Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
questionmark

ClarksonClimate change is not science fiction

42 posts in this topic

One of the most irritating things that climate scientists have to put up with these days is the bombardment of what I call "bollockspeak" from scientifically illiterate celebrity deniers and polemicists hiding behind their pulpits in the national press. Ignorance is bliss, or so they say, but it can also be perfidious; especially so when accompanied by the mindless arrogance and puffed-up smugness of the know-it-all who demonstrably does not know it all.

This was displayed to perfection at the Hay festival a few weeks ago. I was talking about my new book, Waking the Giant, which addresses the well-established, but not widely known, links between a changing climate and a sometimes violent response from the solid Earth.

As usual the questions at the end of my presentation were astute and well-informed. I did think it a little odd, however, that the climate change deniers appeared to be absent, or were at least keeping their heads down.

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in fairness, every week we have a new story in the media about climate change/global warming etc.

Now this article is a bit strange. I didn't get if he was global warming was real or just climate change?

As I have come to the conclusion, climate chnage is natural anyway. It's part of the Earths cycle. Global warming is man made from polution... That is how I see the difference. Now back to seeing it in the mdia every week, it's not the same story we here. One week it's Global warming by polution, the next it's natural.. this goes on and on every week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been a lot quieter recently because Al Gore has his Millions of dollars from speaking out about Global Warming and the evil Humans and now that we have peaked at the Solar Maximum its time for him to go away because over the next 5 -10 years we will see temps going back the other direction.

Climate is always changing, its not something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been a lot quieter recently because Al Gore has his Millions of dollars from speaking out about Global Warming and the evil Humans and now that we have peaked at the Solar Maximum its time for him to go away because over the next 5 -10 years we will see temps going back the other direction.

Climate is always changing, its not something new.

The solar cycle has been around since forever. It's not actually a cycle, but it is pretty close to being one. If it is what is driving global temps, then we should see temperature patterns repeating themselves in roughly nine-year cycles. There would be no new records being set. We'd just be repeating what has happened before.

Instrumental records in the central US go back to 1891 - that's called the "modern" record. Military records go back to 1828, except in Oklahoma - it was Indan territory so nobody thought it was worth keeping records. Before that, I have tree-ring records (shortleaf pine) going back to 1650. There are some post oak records that go back farther. Bristlecone records from California go back 8400 years and the European oak chronology goes back to the Ice Age. All show nothing much happening before 1908 and nearly-continuous temperature rise since then.

Since 1908, the world in general and Oklahoma, in particular, have been getting warmer. There was a brief decline in temps in the 1950s and 1960s, but otherwise, it has been getting warmer and that includes the slow-down in temperature rise since 1998. This is not at all cyclical. This is something new - something that can't be explained on the basis of natural cycles.

The term "climate change" has somewhat replaced the term "global warming" because it doesn't make sense to say "warming" when you're talking about changing rainfall patterns. Nevertheless, global warming is what "climate change" is really all about, so the two are pretty much interchangeable.

The evidence isn't all in yet, but the "wild" weather of the past five years is what we expect "climate change" to look like in the near term. If "global warming" is not happening, then this wild weather will calm down and return to normal in the next few years; on the other hand, if global warming is real, what we are seeing is just the beginning and there is a lot worse to come. Stay tuned.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy Clarkson is what is known as a Useful Idiot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

"...a pejorative term used to describe people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they do not understand, who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause."

Like George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, and Bono, they parrot whatever meme their handlers tell them to promote because they are too ignorant or afraid to investigate the matter. It's a well paying gig if you can get it.

Clarkson's job is to sell the Climate Change scam to retarded U.K. gear heads who are too dumbed down to understand they are nothing more than tax livestock to the Elites who run the scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Basic Science Of Climate Change Is Undeniable

This article concludes with the following statement:

In the end, everything about climate science boils down to one simple fact: all else being equal, increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in a mixture of gasses will cause the mixture to absorb more heat.

That is the simple, undeniable fact that underlies the science of climate change.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... yes, and that mixture now contains about 1/3 more C02 than it did for the previous 200,000 years, as measured in ancient ice samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... yes, and that mixture now contains about 1/3 more C02 than it did for the previous 200,000 years, as measured in ancient ice samples.

And that means ...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that means ...?

Depends what you want to know, for one it means that Carbon dioxide, as a greenhouse gas retains more heat than other gases. It also means that plants could grow faster (if we don't trample them down or seal the surfaces with bitumen and cement). It could mean that plants grow bigger, unless of course we kill the biotope where they would have enough water to do that and plant oil palms.

There are enough auto correctives... if humans would not be destroying them from every angle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that means ...?

That temperature rise will occur in predictable, and therefore, testable, ways like:

The greatest warming occurs in the dryest areas: it will not be uniform.

If it is not uniform, there will be places where there is actually short-term cooling.

If some places get warmer, while others get cooler, there will be greater pressure differences between warmer and cooler areas and, therefore, more storms.

Etc.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Basic Science Of Climate Change Is Undeniable

This might be true if the Climate Scam were based upon science.

It is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarkson was miffed because a sensationalist jouralist did some sensational journalism on him. Maybe he should just not give a rats buttocks what non-scientists say about his work.

If you think about it, and if what his book is about is what I think it's about, then there is just no denying Clarkson's claims. Climate change can result in rather violent and spectacular events.

  • example; at the end of the last ice age a glacier melted in NW Canada. the resulting flood created what is known as the bad lands in the state of Washington. The marks caused by rapidly flowing water are clearly visible and if there were any people living in the area then they were surley drowned and likely washed down the columbia river and into the pacific ocean.

247821405_5d2d77bb71_m.jpg

Probably Clarkson only published this article to increase the sales of his new book. Can't realy fault him for that and I may even read it, sounds interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smug man from the Guardian is exceeding himself in displaying his intellectual superiority and disdain for anyone who does not share his opinions.

"One of the most irritating things that climate scientists have to put up with these days is the bombardment of what I call "bollockspeak" from scientifically illiterate celebrity deniers and polemicists hiding behind their pulpits in the national press"

Smug man from Guardian would clearly prefer people not to have the right to state their opinions if they are not "scientifically literate" enough to satisfy his stringent criteria; i.e. if they do not agree with him.

" the mindless arrogance and puffed-up smugness of the know-it-all who demonstrably does not know it all."

oh the irony, smug man from Guardian.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This might be true if the Climate Scam were based upon science.

It is not.

So, exactly what science do you doubt and why? Where are the mistakes and/or misrepresentations that you think negate the thousands of research articles on the topic? Time to back up what you're saying. Or are you just blowing smoke?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody really read the article did they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody really read the article did they?

Your comment prompted me to actually read it. Interesting.

About "volcano storms:" they are real. And they show up in the tree-ring record, right here in Oklahoma. The largest known storm was probably Fimbul Winter (535-537 AD), apparently the result of an eruption of a South American volcano. The storm of 1886 produced the strongest tree-ring storm signal since 1650 - and devastated the livestock industry; it was a delayed effect of the eruption of Krakatoa.

One can imagine some effects like a few earthquakes being set off as a result of the shifting of water masses (Those already occur during the filling of large reservoirs.), but whole countries disappearing is a little hard to believe.

Climate change deniers would do better if they actually read the books and articles and then tried to refute them, instead of making up things the articles never said.

Doug

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeremy Clarkson, smug? What a scurrilous accusation!

Clarkson is right about one thing. Bill McGuire is a perennial prophet of doom. Read some of his books. They're full of end-of-the-world speculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Your comment prompted me to actually read it. Interesting.

Climate change deniers would do better if they actually read the books and articles and then tried to refute them, instead of making up things the articles never said.

Doug

:w00t: Sorry...I had to do that.

Edited by Michelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:w00t: Sorry...I had to do that.

LOL. I've been reading the science on AGW for the past ten years. The journals are pretty accurate, most of the time. The popular press, on the other hand, whether pro or can, often gets it screwed up. That's why most people (me included) don't bother reading these artciles - much of the time they don't get it right, anyway.

At least, I'm not making up straw men to shoot down.

Doug

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been a lot quieter recently because Al Gore has his Millions of dollars from speaking out about Global Warming ....

The charge is made that global warming scientists are in it only for the money. You see that on UM a lot. Al Gore has, in fact, made some oney from global warming; though, as a former Vice President, he could have chosen almost any topic and made a lot of money speaking about it.

There is a lot of money to be made by providing energy-efficient products for the consumer market - fluorescent ight bulbs to name one. And a lot of money will be made by the car makers if and when they get efficient electric vehicles on line. Any major change in the economy will produce winners and losers.

At the top of this page, as I write this, is a link to Jim Inhofe's anti-global warming diatribe: UM is making money off the hype, too. But let's take a look at Inhofe's campaign contributions (bribes):

For his 2008 campaign, he received $446,900 from the oil & gas industry and $221,654 from electric utilities.

For his 2010 campaign, he received $429,950 from oil and gas interests and $206,654 from electric utilities. From the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association he received $55,869. United Parcel Srervice contributed $51,850; National Association of Realtors $51,700; Nationalo Rifle Association $51,050; American Medical Association $51,000; Koch Industries $90,950.

Jim Inhofe is bought and paid for by big business and he is making a killing from global warming. We have the best Senator money can buy.

Doug

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jim Inhofe is bought and paid for by big business and he is making a killing from global warming. We have the best Senator money can buy.

Do you expect us to believe that money can influence what government employees say about Climate Change?

Nice conspiracy theory, but no cigar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, exactly what science do you doubt and why?

I don't doubt science.

Show me a climate model that can backcast, and then we'll talk about you extracting trillions of dollars from people's pockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you expect us to believe that money can influence what government employees say about Climate Change?

Nice conspiracy theory, but no cigar.

Is this a joke?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you expect us to believe that money can influence what government employees say about Climate Change?

Nice conspiracy theory, but no cigar.

I admit that Wikipedia is not the best source, but do you think the dollar figures they give are wrong? People don't contribute large amounts of money to political candidates unless they want something in return. "Contributions" to Jim Inhofe's political campaigns total over $1.2 million in just 2008 and 2010 alone. Inhofe has been in the Senate since 1994; if he didn't deliver on what his backers want, they'd be supporting somebody else.

I think it's pretty obvious that he's in the pockets of Koch Industries and others connected to Big Oil. And with Citizens United, it's going to be very difficult to dislodge them. So while it may be technically legal, it's still ethically reprehensible.

And BTW: it is illegal for a public employee (at least in the states I know about) to accept a graituity of any kind. And I might add that Inhofe isn't the only one accepting bribes thinly disguised as "campaign contributions."

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> "Is this a joke?"

Yes. It is always rather comical when Climate Grift proponents claim money has no influence on government employees because their dedication to "truth" is so pure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.