OT: Global Warming conference

Knowing that we discuss Global Warming with respect to the thermal efficiencies of boilers etc I thought that the indicated link would be of interest to many engineers who contribute to this group.

formatting link

Reply to
Donwill
Loading thread data ...

Not very. It's just another 'we aren't causing it so we can still drive V8's' sort of thing.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I didn't think it was very convincing either. It started by seeming to say that CO2 emissions had no effect, and then changed tack and said getting warmer was good anyway.

For a coherent and well-argued exposition of a similar view, see the article by the well-known theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson: .

Reply to
Timothy Murphy

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

There seem to be a few dozen references to the declaration in circulation but apart from the claim that the conference was attended by

500 assorted scientists, economists and policy advisers I couldn't find any background detail at all and the declaration itself is full of ambiguity rather than established fact.
Reply to
Roger

(I might not proof read, but I'd hope experts would). Anything that can harm you in great enough quantity is a pollutant, and I'm fairly sure none of us would last long breathing 100% CO2. OTOH it's hardly up there with your PCBs.

Reply to
Doki

Thats a bit simplistic, How about water?

Get real, were talking here in the region of 0.03%

. My main concern is that the media choose to ignore the Declaration, I'm not qualified to judge the science but I do like to look at both sides of the discussions, and then apply a healthy dose of scepticism. Like everyone else, scientists need to eat, drink and have a roof above their heads, and there are an awful lot of grants sloshing about for environmental research providing the results agree with popular myths, statistics can be wonderfully versatile. Don

Reply to
Donwill

I expect that the Proceedings of "The International Conference on Climate Change" have not been published yet, This was just the concluding declaration.

Don

Reply to
Donwill

oxy02.news.clara.net...

It isn't, it occurs naturally in the atmosphere.

So water vapour is a pollutant too, by your reasoning.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Not true, it said "having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change."

No, they said:- "Warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Thanks for the Ref you supplied,very interesting reading. "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lambourg is also quite interesting. As is the article (written for the uninformed public) "Climate dissent grows--------" by Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 9 March 2008, P31. Best Regards Don

Reply to
Donwill

They tend to ignore Declarations like 'Why paedophilia is good for children' as well ;-)

I'm not

No one wants global warming, no one benefits from climatic instability - well except windmill makers.

The biggest LOSERS have deep pockets.

Apply your scpeticism where its appropriate.

There are far MORE grants coming from Big Oil and the auto industry desperate to prove that is Not Their Fault, and by some twisted version of neo religious morality, therefore they Don't Need to Do Anything.

Your Cui Bono is arsey versy.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@proxy02.news.clara.net...

It most defintely is. Fortunately it tends to stabilise fairly rapidly at a constant level, and come down as rain rather quickly..

However cloud cover definitely reduces diurnal swings in temp, and can cause overall warming.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

The message from "Donwill" contains these words:

Yes but where is the publicity material that preceded the conference, the list of attendees, contemporaneous reports of the proceedings, etc?

Reply to
Roger

The message from "Donwill" contains these words:

But the declaration is nothing more than a propaganda tract. When I did a search when you first posted there was no information around on who the proponents were or what they based their propaganda on. It is all very well blaming the media but the authors of this declaration seem to have made a determined attempt to keep everything but the declaration a close guarded secret.

'Lies, damned lies and statistics' but by and large the dishonesty is in the interpretation, not the underlying research.

Reply to
Roger

Thats quite pathetic, we are trying to have an intelligent discussion here.

You are making an an assumption that the CO2 produced by mankind is totally responsible for it. However, I am quite convinced that the CO2 produced by us has a very small contribution to so called Global warming

I do.

I worked in a Biological Research Establishment for 35 yrs, I know how the system works.

Don

Reply to
Donwill

rts

We don't get a choice. It's been warming for a long time.

Instability isn't the same as warming.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

rts

Cloud cover can also, through increased albedo, keep us cooler.

MBQ

Reply to
Man at B&Q

Maybe this is what you're looking for?

formatting link

Reply to
Donwill

Bit Emotional ?!!!!

I don't think so. See

formatting link
>> Like everyone else, scientists need to eat, drink and have a roof above

Agreed

Reply to
Donwill

The message from "Donwill" contains these words:

"Winners don?t exaggerate. Winners don?t lie. Winners don?t appeal to fear or resort to ad hominem attacks"

Which surely turns the president of the heartland institute into a sure fire loser.

The extracts below were taken from the Heartland Institutes website

"Written By: Dennis Avery" ...

""Most of our modern warming occurred before 1940," said Avery, "before much human-emitted CO2. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degree C--with no warming at all in the last nine years. The Greenhouse Theory can?t explain these realities, but the 1,500-year cycle does."

"The warmings have been the good times, for both humans and wild species," said Singer, professor emeritus of environmental studies at the University of Virginia. "The world today has more vegetation and a richer diversity of birds, bears, butterflies, and lichens than the planet had during the 550 years of the Little Ice Age. The cold times gave humanity famine, bubonic plague, fiercer storms, and clouded skies. People today don?t understand their climate blessings.""

...

""We?ve known for 400 years about the strong correlation between sunspots and the Earth?s temperatures," said Singer. "There is no correlation between our temperatures and CO2."

Not exactly the unblinkered voice of reason.

Reply to
Roger

Fair enough, as I've said before a healthy dose of scepticism should apply to both sides of the discussion, time will tell. Best Regards Don

Reply to
Donwill

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.