CO2 will decimate humankind, a clever bloke says so!
Discussion
Otispunkmeyer said:
I thought better of Brian cox. He is a favourite of mine when it comes to bbc science docs, but I wouldn't be expecting him to tow the line like this. Little bit of respect gone there.
Afraid he's not just line towing, he's pretty much fervant on the subject and has taken many opportunities for public swipes at polar bear cub eating climate denierannihilaters.Think he regards anyone who doesn't believe in his oft remarked 'consensus' (I think he said it again in this programme) the same way he does astrologists!
Otispunkmeyer said:
I thought better of Brian cox. He is a favourite of mine when it comes to bbc science docs, but I wouldn't be expecting him to tow the line like this. Little bit of respect gone there.
Have you considered the option that he isn't just toeing the line, but actually believes what he says?These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
Shay HTFC said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I thought better of Brian cox. He is a favourite of mine when it comes to bbc science docs, but I wouldn't be expecting him to tow the line like this. Little bit of respect gone there.
Have you considered the option that he isn't just toeing the line, but actually believes what he says?These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
to believe so....
Shay HTFC said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I thought better of Brian cox. He is a favourite of mine when it comes to bbc science docs, but I wouldn't be expecting him to tow the line like this. Little bit of respect gone there.
Have you considered the option that he isn't just toeing the line, but actually believes what he says?These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
Shay HTFC said:
Have you considered the option that he isn't just toeing the line, but actually believes what he says?
These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
Got it in one.These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
V
Please tell Huhne before he bankrupts us...
Lost_BMW said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
I thought better of Brian cox. He is a favourite of mine when it comes to bbc science docs, but I wouldn't be expecting him to tow the line like this. Little bit of respect gone there.
Afraid he's not just line toeing, he's pretty much fervant on the subject and has taken many opportunities for public swipes at polar bear cub eating climate denierannihilaters.I think he regards anyone who doesn't believe in his oft remarked 'consensus' (I think he said it again in this programme) the same way he does astrologists!
Lost_BMW said:
Shay HTFC said:
Have you considered the option that he isn't just toeing the line, but actually believes what he says?
These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
Got it in one.These threads are infested with paranoia like the whole scientific world is working together on some elaborate hoax.
V
Please tell Huhne before he bankrupts us...
Lost_BMW said:
Shay HTFC said:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I have no problems with him believing in MMGW. I'm still on the fence myself. I know that's a bit out of kilter around these parts
You were perfectly clear - maybe the dial on your irony meter is clouded?Shay HTFC said:
Lost_BMW said:
Shay HTFC said:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I have no problems with him believing in MMGW. I'm still on the fence myself. I know that's a bit out of kilter around these parts
You were perfectly clear - maybe the dial on your irony meter is clouded?
Shay HTFC said:
Maybe I didn't make myself clear, but I have no problems with him believing in MMGW. I'm still on the fence myself, which I know is a bit out of kilter around these parts
I'm on the fencen too, it's a difficult decision to make when looking at evidence... The thing about this climate stuff though is the cult like behaviour of the believers and the way some of the scientists seem to be co nducting science in a rather underhand manner. It just doesn't sit right the way they appear to have gone about things.They could well be bang on the nose, but I don't think the science is 100 settled like they claim. More understanding is required.
Cox being a Dr of science is surely in a better position than most of us to make calls on the available evidence, so maybe he has convinced himself, rightly, about what is going on. Different from a believer...that implies almost blind faith. But from what I've seen lately I would of thought he'd be a bit more critical of the whole thing.
He needs to concentrate on physics and space. He is brilliant at explaining that on the tv.
Lost_BMW said:
Paraphrasing but pretty close to:
"all the data and the computer models show that if we put this amount of co2 in the atmosphere there's a possibility we'll have a temperature rise of 4 or 5 degrees and decimate civilisation...
claims the media scientist Lord God Brian Cox, on "The Infinite Monkey Cage".
Reading this prompted me to post about climate sensitivity over on the Climategate 2 thread. It's very relevant here since it make the position clear how even 10 years ago there were admissions of inability to get any meaningful outcome from the data."all the data and the computer models show that if we put this amount of co2 in the atmosphere there's a possibility we'll have a temperature rise of 4 or 5 degrees and decimate civilisation...
claims the media scientist Lord God Brian Cox, on "The Infinite Monkey Cage".
From email 0303.txt where Tom Wigley takes on Keith Briffa and others using treemometers (badly).
cc: Simon Tett <sfbtett@meto.xxx>
date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000 12:30:43 -0600 (MDT)
from: Tom Wigley <wigley@meeker.xxxx>
subject: Re: PRESCIENT: Draft plan — updated
to: Keith Briffa <k.briffa@uea.xxx>
Keith and Simon (and no-one else),
Paleo data cannot inform us *directly* about how the climate sensitivity
(as climate sensitivity is defined). Note the stressed word. The whole
point here is that the text cannot afford to make statements that are
manifestly incorrect. This is *not* mere pedantry. If you can tell me
where or why the above statement is wrong, then please do so.
Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done
using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one
could do better with paleo data, then you’re fooling yourself. This is
fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant
claims.
Tom
Comment from WUWT
"Just check the date that e-mail was sent: June 2000! Yes, I had to look twice – because the Team knew then they couldn’t quantify climate sensitivity, but pressed on nevertheless, so that our politicians are now strangling our Economies in order to prevent temperatures from rising more than two centigrades."
Reality check: neither Cox nor any of the IPCC Gaia Priests can say what the temperature will be at any time in the future. Even carbon-climate coupled models cannot predict the future CO2 levels on which all this is based to within +/- 300 ppmv.
k! Who do we pay tax to in order to stop this evil empire of CO2? 
Trouble is, when I was in Junior School in the mid 80's, they were telling us that in 25 years time we would almost be out of fossil fuels (especially oil) and that the sea levels would have increased to possibly devastating levels. Not only that they were bleating on about cavity wall insulation , loft insulation and solar panels.
Well, 25 years later we seem to have plenty of fossil fuels, sea levels haven't destroyed mankind (or at least flooded London). In fact all of what they suggested would happened, hasn't. Surely they weren't lying to us?
In fact I remember being told by the governmetn and a tsunami of advertising, science shows on tv etc that combustion engined vehicles were evil and nasty because they spewed out horrible Carbon MONoxide, and catalytic converters should be used to convertit to HARMLESS carbon DIoxide.
Time for a tin foil hat?
Well, 25 years later we seem to have plenty of fossil fuels, sea levels haven't destroyed mankind (or at least flooded London). In fact all of what they suggested would happened, hasn't. Surely they weren't lying to us?
In fact I remember being told by the governmetn and a tsunami of advertising, science shows on tv etc that combustion engined vehicles were evil and nasty because they spewed out horrible Carbon MONoxide, and catalytic converters should be used to convertit to HARMLESS carbon DIoxide.
Time for a tin foil hat?
neilr said:
Trouble is, when I was in Junior School in the mid 80's, they were telling us that in 25 years time we would almost be out of fossil fuels (especially oil) and that the sea levels would have increased to possibly devastating levels. Not only that they were bleating on about cavity wall insulation , loft insulation and solar panels.
Well, 25 years later we seem to have plenty of fossil fuels, sea levels haven't destroyed mankind (or at least flooded London). In fact all of what they suggested would happened, hasn't. Surely they weren't lying to us?
In fact I remember being told by the governmetn and a tsunami of advertising, science shows on tv etc that combustion engined vehicles were evil and nasty because they spewed out horrible Carbon MONoxide, and catalytic converters should be used to convertit to HARMLESS carbon DIoxide.
Time for a tin foil hat?
Hmmm when I was at school in the late 70s it was a mini ice age, sorry but just because someone in a position of responsiblity says something doesent mean its true... it's just like your mother telling you "If you pick your nose your head ill cave in"...Well, 25 years later we seem to have plenty of fossil fuels, sea levels haven't destroyed mankind (or at least flooded London). In fact all of what they suggested would happened, hasn't. Surely they weren't lying to us?
In fact I remember being told by the governmetn and a tsunami of advertising, science shows on tv etc that combustion engined vehicles were evil and nasty because they spewed out horrible Carbon MONoxide, and catalytic converters should be used to convertit to HARMLESS carbon DIoxide.
Time for a tin foil hat?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff