COVID-19 INFORMATION What you need to know about the coronavirus if you are living in Japan or planning a visit.
politics

Japan to keep pushing coal in developing world despite criticism

76 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

76 Comments
Login to comment

Of course Japan is pushing to develop coal fired power stations in the world (dispite Japan's own coal mines in Hokkaido being closed in the 1990's).

Japan wants the coal for itself.

-15 ( +1 / -16 )

I'm glad Abe wasn't allowed to address the UN on green issues, it would have been such a farce

14 ( +20 / -6 )

Another propaganda article from the fake news. Who is gullible enough to swallow this?

-23 ( +7 / -30 )

Instead of providing loans for dirty coal fired plants built to the minimum safety standards it should be pushing clean energy technology.

15 ( +20 / -5 )

@WilliB

What's fake about it? That Japan is being criticized or that they are backing coal?

28 ( +29 / -1 )

WilliBToday 04:22 pm JST

Another propaganda article from the fake news. Who is gullible enough to swallow this?

Ignore the tired propaganda of America's far right.

http://www.nocoaljapan.org/

14 ( +19 / -5 )

Japan is always so desperate for approval and yet does things like this. What a funny country

5 ( +14 / -9 )

Another propaganda article from the fake news.

Those globalists misbehaving again, eh?

9 ( +9 / -0 )

Beijing air pollution appears a lot improved. They are building nuclear power plants one after another. You are not worried about increased nuclear power plants in China. China may be helping developing countries in building nuclear power plants in the future.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Russia is financing Vietnam's first nuclear powr plant if it Vietnam decides in 2020 to go ahead. Japan is financing, and providing technology, for coal plants. Which is better, safer. for the people of Vietnam?

4 ( +10 / -6 )

OssanAmerica, which do you think?

-8 ( +4 / -12 )

Russia is financing Vietnam's first nuclear powr plant if it Vietnam decides in 2020 to go ahead. Japan is financing, and providing technology, for coal plants. Which is better, safer. for the people of Vietnam?

If there were only two choices, you’d have a point. Good thing reality doesn’t exist in a vacuum that restricts everything to a duality.

3 ( +15 / -12 )

China builds one new coal fired power plant every day. They are also building them in other countries.

Mapped the World's Coal Fired Plants

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

14 ( +15 / -1 )

Japanese should be disgusted with their leadership who make it worse by pretending to care about the environment.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

Coal vs nuclear?

Coal&Nuclear vs clean safe energies?

9 ( +10 / -1 )

The enviromentalists dont want nuclear power, they dont want coal power and in many case thermal power is not an alternative, yet they expect the lives of millions to be improved in the developing world and everyone to receive a liveable wage but they have no real solutions or alternatives.

The world will soon also find that ocean freight will be prohibitive with the new regulations and pricing to cover the fuel oil surcharge.

Coal power for now is where most people will get their electricity , Oil is where most people will get their fuel for the near future, until some one finds the next jar of magic fairy dust or comes up with a safe clean power source.

3 ( +17 / -14 )

Coal is intrinsically dirty, archaic technologically and progressively less and less economic. The impact of Nuclear very much depends on the system you build and what you are seeking to achieve. Using the old fashioned, inefficient and intrinsically unsafe systems that are currently in use or the supposedly improved systems currently being built/offered by the legacy nuclear industry, which were designed with other priorities than safe, clean power in mind (primarily producing weapons grade materials or in the case of pressure water reactors, small but powerful units for submarines), then there is no real case for them as their intrinsic lack of safety requires so many expensive safety system and massive containment structures as to make them very expensive, difficult and slow to build and a huge environmental footprint in constructing and operating them, including the unsolved disposal problems.

There are intrinsically safer systems available or being developed, which consequently are cheaper and quickly (comparable with conventional power stations) built but the heritage nuclear industry does all it can to block it as they don’t have the technology so will go out of business.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Nuclear power plants takes ten years to build and very expensive.

42% of Vietnamese power is generated by hydro. Underused strong wind power and solar energies. 29% is from coal. 22% from gas.

Total power demand is about 34GW/145TWh

10 ( +13 / -3 )

zichi

Coal vs nuclear?

It's an understandable choice for Japan: Coal.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

MSR, while the more radical environmentalist lobby (whose deluded mouthpiece Greta Thundermouth espouses) advocate measures that would be the death of technological civilisation and lead to the starvation of a large percentage of the worlds population, it does not unfortunately change the underlying premise they use to justify their radical and impractical and deeply anti-technological agenda. The answer lies as so often the case in a mixture of things both on the supply side and on the consumption side, reduction of resource utilisation through efficiency and some lifestyle changes, changes to the industrial economic model becoming less dependant on manufacture and one off sale of products and adoption of the circular economy (so the economy changes, companies remain profitable, society and the economy doesn’t collapse) and on energy production adoption of a mixed model of resources and management of the supply. I will leave it at that before this post becomes a treatise!

-4 ( +10 / -14 )

The enviromentalists dont want nuclear power, they dont want coal power and in many case thermal power is not an alternative, yet they expect the lives of millions to be improved in the developing world and everyone to receive a liveable wage

So you don't think we should be trying to attain these things?

8 ( +8 / -0 )

There was potentially a lot more money to be made from the development of clean energy infrastructure than from selling coal-burning technology - but Japan let China beat them to it, and as usual they are stuck in third place, selling outdated goods. This is what happens when the central government of one command economy is better than that of another at planning and mobilizing resources.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Some of the working conditions in these developing countries is sketchy at best. I wonder why someone hasn't connected a bunch of workers up to treadmills in order to generate energy with a scary whipper snapper on a raised podium barking orders. I am half joking, but I can just imagine a sweatshop filled with hundreds pour souls watching Zwift on their stationary recumbent bicycles all day. Of course you have to feed them and your water bill would be enormous. How much does it cost to build a coal powered plant by the way?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Be it Bangla or Mongolia “cutting-edge” is as far away as the pacific is from the atlantic.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why is Japan being bullied again? Nothing wrong with assisting third world nations like Vietnam and Bangladesh try to to become developed within 30 years, by helping them with Clean coal power plants. Would people rather Communist China help them with nuclear.

Why isnt Communist China or India being criticized for building more and more coal plants domestic and overseas?

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Why isnt Communist China or India being criticized for building more and more coal plants domestic and overseas?

They are, cobber.

15 ( +15 / -0 )

Clean coal is an oxymoron. Fictional greenwash.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

expat:

... a lot more money to be made from the development of clean energy infrastructure than from selling coal-burning technology - but Japan let China beat them to it...

But the reality coal burning in China is:

'https://www.iea.org/countries/china

0 ( +2 / -2 )

despite international efforts to move away from climate change-causing fossil fuels.

UN can say anything because they have no responsibility to sustain energy to support people. They are not government of any people. They are nothing but a big mouth without any substance.

Now let's look at the reality of energy consumption in USA and China, the two biggest economies of the world.

