Crazy Quotes From Under the Science Cloak
Posted by Jeff Condon on November 19, 2009
Ok, so the Air Vent stops posting for a few days and the world goes crazy. People really need to settle down but as predicted by your humble host, the rhetoric is ramping to unprecedented levels leading into Copenhagen. I wonder if rhetoric is what tree growth responds to? At least the scientists of this study waited until I was hunting apparently invisible deers in the Upper Peninsula to jump on this. The deers seem to have developed a unique cloaking technology, I hope the military is reading this. We should jump on it before it falls in the hands of the polar bears.
Soon I have to organize the most extreme predictions of 2009 and get a vote together to decide the winner. Until now there have been a lot of serious attempts at first place with Hansen setting the ‘gold’ standard from previous years. I hope he’s paying attention too because lately there is some serious new competition in the fold.
The study by Professor Le Quéré and her team, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, envisages a far higher figure. “We’re at the top end of the IPCC scenario,” she said.
Professor Le Quéré said that Copenhagen was the last chance of coming to a global agreement that would curb carbon-dioxide emissions on a time-course that would hopefully stabilise temperature rises to within the danger threshold. “The Copenhagen conference next month is in my opinion the last chance to stabilise climate at C above pre-industrial levels in a smooth and organised way,” she said.
“If the agreement is too weak, or the commitments not respected, it is not 2.5C or 3C we will get: it’s 5C or 6C – that is the path we’re on. The timescales here are extremely tight for what is needed to stabilise the climate at C,” she said.
And that is of course followed with this statement;
Meanwhile, the scientists have for the first time detected a failure of the Earth’s natural ability to absorb man-made carbon dioxide released into the air.
They found significant evidence that more man-made CO2 is staying in the atmosphere to exacerbate the greenhouse effect because the natural “carbon sinks” that have absorbed it over previous decades on land and sea are beginning to fail, possibly as a result of rising global temperatures.
One thing is for sure despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, the leftist media has their goals set so it’s going to always be worse than we thought. Didn’t a paper just last week show that carbon sinks were working better than ever? Hmm. Since this is settled science, I wonder which it is, sink full or sink half empty. Of course the scientist states reasonably that there are “many uncertainties” in the very thing which could and IMO will moderate some of the rise in the microscopic CO2 level in the air. However, the doc’s reasonable statement is followed by what I consider an extremist position which cannot be supported by the evidence. In short, it exposes the good doc’s cover or is a complete misquote. –but all the evidence suggests that there is now a cycle of “positive feedbacks”,
Really – All of the evidence!! Someone came out of the closet methinks. Basically ALL computer models are designed with massive positive feedbacks but if this forms the basis of the doc’s false statement — computer models are NOT evidence. Computer models are attempts to explain nature and so far they are failing. There is plenty of evidence contrary to the massive positive feedback claims which are being heavily contested in publications quite regularly. Also, there are a bunch of ‘state of the art’ models which have recently been falsified against measured data. All the evidence, — good one doc.
Now don’t run around claiming that it’s not possible for the doc to be right on the end results. My point is these details are NOT well understood and extremist claims do no good for the science or apparently the reporting of science.
Professor Le Quéré emphasised that there are still many uncertainties over carbon sinks, such as the ability of the oceans to absorb dissolved CO2, but all the evidence suggests that there is now a cycle of “positive feedbacks”, whereby rising carbon dioxide emissions are leading to rising temperatures and a corresponding rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
“Our understanding at the moment in the computer models we have used – and they are state of the art – suggests that carbon-cycle climate feedback has already kicked in,” she said.
“These models, if you project them on into the century, show quite large feedbacks, with climate amplifying global warming by between 5 per cent and 30 per cent. There are still large uncertainties, but this is carbon-cycle climate feedback that has already started,” she said.
If you are interested in how well the models compare to up to date data read HERE for an example. – treesfortheforest. Also, MM currently have a paper on this very subject being reviewed in an unusual manner which seems to be reducing the possibilities for publication. Hmmm again. The paper may not see the light of day in print, but it addresses this very same issue. Demonstrating the statistical failure of the models is a big issue and it will get light somewhere.
While the following extreme quotes are from the leftist media and were apparently first written in 2007, they have been re-quoted in this article in this context to make a last ditch effort to scare idiots into becoming believers in voluntary taxation and governance of our usage of energy. Of course it’s all cloaked in a patently false attempt to limit CO2 production.
If two degrees is generally accepted as the threshold of dangerous climate change, it is clear that a rise of six degrees in global average temperatures must be very dangerous indeed, writes Michael McCarthy. Just how dangerous was signalled in 2007 by the science writer Mark Lynas, who combed all the available scientific research to construct a picture of a world with temperatures three times higher than the danger limit.
His verdict was that a rise in temperatures of this magnitude “would catapult the planet into an extreme greenhouse state not seen for nearly 100 million years, when dinosaurs grazed on polar rainforests and deserts reached into the heart of Europe”.
He said: “It would cause a mass extinction of almost all life and probably reduce humanity to a few struggling groups of embattled survivors clinging to life near the poles.”
Very few species could adapt in time to the abruptness of the transition, he suggested. “With the tropics too hot to grow crops, and the sub-tropics too dry, billions of people would find themselves in areas of the planet which are essentially uninhabitable. This would probably even include southern Europe, as the Sahara desert crosses the Mediterranean.
“As the ice-caps melt, hundreds of millions will also be forced to move inland due to rapidly-rising seas. As world food supplies crash, the higher mid-latitude and sub-polar regions would become fiercely-contested refuges.
“The British Isles, indeed, might become one of the most desirable pieces of real estate on the planet. But, with a couple of billion people knocking on our door, things might quickly turn rather ugly.”
What a pile of absolute leftist rubbish. These writers are lying, most scientists know that NOT ALL the evidence is pointing to positive feedbacks occurring in relation to models and temperature. This particular scientist may have accidentally overstated something or perhaps was misquoted. However, the writers know that these claims of doom are nothing more than a fabricated fear mongering story IMO. It’s pathetic, don’t believe it or anything else written by Steve Connor and Michael McCarthy. These people are liars and scum in my opinion and should be given all the benefits and trappings that go along with the job title of professional liar.
If you’d like to be like me and waste your morning reading one more in an endless stream of crazy left wing political extremist articles disguised as science, the link is HERE.