PowerSwitch

I urge you all to watch this video from Bob Carter (an Australian geologist with interests in climate change and marine sedimentology).

http://blip.tv/file/791876

My thinking is very much along these lines.

Watch the video from start to finish to see the truth!

Mildly amusing in places but you'll not find any truth here, what with it being complete rubbish from start to finish.

He had some interesting data to support his views.

Anyone fancy posting a brief counter or rebuttal to the points he makes?

It's all been done, over and over again. Start with Eli Rabett's blog:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/

biffvernon - are you a geologist? climate scientist? scientist?

You believe some geologists but not others?

"complete rubbish from start to finish" - surely that needs some substantiation? How about listing a few bits that you think were rubbish?

In this day and age I suppose it is very easy to say on the internet that some scientist is talking "complete rubbish from start to finish"

He starts off saying that he is neutral about the topic ... and then ramps up to a mega rant ...

I haven't a clue about what's going on ... but the NorthWest Passage is now navigable ... hmm ...

"Scientists at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 13, 2007, revealed that NASA satellites observing the western Arctic showed a 16% decrease in cloud coverage during the summer of 2007 vs 2006. This would have the effect of allowing more sunlight to penetrate Earth's atmosphere and warm the Arctic Ocean waters, thus melting sea ice and contributing to the opening the Northwest Passage"

http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/


http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/pos ... ply&t=7131

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that climate is far too complicated for lay people to contribute meaningfully to the scientific debate. Seriously, climate is the most complex subject going, right up there with searching for a grand unification theory for the four fundamental forces. Even "real" climate scientists only have a half decent understanding of their little bit.

All we can do is accept the conclusions of the IPCC or demonstrate the procedure the IPCC is following is wanting. We (or the guy in the video) cannot realistically expect to confirm or discredit the IPCC conclusions in a 300 word post (even one with a link to Real Climate) or a 40 minute video.

To describe this video as "the real truth" is not helpful, it just appeals to the "lone gunman" mentality that a lot of peak oilers seem to have.

If what Carter says is true, that Global Cooling is imminent, then we should be insulating our buildings and reducing our fuel requirements to conserve fossil fuels for a time when they are really necessary for our children. If what Carter says is not true then we should be insulating our buildings and reducing our fuel requirements to ensure that the earth does not over heat and to help maintain a fossil fuel supply for our children to use in moderation.

If we carry on as we are, with 2% growth, we will have doubled our fossil fuel use in 35 years. That means we will have used up most of the reserves, and all the easily accessible ones, that we know of. Our children will then have to go to a solar economy without the energy means to do so.

If we have global warming there is likely to be a catastrophic drop in food supply caused by shifting temperature and rainfall zones. If we have global cooling there is likely to be a catastrophic drop in food supply caused by shifting temperature and rainfall zones.

Basically global warming or cooling doesn't matter a jot. We must reduce our profligate wasting of the earth's fuel resources and we must control the earth's human population because in the future, possibly near future, we won't be able to feed the current population. Climate Change is a distracting irrelevance. Resource depletion is what matters. Climate Change arguments enable the proponents of BAU to push their spurious claims and prevent any reduction in the rate of resource wastage.

I like clv101 and Kenneal's comments. I have nothing further to say on climate change.

snow hope wrote:"Scientists at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 13, 2007, revealed that NASA satellites observing the western Arctic showed a 16% decrease in cloud coverage during the summer of 2007 vs 2006. This would have the effect of allowing more sunlight to penetrate Earth's atmosphere and warm the Arctic Ocean waters, thus melting sea ice and contributing to the opening the Northwest Passage"

of cause, La Ni?a, it should have got colder. However, I?m sure we had sunny years other years so why then did the NW passage not open?

Also, climate change is about the long terms so year by year date doesn?t help much.


.ui

snow hope wrote:
You believe some geologists but not others?

I saw a cartoon recently where a woman was complaining that what ever she reads in one paper then next would say the opposite. Her friend suggested that she pick a paper that?s supports her ideology and only read that one. She then asked ?what happens if I accidentally see the opposite in another paper?? ?Well, then it?s just the world wide media conspiracy to suppress the truth?, he said. ?Trust me, it works.?


Whatever we believe first we tend to stick with, weather it is religion or science. Anything that goes against that belief is automatically wrong (and probably part of a conspiracy).


.ui

clv101 wrote:I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that climate is far too complicated for lay people to contribute meaningfully to the scientific debate.

To add to that, most people are far to irrational as well.

Something like climate change is on the forefront of science and as such it is still under investigation. That means there will be scientists who say one thing and scientist who say the opposite for a long time to come. Just to make it even more complex; there money involved as well!


.ui

snow hope wrote:biffvernon - are you a geologist? climate scientist? scientist?

You believe some geologists but not others?

"complete rubbish from start to finish" - surely that needs some substantiation? How about listing a few bits that you think were rubbish?

In this day and age I suppose it is very easy to say on the internet that some scientist is talking "complete rubbish from start to finish"

Geologist (a long time ago),
You are right, Snowhope, my assertion does need some substantiation. That's why I posted the link to Eli Rabett's blog. He has provided rebuttals and/or refernces to others' rebuttals in a far more thorough and comprehensive way than I could. And being a professional in the field his views are worthy of more consideration than mine. If you are really interested in finding out why the video is "complete rubbish from start to finish" then please go there, read what he says and follow up his references.