Geologist Informs UK Govt On Climate Change

[SEA]

Wont hear this on CNN or FOX

www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4X4zQu7Emw

[UKRiverSurfers]

Only watched te beginning but I guess hey says what I've said all along.

Global warming, climate change, man made is just pure Bull!

A marketing strategy - a con - a scam - the Great Green Swindle

[goodfornothin]

Problem is,,you won't hear this on Fox or cnn,,,,

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/11/more-signs-of-gulf-stream-slowdown-as-floods-devastate-cumbria-england/

(Temperature anomaly deltas in the region of the Gulf Stream are in the range of -5 C below average in the northern, Greenland melt-related, cool pool, and +9 C above average in a hot ribbon off the US East Coast. This overall new 14 C temperature variance from south to north is generating new atmospheric instabilities that intensify storm systems firing off in the North Atlantic.)

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/?m=1

(He is not a climatoligist, but he does collect the data and put it together on the sea ice pattern better than some)

http://www.exposethebastards.com/who_is_ian_plimer

"Many of the questions and answers in Professor Plimer’s book are misleading and are based on inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science. The answers [in this document] are based on up-to-date peer reviewed science, and have been reviewed by a number of Australian climate scientists."

"Plimer has also spoken at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change. Between 1998 and 2010, the co-sponsors of this conference received more than $21 million in funding from ExxonMobil and the Koch brothers."

Politicians, banks and liars are pushing the all is good bullshit,,politicians, banks, and liars are pushing green energy and carbon taxes will save us from certain doom.   

Why believe the guy yelling the loudest? I suggest look up some guys such as scribbler and look at some stats,,go outside and see for your self what's happening.

The ocean is rising,,we are loosing our bio Deversity in all regions of the earth, we are experiencing several positive feedback loops,,co2 may no longer even be a factor as  significant as the positive feed back loops. We are experiencing 1000year storms,,every week. We have unprecedented amounts of heat trapped in ocean and it's expressing itself through algae blooms, mass ocean life death, decreased ph, release of methane, and on and on. 

I personally would pay attention to who is telling you what.  We are in mitigation mode, there really is no solution at this point.  But you can keep yourself safer knowing the truth and reality of our situation on earth.

A buddy of mine posted this,,why let mining industry and oil Barrons whisper in your ears,,or some shmuck peddling his carbon credits,,,look into the numbers and go outside

"Unchecked AGW is going to wreak havok on civilization in very many ways.  It's quite likely to result in a serious drop in the total population of mankind on this planet.

I've spent the better part of 20 years following AGW, and I do it from the level of actual scientific papers as much as I'm able to get at them.  I've followed the development of the science from the early 1800's to the current state.  I've been fighting the denialists of agw..  But I also give short shrift to extreme climate effects *not* supported by the science.  It's easy for them to pull the wool over your eyes if you're not knowledgeable enough to spot the flaws in popular articles.  Many are fooled by both the deniers and the extremists in popular articles.

Most popular articles you read are pretty poor, and often don't accurately reflect what the science is telling us.  Many are written by journalists who lack a real grounding in science or have an agenda.  My only agenda is understanding 'what we know' and 'how we know it' whereever that leads.  I seek the truth to the best of mankinds knowledge.  Popular articles mostly fall far short of that.

Popular articles that include links to the paper they are talking about are more likely to be accurate than articles that don't give a link.  Articles that don't even tell you who wrote the paper or its title are usually the worst for accuracy (Why are they hiding that,  afraid you'll check and see how bad they are?).  Often you can get a author name or title to go search for and examine what the scientists really said, unfiltered through the understanding or agenda of the article's author.

The subject of AGW is extremly complex and really understanding it requires a good grounding in physics.  If science was 'hard' or 'boring' or 'I'll never need to know that' to you in school, you've got a lot of catching up to do if you *really* want to understand what's happening, why, and where its going.

Scientific papers *don't* waste time/space explaining the common physics background one is assumed to have when reading them.  Worst case if you lack such, is to read the opening section then look at the bottom of papers (just above the list of referenced papers by others) for a 'summary', 'remarks' or 'conclusions' section that's usually in more simple language.

Getting to papers:

Some publications offer free 'personal' accounts that give access to some papers.  Some papers are 'open access' and are freely offered to all.  Everything put up on the arXiv site is open access.  At a minimum even paywalled papers will give you access to the 'abstract' of the paper, which is a short summary of what it's about and can sometimes tell you what you need.  When you slam up against a paywall, you can often get around it because it's not uncommon for educational institutes to have a copy you can reach.  Ars Technica has agreements with many journals and links to papers at the bottom of their articles get you around paywalls *if* they put up an article about a new paper your interested in.

Google Scholar is a search engine that includes the scientific literature instead of typical web pages.  You can do title, author, and keyword searches.  In a search results page, you'll often notice a PDF version to the right of a main result in the list that you can reach even if the paper is paywalled.  While in a search, there's a 'options' button near the top right of the results page that leads to more ways to refine a search.  Some papers show as 'n' versions in google scholar, opening a new tab on that will show you the versions, perhaps one of them is accessable.

http://arxiv.org/find
http://scholar.google.com/

It's a very good idea when looking at a paper on a subject, to look at what other scientists say about it too.  Check for 'Citations' on the paper your interested in.  Citations point to other papers that referenced a paper you may be looking at.  Examine some, do they refute or support the conclusions of a paper your checking?  Try to get a sense of how many papers agree with or refute a paper, in other words try to see what the concensus is.  The paper your looking at may be an outlier and not generally supported.