USA: https://www.iea.org/countries/united-states

CHINA: https://www.iea.org/countries/china

Don't let them tell you that you can use only renewable energy - until they clean up themselves.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

The post isn't about the use of of coal, or anything else in Japan. It's about Japan financing coal fired power plants in other countries like Vietnam.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Why is Japan being bullied again?

Yeah...you know those foreign bullies just dont understand the Japanese culture of shuffling the taxpayer yen to J-Inc via contracts for J companies to build polluting power plants in the third world.

Tell you what, bet Japan would be very highly praised by the big bad gaikoku if only they invested in green technology after that Daiichi mother of all fiascos and were pushing those instead.

Why isnt Communist China or India being criticized for building more and more coal plants domestic and overseas?

They do get criticised , but this just so happens to be a forum for Japan Today so.....you know...

8 ( +11 / -3 )

The cost of building a power plant depends on which country, and the levels of technology and safety features.

Coal fired power plants $3,500/kW. 600mW plant would cost $2 billion.

Gas fired power plants $3,000/kW.

Nuclear power plants $6,000/kW.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Climate change is a farce, along with Global Warming. Better to burn the coal than chop and burn the trees. The earth is ever changing, along with it comes the natural phenoms called climate change and global warming. Nothing more than nature doing its thing. We just need to learn to adapt with the changes. That's it.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Here in Canada, from what I read last week, a new and much-smaller-than-usual (much less costly and a lot less risky) nuclear power plant has been developed. Time to think outside the box, people!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

“The climate change hoax has collapsed. A devastating series of research papers has just been published, revealing that human activity can account for no more than a .01°C rise in global temperatures, meaning that all the human activity targeted by radical climate change alarmists — combustion engines, airplane flights, diesel tractors — has virtually no measurable impact on the temperature of the planet.

Finnish scientists spearheaded the research, releasing a paper entitled, “No Experimental Evidence for the Significant Anthropogenic Climate Change.”

The paper explains that IPCC analysis of global temperatures suffers from a glaring error — namely, failure to account for “influences of low cloud cover” and how it impacts global temperatures. Natural variations in low cloud cover, which are strongly influenced by cosmic radiation’s ability to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere due to variations in the strength of our planet’s magnetosphere, account for nearly all changes in global temperature, the researchers explain.

As this chart reveals, more cloud cover is inversely related to temperature. In other words, clouds shield the surface of the Earth from the sun, providing shade cover cooling, while a lack of clouds results in more warming:

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-07-12-climate-change-hoax-collapses-new-science-cloud-cover.html

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Naturalnews.com is a conspiracy, pseudoscience site with a poor history of false "news" and claims that is run by the same entity as trump.news and other biased sites.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/natural-news/

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Bing

If you actually believe a single word of that tosh, I'm very sorry for you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Nuclear power is more healthier than coal power. So restart the nuclear plants.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Sweden have expanded the renewable but have minimum effect of CO2-exhaust while they have 98 percent fossil free exhaust as effect of building nuclear plants in combination with water power plants. Nuclear is an effective tool to reduce CO2-echaust so why not use that. The radiation from Fukushima is lower than the background radiation in densely populated areas in India and the risk for lungcancer out of Fukushima will be one single percent while smoking will be 1 500 percent.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Coal will kill us and we cannot afford nuclear power. The V.C.Summer nuclear plant was cancelled after wasting over $8,000,000,000. The new Vogtle nukes in georgia are not finished, but their cost so far has pushed their power costs to over 15 cents/kWh. In contrast. Los Angeles just bought power from PV and battery arrays for under 2 cents/kWh daytime and 3.3 cents/kWh at night.

Whose power would you want to buy? Want to store some Nuclear wste for us?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Coal is cool.

-9 ( +0 / -9 )

Japan is one of the least polluting countries in the world. Since 1990 when it passed the first law against climate change on the planet.

Here's the link to the Environmental Performance Index. Where there is also the ranking for countries that pollute less.

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

Oh, by the way. Japan is the 20th least polluting country on the planet. To be exact. Being the second country on the Asian continent after Israel that is in 19th place. And behind Taiwan in 23rd place.

Japan is at the same level as Europe in pollution indices. And being a country with a population of 126 million people. It cannot be criticised in the fight against climate change.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

During an ongoing U.N. climate conference in Madrid, Japan received a disparaging "Fossil of the Day" award 

I get the impression that there are a lot of folks at the UN who would rather people in developing nations to remain poor and not enjoy the same modern day conveniences that they do - like say, electricity. These comfortable people sitting in the prime real estate in New York should consider that poor people don’t want to stay poor. Maybe they could change places with the targets of their concern and live in a mud hut with no heating or air conditioning and no running water. They would likely turn down the opportunity and suggest that the poor do as they say and not as they do.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

These comfortable people sitting in the prime real estate in New York.....

are very busy identifying all the wrongs of the world and the connection to climate change, please let them be.

Just this week a psychological connection between arsonists behaviour and climate was irrefutably established by the irrefutible IPCC. The massive Australian bushfires started by volunteer firefighters, smokers tossing their butts out the window etc have all proven to be directly related to climate change, if we don't act, climate change will change everybody, soon babies crying will trigger typhoons in western Japan and old ladies crossing the road will trigger climate induced earthquakes.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

And yet, some Japanese claim Japan is very forward in terms of eco-friendly development, and negative criticism of Japan and Abe for this is unwarranted. Losers.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Coal isn't necessarily bad if CO2 is contained in the dedicated storage. Japan has the technology

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-japan-carbon-storage/japan-carbon-capture-site-shows-promise-for-industrial-use-idUSKBN1HQ0WZ

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Seth: Do you REALLY Believe Japan is pushing it in the developing world for environmental purposes, and that these nations will be able to build the most expensive of all plants when they need assistance to begin with? What's more, the article talks about "promise" for future use, not current use, which means Japan is not currenly using using it, hasn't been thoroughly tested and/or vetted, etc. There's good Reason Japan was not allowed on stage during the UN talks the other day, and the crap they use to try and justify it to the public here does NOT work anywhere else.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

@Peter Neil

It was easy enough to find the original Finnish paper. 'Bing' was correct.

... Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

Moreover, Japanese researchers corroborated their findings.

Japanese researchers at the University of Kobe arrived at similar results as the Turku team, finding in a paper published in early July that cloud coverage may create an “umbrella effect” that could alter temperatures in ways not captured by current modeling.

https://www.rt.com/news/464051-finnish-study-no-evidence-warming/

Source: Kobe University

Summary: New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'. (July 3, 2019)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Here in Canada, from what I read last week, a new and much-smaller-than-usual (much less costly and a lot less risky) nuclear power plant has been developed. Time to think outside the box,

The problem is that developed nations remain fixated on GDP and economic growth over the well-being of its citizens and the environment.

A true paradigm shift is necessary. Without a change in priorities, the technology and outside of the box “solutions” we get will only serve to reaffirm the paradigm of putting a priority on profits above all else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

The paper you cite is not an actual peer reviewed academic paper, its just a PDF someone posted to the internet. The claims it makes have been absolutely destroyed by real scientists working in the field:

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

Summary: New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth's climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an 'umbrella effect'. (July 3, 2019)

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.

