[puppypower]

Global warming is in affect that is being measured. However, just because we can measure a temperature increase,  does not mean it is manmade. These global warming and manmade are two different things, that may or may not be related. It is like saying, the sun will rise tomorrow, due to manmade affects. If you deny the sun will rise tomorrow you are a denier. These are two unrelated things, being combined into a type of political magic trick. If you repeat things long enough you program the naive to see the magic. 

If you look a long term global temperature data; over 500 millions years, the earth has heated and cooled many times before, even before there were humans. There is hard proof that global warming can happen naturally. The idea of manmade global warming is all based on theory. It lacks the same level of hard data as the natural cycles.

If we assume manmade is occurring, for the sake of argument, this would be the first time ever in the history of the earth. Nobody is saying that man made has happened before. There is no precedent; second data point in time, to draw a proper line; The result is none of the models are able to predict, accurately. That is the problem with one data point. The manmade assumptions, connected to this cycle, don't properly add to reality.

The analogy is like putting the first person on the moon. Everyone who is behind this goal is full of public confidence and  expectations, but nobody really knows what to expect. This is part of the bull crap stage of solicitation. The current over confidence, is driven by fear, and not tangible proof of concept that comes with accurate predictions.

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs. These jobs are a big part of the sales dynamics; union mentality. Trump, by cutting back, is going to put the theory to the test. If this is really manmade, and everyone is so convinced, you don't need a lot of funding, just apply the proof you have. It is really about the toys. The change will be, that it will not be about majority rule, when the majority is on the payroll. There is conflict of interest in the present schema.

Say we are in a cycle of global warming, but it is natural and not manmade. If it was natural, all the observations can also be extrapolated to same the doom and gloom, like rising oceans. What would be the impact of handicapping industry and culture, with a manmade assumption, when this approach will not so any good against a natural mechanism? If anything, this approach toward world socialism, could make it much harder to deal with changes that may occur, since industry is much better at practical adaptation than bloated government.

[jeffreyH]

Firstly, and most importantly, you need your data to be accurate.
https://m.phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

[evan_au]

The idea of manmade global warming is all based on theory. It lacks the same level of hard data as the natural cycles.

I would say that:
- The day/night cycle is well established, and well considered in scientific models and by the public
- The 12-month cycle is also well established.
- However, the effect of many natural cycles are not so obvious:
     - The El Nino Southern Oscillation is quite erratic, and yet has a measurable impact on climate in countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, from South America to India
     - The 11/22 year solar cycle is somewhat erratic. It is easy to measure, but its impact on the climate is debateable
     - The Milankovitch cycles are driven by the physics of the orbiting planets and the Moon. So the cycle is quite predictable, but its affect on the climate is not so obvious, as glaciations don't seem to be directly tied to these cycles.
     - Over all of this, the weather is an erratic factor which is so chaotic that it could not really be called a cycle.

So many of the natural cycles are not based on hard data, but are obscured by the interaction of different cycles, the positive feedback effects that occurs with the gain or loss of snow cover, and the time lags inherent in the ocean as a big heat sink.

I think that "Natural Cycles" is a vague excuse that some politicians have used to ignore the issue, without pointing our which cycles and providing the climate modelling to show that these cycles are indeed the cause.

If we assume manmade is occurring, for the sake of argument, this would be the first time ever in the history of the earth. Nobody is saying that man made has happened before.

When the human population was under a 100,000 worldwide, it could not have had a major impact on the climate.
     - But it was enough to cause the extinction of megafauna in every continent man has visited, even in small populations.
     - And starting with the introduction of agriculture, humans have impacted the world climate in an exponentially growing rate.
     - Today, with human population over 7 billion, humans have a far larger footprint on the world than ever before
     - And the signs of that footprint are unmistakable in the form of increased CO₂ and other compounds in the atmosphere and sea
     - unlike the vague appeal to "Natural Cycles"

Where the debate does involve politicians is to decide what to do about it, how much to spend on it, and how to compensate the many people who will inevitably be disadvantaged no matter what we do (even if we do nothing).
- The appeal to "Natural Cycles" is an excuse for not thinking about it - just gloss over it for 1 or 2 terms in office, and leave it for someone else to deal with.

