A bit more digging and oh, what have we here?

http://climateprogress.org/2011/03/20/berkeley-temperature-study-results-global-warming/

Muller hob-nobbing with Charles Koch (coal magnate) and the usual cast of denialist trolls.

---

Blimey, that Climate Progress site just reeks of hatred doesn't it.
They seem convinced of a worldwide capitalist conspiracy to downplay the warming thing.

It seems to have become an utterly essential tool to use against the modern industrialised world.
The current downturn in global temperatures really has them worried.
It makes a lot of sense now how some people post so aggressively in here.
- spending too much time reading the hate blog stuff.

---

What downturn? The trend continues upwards. February 2011 global ocean temperatures, for example, were 10th warmest on record despite several months of a significant La Nina.

Never look at those sites. I prefer to look at the facts.

Most of the so called 'aggression' here is in response to the junk dredged up from sceptic and denialist sites.

You do seem to have a regrettable bias in this matter Four, as evidenced by this latest attempt to stir.

As for 'downturn in global temperatures' I think you need to go back to the facts and understand what is going on.  Cherry picking and misinterpreting data either demonstrates ignorance or an attempt to mislead.

Perhaps if you also focussed on the facts you would be more balanced in your contributions here?

---

Four, before you make a bigger fool of yourself let me quote a few things people have been saying about the IPCC's Dr Pachauri over on YOUR favourite blog WUWT - rude obnoxious and hate isn't the half of it!. And YOU come here and lecture other people about hate - when you denounce WUWT your 'critiques' might be taken seriously, until then no chance.

"Is Pachauri Indian for pillock?"

"Frankly this individual is one of the most distasteful and insensitive examples of humanity I have ever seen."

"This prat is either completely barking mad or a very sick guy!"

"These people are nutters. They are insane."

"...he is an arrogant fool."

(of a poaster daring to defend Dr P) "Pauchauri’s evil henchman writes,"

Edit: though as Gandalf writes you're probably just stirring it

 

Sadly, if you look at his posts, that is usually what he does.  Sail in, make some unnecessarily blinkered and provocative comment and disappear again.

The trouble is that the denier fraternity post these politically-motivated emotional tirades because they see AGW as a giant conspiracy to destroy our way of life (a bit like Four and one or two others here in fact).  There is a fundamental and unbridgeable difference of position as to whether the needs of the human race trump every other concern (from AGW to environmental damage, resource depletion, loss of biodiversity etc).

Then, surprise surprise (not) when those who do think AGW is real and a problem retaliate we get this holier-than-thou finger pointing.

---

The problem stems from the continual exaggeration and hype about Global Warming and it's imagined consequences.
Just today on BBC news a piece about school children whose biggest fear was environmental disasters caused by global warming.
It's just evil to be scaring little children like this.

The projected increased temperatures have been too high by far since the subject became trendy as a green icon late 80s, but this is conveniently ignored.
Oh and Pachauri - is it right to claim that Global Warming made the Tsunami worse because sea level is higher?
It seems to overlook the fact that the local sea-level in that part of Japan has actually gone down since the 50s due to the land rising
Mischievous point scoring which is a very unpleasant inappropriate tactic in the face of thousands of deaths.

---

Climate Progress would probably not have been necessary in the first place had the vicious organised attacks against science not occurred.

It's like kids chucking bricks at a wasps' nest: eventually, one too many bricks are lobbed and the wasps get really mad and come out stinging!

Some crazy stuff going on with that whole Berkley thing though - threads on WUWT, Collideascape etc have various bits and pieces and CP is piecing them all together.

Some people are calling for "auditing".....

Cheers!

John

 

 

 

Four, you might want to sit back and think about this again.

If GLOBAL sea levels have risen 17-18 cm since 1900 then, on the assumption that Japan is indeed on the same planet as the rest of us, the sea level has risen there by 17-18 cm as well.   Even if locally there is evidence that the land has actually risen (although I haven't been able to verify this during a search around Google links on the subject), the fact remains that the sea level would still have been 17-18 cm lower without the global sea level rise.

Disappointing that you use this to aim another cheap shot at Pachauri.  Even more amusing that you get the logic so profoundly wrong that you manage to shoot yourself in the foot.

 

---

In the interests of balance Pachauri did say that he hoped sceptics would rub asbestos in their faces.

It doesn't really bother me, people can say what they want on either side but it is a bit of a distraction from the real issues.

I think four may have been out to stir it a little, but I do think he raised a reasonable point about how the consequences of climate change are presented and percieved.

I agree that it is a distraction.

To intimate that Pachauri was in the wrong in saying what he did rather ignores the provocations from the denier/sceptic brigage.  I suspect you and I might have snapped somewhat earlier in the face of the abuse and worse hurled in his direction, mostly unmerited, ignorant and politically motivated.

Surely there are a range of possible consequences of climate change, ranging at best from damaging to the eco-system as a whole but manageable for (most of) the human race through to threatening our way of life and millions of lives. These are indeed the range of outcomes presented by the forecast data.

Is crying foul because some people point out the potential worst-case scenario a reasonable reaction?

 

---

The media typically pussyfoot about with the consequences of rapid climate change. In the fossil record, the very rapid ones have coincided with significant environmental degradation and mass-extinctions. The one currently underway is proceeding at breakneck speed - the problem that some people have is the inability to get their heads around the timeframe. We think in increasingly shorter timeframes, yet the big events that have affected the planet, outside of the sudden impactors, have unwinded over decades and centuries. The latter describes the risk we take. Unless you care naught about anything beyond your own lifespan, it is reasonable and indeed quite rational to be very concerned and to aim for a more balanced future for humanity.