I've been through 10's of thousands of articles, scientific papers, etc. on the AGW subject matter.  Whenever possible, I go read the actual papers.  There is *no* better source.  You may be surprised to learn

[blueplanetsurf]

This talk is pretty compelling:

https://www.ted.com/talks/anote_tong_my_country_will_be_underwater_soon_unless_we_work_together?language=en

[eastbound]

plimer is a bribed debunked purveyor of garbage--that's why you'll not hear of him on fox--cnn has in fact cited his science as trash.

fox would have no interest in debunking plimer--and there's no story on him beyond that.

but, hey, if he's your climate guru, that's cool.

[dingfix]

I can't comment on this persons credentials but he is not alone.   I remember a very detailed article some years back in Surfer mag which outlined real skepticism within the scientific community.   One key point which I noted was;

....Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation.

Someone once said "if I apply for a grant to study squirrel-breeding - no chance.   If I apply for a grant to study the effects of climate change on squirrel-breeding - game on!

Let's face it, no-one knows, climate does change.   Above all else we need balanced information so we can each decide for ourselves.

[eastbound]

ugggh--balance--a great fox tactic--as tho the climate change deniers represent any reasonable proportion of the credible scientific community. but, hey, they should get equal voice to those who agree with nearly all credible scientists. bunk!

next we'll be allowing balanced info on whether or not the holocaust happened--after all, there are holocaust deniers out there--and it's tough to get funding to study holocaust denial--but easy to get funding for study of ptsd among those who survived.

[SlatchJim]

In its most simplistic form, the earth's climate is in constant change.  I got the full lecture from Dr. Roy Shlemon during a pretty extensive fault investigation we worked on in Indio, CA.  Many more details but that's it in a nutshell.

Also in its most simplistic form, human industrial lifestyles without regard for pollution controls can foul up the atmosphere pretty awful. This is empirical evidence from growing up in the San Gabriel valley when it was the smoggiest place on earth in the 60's and 70's.  Thankfully the evidence is now in the hands of the residents of Beijing and Mexico City.  Southern California should be a model on how you do it right when it's obviously wrong.

Yea all the regs make it tough on business, but that's what is required to do it right...or right-er.  I'm sure there's a better way that working with the SCAQMD (a bureaucratic nightmare of a govt. agency to be sure). They have a unique ability to get completely lost in the minutiae and miss the real big evils in the rest of the forest.

summary, Climate is always changing, and pollution is always a bad thing.

[dingfix]

Eastbound, I think you just illustrated the very point I was trying to make.

Once everyone thought the world was Flat, then one person decided to challenge that..... Morale is the vocal majority are not always correct. 

[eastbound]

your "morale" refers to a "vocal majority"--i refer not to a "vocal majority"--i have no idea who or what is the " vocal majority"--i refer to the judgement of virtually the entire contemporary global scientific community.

[PonoBill]

Yeah, I used to bitch about balance in reporting on nuclear issues. We'd line up five serious and independent (well, sort of) scientists and they'd be "balanced" by some unqualified lady talking about babies with cancer. Emotions vs. scientific rigor. Guess what wins. Especially if the emotion coincides with your beliefs or phobias.

There's nothing the geologist is saying that isn't true, anymore than what George Carlin says. It's just not necessarily relevant to the concerns at hand. We don't really care about the earth, we care about how we live on earth. But people are selfish in general, and take the short term view. "If you give up your car and ride a bicycle your grandchildren might have a better environment". Good luck with that. You can't get soccer moms to give up their SUVs--or drive through neighborhoods a little slower, as if they cared about kids other than their own.

I listen to folks go own about global warming all the time, then you look at what they are doing personally--nada. They want the world to change, but not themselves. Hollywood movie stars driving their Toyota Pious to the jetport to get in their G5 doesn't count.

Silly shit.

[Kaihoe]

In its most simplistic form, the earth's climate is in constant change.  I got the full lecture from Dr. Roy Shlemon during a pretty extensive fault investigation we worked on in Indio, CA.  Many more details but that's it in a nutshell.

Also in its most simplistic form, human industrial lifestyles without regard for pollution controls can foul up the atmosphere pretty awful. This is empirical evidence from growing up in the San Gabriel valley when it was the smoggiest place on earth in the 60's and 70's.  Thankfully the evidence is now in the hands of the residents of Beijing and Mexico City.  Southern California should be a model on how you do it right when it's obviously wrong.

Yea all the regs make it tough on business, but that's what is required to do it right...or right-er.  I'm sure there's a better way that working with the SCAQMD (a bureaucratic nightmare of a govt. agency to be sure). They have a unique ability to get completely lost in the minutiae and miss the real big evils in the rest of the forest.

summary, Climate is always changing, and pollution is always a bad thing.

Right on the money Jim. 

Everything else is politics unless there is an easily replicated empirical test.  Just look at the demonization of fat in 'nutritional science' 

[TN_SUP]

New Jersey is in denial, as they rebuilt everything after Hurricane Sandy to the same elevations. Missed a perfect opportunity to raise coastline structures.

[Bean]

Nah...all the rebuilding that I've seen (at the Jersey shore) has been elevated...

[eastbound]

some would say new jersey just stood up to the hysteria--

prolly not those flooded again two weeks ago, and regularly now, in communities with no memory of flooding ever

those folks wish they been really hysterical and sold their properties years ago, when the whackjob scientists first started with the hysteria, when there was still a bid for their now-worthless properties

bet there are some folks in miami who wished they'd embraced the hysteria ages ago and sold their real estate