Cutting all this rubbish to the bare minimum.....
With anything, you have a bunch of data and a methodology for analysing the data and ascertaining it's significance....
Anyone with a half decent education can see and nod at the conclusions. They make sense, they follow a process, they are not rocket science or mystical.
The rubbish that the biased and UN funded IPCC come up with has no significant data, nor does it have a methodology. What it does have is a bunch of people following a thread with almost religious fervour, determined to prove their points. Sadly, science still operates on the data/methodology critique, in order to have some order of credibility. It's not what you hear on the news.......
I've worked alongside ex-IPCC staff as well as another guy who is making a lot of fuss about the oceans. Having an in depth chat to them about their methodology/data leads me to believe they have little to add to the subject, apart from their very large politically weighted soapboxes.
In my opinion, anthropogenically driven climate change is a noble lie, governed by the seriousness of peak oil. Conservation of resources, in order to maintain civilisation is one thing.... bleating on about things that make plant food gas is at best, the politics of envy and hippies hating the owners of half decent cars, or at worst, a pseudo religious bunch of godless freaks, desperately seeking some sort of meaning on planet earth and directly influencing my frigging life with their non-data non-methodoloical bullshizzle forcing me to grow a wind turbine and stop eating meat.
This crap will be proven for what it is, as there are allready correlations in the data which speak for themselves and will prove themselves right, whereas increasing concentrations of tax-gas will do nothing to the climate whatsoever.
Wait and see.
As a proper scientist, I will change my mind according to the evidence, for instance, if god shows up right now, I will cease being an athiest, however, these people have a point to prove and are merely delving deeper into jargon and models in order to prove their non-data backed up point...
Frankly I think that's a load of crap. Backed up with sod all. Scientist? As a matter of interest wwhat is a noble lie?
You think it's a load of crap? Ok, you need some references for further reading. As far as I was concerned, the peaking of oil as typified here:-
http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/Oil_Peaking_NETL.pdf in the Hirsch report done by some credible, apolitical scientists runs into the seriousness of the matter. It seems odd that there is nothing being done to follow their recommendations (managing fossil fuel use right now) apart from the fervour about plant food gas.
You have to be religious or very stupid in order to see any credibility in the IPCC models. They progammed a computer to show an awful hockey stick and we're all going to drown/cook. Al Gore got on the bandwagon with his carbon capture $$$COMPANY$$$ and what you have left is a load of hysterical crap based on a highly shortcoming computer model spewing hysterical pseudo-religious rubbish.
The whole crux of the matter being the lack of an anthropogenic signal in global temperature data.
There is no signal and that is it.
Both sides of the argument have lots of graphs and it would be too petty to get into the "here are my graphs so screw you" argument. There is enough evidence on the interweb to make up your own mind.
I'm just off to work and so I sadly can't get mega petty with my referencing. I will if necessary at a later date :D
It seems the whole approach to the problem via the IPCC is totally wrong. They are established to investigate anthropogenic climate change. Their very jobs depend on getting the goods and their paymasters have a tax agenda..... what do green taxes get spent on again? Left handed lesbian trombonists and stainless steel sculptures....
The chap I worked with, whilst being a very nice man and a very good christian was "Sulphates" man. SOx being very serious greenhouse gases indeed..... according to test tube results. He completely overlooked the concentration fact and how it influences the actual absorption of IR. Again, it appears from the conclusions we discussed that he had not considered the "actual" impact this would have had on the overall picture. Cue some computer modelling and the conclusion..... I need a payrise...and also, we're all going to die.
I'm not some sort of anti-environmental freak, I am very much into my conservation.... very much so indeed. I am also interested and read a lot about paleoclimates.... something these guys seem to have little appreciation of.
I fully applaud the attempts and see the reasoning perfectly clearly to develop alternative power strategies. However, it is not and there is no data supporting the fact that this needs to be done because of anthropogenic CO2 release.
I used to be an inorganic chemist. Copper, in fact, Copper (I) in even more detail! Anyway, I'm trained in and teach rigourous scientific practise. The fact is any conclusion.....and you should know this.... is based on an investigation, the data produced and a methodology of isolating it's significance, with statistical treatment. In none of this is there a shonky computer model producing such drastic predictions. A lot of the IPCC stuff does not stand up, nor does it get peer-reviewed. I suppose Bliar and Mandelson could do it ;)
Back to the Hirsch report, you can see there is a reason for the conclusion of the IPCC's current conclusions..... oil conservation....not tax-gas.
I would say, going off on a tangent. The world population is the matter of most concern, but again, it's difficult to tax. My personal
belief is that it is largely due to oil and the way that facilitates civilisation as we know it. Take away the oil and you'll see what could happen to the population and how it does it. It's a fascinating subject.
The hirsch report hints at this in a non-alarmist, apolitical manner.
Yes to conservation.
No to politically funded scientist, paid to come up with a conclusion and support this not with real data, but shonky computer models. There is a lot of opposition to this. However, it is blindly taught as a truth and not a lot of people actually get beyond that to the data/methodology critique.
It's not as if they haven't produced enough reports!
Anyway, have a nice day!