[atrox]

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

That (or similar) is an argument you often hear. Interestingly you never hear that ignoring the possibility and its applications of man made climate change is a "fat cow" for economy. Somehow this side of the coin seems so much less convincing for deniers.

[Tim the Plumber]

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

That (or similar) is an argument you often hear. Interestingly you never hear that ignoring the possibility and its applications of man made climate change is a "fat cow" for economy. Somehow this side of the coin seems so much less convincing for deniers.

Well, yes ignoring the none existant actually backed up by anything like science and a real threat of the big bad doom will allow us to florish whist the back to the stone age Maoism of the greens will kill even more than it is doing so far.

My guess is 20 million per year from the artificailly boosted price of basic foods due to the bio-fuel industry using vast quantities of food for fuel to nobodies gain other than already rich farmers plus a hundred or two thousand of deaths from diesel fumes that are down to the obsession with removing CO2, a harmless plant food. At present. More to come.

So on balance, the economoic damage from all this green crap is potentially vast. Currently slight, only a couple of tens of millions per year dying and a big drag on the economic deveopment of the world's poor.

[alancalverd]

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

That (or similar) is an argument you often hear. Interestingly you never hear that ignoring the possibility and its applications of man made climate change is a "fat cow" for economy. Somehow this side of the coin seems so much less convincing for deniers.

Can't speak for deniers, but there's more money to be made per unit electricity produced (or indeed not produced) from windmills than coal, so the smart money is in windmills, even if the smart engineering isn't. Biofuels likewise. Everyone likes a government subsidy, however much harm it does to the environment. Or even to the government - witness the recent stupidity in Northern Ireland where the criminals in Stormont subsidised wood pellet furnaces to the point that folk were just burning the pellets to make money!

[Bored chemist]

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

To exactly the extent that conservationist groups are able to pay better than the oil industry.

[Tim the Plumber]

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

To exactly the extent that conservationist groups are able to pay better than the oil industry.

But you have to actually be useful to get a job in the oil industry whilst anybody who can sound good has a chance in the ecco-industry.

[PhysBang]

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

To exactly the extent that conservationist groups are able to pay better than the oil industry.

But you have to actually be useful to get a job in the oil industry whilst anybody who can sound good has a chance in the ecco-industry.

No, that is actually the opposite of true in this context. Look up Fred SInger.

[Bored chemist]

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

To exactly the extent that conservationist groups are able to pay better than the oil industry.

But you have to actually be useful to get a job in the oil industry whilst anybody who can sound good has a chance in the ecco-industry.

There's no such thing as the "eco industry" but there is a world of academic research.
Your assertion is loosely equivalent to claiming that it's the ones who aren't any good at the subject who go on to get PhDs and professorships.
Are you really sure about that?
It's not what happened when I was a student.

[Tim the Plumber]

Global warming is a fat cow for science jobs.

To exactly the extent that conservationist groups are able to pay better than the oil industry.

But you have to actually be useful to get a job in the oil industry whilst anybody who can sound good has a chance in the ecco-industry.

There's no such thing as the "eco industry" but there is a world of academic research.
Your assertion is loosely equivalent to claiming that it's the ones who aren't any good at the subject who go on to get PhDs and professorships.
Are you really sure about that?
It's not what happened when I was a student.

You did chemistry.

To do that you passed your A levels.

You were not particularly into physics and did not get an A in it. So you could not have done metorology if you had even wanted to.

But you could have got a D in maths and easily been accepted into Norwich Polly for their climate science course. That's the Climate Research Unit now of course.

[Bored chemist]

You did chemistry.

To do that you passed your A levels.

You were not particularly into physics and did not get an A in it. So you could not have done metorology if you had even wanted to.

But you could have got a D in maths and easily been accepted into Norwich Polly for their climate science course. That's the Climate Research Unit now of course.

I did do chemistry
Well done!

I did physics, not only did I get an A in the A level I got a grade 2 in the S level. In fact, at A level I did better at physics than Chemistry. So, you got that wrong

I'm fairly sure that meteorology wasn't available as a first degree subject when I went to uni - in which case it's true that I couldn't have studied it if I'd wanted to- but the statement is meaningless.
It's like saying I couldn't have studied Vulcan literature.


I did get a D in maths- so you are wrong in thinking it's a matter of I "could have".
However I still got into Oxford to study Chemistry.