That paper doesn’t actually provide us with anything of value in understanding current climate change. It says that 780,000 years ago during a reversal of Earth’s geomagnetics, a period of increased cosmic rays that coincided with that also coincided to changes in the winter and summer monsoons.

We are neither in a period of geomagnetic reversal, nor in a period of increased cosmic rays of the type they describe, nor are we observing changes in monsoon seasons.

Literally nothing in the paper (and I read the actual paper, not just the news release summary) has anything to do with climate change today.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The claims it makes have been absolutely destroyed by real scientists working in the field

Ok, Einstein. You have all the answers so here's a challenge for you. You can win $10,000 from the NZ Climate Science Coalition if you can provide evidence of CO2 causing catastrophic climate change. All you need to do is quote the "real scientists working in the field" that you referred to to win the prize. Should be easy. The link to the challenge is in the notes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VK25sXBS7M

While you're at it, could you also give a rebuttal of a nobel laureate in Physics, Ivar Giaever, Freeman Dyson and other climate scientists, geologists etc who say that AGW is pseudoscience and a hoax. Their voices are rarely heard in the corporate media since they've mostly been sidelined. The agenda rules.

https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Why would I waste my time with any of that?

Because you are not able to show that "CO2 causes catastrophic climate change."

The burden of proof is on you to prove this. Why? Because of coming dystopian political changes, carbon taxes and control of people's lives based on a hoax.

I followed the climate-gate debacle at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia Uni and saw how corrupt scientists tried to "hide the decline" and how the scandal was soon 'disappeared' from the media. I saw Michael Mann's hockey-stick graph farce and how it was thoroughly debunked, not to mention other similar behaviour by govt and corporate-funded scientists". So like I said, the burden of proof is on you to show that CO2 is a problem to humanity.

There is no consensus. The science is not settled, it never is. The warmest scientists REFUSE to debate. Yet there are many scientists involved in climate (not just from the US, far from it) who disagree with the official narrative and who would relish a debate. I've read and listened to many of them talk about this issue and explain why it's a non-issue. I would like to see a debate but the public is not given the opportunity, we only hear the shrill voices from the media, the politicians, pro-warming scientists who go unchallenged, fanatic groups like extinction rebellion, an abused teenager (Greta Thunberg), who treat CO2 like a poison when it's a life gas. It's brainwashing on a massive scale through heavy duty repetition, specious arguments and the blocking out of all dissent.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There only needs to be one scientist who disagrees with the official narrative for it not to be a consensus.

What?

I guess this explains the confusion - you don’t know what the world consensus means.

Consensus:

1) majority of opinion: 

2) general agreement or concord; harmony

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Technically you're right but you completely missed the point. There is no consensus because there are many scientists with the necessary credentials who disagree with the official narrative and who are not heard in the mainstream. Of course you don't want to hear that do you. The so-called 97% consensus is a bit like headlines from N.Korea.

North Korea Election Results - Kim Jong Il wins 100 percent of vote with 99.9 percent turnout - Reuters

or

Iraq - Saddam Wins 100 Percent in Referendum with 100 Percent Turnout - AFP

*
-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Because you are not able to show that "CO2 causes catastrophic climate change."

This is idiotic. The only way to prove it is of course to let the catastrophe happen. Its like being in a speeding car headed toward a brick wall and someone demanding proof that hitting the brick wall will be catastrophic. We have a wealth of evidence that this is the case - just read the IPCC reports (I know you haven't) - its all laid out in there.

The burden of proof is on you to prove this. Why? Because of coming dystopian political changes, carbon taxes and control of people's lives based on a hoax.

No it isn't. I'm just a commenter on a random news site. Yes, there is a burden to be met by those saying climate change is happening and it is primarily being driven by human sources. And guess what? The scientists researching this have already met that burden! This means you, being the outlier, now have a burden to convince the rest of us that the established science on this is wrong. Of course to do that you'd actually have to read what they have found, and I know you can't be bothered with that, so instead you just keep throwing this nonsense around.

There is no consensus.

Yes there is. There are no serious researchers in the field anymore who aren't in agreement on this. Look at the bloody sources you've relied on to try to prove otherwise - they are all either just non-scientific garbage, or papers by scientists who actually agree with the consensus but you've had to lie about what they've said to try to make it look otherwise. You're arguments are ridiculously pathetic.

The science is not settled, it never is.

Its true that science is never "settled" in the sense that a consensus can be overturned by new information. But guess what? Nobody has provided a scintilla of convincing evidence that the consensus on this particular issue is wrong.

I followed the climate-gate debacle at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia Uni and saw how corrupt scientists tried to "hide the decline" and how the scandal was soon 'disappeared' from the media. I saw Michael Mann's hockey-stick graph farce and how it was thoroughly debunked, not to mention other similar behaviour by govt and corporate-funded scientists". So like I said, the burden of proof is on you to show that CO2 is a problem to humanity.

Gee, you sure do subject scientists with views you don't like to rigorous scrutiny. Of course in our back and forth on here I've literally shown that you've relied on one totally bogus paper, and completely misrepresented two others.

The warmest scientists REFUSE to debate.

What is the point of debating with people who have been proven to be wrong again and again and have nothing worthy to contribute? Also, academics don't literally engage in "debates" the way politicians do. We (yeah, including me though I am in a different field) go to conferences where our works are subject to review by peers who are experts in the field. The purpose of this exercise is not to score points, but rather to expose flaws in the substance of our research so that we can improve it before publishing. We then go through it again when we try to publish a paper, the process can take years and is extremely demanding.

Climate deniers don't want to engage in that kind of "debate" because they know they will get destroyed by it, the papers espousing it aren't capable of standing up to scientific scrutiny.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

ps; when I say "many scientists" I mean thousands as seen through signatories on petitions. Here's one such petition;

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

ps; when I say "many scientists" I mean thousands as seen through signatories on petitions. Here's one such petition;

> https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/

Yeah, "many scientists" is meaningless in an academic debate if those scientists aren't actually researchers in the field and all they are doing is signing a petition instead of actually doing and publishing research that contributes something.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh and actually, I just followed up on that petition. 506 signatures, of which only 14 were working in a related field (10 in climate science, 4 meteorologists). They don't seem to have had any standards for excluding people from the group based on qualification as they've got signatures from airline pilots, archeologists and radiologists in there too.

Oh and also the substance of their message has also been thoroughly trashed by scientists who know the actual science, who explain why they get the science wrong. Not that I'd expect you to read it since I know you don't like actual science when it disagrees with what seems to be a political view you have:

https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/

2 ( +2 / -0 )

You rely on findings by the IPCC which has been shown to be corrupt. At one time it was run by a former railroad engineer, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who published IPCC reports "full of wildly unscientific errors emanating from green activists."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11441697/Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri-the-clown-of-climate-change-has-gone.html

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

Where do you draw the line?

All the predictions of rising oceans, the ice caps melting and the north pole region free of ice, no more snow, the disappearing polar bears and on and on have failed to materialise. Again, the burden of proof is on the pro-warming side to produce irrefutable evidence. Here is yet another list of names who disagree with your thinking.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Can't understand the science so you just attack the messenger?

Seriously though, the Telegraph article you cite is written by a non-scientist and the paper later printed an apology for it.

As to the "Wattsupwiththat" source, which refers to an alleged "pause" in climate change, that too has been refuted by actual scientists working in the field who have torn it to shreds (also this puts paid to the notion that real scientists aren't "debating" denier ones, taking their claims seriously like this and exploring the evidence to come to a conclusion on the merits of what they say is how academics debate):

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf342/pdf

All the predictions of rising oceans, the ice caps melting and the north pole region free of ice, no more snow, the disappearing polar bears and on and on have failed to materialise.

Uh, where in the IPCC reports - or any other peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject - does it say that there will be no more snow by 2019? Or any of that other stuff you just said.

Again, the burden of proof is on the pro-warming side to produce irrefutable evidence.

They've done that and have an extremely well informed body of scientific studies backing them up. The burden now shifts to you to provide something -ANYTHING - with an ounce of scientific credibility to show that the majority consensus (or whatever you want to call it) is wrong. You can't do that.

Here is yet another list of names who disagree with your thinking.

I'm not interested in seeing another bunch of bloody names of airline pilots and architects! I want you to provide me with some sort of valid scientific research which refutes - or even just casts serious doubt on - the central conclusions that 1) Climate change is happening and 2) human activity is a major contributor to this.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Can't understand the science so you just attack the messenger?

Projecting, no?! Go back thru your posts. Your comments are full of it; climate denier (loaded term), liar and general disparagement.

You're obviously not able to explain in your own words why a trace gas, CO2, is going to cause "catastrophic climate change" so you attack. And you expect me and the rest of us plebs to pay for it?! You should be ashamed of yourself.

I'm not interested in seeing another bunch of bloody names of airline pilots and architects!

And you claim I'm a liar?! Another emotional outburst which holds virtually no truth! The url I listed above lists the 31,000 scientists in the following fields. They are not airline pilot and architects. Your bias is fully transparent.

Quote: All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Technically you're right

Well I’m right. Technically and otherwise.

but you completely missed the point. There is no consensus

Yes there is.

because there are many scientists with the necessary credentials who disagree with the official narrative

Only those bought by industry.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Projecting, no?! Go back thru your posts. Your comments are full of it; climate denier (loaded term), liar and general disparagement.

Fair enough.

You're obviously not able to explain in your own words why a trace gas, CO2, is going to cause "catastrophic climate change" so you attack.

No, I can explain it in my own words I just don't understand why I am being asked to explain the most basic element of the science to you. Also I'm a bit unclear about what aspect you want me to explain. "How could something so small matter"? Is that it? Like the whole concept that little things can actual have serious consequences is something you are unfamiliar with? CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) rise in the atmosphere and trap heat by preventing energy from the sun from escaping. This is not a controversial conclusion. Since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, the more we add to it the greater this effect becomes. Even though it is a "trace" amount when it dissipates throughout the atmosphere, we are pumping more than 30 billion tons of it a year into the atmosphere over and above natural sources. The rise in the Earth's temperature since the 19th century coincides with a radical increase in our output of CO2 and thus the amount in the atmosphere, leading scientists to believe that the latter is a major contributor to the former. They have examined alternative explanations, some of which you have mentioned, and determined that none of them, alone or in combination, are capable of explaining the temperature increase, leading to the conclusion that the increased CO2 content of the atmosphere is the only cause that can explain it.

Not sure what is so hard to understand about that which necessitates my explaining it to you.

And you expect me and the rest of us plebs to pay for it?! You should be ashamed of yourself.

I haven't said anything about anybody paying for anything. I certainly don't want future generations to be paying for the cost of our inaction, and I certainly do feel ashamed of myself for that.

And you claim I'm a liar?! Another emotional outburst which holds virtually no truth!

Perhaps calling you a liar was a bit harsh, but in all honesty you did lie. Based on this paper here which you cited:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming/

You made this claim:

If you look at those in relation to CO2 levels you will see that CO2 follows temperature rise, not the other way round. In other words higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are an effect of higher temperatures, not a cause.

When in fact the article says the opposite:

Some sceptics – not scientists – have seized upon this idea and are claiming that the relation is one way, that temperature determines CO2 levels but CO2 levels do not affect temperature.

To repeat, the evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas depends mainly on physics, not on the correlation with past temperature, which tells us nothing about cause and effect*

Perhaps I could have given you the benefit of the doubt and simply said you were misinformed?

The url I listed above lists the 31,000 scientists in the following fields. They are not airline pilot and architects. Your bias is fully transparent.

Oh I'm sorry, you got me there. I didn't catch the fact that you had moved on from the petition containing architects and airline pilots you had been relying on earlier.

First though let me reiterate: I'm not asking for petitions by a bunch of people, I'm asking for published scientific research to support what you are saying, which you haven't apparently been able to find. A list of names isn't in itself evidence of anything useful in determining the underlying scientific question.

But I'm glad that at least you found one which doesn't have architects on it like the last one, so lets take a look at this new and improved petition you've dug up. 

(Looks at the new and improved one).

Oh no WAIT! This one does have architects on it! Basically anyone with a science degree of some sort can sign, and there is no process for verifying anyone on it.

Snopes has a pretty good run down of why that one is BS, I don't think I need to add anything to what they've said;

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Johnort:

What's fake about it? That Japan is being criticized or that they are backing coal?

What does "backing coal" even mean? What is a government supposed to do if a 3rd world nation asks for help with energy development, and you want to help?

Build a nuclear plant? Without the infrastructure that requires? I bet you would complain about that too. Hugely inefficient and unreliable windmills? Gigantic solar panel fields? Anything else?

Coal is currently the most economical and proven way to generate power. If you disagree, tell what you want the government to do.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Rainyday:

CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) rise in the atmosphere and trap heat by preventing energy from the sun from escaping. This is not a controversial conclusion. Since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, the more we add to it the greater this effect becomes.

Errr.... you do realize that CO2 is part of the natural carbon cycle, and without CO2 there would be no life on the planet, or is that news to you?

Earth atmosphere currently contains about 0.038% CO2. Of this, an estimated 4% are of human origin, making 0.00152% of the total. Of course, this is changing constantly, as CO2 is both consumed and emitted by living organisms. Historically, CO2 content has been fluctuating widely. Can you tell us what percentage exactly is the "correct" value, and why?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

"How could something so small matter"? Is that it?

The number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is counted in PPM. Of the roughly 0.041% more than 90% is from nature and less than 10% is from man (I often see 4 or 5% quoted). CO2 is denser than air and, as I remember, stays in the upper atmosphere for something like 7 years.

CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) rise in the atmosphere and trap heat by preventing energy from the sun from escaping.

So you're saying CO2 is like a blanket which traps the heat and that no heat escapes back into space? It is true that CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas (never denied that) but not on the industrial scale you're talking about. When CO2 is measured in PPM and eventually returns to the surface to be reabsorbed by the ocean and plants etc then there is no way that it can cause "catastrophic climate change" How can CO2 trap that much heat when the molecules are spaced so far apart in the atmosphere? The biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour, easily provable by noting the day time temps compared to night time temps in dry areas (deserts) compared to regions with high humidity. That is well established.

Since CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a very long time, the more we add to it the greater this effect becomes.

That's false as I understand it. See above re CO2 being denser than air and returning to the surface in a relatively short time.

The rise in the Earth's temperature since the 19th century coincides with a radical increase in our output of CO2 and thus the amount in the atmosphere, leading scientists to believe that the latter is a major contributor to the former.

How do you explain warm periods of the past when there was no industry or vehicles? What about the cooling period in the 1970s when the media and govt-funded scientists claimed we were entering an ice age? The media and magazines like Time and Newsweek were full of scary scenarios. However, the CO2 output did not drop off during that time.

They have examined alternative explanations, some of which you have mentioned, and determined that none of them, alone or in combination, are capable of explaining the temperature increase, leading to the conclusion that the increased CO2 content of the atmosphere is the only cause that can explain it.

Who is this 'They'. Please give some examples apart from corrupt scientists like Michael Mann and scientists involved in Climategate like Phil Jones.

I haven't said anything about anybody paying for anything.

No, but that is what you are supporting. Inaction on CO2 (as opposed to real pollution) is the way to go until scientists show definitive proof that it is a problem. But it isn't! More CO2 means healthier plant life and larger crops.

You made this claim:

If you look at those in relation to CO2 levels you will see that CO2 follows temperature rise, not the other way round. In other words higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are an effect of higher temperatures, not a cause.

And I stand by it. It is true that I did not read that particular article but I have read and heard elsewhere scientists/physicists talk about this before. That does not make me a liar or even misinformed. Did you look at the other link I provided? It makes sense to me because, again, there was no industrial effect on the climate in the past. Anyway that point is up for debate. As with you, I can only rely on what the experts say, on either side, but it's hard to know because debate is not tolerated.

The 800 year lag in CO2 after temperature – graphed

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming-2/ice-core-graph/

Oh I'm sorry, you got me there. I didn't catch the fact that you had moved on from the petition containing architects and airline pilots you had been relying on earlier.

I hadn't. You can look at either. Not surprising to see you ignore the others on the first one I listed. I did a search and found 1 architect and 1 airline pilot. What about the other 498? Did you look at their credentials and experience? That is deliberate cherry picking to find a couple of names that you can throw back at me which, in your narrow world, discredits the whole list.

What is the point of debating with people who have been proven to be wrong again and again and have nothing worthy to contribute?

What are you talking about!? Big name scientists as listed above whose life work has been dedicated to this and related subjects who are not on board with the agenda have been virtually shut out of all debate in public forums.

Look at the bloody sources you've relied on to try to prove otherwise

And you're quoting snopes.com! LOL. And you criticise my sources!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What is the point of debating with people who have been proven to be wrong again and again and have nothing worthy to contribute?

So the climate-gate scientists are untouchable? You're saying no one is worthy of debating these charlatans/crooks and that they are above other scientists who have not manipulated data because in your words they "have nothing worthy to contribute"? Again your hubris and bias is palpable.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is counted in PPM. Of the roughly 0.041% more than 90% is from nature and less than 10% is from man (I often see 4 or 5% quoted). CO2 is denser than air and, as I remember, stays in the upper atmosphere for something like 7 years.

Yes, but note that under the natural carbon cycle natural sources are offset by natural sequestration processes. We've upset this by adding our share which has tipped the cycle out of balance, even if we are only adding 5% of the total per year it has created an imbalance which has allowed it to accumulate in ways that it didn't previously. The total cumulative volume of CO2 in the air is thus about 30% higher (400ppm now versus 280ppm before the industrial revolution) as a result of human contributions.

That's false as I understand it. See above re CO2 being denser than air and returning to the surface in a relatively short time.

My understanding is that while individual CO2 molecules can be absorbed relatively quickly, the surplus that has accumulated in the atmosphere will take a significant amount of time to be brought down because the sinks that normally absorb them aren't adequate to cycle it out that quickly. 7 years is thus not an accurate statement about how long this stuff actually stays up there even though it could under certain circumstances be absorbed that quickly.

So you're saying CO2 is like a blanket which traps the heat and that no heat escapes back into space?

No, I didn't say anything about a blanket and I didn't say no heat escapes into space.

How do you explain warm periods of the past when there was no industry or vehicles?

The Earth getting warmer now doesn't mean that the same processes had to drive heating in the past, correct?

I hadn't. You can look at either. Not surprising to see you ignore the others on the first one I listed. I did a search and found 1 architect and 1 airline pilot. What about the other 498? Did you look at their credentials and experience? That is deliberate cherry picking to find a couple of names that you can throw back at me which, in your narrow world, discredits the whole list.

I've made this point a couple of times already: lists of people's names are pretty much useless. Refer me to papers that provide information and I'll look at them, give me a list of 30,000 names and what am I supposed to do with that? Read 30,000 names?

That does not make me a liar or even misinformed.

OK fair enough.

No, but that is what you are supporting. Inaction on CO2 (as opposed to real pollution) is the way to go until scientists show definitive proof that it is a problem. But it isn't! More CO2 means healthier plant life and larger crops.

No, the cost benefit equation highly favors doing something now since the potential costs are both extreme and the likelihood of them happening has reached a high level of certainty. Waiting until there is zero doubt means waiting until the worst has already hit us and the damage becomes irreversible, which makes no sense at all given the stakes involved.

And you're quoting snopes.com! LOL. And you criticise my sources!

Please note that I wasn't relying on Snopes as the source for a scientific argument or facts, merely for feedback on a list of names.

So the climate-gate scientists are untouchable? You're saying no one is worthy of debating these charlatans/crooks and that they are above other scientists who have not manipulated data because in your words they "have nothing worthy to contribute"? Again your hubris and bias is palpable.

Nope they aren't untouchable, their research is absolutely open to the same criticism everyone else's is.

I guess my "hubris" comes from the fact that I actually don't want to believe that this (human caused climate change) is something I have to worry about. I mean, I have kids and I don't want to think that this stuff is going to harm them and I really want someone to convince me its going to be all right and its all just a hoax that we don't have to worry aobut. But I know the processes by which these scientists are working and I know that nothing that has been presented to me that shows that they are wrong on their central conclusions, or even enough to give me a reasonable doubt about them. Pretty much all the arguments you are presenting here, and I apologize for not addressing every one of them but I have limited time, have either already been considered and rejected for valid scientific reasons, are simply irrelevant or are based on pseudo science. I am scientifically literate, I am looking for good news that would support your argument and frankly I'm not finding it (not just from you, but anywhere I look, these talking points on the "don't worry about it" side always lead to dead ends when subject to scientific scrutiny). That's about all there is to it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Apologies for the long post but to answer your Qs.

Yes, but note that under the natural carbon cycle natural sources are offset by natural sequestration processes. We've upset this by adding our share which has tipped the cycle out of balance, even if we are only adding 5% of the total per year it has created an imbalance which has allowed it to accumulate in ways that it didn't previously.