Cheers - John

I don't mind what Pachauri said, that's up to him. I just think all the personal abuse and people moaning about being offended by what people say is a bit of a waste of time.

For me the most interesting thing is how climate science has become imbued with morality in a way which goes way beyond pure 'science' and also, how this moral science has been shaped and appropriated by the political and social institutions of society - often in the most superficial way.

John, that is spot on.

Anyone who has children should be giving careful thought to the inheritance they/we are leaving to the next generation.

As you say, natural climate changes have occurred within human lifespans in the past so it would be complacent to assume a repeat is impossible.  At the risk of repeating myself, we are dealing with a highly complex system and assuming linear responses to changed inputs is unsound.

 

---

GTW,

Thanks - I should add that the last climate change of this magnitude (if ignored) had a difference. This is for all the people who repeat "the climate has always changed".

The difference?

Last time this happened, there was not a human civilisation in the way.

We are on-course from Interglacial to full-on Hothouse, folks. Once the latter stabilises, biodiversity will once again radiate. But don't expect it to include Primates. The higher echelons of evolution in any rapid climate shift of the past have been the one who fall by the wayside. If you believe in reincarnation (I don't) and you want your soul to witness the distant unmitigated future, your best bet would be to hope that you come back as a lingula or a lichen!

Some will just toss this aside as "alarmism", but look at the fossil record once you have made that accusation. In all cases, geologically rapid environmental change = mass-extinction with emphasis on higher life-forms, followed by evolutionary radiation.

Perhaps the age-old saying, "the meek will inherit the Earth", has a ring of truth to it after all?

Over to you, Four. Most kids I know, apart from the chavs, and even including a few of them, see it for what it is - an urgent issue that needs fixing, and they see our generation as the one that recklessly squandered Earth's resources and polluted the place en-route. They did not need to be brainwashed to arrive at such a conclusion: it stares all of us in the face all of the time. The Age of Oil, as we knew it, is ending, my friend. The question is - what do we replace it with?

Cheers - John

None of those higher life forms had the ability to adapt and alter their environment like we can.

Science as moral fable again?

Muddling different 'problems' there.
While clearly the fossil fuel dependence is eventually going to need solving, it's an entirely different issue to the manufactured crisis of warming.

This subject does seem to create curious alliances between the ageing hippy/green types, the vaguely socialist control freaks and strangest of all the groups who seem to long for thr destruction of a large part of the human population - seeing people as a plague on the face of the earth.

Since none of them have any realistic solutions to avert their imagined disaster scenarios, I don't worry in the slightest what they think or say.

---

Yawn...

I see you haven't bothered to admit your error as regards Japan and sea level?  Funny that - is admitting your mistakes another weakness?

I love to see you trot out the same tired and irrelevant preconceptions.  "Manufactured crisis", "Ageing hippy/green types", "vaguely socialist control freaks", "seeing people as a plague on the face of the earth".

Do you have a list of daft cliches that you pick from at random or are you just incapable of putting together a coherent argument in support of your position?

Your posts are a complete irrelevance and contribute zero or worse here. I almost prefer your unsubtle hand-grenade posts designed to inflame rather than inform.

If you ever make it back into the real world let us know.

---

Well, at the risk of taking an analogy to its extreme: I'm going to break your legs. There's a wheelchair over there, so you can still get around. Are you satisfied with this situation?

Ditch the wheelchair, build me some robot legs so I can jump over a house and you're on

Millions have previously died due to disasters arising from weather and climate change, in centuries when there were far fewer millions of humans on the planet. Humanity has not sailed along relatively unaffected until the wicked fossil-fuel burners of the last 50-100 years. Is your worst-case scenario actually that much different from the late 19th Century disasters?

"El Niño affected pre-Columbian Incas [66] and may have led to the demise of the Moche and other pre-Columbian Peruvian cultures.[67] A recent study suggests that a strong El-Niño effect between 1789–93 caused poor crop yields in Europe, which in turn helped touch off the French Revolution.[68] The extreme weather produced by El Niño in 1876–77 gave rise to the most deadly famines of the 19th century.[69]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o-Southern_Oscillation 

Well, Four, you do seem to recognise Peak Oil! Good. Most farmers I know are well aware of it and many are planning.

Practical solutions are way better than outright denial, for heaven's sake. You half-admit that there are converging problems, yet you are unusually hostile (as farmers go) to solutions. Guys like you who primarily hill-farm have fewer choices, but cooperate with those who are on the lowlands, go round the middlemen and sell direct responsibly - och, I sometimes wonder why I need to tell anybody this because you of all folk ought to know it.

http://www.wil-lloyd.co.uk/  for a good example of localisation. He does OK! And believe you me he gets Peak Oil & Climate Change - he's one of the smart buggers who will see his way through. I don't think he reads the Daily Mail, mind!

Cheers - John

 

Marcus, I understand that.  I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make?

To correct you on the facts, we have been burning fossil fuels for the last 200 years, not 50-100.  Before that we burnt down forests or consumed the wood until there were none left to burn or use in England and Scotland.  Much the same occurred elsewhere.  The story of human economic progress correlates quite precisely with the ready availability of cheap energy.  Wood > coal > oil/gas

If the point you are making is that climate changes naturally and there are casualties from this process then I will repeat my previous observation.  When confronted by a natural threat we take steps to address that threat, for example coastal defences, flood barriers, steps to prevent avalanches.  Nobody would expect any other kind of response (cost/benefit aside).  So why, when the threat is man-made, does the option of taking steps to address it get thrown out of the window?

If you were making a different point then please do clarify and we will engage further, perhaps.

---

Well, that sounds rather expensive, plus your robot legs might crush some polar bears or something. You could just pay me now to not break your legs, it'd be cheaper!

Yeah... I have stretched this analogy beyond its limit.