I imagine that I could have studied climate at Norwich.
So what?

OK
So, you were largely wrong about the facts.
But that's not the problem. The problem is that you are  (badly) measuring the qualifications of people at the wrong end of their university career.

Government  backed research is not done by undergraduates who have just done their A levels.

It's done by post grads and PhDs who- you may be surprised to know, actually have degrees and further qualifications in the fields they are researching.

Why would their A levels matter?

[Tim the Plumber]

You did chemistry.

To do that you passed your A levels.

You were not particularly into physics and did not get an A in it. So you could not have done metorology if you had even wanted to.

But you could have got a D in maths and easily been accepted into Norwich Polly for their climate science course. That's the Climate Research Unit now of course.

I did do chemistry
Well done!

I did physics, not only did I get an A in the A level I got a grade 2 in the S level. In fact, at A level I did better at physics than Chemistry. So, you got that wrong

I'm fairly sure that meteorology wasn't available as a first degree subject when I went to uni - in which case it's true that I couldn't have studied it if I'd wanted to- but the statement is meaningless.
It's like saying I couldn't have studied Vulcan literature.


I did get a D in maths- so you are wrong in thinking it's a matter of I "could have".
However I still got into Oxford to study Chemistry.

I imagine that I could have studied climate at Norwich.
So what?

OK
So, you were largely wrong about the facts.
But that's not the problem. The problem is that you are  (badly) measuring the qualifications of people at the wrong end of their university career.

Government  backed research is not done by undergraduates who have just done their A levels.

It's done by post grads and PhDs who- you may be surprised to know, actually have degrees and further qualifications in the fields they are researching.

Why would their A levels matter?

I was pointing out that the climate research unit at Norwich polly was not one of the most prestigious places to do your accademic carrer and thus presumably did not attract the best minds in the world.

Given that you went to one of the best universties I expect you are ne of the cleverest. Why then do you accept without challeng the results of those who did a degree through the notoriously not very rigorous at all geography department of Norwich polly? I am happy to accept that they can have got it right and be the best in the world without going to Oxbridge but the lack of scrutiny that their results gets from you is very odd.

[Bored chemist]

I was pointing out that the climate research unit at Norwich polly was not one of the most prestigious places to do your accademic carrer and thus presumably did not attract the best minds in the world.

Given that you went to one of the best universties I expect you are ne of the cleverest. Why then do you accept without challeng the results of those who did a degree through the notoriously not very rigorous at all geography department of Norwich polly? I am happy to accept that they can have got it right and be the best in the world without going to Oxbridge but the lack of scrutiny that their results gets from you is very odd.

Do you really think that all the world's climate researchers, and all their data come from a rather small University  in Norwich?

I'm actually quite good at scrutinising things.
That's why I am able to point out that you keep posting nonsense.

[alancalverd]

I'm fairly sure that meteorology wasn't available as a first degree subject when I went to uni

Not that it is relevant, but I think Reading offered meteorology at least as a final year subject back in the 1950s.

[Tim the Plumber]

I'm fairly sure that meteorology wasn't available as a first degree subject when I went to uni - in which case it's true that I couldn't have studied it if I'd wanted to- but the statement is meaningless.
It's like saying I couldn't have studied Vulcan literature.

Meteorology was studied and taught as part of Chemistry, Natural Philosophy and Natural History at Edinburgh University throughout the nineteenth century and for the first half of the twentieth century. A separate Department of Meteorology was created in 1964.

You have to wonder why climate science did not come out of the Meteorology departments but out of the geography departments.

[alancalverd]

Because meteorology is about weather, climatology is about politics.

[Bored chemist]

Because meteorology is about weather, climatology is about politics.

I'm sure we are all looking forward to you providing some evidence to go with that assertion.
Then you can see if you can show some pathway by which it's relevant.

[alancalverd]

Just look at our discussions! Every instance I have quoted to suggest that climate change is (a) inevitable and (b) not significantly driven by anthropogenic CO2, you have dismissed as "weather"!

[Bored chemist]

Just look at our discussions! Every instance I have quoted to suggest that climate change is (a) inevitable and (b) not significantly driven by anthropogenic CO2, you have dismissed as "weather"!

Really?