Do you have any proof that we've upset this balance? As WilliB asked above; Can you tell us what percentage exactly is the "correct" value, and why? You mentioned natural sequestration but the oceans help to keep things in balance.

The total cumulative volume of CO2 in the air is thus about 30% higher (400ppm now versus 280ppm before the industrial revolution) as a result of human contributions.

Which is still minute. Are you sure it's all down to human contributions? What about nature? I mentioned in a previous post that CO2 is slowly released from the depths of the oceans over long periods of time as global temperatures slowly rise. We're currently in an inter-glacial period called the Holocene and the planet has been coming out of a mini ice age, or the Maunder Minimum (1650-1715), so this may well be the real reason for the higher CO2 concentrations. But there's no debate so I can't say for sure.

My understanding is that while individual CO2 molecules can be absorbed relatively quickly, the surplus that has accumulated in the atmosphere will take a significant amount of time to be brought down because the sinks that normally absorb them aren't adequate to cycle it out that quickly.

The main sinks that I know of are oceans, plant life and organisms that use photosynthesis. The extra CO2 is having a positive effect in greening the earth. Even NASA, a pro-warming site says that.

The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

The Earth getting warmer now doesn't mean that the same processes had to drive heating in the past, correct?

Why not? Refer to my comment above. Mans' contribution of CO2 to the total is tiny (4-5%) and any warming caused by humans is insignificant. What causes ice ages and inter-glacial periods?!

lists of people's names are pretty much useless....what am I supposed to do with that? Read 30,000 names?

Well, you said there was a consensus and that, basically, there was no point in debating. The point I was trying to make was that there is never a consensus in science and that the debate should continue.

"If I were wrong, it would only take one." -- Einstein's reply to a NP story saying 100 physicists claim that his theory of relativity was wrong.

Waiting until there is zero doubt means waiting until the worst has already hit us and the damage becomes irreversible, which makes no sense at all given the stakes involved.

Ironically the global warming agenda has nothing to do with 'saving the earth'. It's simply a vehicle to global control by powerful interests working through the UN and governments. I don't have time or space to explain it here but you can start with agenda 21 / agenda 2030, if you can get past the algorithms filtering out what it's really about. This whole global warming thing started with the Club of Rome, an elite think tank and people like Maurice Strong (now deceased) who was connected to the elite.

https://climatism.blog/2014/01/24/in-searching-for-a-new-enemy-to-unite-us-we-came-up-with-the-threat-of-global-warming/

Anyway, don't believe me, research it yourself. It will become more apparent as things progress.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

cont.

Nope they aren't untouchable, their research is absolutely open to the same criticism everyone else's is.

Unfortunately you're mistaken. The MSM won't touch it. Again, it's not about the science.

But I know the processes by which these scientists are working and I know that nothing that has been presented to me that shows that they are wrong on their central conclusions, or even enough to give me a reasonable doubt about them.

I suggest you take a second look and stay open-minded. In a previous JT story on climate change 'zenzen' listed a few names you could start with such as Richard Lindzen. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen Wikipedia is not impartial but for individuals it's generally ok.

Pretty much all the arguments you are presenting here ... have either already been considered and rejected for valid scientific reasons, are simply irrelevant or are based on pseudo science.

Again, you're badly mistaken. That is only your perception based on looking at, I presume, main stream sources.

I am looking for good news that would support your argument and frankly I'm not finding it (not just from you, but anywhere I look, these talking points on the "don't worry about it" side always lead to dead ends when subject to scientific scrutiny). That's about all there is to it.

Thanks for your honesty. TBH there is a ton of information on this but I'm presuming you'd made up your mind and have never looked?

Australian Geologist explains climate change to the UK government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljUg2D-vBak

Another I saw recently of a forum in Canada (2 of the guys that debunked the hockey stick)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHUHsBnpCj8 (from about the 4 min mark)

My wake up call was a documentary called the Great Global Warming Swindle. It's now more than 10 years old but still relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYhCQv5tNsQ

I've also found wattsupwiththat.com to be a good source of information. It's neither pro nor anti 'climate change' but I learnt a lot there. Best of luck.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Do you have any proof that we've upset this balance?

The previous level of 280 PPM had been relatively stable for a very long time. Its now risen to 400 PPM due to human sources, and this is rising. That is the balance that has been upset.

As WilliB asked above; Can you tell us what percentage exactly is the "correct" value, and why?

The "correct" value to me, and I think most people, would be a value that kept the heating effect of CO2 within reasonable limits (ie under 1.5 degrees higher than pre-industrial levels, there is wide agreement that heating above this amount will result in significant damage). As to an exact number

Which is still minute. Are you sure it's all down to human contributions? What about nature? I mentioned in a previous post that CO2 is slowly released from the depths of the oceans over long periods of time as global temperatures slowly rise.

No I am aware that CO2 comes from numerous sources. The oceans are currently acting as a net sink for CO2, meaning that while they do release some they actually absorb more and aren't currently contributing to the increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

We're currently in an inter-glacial period called the Holocene and the planet has been coming out of a mini ice age, or the Maunder Minimum (1650-1715), so this may well be the real reason for the higher CO2 concentrations. But there's no debate so I can't say for sure.

By what process would this fact by itself explain higher CO2 concentrations? During the 7000 years leading up to 1750, all of which occurred during the current inter glacial period, CO2 levels were steady (ranging from 260 to 280 PPM), according to ice core sampling, which strongly suggests this is irrelevant. Its only in the last couple of centuries that the concentration began to rise out of its previously stable balance, so any explanation for it would have to account for that (ie something that changed in the last 200 years, not 10,000 years ago, or even during the mini ice age during which CO2 levels were also largely stable).

The main sinks that I know of are oceans, plant life and organisms that use photosynthesis. The extra CO2 is having a positive effect in greening the earth. Even NASA, a pro-warming site says that.

> The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

> https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Yup, this is accurate. But I'm not sure what your point is. CO2 does have beneficial effects, I'm not arguing, nor are climate scientists arguing, that it doesn't. The simple point is that the net downside outweighs these positive aspects (which is noted on that NASA page). Just because something is good in some respects doesn't mean it is always good in all respects.

Why not? Refer to my comment above. Mans' contribution of CO2 to the total is tiny (4-5%) and any warming caused by humans is insignificant. What causes ice ages and inter-glacial periods?!

As I already mentioned, you are fudging the data here a bit. Man's annual (emphasis on annual) contribution is less than 10%, but what we have added to the natural cycle has caused an accumulation to build up, which compounds that over time. So its incorrect to say that only 4-5% of the total CO2 in the atomosphere is attributable to humans, the cumulative effect of our contribution is about 30% (400 PPM actual today versus 280 PPM before we started dumping the stuff into the atmosphere).

If we were just entering or exiting from an ice age the question of what causes those changes (seems to be mainly variations in the Earth's axial tilt which take tens of thousands of years to play out, I think we are about 40-50,000 years from the next predicted glacial period) would be relevant. But we aren't, and there is zero evidence that those causes are contributing to the warming we are seeing today.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, you said there was a consensus and that, basically, there was no point in debating. The point I was trying to make was that there is never a consensus in science and that the debate should continue.

