Bob Carter Science & Social aspects of climate change pt4

[ReduceGHGs]

carter has EVER completed or seen a study that has determined humans are not warming the planet or that continuing to add CO2 to the atmosphere is not harmful. I asked him last year. He is a marine geologist that studies PAST climates not how humans affect climate today OR in the future.

But here, ask him.

bob.carter@ jcu. edu .au

[toonygragari]

try asian women #lushfmlk.info#

[yohanpetior]

Asian ladies online #lushfmlk.info#

[imShupE]

Honestly... I believe the Earth goes into phases, a couple decades ago, we thought the world was gonna freeze over, hence the Doomsday Vaults. So, i believe this is mass hysteria.

[patioperson]

The Africans with their runaway birthing and lack of male parenting have been pumping out niglets for thousands of years most of whom died during the recurrent droughts by which Africa is noted for. But now, since the warmers have taken center stage, the developed countries are to blame. There's an old saying "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em". If you're really interested in the welfare of the Africans, send over surgeons to sterilize the women and castrate the male niggers.

[ech1dna]

Bob Carter is a petroleum geologist. That doesn't look like petroleum geology to me. Would you hire a lawyer to fix your plumbing?

[edrebel]

Would you hire a celebrity to fix your plumbing?

[ech1dna]

Er, thats sort of my point. Celebrities didn't write the IPCC reports, climatologists did.

[edrebel]

But they are climatologists whose science is suspect.

[edrebel]

For example thier objectivity is questionable.

[edrebel]

*their*

[ech1dna]

The point about science is that its an open process based on evidence. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is vast and public- published in reputable science journals far all to read and review. The evidence for the plethora of (conflicting) alternative climate theories is largely missing- now their proponents are turning to weak conspiracy theories. Understandable- its hard to accept you are wrong when the truth doesn't suit you...

[edrebel]

Then you should have no problems refuting what Bob Carter says in his videos.

What does not suit me is rhetoric and propaganda replacing genuine scientific honesty.

The truth suits me fine when it has been clearly proven.

[ech1dna]

OK- here is a rundown of the vid's content as it appears to me

0-1.20 Popular opinion polls (not science).

1.20-6 Lots of unreferenced data. 5kya graph uses only one pollen data source- Finnish paleoclimate data is notoriously out of synch with the rest of world- see:Bodri et al. Climate change of the last 2000 years inferred from borehole temperatures: data from Finland, Global and Planetary Change

Volume 29, Issues 3-4, June 2001, Pages 189-200

(cont)

[edrebel]

The opinion polls could indicate that the IPCC and MSM have failed to provide any evidence that would convince the public that their claims are credible.

Data being out of synch just means that the changes it shows occured a little earlier or later than elsewhere. Otherwise you should have another term instead of out of synch.

It is up to the IPCC to prove their claims are correct. Also to prove that mans CO2 emissions are the major driver and will push temperature to the levels they claim.

[ech1dna]

Opinion polls do exactly what they say on the box- gauge ephemeral opinions. An opinion poll in india would conclude that a lot of people think cows are sacred- would that make you give up steak?

Carter makes out finnish data applies worldwide- it doesn't- he is deliberately misleading.

You have clearly not read the actual IPCC reports- they lay out in deep detail the journey that climatology has been through to conclude that anthropogenic climate change is real, measured and predictable.

[ech1dna]

(cont)

6- 8.10 Random discussion of natural hazards

8.15 claim that climate change is just another unavoidable hazard (this would only be true if IPCC conclusions that CURRENT change is being driven by human CO2 emissions is proven wrong- something Carter has not managed!)

8.50-9.30 Political claims

If Carter or any other of these powerpoint jockeys on youtube think they can disprove anthropogenic climate change with evidence why don't they publish it like normal scientists? They don't...

[edrebel]

The political views seem quite reasonable to me.

Finally, If someone says there is a flying teapot orbiting the earth it's up to them to show it, it is not the burden of their listeners to disprove this.

[ech1dna]

ed- "The political views seem quite reasonable to me."- this comment speaks volumes on your approach to science. You agree beofrehand with the politics of rejecting climate change so you find a presentation that jumbles misrepresented evidence with pop opinion polls and partisan political rhetoric all presented as 'fact' perfectly reasonable.

How the hell is IPCC going to prove a case to anyone if you don't read anything they print but instead get your 'facts' 2ndhand from showmen like Carter?

[edrebel]

I would conclude that a lot of Indians think cows are sacred.

[edrebel]

If you only read the IPCC reports then of course you are going to be convinced that their theories are correct. There is plenty of debate over what the climate sensitivity actually is. It seems to me that the IPCC continually look to create the worst case scenarios that will most favour the conclusions they want to make. Taking upper limits in error bounds in feedbacks etc.

[edrebel]

Then these get hyped by their mouthpieces who make enourmous claims that have not been borne out by what has actually happened. Increasing bad weather for example.

It would be good to have the IPCC theory put on a web page somewhere and carefully explained from the ground up so that someone with a little scientific background could follow their reasoning. I have never been able to find such a site. Perhaps you know of one.

[ech1dna]

NOAA has a great pdf called 'climate literacy:essential principles in climate science'.

The IPPC WG1 site has a good FAQ section.

The climatology blog 'real climate' has a great list of such resources listed under their IPCC category.

On the subject of climate change denial, check out the responses to the 'top ten skeptic claims' at scientists blog 'skeptical science'.

[ech1dna]

I read very widely in science, something that almost no climate change denier I've come across does (except my pal granite). I've read the IPCC reports, and I read a lot of science directly from science research journals.Where do you get your info on this subject?

I'd love to know where you got the idea that the IPCCs past scenarios are wrong- several papers I have read recently contain real world observations which fit past IPCC predictions perfectly(on sea level rise and ocean acidification).

[edrebel]

I have not said anywhere that the climate does not change. Climate change denier is a ludicrous tag. I just say that it has not been proven that mans CO2 emissions are the major cause of climate change.

Nor am I convinced that lessening the wealth and standard of living of millions of people is going to stop the climate changing. I also don't see why a warmer climate is neccessarily bad and won't level off.

You are quite right though, I should do some more reading. Thanks for the websites.

[edrebel]

Gotta say I'm a bit disappointed at the websites in that none of them presented the IPCC theory in a coherent way. As I said before I would just like to see it carefully explained from the ground up so that someone with a little scientific background could follow their reasoning.

I don't need reams of disjointed articles nor glossy pictures with childish text.

I'm calling it a day on this discussion.

Thanks for conversing with me and all the best to you and yours.

[ech1dna]

No worries mate. Apologies if I have been 'spiky'- I am passionate about science and sometimes get wound up!

One last bit of reading you might find interesting: a science-based book by Mark Lynas called "6 Degrees". An round up of the predictions of current climate & earth science's for future rises in temps from one degree all the way to six. Its often dismissed as alarmist but its fully referenced back scientific evidence so it deserves to be taken seriously.

[edrebel]

P.S. You have persuaded me to be a bit more openminded about this. Cheers.

[marineninga]

OMG i thought the number of believers would be shot up every passing second there is!