60 Leading Scientists: Kyoto is Pointless, human impact impossible to distinguish

[Elok]

And now their schools are overcrowded and like half of the evacuated population is living in hotel rooms. Houston's adaptability is a sign of human generosity, not an indication that moving tons of displaced people is a cinch.

Does anyone know how much actual science is behind the speculation that last year's absurdly prolific hurricane season was due to global warming?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Park Avenue


Yeah, this year. Some people seem to have the conception that it has been a mild, or at least a not cold winter, due to the little amounts of snow we saw.

It can be snowier in the milder winters.

It snowed last week, in mid-April.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Interestingly, London saw the fewest winter days with 10c+ maxima since 1923.

GW is about long-tern trends, not individual years, or weather events, which is why climatologists smooth out the temperature charts to 5-year averages, to get rid of the noise. It infuriates me when journalists try to blame individual weather events on GW for the sensationalism factor, since the more mundane long-term trends is what sends the chills through the spines of climatologists. The sensationalism just makes it harder for the climatologists to explain the difference between weather and climate, thus giving the denialists the oppertunity to use thier strawmen.

[Solly]

"GW is about long-tern trends, not individual years, or weather events, which is why climatologists smooth out the temperature charts to 5-year averages, to get rid of the noise"

5 years is not a long-term trend.

[MikeH]

-FACT. And you quoting results for this winter is equally pointless. (Although in a lot of predictions 'global warming' results in a colder Britain).

Good to see you've moved your one trick trolling pony off racism and onto anti-environmentalism. It's a lot less offensive.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

the problem is this - if the winter is too cold, they blame it on global warming. if its too warm, they blame it on global warming, even if its in the same location.

and im starting to doubt this whole thing about their models and stuff.

[Dauphin]

The problem is not so much with the models as it is to do with who 'they' are.

A bunch of nutters will always blame everything on their bête noire, and by extension are the most vocal when there is really nothing to see. My conclusion....only seriously listen to those worth listening to.


Which is what Odin says:

It infuriates me when journalists try to blame individual weather events on GW for the sensationalism factor

And in case of some people the GW stands for George Dubya Bush.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

and who is that?

[Solly]

What the BBC like to do at the moment is omit any mention of GW when a catastrophe occurs. When they then talk about GW at a later date, they readily use footage of said catastrophe (e.g. the Boscastle floods). Not exactly sensationalist, but partly untruthful and underhand way of going about factual reporting.

[Dauphin]

I'd trust someone who has studied the subject over a journalist trying to fill column inches.

I don't have to agree to listen to them, but if they harp on with the same flawed notion they forfeit serious interest on my part.

[MikeH]

The BBC are generally rubbish with any science story not just global warming.

[SpencerH]

I think global warming is a reasonable 'fact'. What is in question is the significance of the human contribution to that warming. Personally, I'm not willing to endorse Kyoto and ruin the world economy based on very questionable science and sensationalist news organizations. OTOH, cutting back on fossil fuel emissions is a prudent step that will be achieved anyway as the price of oil skyrockets.

[Solly]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I think global warming is a reasonable 'fact'.

Statistically significant evidence please.

What is in question is the significance of the human contribution to that warming.

Really?

Personally, I'm not willing to endorse Kyoto and ruin the world economy based on very questionable science and sensationalist news organizations.

OTOH, cutting back on fossil fuel emissions is a prudent step that will be achieved anyway as the price of oil skyrockets.

Very true. Economics not environmentalists will dictate when we move to alternative energy sources.