Here is the thing, and this is what leaves me despondent. There are two types of debate going on. One is an academic debate in which scientists do original research, subject it to scrutiny by other scientists, improve it and publish it.

The other is a public debate before the media which tends to be more political than scientific, though obviously the two become a bit intertwined on this subject.

In terms of actually understanding what is happening, the former is way more important than the latter, which is basically just noise. Its where we actually get real information (as opposed to talking points and other blah) that helps to inform us about what is really going on. Scientists going out into the field and measuring things, then telling the rest of the scientific community what their results were, and those other scientists using that information to inform their own research and on and on. That sort of thing.

Now when I look at the first debate, I see the scientists who are actually measuring all this stuff and reporting their findings and subjecting it to peer review to ensure its accuracy and they are all pretty much now in agreement based on what they have found that this is a serious problem and we need to do something about it.

I'm also really looking hard to find scientists doing the same thing and producing results that show the opposite (ie this isn't a serious problem, or humans aren't causing it) and it just isn't there. This isn't the result of some conspiracy or anything, there is a huge amount of money and prestige on the table for anyone who could provide that sort of research - but it isn't there because it all leads to dead ends in terms of explaining current climate change.

I mean, take a look at the IPCC report specifically dealing with the carbon cycle we've been talking about:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf

The IPCC I should note does not do the research, it is entirely a synthesis report based on all the available peer reviewed publications on the subject. This is a very thorough review of all the literature produced by all the scientists going out into the field and doing all those actual experiments. This is a reliable summary of the best science in the world available on that subject.

Now, again framing this within the scientific debate, how am I supposed to be convinced that all the studies, all of them peer reviewed and all of them by recognized experts in their field, are wrong on all of this? Studies which involved actual scientists doing research to the same standards and coming to different conclusions would be the main way to convince me, but these are virtually non existent. Of course there is a lot of disagreement in the scientific community (meaning "people researching this" and not "anyone who ever studied science") about the details, but they are pretty much all in agreement on the basics.

So you accuse me of getting all my info from the MSM and ignoring contrary sources, but this is false on both counts. I don't get my info on climate change from CNN or wherever, I get it from the actual scientific literature directly. And I don't ignore contrary sources, in fact I'm actively seeking them out. I mean I read all the sources you provided, didn't I? And I read them all the way through to see both how reliable they were and how relevant they were to the claims you were making based on them, and I found them to be wanting on both counts.

So this leads us to the second form of debate, which is the public/political one. You are basing most of your arguments on that one rather than the former one which is pretty much the only avenue those who are advocating your position since the body of scientific research doesn't support it.

But this isn't going to convince me. I want my opinion on an issue of science to be based on original scientific research, not on stuff that is primarily geared towards a public/political debate where the standards of discourse are way lower. Its extremely easy for people in that second debate to ignore, misrepresent, cherry pick or take out of context what the actual scientists doing research are actually saying. The scientists themselves publishing under the strict review standards that they are subject to cannot get away with that sort of chicanery and so what is being said there is immensely more reliable.

>

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The IPCC I should note does not do the research, it is entirely a synthesis report based on all the available peer reviewed publications on the subject. ...This is a reliable summary of the best science in the world available on that subject. (...and)

I want my opinion on an issue of science to be based on original scientific research, not on stuff that is primarily geared towards a public/political debate where the standards of discourse are way lower.

It may not be the best course to be basing your opinions on IPCC reports. You're relying on an organisation has been shown to be more about politics than science.

The main issue with the IPCC is that it's a body of the UN. I don't know the ratio of scientists to bureaucrats but I have read that the number of bureaucrats is high. This organisation has been shown to be corrupt and therefore any report published by them should be read with caution, no matter how impartial and diligent the researchers were. The following url gives "2 scathing reviews by scholars working with the IPCC".

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/26/two-scathing-reviews-by-scholars-working-with-the-ipcc-show-why-the-organization-is-hopelessly-corrupted-by-politics/

Though often described by scientists and media as an independent scientific organization, the IPCC is in fact an arm of the United Nations. Dr. Steven J. Allen reminded us of the true nature of the United Nations in a recent article for the Capital Research Center:

“The United Nations [is] a famously corrupt body in which most votes are controlled by kleptocracies and outright dictatorships. Most of the member-states, as they’re called, are rated as either “not free” or “partly free” by Freedom House, and both Communist China and Putinist Russia have veto power. And any settlement of the Global Warming issue by the UN would entail massive transfers of wealth from the citizens of wealthy countries to the politicians and bureaucrats of the poorer countries. Other than that, one supposes, the IPCC is entirely trustworthy on the issue. (Well, aside from the fact that the IPCC’s climate models predicting Global Warming have already failed.)”

The IPCC was created in 1988 largely due to the efforts of Maurice Strong, a billionaire and self-confessed socialist, as part of a larger campaign to justify giving the United Nations the authority to tax businesses in developed countries and redistribute trillions of dollars a year to developing nations. Strong had previously succeeded in bringing about the creation of the UN Environment Programme in 1972...

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/about-the-ipcc/

Transcript from PBS with 2 climate scientists. Are the accusations true?

The United Nations has ordered an independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change amid a growing backlash over mistakes found in its Nobel Prize-winning report on the science behind global warming. ... More recently, the blogosphere has been alive with damning blasts at what critics see as shoddy work, poor sourcing and other problems in the IPCC's 2007 report — among the examples, a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas will melt entirely by 2035, far faster than scientists have claimed, and which turned out to come from a popular science magazine, rather than a peer-reviewed paper, and a sentence saying that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation. That turned out to be linked to a report by the World Wildlife Fund, an advocacy group.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/criticism-of-climate-change-science-heats-up

I don't know how many scientists in the climate-related field work for state run universities or receive grants for their research from the government but it's not exactly an ideal situation for those that do. I'm sure the majority of them are honest but nobody wants to bite the hand that feeds them and the temptation to fudge results and data is there if they want to get future funding or even acclaim. It must be tempting to some. The peer review process doesn't always work (again, Climategate, Mann etc all looking out for each other.)

Re the IPCC report, I have no reason to doubt that the 3 greenhouse gases have increased since pre-industrial times. The sticking point is whether "this increase is the main driving cause of climate change." I'm not so taken in by the language. For example, it says;

The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence). Depending on the RCP scenario considered, about 15 to 40% of emitted CO2 will remain in the atmosphere longer than 1,000 years. This very long time required by sinks to remove anthropogenic CO2 makes climate change caused by elevated CO2 irreversible on human time scale.

"The removal of human-emitted CO2..." They make it sound as though anthropogenic CO2 is a poison! The earth doesn't differentiate between human emissions of CO2 and naturally produced CO2. It's the same. All CO2 comes from mother earth and if you take it that oil and coal are fossil fuels, then at one stage they were above ground in the distant past anyway. And does it REALLY stay in the atmosphere for that long!?

