Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Geography exams turn green to test pupils on climate threat



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 September 2008
GEOGRAPHY exams in schools are changing to reflect growing concerns about the environment, it emerged yesterday.
Higher and Advanced Higher courses this year will include more green topics, such as global warming and sustainability, in an effort to make them more relevant to the wider world.

A spokesman for the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) said th
e courses would be broadened to include the consequences and causes of global climate change.

Candidates will also be given additional options for studying green issues and the chance to answer more questions on the topic in next May's exam paper.

The SQA spokesman added: "The environment, and everything that encompasses, is a particularly interesting and important area of study."

Geography teachers welcomed the changes, which they said reflected the growing popularity of the subject and the growing interest in green issues shown by pupils.

Malcolm McDonald, the president of the Scottish Association of Geography Teachers (SAGT), said: "In the Higher exam, students will get a free choice of question in the second paper. They used to have to do both a physical geography question and a human geography question.

"This is the section where students look at the important environmental and social issues which are affecting the UK and further afield."

He said recent scientific discovery had also made changes to content necessary, in areas such as atmosphere.

Mr McDonald went on: "If students are to find out the science behind climate change and the effects of increasing rainfall and changing climate on Scotland's landscape, such as landslides and flooding, they will learn about it in geography.

"Geography's strength is that the science is linked to the effects on human society and the landscape."

However, geography teachers have expressed anger that the subject is not among the choices available to students taking the new science baccalaureate.

Two months ago, Fiona Hyslop, the education secretary, announced science and languages baccalaureates at Higher level to encourage more teenagers to take the subjects.

Mr McDonald said the SAGT was astonished at the omission, adding: "In the languages baccalaureate, a space has been found for ancient Greek, which had just seven students sitting the exam in 2007, and also Russian, with 16 students.

"In the science baccalaureate, geology and management of environmental resources, mostly taught by geographers, and fabrication and welding engineering – which had just 13 students last year – are included but geography is not."

However, the Scottish Government defended the decision. Maureen Watt, the schools minister, said: "The decision to focus on science and language was made because these are key areas for education and the economy.

"While there are no specific plans at present to develop baccalaureates in other subject areas, this has not been ruled out."



The full article contains 461 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 September 2008 11:26 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Teaching , Climate change
 
1

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 00:52:25
#1 Under what system were you studying? Never been a compulsory section on that!

What is more worrying is why Geography is not included in the 'bacs'. It is a link subject between Science and Arts with a very wide remit.
2

Tatties ower the side,

Johannesburg 04/09/2008 05:08:03
So children are now to be "tested" on their knowledge of the causes of Global Warming when scientists all over the world are undecided and, although theories exist, no one can claim to have discovered an absolute reason!!!
3

Unimpressed one,

04/09/2008 07:50:50
The continuing dumbing down of Scottish education. What happens in a few years time when the media change course and the 'scientists' decide on a new theory that will fit the prevailing facts? Meanwhile will a pupil be marked down for quaestioning the myth? Will they be penalised for answering that nuclear power is beneficial and that 'renewables' are a waste of space? Think I'll tell my kids to avoid geography as an option for study, since it's morphed into 'media studies and politics'.
4

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 04/09/2008 07:55:39
Geography is about maps and ocean currents and climatic zones and seasons, etc. The climate is changing of course but then it always is. As long as the kids are given ALL the facts and ALL the conflicting theories about 'global warming' I will support this inclusion
5

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 10:13:33
#2 & #3 Keep banging your heads against the brick wall fellahs.

#4 Rulesbutnotrulers

Do you also support the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in biology classes?

As for "The climate is changing of course but then it always is.", why not have a read of the latest paper in that regard, linked to below. The point about the "hockey stick" graph is that it shows, yes that climate has changed in the past, but that it is now changing faster than ever and that the "Past decade is warmest in at least 1,300 years".
See:http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/09/past_decade_is_warmest_in_at_l.php
6

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 11:02:12
As suspected the armchair 'experts' think they know it all!
Especially #4!

Geography the study of the planet, from its very nature cannot be static as the planet is constantly changing. An understanding of the effects different factors have on this 'working' of the planet, and Man's response to those factors is at the crux of the subject.

What has been 'taught' and marked for many a year, is what these factors are, what appears to be happening, recording that and QUESTIONING that - something that a lot need to learn. Also taught how to research and question and apply the questioning to what they see.

Those are disciplines widely needed.
7

GlenB,

04/09/2008 11:15:50
#5 "Do you also support the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in biology classes?"

Actually that would be a very good idea as it would demonstrate that evidence can be interpreted differently depending on what ones starting presuppositions are.
In that way children would be taught how to rubustly challenge and test scientific theories.

Children at present are just taught that evolution is the only position so just accept it and now they want to teach that global warming/climate change is all mankinds fault so just accept it.

The real scientific evidence for both is lacking but few appear honest enough to say so.
8

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 11:56:16
#7 GlenB

There are mountains of evidence, both for anthropogenic global warming and for evolution. What there is not, nor ever could be, is absolute proof, which is what deluded individuals who don't want to believe in either demand to be shown. In so doing they demonstrate their ignorance of science: the test of such theories is to resist falsification and both AGW and evolution have done that admirably.

As for creationism, there is no evidence for it, other than the brute fact of the existence of complex organisms, for which evolution provides a vastly more coherent and compelling explanation.

The problem with AGW is that it impinges directly upon people: its truth demands changes to peoples' lives. Therefore, it is resisted by people who have little understanding of science and its methods, as these threads provide abundant witness.
9

GlenB,

04/09/2008 12:47:47
#8 "As for creationism, there is no evidence for it,"

Actually the evidence is exactly the same as that used for evolution ie. the earth and everything in it.
Evidence needs interpretation and may have different conclusions depending on assumptions.

Without absolute proof it is all the more important to teach how differences in interpretation of the evidence arise and can be tested thus giving children a proper understanding of science.
Just teaching one side as the only acceptable conclusion be it evolution or climate change will just add to the general ignorance of what science does and does not show.

The teaching of evolution is simplistic and uncritical and I have no doubt that the teaching of climate change will fall into the same pattern.
10

seanie,

04/09/2008 12:55:16
The body of scientific evidence supporting evolution is overwhelming and drawn from a multitude of discipines. As scientific theories go it's about as secure as you could possibly hope to find.

The scientific evidence for creationism is zero. Making up stories to explain things doesn't constitute evidence.
11

Vote UKIP,

04/09/2008 13:15:05
One word: PROPAGANDA

One word: PROPAGANDA

One word: PROPAGANDA

One word: PROPAGANDA
12

Unimpressed one,

04/09/2008 15:14:51
Slioch instead of being a denialist, why not accept the fact that 'climate change/global warming/climate catastrophe'is pure bunk now that temperatures have gone into reverse whilst CO2 has kept increasing? Presumably you have an alternative theory as to why the models don't fit the observable facts. Face it - you've been suckered by econuts!
13

eyeswider,

dreakit again 04/09/2008 15:31:24
This is great. There is no better education in the way of propagandistic repetition of lies than to have a lie repeated constantly and then have it shown as such.

By the time these children choose their degree course they will be well versed in how to spot charlatans. They will recognise hysteria and political interference for what it is.

Anyone who gets "taught" this will be wondering why it got so cold and why the all seeing scientists didn't warn anyone about hypothermia on the horizon.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a788582859~db=all

"Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth's atmosphere."

Bad monkey. Stop burning stuff. Pay here.


14

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 15:39:51
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671

"Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported."

But then we all knew this.
15

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 15:51:37
#15 eyeswider

That is the (at least) second time that you have link to the Russian paper that refers to an "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect".

Since you obviously think so highly of it, perhaps you could explain to us all what you understand by this "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect."

I'm sure we would all be very interested to know.
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 16:11:03
#14 Unimpressed one

Have you ever bothered to look at a graph of average global temperatures against time, Unimpressed one?

Such as this one for example?

http://news.scotsman.com/climatechange/Geography-exams-turn--green.4456561.jp#3198406

I doubt it, because if you had you would have noticed that temperatures are continually going "into reverse whilst CO2 has kept increasing". At a rough count, I make it nine times since 1975, all of which, including the present, are entirely consistent with theory.

You have never demonstrated the remotest understanding of global warming theory and your post #14 is consistent with that trend.

As for why the graph shows ups and downs, the answer is as simple. There are two factors to consider: firstly, the anthropogenic greenhouse effect is adding heat to the Earth's atmosphere at a rate such that the average surface temperature is increasing by about 0.19C per decade in recent decades. Secondly, natural variations, such as volcanic eruptions, El Nino/La Nina episodes, changes in ocean currents etc. cause variations in temperature of about the same amount (c.0.2C) in a YEAR. In other words, natural variation are about ten times greater than the slow steady, but relentless, increase from increased CO2. Far from models not fitting the observable facts, it is INEVITABLE that there will be periods of falling temperatures of a few years every few years. So far, there is NO evidence that the long term trend of 0.19C per decade has changed.
17

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 04/09/2008 16:26:06
#15 eyeswider

As for "wondering why it got so cold", eyeswider said (under The Scotsman article "Do not give up hope on global warming", published 15th February 2008), that "I speak with the utter confidence that accompanies total certainty" that "It will be cool/cold until the end of May."

In the event, May 2008 was the warmest May on record for Scotland.
18

Geomac 1,

Scotland 04/09/2008 16:54:04
Pure propaganda - questions and answers coutesy of the IPCC???
19

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 17:12:39
http://www.adn.com/front/story/503528.html
Alaska bee problem due to cold:

"An uncharacteristically wet, cold July in Anchorage and across the Interior has devastated bee season..."

http://www.homernews.com/stories/090308/news_1_005.shtml
Alaska Native Elders express surprise at cold summer:

"It's global warming? This kind of confused me. This cold summer? How come it's cold?" asked Alice Green of Nanwalek. "Blueberries aren't quite ready. Usually, they're ready by July."

"I don't call it global warming. It's global cooling. It's very unusual weather wise," said John Moonin, also of Nanwalek.

Branson's son litters Arctic wasteland with 192 flags as he fails to kayak to the north pole - now _he_ could have done with a geography lesson - it's cold up there mostly.


20

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 17:59:18
Eyeswider
Climate is a pattern over time. Weather is the atmospheric condidtions now. The pattern shows warming; atmospheric conditions are very fickle -always have been, but there seems to be a particularly fickle phase on at the moment.
The Arctic regions have experienced a wet summer - yes they have summer - its the bit when there is 24 hours daylight and temperatures are warmer than the winter! They are supposed to be a cold desert. To have RAIN you need warmer temperatures. Dampness makes it feel colder. As far as the Arctic animals are concerned, the season is haywire.

You should be thankful if the kayak expedition fails! You are not supposed to have sea ice that thin, but the very fact, it has got so far is worrying. This is the time to try at the end of 'summer' when melting at maximum.

You need to open your mind and access - something which hopefully the youngsters will be shown how to do. That is the sign of education, not indoctrination.
21

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 18:02:26
Counting system was haywire in here! My comment now appears as 1 when it was responding to something first and above is 22 when 23 appears on the list!
Crazy!
22

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 18:34:24
#19 Slioch
That was an interesting thread wasn't it. Dear me, only February.

I have since given up arguing with cherry picking religious zealots. Your quotes were from two different posts.

I got it wrong, Piers Corbyn got it wrong, William Gray got it wrong and Caleb Weatherbee also got it wrong. We all now know why (that is the beauty of hindsight) and have taken it on board. I still beat the bookies with 80% accuracy over a year.

Has it been cold this year? Just wait until November. The power companies face a windfall tax. It will be bitter.
23

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 19:00:14
#22 Resolutions -

Cold Arctic, open mind, access, education and indoctrination.

The kayak kid's post dated September 2008:
"We are still struggling to get beyond 81 degrees north. The MV ‘Havsel’ continues to push east in the hope of finding a break in the ice so that Robbie and I can paddle further north. So far, to no avail - we are right up against the edge of the ice wall."

Note the "81 degrees north" bit.

This dated November 1922:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

"The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees 29' in ice-free water."

Note the "ice-free water" bit. In November - what was that about thin ice and Arctic summer again?

From yesterday:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=12851&red=y#3403

"Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany."

In the face of an avalanche of fraud, condescension and wilful ignorance I am trying to educate myself. Thank you.
24

eyeswider,

04/09/2008 19:28:18
Future geography students, please listen to Dr Robert Carter at the International Geological Congress in Oslo:

http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&PageID=5100&ContainerID=11823&ObjectID=12520

at 7 minutes in....

"There has been no statistically significant warming of the planet since 1995, there has been no warming at all since 1998 and there has been cooling since 2002.... CO2 continues to rise....The planet is telling us it's cool"

NO ONE disputed his statement - the room was full of scientists and not one pulled him up on this.

There were also another 7 scientists on the panel (and one politico) and they did not refute his statement. They had ample opportunity.

Bob Carter is Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience. He holds degrees from the University of Otago in New Zealand and the University of Cambridge in England. He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.

For the AGW crowd; Tell him he is wrong. Go on. He is an Aussie with all the good attributes. He has thick skin, a good sense of humour and the usual Antipodean BS detector.
25

Unimpressed one,

04/09/2008 20:19:14
My kids can tell you all about the 'bad' polluters (the US, china and the UK) but can't point out where most of these places are on a world atlas. It's time to put a halt to this tripe and throw out all the leftist, eco-nutter 'teachers' and replace them with ones who were educated 30-40 years ago. Oh, and my 8 year old daughter gets colouring sheets called "Ramadam awareness week - islamic art", again from the same PC nutters running our schools. This country is fcuked by socialist bams who want to wreck our economy with green taxes then brainwash the next generation with their guff about 'evil' capitalism.
26

Vote UKIP,

04/09/2008 21:29:34
You should look at UKIP's manifesto. We're all fed up with this PC nonsense.

I like UKIP because they're not afraid to question so called "man made climate change". It's scary how the Establishment is turning its attention to the kids. I just hope that parents will counter this blatant indoctrination. Unfortunately qualifications are becoming increasingly worthless these days. The only way to pass an exam to to regurgitate a load of globalist propaganda. If you dare to use critical thinking, imagination or question the established line, then you are marked down.

The only way we can fight this poison is to make a stand. Don't be afraid to use politically incorrect language. I deliberately avoid using PC language and opt the forbidden words instead. It makes the PC morons angry, but it also shows other sceptics that the sky doesn't fall down if you call a spade a spade.

Remember that political correctness is cultural Marxism.
27

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 22:44:01
Eyewider
Are you sure that you have the correct end of the planet?

Was Dr Carter at Svalbard this year? Funny the scientists there were not saying what he is saying and also those farther north at the research station - on the ground so to speak where research is ongoing. (And international at that) They were observing the effect on the animals and birds as well as plants, recording and observing what is happening this year and are doing so right at this moment.

Have you been to these areas and seen for yourself?

Funny the sea ice this summer had retreated much farther north than they had expected. I expect, that the scientists are checking the data again. And their photos. And in Canada, what about the ice shelf? Last year it was a massive shelf lost off Antarctica. So?

Unimpressed one - educated 30 - 40 years ago and taught then how to observe, record, research, assess and draw conclusions. Taught how to use an atlas to look up and use and interpret maps as well as annotate them. That was Geography then and now. We were made aware of keeping aware of new information and bluntly these are skills that are always needed. Your 8yr old needs to be aware of cultures within this planet, to be a citizen of this planet, as we all are, and the others sound a bit below Higher standard too so they've a lot to learn yet. That is not lefty or anything else.

UKIP Propaganda? Have you been a marker in exams? Doubt it from that drivel.
28

Vote UKIP,

05/09/2008 08:01:34
#29 "to be a citizen of this planet"

You've been worshipping Obama/Gordon Brown for too long. We are not citizens of this planet. I am a citizen of Great Britain, and I'm all for national sovereignty.

You New World Order globalists can stick your carbon credits up your lying backsides!
29

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/09/2008 08:08:25
#26 eyeswider

Bob Carter continually writes articles and gives talks (as at Svaalbad, which unfortunately my antediluvian PC cannot access, something to do with "Activex WM7 not found", which use the technique (amongst others) of examining something and making it appear important when it has little significance.

He first (as far as I am aware) made the claim that "global warming stopped in 1998" in an article in the UK Daily Telegraph of 9th April 2006. His argument has been comprehensively debunked many times, eg here:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/

and here:

http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_globaltemp.htm

Assuming your quote of Bob Carter, Eyeswider, is accurate: meteorologists usually look to a thirty year period before declaring a trend to be "statistically significant", so, by that criteria, NO set of temperature data starting at 1995 could yet be regarded as statistically significant. (one would also need to quantify the level of significance - 99%? 95%? etc.).

I know you have a visceral dislike of the Realclimate site (because, I believe, it tells you things you don't want to know), but it would be instructive for you to read the following entry in which Bob carter is questioned in the blog following the following comment by Rasmus, at:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/are-geologists-different/#more-590

Rasmus was at Svaalbad and made this comment about Bob Carter's contribution:

"Robert Carter ... made a point of the last couple of years being cold. But he did not appear to understand Jansen's explanation of the difference between trends and natural variability. What really struck me was not who was saying what, but the intellectual level of discussion: the debate often got stuck at misunderstood trivialities which for a long time have been regarded as solved or explained in the climate research community. When you keep starting at square one, you'll never make much
30

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/09/2008 08:09:06
contd.

When you keep starting at square one, you'll never make much progress."

31

Resolutions,

05/09/2008 11:01:46
#30 I assume that you realise that these islands are not on a planet of their own as you seem to fantasise about!

This planet is unique in that it is 'home' to many living organisms, some intelligent, some less so, who have a common aim for the most part - survival.

Granted some seem to wish to self -destruct like selfish drivers. Trouble is they take inoocent and far more worthy lives with them.

#Slioch Thanks I was trying to remember where I had seen Dr Carter challenged - the star of eyewider! Svalbard is a magical place!
32

Vote UKIP,

05/09/2008 13:13:28
Man made global warming (aka global cooling or climate change) is a fraud. Only a few dumbed down morons still believe that governments are taxing us in order to save the planet. The rest of us know that it's a convenient way for the globalists to raise money and to control every aspect of our lives.




Global Cooling? Unprecedented Ice Storms In Kenya

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, September 4, 2008

Evidence that the planet is tip-toeing towards the onset of a new mini ice age continues to present itself following unprecedented ice storms in Kenya as well as Sydney experiencing its coldest August for 60 years. But don’t worry because according to the World Wildlife Fund, global cooling can just as easily be blamed on CO2 emissions as can global warming.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=4321
33

Resolutions,

05/09/2008 15:54:33
#vote UKIP
You are definitely well off the mark.

Try 'educating' yourself by following up some of Slioch's excellent links, which would have taken me ages to find.

Freak weather conditions,as you mention,are indicative of a disturbed atmosphere and what you need to consider are the overall trends (not the blips) and ask yourself why. Some of it is natural variation, but this is happening at a speed, never before seen from the evidence we have over a very long time. It seems likely that mankind's activiteis may be having an effect.

In this day and age isolationalist stuff you spout is Medieval. You cannot act on your own.
34

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 05/09/2008 20:11:59
#37 Ken Wyles-Thenoux

I'm not sure what the point is that you are trying to make.

Are you of the opinion that predictions had been made in the scientific literature of sea level rises of greater than that amount by 2100? If so perhaps you could point to them.

And to save you the trouble of looking, last year the IPCC suggested a sea level rise of up to 59cm by 2090-2099, but specifically ruled out from that calculation increases in the contribution from Greenland above levels already observed. The paper to which you refer takes increased contributions from Greenland into account, hence the INCREASE in predicted rise.

If you have a serious question by all means ask, but I have yet to detect one.
35

seanie,

05/09/2008 21:52:09
And a 2m rise by 2100 would be pretty catastrophic in many regions of the world.

Just to be clear to the hard of thinking...

A 2m rise in sea level wouldn't be a good thing.
36

Resolutions,

06/09/2008 00:24:57
#40 Good description of yourself hard of thinking!

Sea levels are rising in some parts and have been recorded as doing so. Predictions vary for future.And 2 metres rise can have catastrophic effects as base level changes and water couses adjust to cope. Think; think.

Heard of the Fenlands BELOW sea level now?

More important possibly is the effect on the oceam currents of the world and no-one has come up with any contradiction to that yet.
37

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 00:32:24
Resolutions - sorry for your loss. You are younger than me if your claim to have been edumacated 30-40 years ago is correct. My brain is still working ok thanks. It particulary rails against doctrinaire assertions with zero proofs. I hope that your "excellent links, which would have taken me ages to find" help to clear your head of the religeous/political aspects of AGW but, as the one who proffered them is sucked right into that shower of manure, I somehow doubt they will.

Slioch.

realclimate, tamino, wikipedia, etc. Where to begin? rc, haven't been there for a while...

On the thread you "recommend" the first dissenting voice amongst the brown nosing has had his post (#11) "edited" and gavin was straight in with a riposte - at least this guy didn't have his answer deleted - who knows if he gave a reference to anywhere other than rc or tamino or the ippc and that is the main point - we will never see dissent with science backup on rc - it is blasphemy, it causes uncomfortable guilt and cognitive dissonance that must be excommunicated. It does make me laugh now though - the thread is titled "Are geologists different?" and attempts to paint a quaint, eccentricity onto the events at Lillestrom and is written by some rasmus guy (presumably Rasmus E. Benestad, D.Phil in physics)who "didn't attend the meeting" but is obviously qualified to comment on the science that underpins the whole climate issue, geophysics.

I am on a couple of boards where rc is mentioned rarely for this very reason. And the rudeness. And the censoring of posts. And the deletion of posts. And the ad-hom attacks. And the holier-than-thou attitude of people with an obvious vested interests yet double standards. And the arrogance. And the certainty. And the constant use of the word "deniers". And on and on and on...
38

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 00:34:43
Back to rasmus' opinions:

"...the debate often got stuck at misunderstood trivialities...".

If they were either misunderstood or trivialities then 1) there is no better opportunity to thrash them out than the top conference in your field, and, most definitely, 2) global fiscal policy should not be "fixed" around them.

Bob Carter spent the whole symposium listening and participating in debate. That alone would win my vote over, say, James Hansen, or Al Gore, or Gavin S as they all refuse debate becuse the "science is settled" - very scientific. He remained calm, expressive and patient throughout. Even during statements that I was certain were loaded purely to provoke dissenters by virtue of their assumptive, and erroneous, nature.

I was going to continue this but I find the nausea overcoming me. The real problem is that both sides are looking for a knockout punch that will "prove" their point. One side does it generally without rancour, other by spitting and snarling, name calling,defamation and threats. I am glad that most of the people in my camp remain polite, even if I can no longer do so.

I wonder what car gavin drives? He can afford a good one - even though he is obviously writing on rc when he should be at work - oh yeah, that's right, NASA is a political entity not scientific so he is allowed leeway just lke Hansen. Elitists.

Anyway - "meteorologists usually look to a thirty year period before declaring a trend to be "statistically significant", " So what was Hansen doing in 1988 when he told congress that "we have 10 years before we reach a tipping point, blather, blather"? The world had cooled until '79 - that gave him just over 9 years warming to build a trend/theory out of.
OK. I pick the last ten years of falling temps and add to that the ocean temps (at depth also) which are so low that another atmospheric warming is next to impossible anytime soon - is that a less valid conclusion than his?

Someone you know, about someone you lov
39

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 00:38:58
Gotta love that it won't let me post the full name of Gavin Sch midt(We have detected some potentially unsuitable words in your post:
S. h. i. t.
Your comment has not been processed.


Anyway - here's the link again


http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002838.html

Some of the comments about rc are a great laugh.



40

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 00:39:50
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002838.html

Some of the comments about rc are a great laugh.
41

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/09/2008 07:33:12
#40 Ken Wyles-Thenoux

I asked you for a scientific reference to your previous assertion similar to, "Not so long ago, their shamens in the MMGW cult predicted 'catastrophic' sea rises of tens of metres in our lifetimes."

You don't give any, for the simple reason there aren't any. No scientist has made a prediction of that order. I told you (as did the BBC article to which you linked) that the IPCC gave a (qualified) prediction of 59cm maximum. Perhaps that is the trouble - do you understand the difference between centimetres and metres?

As for a prediction of up to 2m this century, it doesn't stop there: that rate would be continued for several centuries. If you don't find that alarming then I disagree with you. It would in the UK would see the eventual destruction and abandonment of much of London, Liverpool, Glasgow and other coastal cities as well as low lying rural areas that include our best agricultural land.
42

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/09/2008 08:35:01
#42 eyeswide

"shower of manure", "brown nosing" and you complain of rudeness! You are one of the more foul-mouthed contributors to these threads. And, as you noticed, the word on the RC thread, which you don't know, was removed.

But of course, you are merely wishing to distract attention from Bob Carter's performance.

#43 "If they were either misunderstood or trivialities then 1) there is no better opportunity to thrash them out than the top conference in your field"
No it is not, conferences are for looking at difficult grown-up stuff and new research. The schoolboy errors that Bob Carter keeps making have no place in a scientific conference, and are normally eliminated at an undergraduate level. It does not surprise me that people become angry at his behaviour. You have no scientific education and no understanding of science: that is why you are so full of bile and are taken in by fools and charlatans (there's an ad hominem for you) like Bob Carter.

"Anyway - "meteorologists usually look to a thirty year period before declaring a trend to be "statistically significant","

Yes, I didn't think you would understand that point and I should have expanded it. You pointed out that no scientists picked him up on his initial assertion - no significant warming since 1995. The reason is that they abided by that strict definition even whilst Bob Carter abused it - he could defend his absurd statement by appealing to that strict definition. But if you want some data about 1995 compared with recent times, here it is, (from HADCRU):

Five year average global temp. anomaly centred on 1995 = 0.21C.

Five year average global temp. anomaly centred on 2005 = 0.43C.

(you can check the figures here (except the site is down at present):
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2007.csv

In #17 above, I asked you what you understood by the "adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect". You don't respond, of course, because you haven't got a clue. But that doesn't
43

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/09/2008 08:35:55
contd.

You don't respond, of course, because you haven't got a clue. But that doesn't stop you linking to any bit of nonsense, as long as it says what you want it to say.

Some time ago, I suggested you take a science course. Say a one year undergraduate course in environmental science, or climate change. I assume such courses exist on the Open University, or you may live next to a college. It is a serious suggestion. It might save you from an increasingly bitter and futile old age. Being led by the nose by charlatans is no way to live, and education is the only escape.

I'm away now, for a few days.
44

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 06/09/2008 09:53:13
#47

The CRU site is now up. Hence able to use real (not approx. remembered) figures:
Thus:

Five year average global temp. anomaly centred on 2005 = 0.45C.
45

eyeswide,

06/09/2008 11:56:30
You really don't get it do you Slioch.

IPCC = political.
HadleyCRU = political.
NASA/GISS = political.
rc = activists.
tamino = data torturer.
wikipedia = overrun with activists.

I give up on your condescension and scientist bashing. You are lost. I will ignore your every post from here on in as my blood pressure cannot take dealing with wilfully blind elitists prigs like yourself.

I now know full well what you would wish I didn't. The world is waking up to your dangerous idiocy. It only takes some real weather.

You are a bully and deserve all you get, along with your perverted "friends" on real (hahahahahahahah) climate. "Being led by the nose by charlatans" - your education has not helped you in the least.

Cold. Soon.


46

seanie,

06/09/2008 14:43:05
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf

"Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of prior human history. The eventual response to doubling preindustrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet."

"Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions,for just another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for catastrophic effects."

"The most difficult task, phase-out over the next 20-25 years of coal use that does not capture CO2, is herculean, yet feasible when compared with the efforts that went into World War II. The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable."
47

Resolutions,

06/09/2008 17:18:03
Eyeswide -Suggest you follow Slioch's suggestion and follow an environmental science course, where you would be introduced to many viewpoints and have to assess and judge them as well as learning how to research and USE concrete figures collected world-wide.

Take note of Seanies last comment
"The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable"
Well said.
48

Vote UKIP,

06/09/2008 19:04:08
#36

The idea that man can change the global climate is absurd. I refuse to accept Al Gore's blatant propaganda. Do you know how much energy that hypocrite's mansion consumes? If being a climate change denialist makes me a heretic, then so be it. At least I'm in good company. I don't trust the Government.

My opinion of man made climate change is a majority view. You climate change nuts can hug trees and offset your carbon footprints if you want, just don't expect the rest of us to play along.

I know I'm helping the planet every time I start my car. Plants thrive on CO2.
49

Vote UKIP,

06/09/2008 19:07:53
Anyway, on a lighter note. Did anyone listen to Nigel Farage's speech at the Bourenmouth conference?

50

seanie,

06/09/2008 20:25:56
Unlikely.
51

Resolutions,

06/09/2008 22:32:47
#53 Al Gore is NOT the only voice on this topic by any means. You also need to read up on biogeography as well as physical geography, oceanography, economic geography and environment in general. Good 'Higher' course may do as a start!!

#54 Think it was reported that you need to change and be more open. Hear! Hear!

Besides where was he speaking and this topic was on the development of Geography, remember?
52

Spanners,

07/09/2008 08:21:11
The Socialist agenda (enviro-taxes to control capatlist markets and comrade citizens) isn't here to "teach students about climate" it's to test how well they understand the propaganda. The Socialist cronies have been installed througout all British scientific bodies and have moved into indoctrinating children, an abhorrant and immoral strategy by corrupt adults.

There's onle a few things students actually need to learn about climate to unravel the climate fraud;

1). CO2 emissions: 360-380 Giga Tons per annum of natural emissions. 6-8 Giga Tons per annum man-made emissions. Nature makes 50 times more CO2 emissions per annum than man.

2). CO2 is 0.038% of Earths atmosphere: Yes this 'greenhouse gas' is only 38ppm (parts per million). Barely 100ths of 1%. It is a trivial greenhouse gas for climate but an essential gas for life (a fertilizer/building block for plants).

3). CO2 has limited warming ability (radiative forcing) : Because of CO2's limited radiative forcing, nearly all CO2's warming ability is reached at 22ppm. So CO2 at current 380ppm is almost no extra warming than 22ppm and tomorrows predicted 600ppm will also have no additional warming effect.

4). CO2 follows Temperature: The 720,000 year geological record and the 420,000 year ice core records both demonstrate unequivicably CO2 is a follower of temperature, not a driver of temp. CO2 has no history of forcing Earths temperature because it is trivial as an atmospheric trace element and because of its limited radiative forcing.

Conclusion. Global warming is a hoax. Students may get 10 out of 10 if they answer correctly and learn that the politicisation of science by Socialist politicians, businesses and scientists all wanting funding (public money) is fraudulent and that such frauds are a jailable offence.

53

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 07/09/2008 08:54:24
57:

So how do you explain the Mann curve?
54

Vote UKIP,

07/09/2008 09:11:46
"Good 'Higher' course may do as a start!!"

Dumbed down, socialist propaganda.
55

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 07/09/2008 10:03:31
57 Spanners:

Your arguments have been dealt with many times in this and other threads. However your points 2 and 3 are contradictory.

Point 2 claims that the concentration of CO2 is trivial but point 3 implies that it is fully absorbing at 22ppm.

This deserves further elucidation. The major infrared absorption bands of CO2 are indeed saturated at sea level, but, and this is a big but, as you go higher in the atmosphere the pressure and density fall. This means that you eventually reach an altitude where the bands are no longer saturated. This altitude increases as the concentration of CO2 rises. Consequently as man adds to this concentration the insulating blanket of the atmosphere effectively thickens and the earth's temperature rises.
56

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 07/09/2008 10:08:36
60 cont:

Additionally the higher layers of the atmosphere are colder and so radiate less heat into space.
57

Vote UKIP,

07/09/2008 19:32:05
The concept of man made climate change is still bull.

CO2 levels have been many times higher than they are today, and the world didn't end. In fact, the planet thrived!

We need more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The globalist elite are laughing at the stupid fools who have fallen for their global warming/cooling fraud!
58

Spanners,

08/09/2008 06:22:01
Fred Bloggs - Posts 60 & 61

It is the hoax that's been "dealth with many times". The hoax (it's actually a fraud by polticians and carbon trading scams) is a theory and computer prediction both undone by solid (real and known) science. Every scare story has been undone, unravelled and the theory ruined. The hoax/theory does not stand the test of known science or hold water when measured by real observational measurements.

Firstly your reference to the Michael Mann 'hockey stick' graph shows you're not exactly up-to-date. It's been so soundly debunked the IPCC itself who spun these tree ring records removed the graph from their 2007 Report. Not nly was the data not correlated correctly but the comparisons against previous world temperatures were entirely inaccurate. The claims and the data were unsustainable and should have been opened to peer review beofre publication by the IPCC.

Regards your claim CO2 'gains' radiative forcing in altitude that's junk science. Indeed the 'hot spots' at altitude which you allude to have been shown to be false in altitude measurements.

In the plot from the Hadley Centre’s radiosondes, showing actual, observed temperatures in the troposphere as predicted by 5 IPCC computer models, the repeatedly-predicted “hot-spot” signature of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is entirely absent. Indeed, very nearly all observational data on mid-tropospheric temperature trends over the past half-century show no tropical “hot-spot” at all.

Similarly while CO2 levels have risen consistently for 100 years Earths temperature record shows ups and downs including coolings in the 70's and despite a 20% increase in CO2 over the last decade our temp has remained flat as a pancake. In fact the last 7 years we've actually been cooling including the 2007/8 winter the coldest winter worldwide for a century.

CO2 rising DOES NOT, and has not in 700,000 years driven Earths temperature. That's a fact and tha fact why, CO2 limited radiative forcing,
59

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 09:06:37
Spanners: The evidence for increased global warming caused by greenhouse gases generated by human activity is overwhelming and accepted by the vast majority of scientists.

The deniers like yourself have been shown in many cases to be paid apologists for fossil fuel industries or phsychologically unwilling to understand the serious consequences that the human race faces.

Your posts show no evidence of you understanding the science and your jibes of 'junk science' are a giveaway that you belong to one or both of the above groups.
60

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 15:48:08


p(h)sychologically unwilling - sums up the warmers and their shrill bleating and constant labelling of opponents as "working for the devil"

Cognitive dissonance anyone?

Seriously though - there is absolutely no point entering discourse with religious fundamentalists.

They constantly use the term "deniers" to make it seem as if anyone who disagrees with their fairy story is a Nazi. Nice people with the right ideas on how to win someone over to their side of the "argument". I see now how wrong I am to upset them and their precious consensus - whatever that is.

Shame that not a one of the famous "true believers" will debate the science in public.







61

Spanners,

08/09/2008 17:13:21
Fred Bloggs : the evidence is overwhelming the man-made warming is a hoax and junk science. The theory itself does not stand up under testing against reality. The Theory does not stand up under known scientific nowledge. It leaks, trips, falls apart and then falls flat on it's face time after time.

As do the constant shrill desperate claims "the debate is over" and "there's a consensus". The consensus is actually AGAINST man-made warming. 31,000 scientists have now signed The Oregon Petition. The 2,500 scientists of the UN's IPCC do not even support man-made warming, they have never been surveyed yet Al Gore et al take that as another arrogant assumption. Many IPCC scientists have resigned and questioned this politicised cronie of a body, the most controversial quasi-political-scientific body in history.

Even its Vice President, Yuri Isreali, has said the IPCC have made too many mistakes and over-extended the science and that politicians have been too keen to run with policy based on an unproven theory (like Iraq/WMD).

Man makes 6-8 Giga Tons of CO2 per annum compared to natures 360-380 Giga Tons. Nature is responsible for 5 times more CO2 than man. We are barely 1-3% of the 'signature' of CO2. How do imagine in your tiny mind we can control CO2? How much halucinating do you need to do to imagine curbing 50% of our emissions will change atmospheric CO2?

Not only is it folly but CO2's historical records are patently clear. CO2 follows temperature. It has never driven temperature in 700,000 years even when it's at its highest (20-40 times higher than current 380 parts per million).

CO2 cannot drive tempearture because its radiative forcing runs out of puff at 22ppm. Current 380ppm makes almost zero difference to its warming. Predicted 600ppm by 2050 will also make no difference. CO2 simply cannot force any more warming. And its warming (radiative wavelength) has been known for almost a century.

Fact after fact after fact drives a horse and coac
62

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 08/09/2008 18:46:16
65 and 66 regurgitate the phony arguments and propaganda originated by unscrupulous people with a political agenda.

I recommend that you catch the new BBC2 series by Dr Ian Stewart 'Earth - the Climate Wars'.

Watch and learn some real science and common sense.
63

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 20:49:20
Nice one Spanners.

There was a climate program on the beeb last night and I nearly fell off my plinth when the guy said that Keeling's CO2 graph was "the only piece of scientific evidence" in the whole global warming climate accelerated whatever......

Until now anything by the beeb has usually been alarmist. I was expecting this to be more propaganda but was surprised.

While I am here I must regurgitate some political agenda stuff:

"The global UAH Temperature delta from July to August 2008 was .049°C and is 0.287°C cooler than in August 2007. It becomes the fourth time the UAH data has dipped below the zero anomaly line in 2008"

As we all know weather is not climate so I must point out:

The 12 month running mean for Aug, 2008 is 0.047C

The 12 month running mean for Aug 1980 is 0.087C

Damn those political satellites they will be telling us that Alaska just had it's coldest August since.....



1980



64

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:02:04

Of course, if I remember my geography lessons from 45 years ago I must point out that it has been cloudy all year all over the world.

As it happens, clouds hold the night time temperatures higher than they would otherwise be so I guess we were lucky and June, July and now August were not colder than the last 10 years. Except they were - doh.

But that's ok because the "trend is upwards" -

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/trend


Ooops - that can't be right. Anyway 10 years is not enough time to work out what the weather is going to be like - unless you use a computer program to predict into the future.

It must be really horrible for those pesky political propagandists right now what with the world warming up and all - they must be spending their money hand over fist.



65

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:21:24
I feel really sorry for everyone who has their heating on right now - usually it would be September before we needed to do that.

Just write in to those folks at the Ministry of Defence and ask them if they are getting a good return on OUR money at the Hadley center or CRU.

Or you could ask Sir John Houghton:(margaret thatcher's hitman)
co-chair of the InterGOVERNMENTal Panel on Climate Change
former Chief Executive at the Met Office
founder of the Hadley Centre.
founder member of the International Society for Science and RELIGION
current president of the Victoria Institute(stated objective - to defend "the great truths revealed in Holy Scripture ... against the opposition of Science falsely so called.")

I am sure he will give you an unbiased non-political reason for all this that will set your troubled hearts at rest and fill your bunkers with nice cheap fuel.



66

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:37:38
I used to find this funny but indoctrinating children with lies that are only accepted by the "great unwashed" because the newspapers and TV and politicians etc tell us continuously "it is happening" "pay here" is beginning to grate.


Here is some climate mixed in with geography and archaeology:

http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/20080905/lf_afp/switzerlandarchaeologyclimatewarming

Apparently:
"Some 5,000 years ago, on a day with WEATHER MUCH LIKE TODAY'S, a prehistoric person tread high up in what is now the Swiss Alps, wearing goat leather pants, leather shoes and armed with a bow and arrows."

Then a nasty glacier came down and covered up "300 objects dating as far back as the Neolithic or New Stone Age -- about 4,000 BC in Europe -- to the later Bronze and Iron Ages and the Medieval era have been found in the site's former icefields."

Now the weather - sorry, climate, has warmed again and allowed scientists to examine what was for a long time icebound FROM FOUR HISTORICAL ERAS. Sort of begs the question - how many times has that particular glacier melted?

Damn those political glaciers - never there when you need them.

67

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:49:20

VK Raina, India's leading Glaciologist:

"Claims of global warming causing glacial melt in the Himalayas are based on wrong assumptions," Raina told the Hindustan Times on February 11, 2007. "Out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers. It is simple. The issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalized by a few individuals." Throwing down a gauntlet to the alarmists, he said "The issue should be debated threadbare before drawing a conclusion."

I bet he has heard a lot of crickets chirping while he waited for James Hansen (politics NASA) or Al Gore(Democrat) or Sir David King(codswallop) to step up to that particular plate.






68

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:49:31
Dr. Edward Wegman—former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences—demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic. Dr. David Bromwich—president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology—says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.” Prof. Paul Reiter—Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute—says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. Prof. Hendrik Tennekes—former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute—states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts. Dr. Christopher Landsea—past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones—says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.” Dr. Antonino Zichichi—one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter—calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.” Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski—world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research—says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.” Prof. Tom V. Segalstad—head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo—says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.” Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.” Dr. Claude Allegre—member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences a
69

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 21:51:42

Dr. Claude Allegre—member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.” Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right.” Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says “the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Of course all these scientists work for the tobacco miners federation so their opinions are worthless.


70

eyeswide,

08/09/2008 22:06:37
Ah but models suggest.....

Prof. Freeman Dyson—one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Even the beeb - not generally given to rocking the boat (could be political)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7381250.stm
"Professor Andrew Watson at the University of East Anglia researches carbon uptake in the oceans. He fears dangerous climate change; but he told BBC News that basic science on the carbon cycle is too poorly understood to make a meaningful contribution to models."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7081331.stm
"In these model vs data comparisons, we find gross inconsistencies - hence I am sceptical of our ability to claim cause and effect about both past and future climate states. Mother Nature is incredibly complex,