What happened to my Christmas spirit?

[Michaelaw]

If that's part of what the fluoride is doing then thank heaven as I am cranky enough about all this stuff. The name change to "climate change" was necessary if we are going to make some of these idiots start paying attention. They're all like "global warming is stupid, it's December and it's really cold outside." But when it's 0C in Florida and +12 in Halifax then maybe "climate change" makes more sense? I really don't think they're going to wake up until a significant amount of ice breaks of Antarctica or the Arctic and central Florida becomes beach-front property.

I find my views on climate change are summed up by this quote made by Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the University of London, Philip Stott on the issue in a newspaper article in 2005.
“Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma.”


The IPCC seems to me to be heavily biased on one area of this debate, that being how co2 emissions are affecting our climate. Like a dog in a field full of bones, they are chewing on only one. Computer modeling IMHO with regards to climate change will only give meaningful results if the database on which it depends is not only fully understood but is all encompassing in it’s ability to include the variables that are at work seemingly outside that data set. The science of “Climate change” is very new and our collective understanding of it is, at least to my way of thinking, still very much in its infancy. In short…The IPCC has a very myopic view with regards to the causes of the so called change, Many of the conclusions drawn by this team are based on non peer reviewed data provided by agenda driven, supported, observations. For example, the conclusion that Antarctica is shrinking with vast chunks of ice falling into the sea is unfounded in its scope. Further study shows that overall, the ice is growing and the apparent shrinkage is related to a very small area of the western peninsula. One of the main problems in my view is how we (The general public) arrive (without digging into the back story) upon our collective conclusions is based on what our media delivers and sadly, true journalism died around the era of Woodward and “Watergate” The receding ice cap on the Himalayas studies suggest is not a product of climate change but related to deforestation and diversion of water supplies for agriculture. Data gathered by science has been shown and even acknowledged by the IPCC as containing flaws just by improper placing of the info gathering apparatus. In this breakdown one can clearly see that satellite monitoring concludes no significant raise in temps worldwide but rather a cooling of late. To be certain of anything in this debate is pure folly in my view, as the data set is at best incomplete not to mention not fully understood by virtue of the infancy of the science itself. One glaring omission in my view of this whole charade is the sun and its well documented cyclic behavior. I’m not saying for a second that reducing our co2 emissions is a wrong approach, anything we do to reduce our carbon footprint is a splendid idea for future generations that will undoubtedly have to live with our mistakes and hopefully, in this case, wisdom and foresight. I’m just not convinced so far that we have as much control as we’d like to suggest over what the surface temperature of this world will be fifty or a hundred years down the road. At this juncture I see it as speculative at best. Not that long ago, science had all the reasons why the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth…..

Edit to add...Just found this interview online, the interesting part here is that the chief of the UK MET Office says something to the effect that long range forcasting is a very new area

LINK

Below the clip is the option to see more related clips and there are some very interesting interviews within with a lot of IPCC stuff.

PS...One of the interviews focusing on an IPCC report claims that only a very few errors were contained within the 6,000 page report...The significance of those errors that they calmly brush aside seem to me to be equivalent to a hypothetical Airbus crash at Heathrow airport on a flight originating in New York..."The flight was perfect in every respect without a glitch and would have been complete in its perfection had the landing gear been deployed when the jet hit the runway"