I know you're pointing out that it's man's extra contribution that will lead to some future tipping point based on the literature you've read, but that is highly debatable IMO. Based on these scary projections coming out of a UN affiliated body with an agenda, we're being told to change our ways, pay carbon taxes and even have our carbon footprint monitored once smart meters are installed. If anything I think you should be more worried about that, not global warming. Slightly off-topic but that is the main reason for the push to roll out 5G, to enable the IoT.

Anyway, I'm just a layman but I would need to see serious proof of the above claim and input from scientists who might want to challenge this assessment. There are a lot of references to future projections using words like 'very likely', 'very high confidence' and dubious language like 'irreversible' in the report but that doesn't necessarily make the projections true or a cause for alarm. From the parts of that report I looked at it seems to scream alarmism, "you need to act now", in a scientific kind of way. I'm skeptical. Again, debate is imperative. How many of these projections and estimates are based on computer models where data is manipulated or outright falsified to produce the desired conclusions? (junk in, junk out) Who exactly has the final say on this report and others? You said yourself that this is entirely a synthesis report. My words might seem harsh but we've seen this before.

They also talk about ocean acidification. I have read that it's not such a problem, if at all. I don't know the answer but the oceans are vast and deep and I'm inclined to believe that nature tends to adapt to changes like this over time anyway. We've heard of the scare stories regarding the coral dying on the Great Barrier Reef due to CO2 but is that truly the case? And if so is CO2 the culprit? Here is one example that doesn't support the narrative. How many others are there like this?

https://ipa.org.au/peterridd

RCP8.5 is the most severe of the four scenarios used in the IPCC’s AR5. A well-designed worst-case scenario, it has been misrepresented to become the basis for one of the most successful propaganda campaigns in modern US history. How this happened reveals much about our difficulty grappling with vital public policy issues.

(..) Eminent climate scientist Judith Curry gives a summary of the various uses of RCP8.5 in “Is RCP8.5 an impossible scenario?”

   •   “RCP8.5 may be useful for climate research, for considering processes in a substantially altered environment.

   •   Many ‘catastrophic’ impacts of climate change don’t really kick at the lower CO2 concentrations, and RCP8.5 then becomes useful as a ‘scare’ tactic.

   •   For policy making, I’m not sure that RCP8.5 is a useful scenario.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/17/about-the-corruption-of-climate-science/

As for real world observations and data, I believe that 1998 was the warmest year and global temperatures have generally levelled out since then. That was from satellite data if I remember correctly and included data from monitoring stations on ocean buoys too though I can't be certain, it was a while ago. As for the global network of stations measuring surface temperatures, it's a joke.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/02/alarmists-throw-in-the-towel-on-poor-quality-surface-temperature-data-pitch-for-a-new-global-climate-reference-network/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/14/170-years-of-earth-surface-temperature-data-show-no-evidence-of-significant-warming/

You mentioned rising sea levels but I've recently been reading that some glaciers have stopped retreating and have started to grow again. And island nations like Tuvalu are not in as bad a shape as we are led to believe. Researchers from Auckland university have found that Tuvalu islands are actually increasing in land mass.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery. It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html

(I think we've seen that url before ;) The article mentions that sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average. Again I'm skeptical because of the large amounts of recorded ice in and around Antartica in recent years and I recall data of average sea level being basically level throughout the years. This is backed up by people like Nils-Axel Mörner. The article comes with the obligatory referrals to climate change and how it's a threat.

By what process would this fact by itself explain higher CO2 concentrations? During the 7000 years leading up to 1750, all of which occurred during the current inter glacial period, CO2 levels were steady (ranging from 260 to 280 PPM), according to ice core sampling, which strongly suggests this is irrelevant. Its only in the last couple of centuries that the concentration began to rise out of its previously stable balance, so any explanation for it would have to account for that...

Yes, I think you're right there. Danish researchers have suggested that CO2 follows temperature by a few hundred years (previously it was longer), which I suppose means we should see a further rise of CO2 considering the mini ice age ended in the early 1700s.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

We're currently in an inter-glacial period called the Holocene and the planet has been coming out of a mini ice age, or the Maunder Minimum (1650-1715), so this may well be the real reason for the higher CO2 concentrations.

Actually, I think I originally intended to say warmer temperatures there, rather than higher CO2. My point was that the warming of the planet has been a natural process (ie; solar activity) and not necessarily linked to CO2 trapping the heat, especially if it's true that CO2 levels follow temperature. The general trend has been warming since the early 1700s interspersed with cool periods. There are researchers like Prof Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria university who has predicted that we are now moving into another maunder minimum like period again based on the quiet sun. I guess we'll find out soon enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This organisation has been shown to be corrupt and therefore any report published by them should be read with caution, no matter how impartial and diligent the researchers were.

I agree with the assertion that it should be read with a great deal of caution. But having been publicly released and subject to review by the entire scientific community who have read it over with caution I note that there haven’t been any studies refuting the core arguments in the reports (they issue new ones at regular intervals to update new research and correct mistakes as they come to light). So just telling me there is concern for bias for various reasons doesn’t convince me by itself, there is still a burden to prove the substance of what has been said is wrong, or at least doubtful, which hasn’t been met.

Based on these scary projections coming out of a UN affiliated body with an agenda, we're being told to change our ways, pay carbon taxes and even have our carbon footprint monitored once smart meters are installed.

Welll....if the projections are scary, and they are, then isn’t it appropriate for them to take a “do something” approach?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Welll....if the projections are scary, and they are, then isn’t it appropriate for them to take a “do something” approach?

Not if they're based on computer models and do not reflect reality. I mentioned Zharkova above. "If" she is correct (her paper was published in Nature/talks are online) and we're entering a grand minimum while the IPCC is pushing the evil CO2/climate change/warming scenario and how we must change our ways with regards to power generation, lifestyle and everything else, what do you think the implications of this might be? Humanity would be left out in the cold as it were. Why not be more open minded to other possibilities rather than throw money and resources at an unsubstantiated theory? If indeed a period of cooling is coming shouldn't we be preparing for shorter growing seasons, lower crop yields and issues to do with heating etc.

If we were just entering or exiting from an ice age the question of what causes those changes (seems to be mainly variations in the Earth's axial tilt which take tens of thousands of years to play out, I think we are about 40-50,000 years from the next predicted glacial period) would be relevant. But we aren't, and there is zero evidence that those causes are contributing to the warming we are seeing today.

Related to what Zharkova is saying is work done by Henrik Svensmark (Physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute). He is also suggesting we are entering a period of either stagnant temperatures or a grand minimum. A balanced interview with reference to CO2/global warming and recommended.

The Connection between Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU1qg8HceGI

https://principia-scientific.org/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ

The only other thing I have to say on the matter is that if the pro-warming scientists, corrupt IPCC and UN/govt policymakers have it wrong and the planet is entering a period of cold then who will be responsible for deaths stemming from food shortages/famine and the like?

No matter if the science of global warming is all phony... climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” - Timothy Wirth (President, UN Foundation)

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.” (and) “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.” Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society, which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.” – David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, founder of Friends of the Earth

· “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…” – IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010

There are more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites