, before making these ‘sage’ statements.

Don’t worry, I won’t trouble you again.

Thank you, because unless you take more notice of my posts they are irrelevant.

PermeateFree said:

Below is the statement by the observer, which has been the subject of ALL my recent posts, so stop building strawmen to burn me down. Your statements are due to the tangents you have taken from the main argument and have nothing to do with what I have said. So in future I would appreciate if you would place as much weight to my posts as you do to your friends and stop following their line of thought no matter how incorrect it is.

Observer said: “well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?”

interesting how you promote the stance on CC by the Geological Society of America (board of directors,)

yet when the actual membership of the Geological Society of Australia
have the opposite opinion you bag them out as being immoral.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>SOME astrophysicists are known to be sceptical<<<

WTF would you know about it

>>>what’s their excuse?
There are a lot of people so busy doing their normal business that they don’t get deeply involved with other things.<<<

A list of scientists actively engaged in research revelent to the role of the sun or astrophysics in climate change
would run into the hundreds if not thousands.

ZHAO XinHua & FENG XueShang are just two.

In your own words and to answer your question. “What the fk would you know about it.” Observer, you are so ignorant on so many things, one more is not surprising.

you continually make shit up to suit your argument.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

I really think some people ought to read a few more posts than just the last half dozen, before making these ‘sage’ statements.

Don’t worry, I won’t trouble you again.

Good plan

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

I really think some people ought to read a few more posts than just the last half dozen, before making these ‘sage’ statements.

Don’t worry, I won’t trouble you again.

Thank you, because unless you take more notice of my posts they are irrelevant.

That’s OK, because your hypocrisy is approaching that of your sparring partner.

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Don’t worry, I won’t trouble you again.

Thank you, because unless you take more notice of my posts they are irrelevant.

That’s OK, because your hypocrisy is approaching that of your sparring partner.

leave me out of it thanks Rev,

& consintrate on your own hypocrisy thanks very much

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Below is the statement by the observer, which has been the subject of ALL my recent posts, so stop building strawmen to burn me down. Your statements are due to the tangents you have taken from the main argument and have nothing to do with what I have said. So in future I would appreciate if you would place as much weight to my posts as you do to your friends and stop following their line of thought no matter how incorrect it is.

Observer said: “well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?”

interesting how you promote the stance on CC by the Geological Society of America (board of directors,)

yet when the actual membership of the Geological Society of Australia
have the opposite opinion you bag them out as being immoral.

Where did you get that idea from, you asked for an explanation as to why more geologists in the Geological Society of America and represented by that society were more apposed to global warming that climate scientists, to which I gave my reply. Anything else is purely in your head and I can’t be held responsible for that.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

>>>SOME astrophysicists are known to be sceptical<<<

WTF would you know about it

>>>what’s their excuse?
There are a lot of people so busy doing their normal business that they don’t get deeply involved with other things.<<<

A list of scientists actively engaged in research revelent to the role of the sun or astrophysics in climate change
would run into the hundreds if not thousands.

ZHAO XinHua & FENG XueShang are just two.

In your own words and to answer your question. “What the fk would you know about it.” Observer, you are so ignorant on so many things, one more is not surprising.

you continually make shit up to suit your argument.

In response to your statement. You continually make shit up to suit your argument.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Below is the statement by the observer, which has been the subject of ALL my recent posts, so stop building strawmen to burn me down. Your statements are due to the tangents you have taken from the main argument and have nothing to do with what I have said. So in future I would appreciate if you would place as much weight to my posts as you do to your friends and stop following their line of thought no matter how incorrect it is.

Observer said: “well then, why would The Geological Society of America (the Board of Directors that is) bother publishing a position statement on climate change, and on what basis could they come to the conclusion that action must be taken?”

interesting how you promote the stance on CC by the Geological Society of America (board of directors,)

yet when the actual membership of the Geological Society of Australia
have the opposite opinion you bag them out as being immoral.

Where did you get that idea from, you asked for an explanation as to why more geologists in the Geological Society of America and represented by that society were more apposed to global warming that climate scientists, to which I gave my reply. Anything else is purely in your head and I can’t be held responsible for that.

I didn’t ask any such question.

and you just said geologists in the Geological Society of America are opposed to action?

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

In your own words and to answer your question. “What the fk would you know about it.” Observer, you are so ignorant on so many things, one more is not surprising.

you continually make shit up to suit your argument.

In response to your statement. You continually make shit up to suit your argument.

I don’t make anything up.

I back up everything I say with science, unlike you

The Rev Dodgson said:

PermeateFree said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Don’t worry, I won’t trouble you again.

Thank you, because unless you take more notice of my posts they are irrelevant.

That’s OK, because your hypocrisy is approaching that of your sparring partner.

Well I like that Dodgson! Am I the hypocrite or are you? Allow me to remind you that a couple of months ago you made some disparaging remarks about me and my character and finished with that you were not going to read my posts in future. However entirely unprovoked, almost every week you managed to undermine my character with your posts until we arrive at today’s effort.

In light of the above, please let me tell you what I think of you Dodgson! You sit like a sage in the Lotus position atop a rubber pedicle whilst passing out your words of wisdom, but all it takes to deflate your mammoth ego and have you sitting like an old man cross-legged on the floor is a little pin.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

interesting how you promote the stance on CC by the Geological Society of America (board of directors,)

yet when the actual membership of the Geological Society of Australia
have the opposite opinion you bag them out as being immoral.

Where did you get that idea from, you asked for an explanation as to why more geologists in the Geological Society of America and represented by that society were more apposed to global warming that climate scientists, to which I gave my reply. Anything else is purely in your head and I can’t be held responsible for that.

I didn’t ask any such question.

and you just said geologists in the Geological Society of America are opposed to action?

Go back and read your own posts Observer, as I can’t be bothered.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

you continually make shit up to suit your argument.

In response to your statement. You continually make shit up to suit your argument.

I don’t make anything up.

I back up everything I say with science, unlike you

This that what you call it.

LOL

PM 2Ring said:

OTOH, the geologists / geophysicists here who are (or have been) working in the mining industry agree that anthropogenic climate change is a thing to be concerned about.

Our rock doctors are so tame.