Part One

I hope you don’t mind if I don’t copy everything, but I did read the rest just shortening to simplify,

Not at all.

*

First I am not the IPCC or work for them, you have to stop fighting them and bring the discussion to DJY and Anthony.

The whole issue of climate change is how the IPCC is using 'science' to promote a preferred global political agenda. Regardless of whether one believes their science to be legitimate or flawed, one cannot separate it from the argument.

*

Second you say “two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger;” I don’t understand how that makes them the bad guys, those sound like good goals to me.

I've made no claim about the UN's goals; they are indeed entirely desirable. It is, however, ridiculous to promote a course of action that will not only not solve those issues, it will make life worse for many millions more.

*

Thirdly I don’t get why it matters. Let me put it this way, if you have some poor hungry people in the jungle wouldn’t using the money now wasted fighting global warming to chop down the forest, build a couple of apartments, build a polluting turn of the century factory, plant some of the new fields with crops, ship stuff to and from the people working in that new “developed place” to the rest of the world do more to help those people with hunger and poverty? I don’t see any real benefit for the IPCC to create a fake boogeyman.

Then, I fear, one has no understanding of leftist ideology and its desire for control.

*

Lastly are they seeking out the evidence? I think they are but isn’t that the definition of investigating, what should they do? Turn a blind eye to it because it is an inconvenient truth?

As I said, the IPCC is a political organisation. It is not their role to be dispassionate about the evidence of climate change; they merely seek that which supports their cause. It is they who are turning a blind eye.

*

Does any of that contradict what I said or does it agree with it? It only contradicts what you think the IPPC and Santer said. The only way to be able to say it is 100% of natural causes is if somehow you could prove that it is impossible that the man made versions of the gazes can’t make it that high (while the natural vesions can) as well as at the lower level they can’t have an impact (i.e. more man made gases don’t mean more natural gases).

Uncertainty is the whole issue. As I pointed out, your 'stable' climate has undergone radical change in the past without any help from CO₂. One must also note that in a naturally warming world, atmospheric CO₂ concentration will increase due to planetary out-gassing,

It's almost universally agreed that CO₂ had no influence before the 1950s, ergo the early 20th-century warming must be the result of other factors. Similarly, if CO₂ did become a factor during the 50s, it does not explain why the global average temperature continued to fall until the end of the 1970s. Indeed, during the 70s such was the anxiety overcooling, a group of 42 scientists wrote to President Nixon to voice their concern over the possibility of the onset of a new ice age.^{1 & 2} In addition, 'Rasool & Schneider 1971':³

"...confidently announced in the early 1970s that a new ice age was coming, and that humanity would perish. According to Schneider, because of the saturation of the principal absorbing band of carbon dioxide, the rise in temperature linked to CO₂ would be no greater than 0.1 K over the next 30 years (1971 in Science, Vol. 173. pp. 138-141). However, industrial dust would so increase the opacity of the atmosphere that global temperature would fall by 3.5 K, enough 'to trigger an ice age'!"⁴

Unlike the alarmism of today, this peer-reviewed study acknowledges the self limiting effect of increasing levels of CO₂:

"It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Given the dramatic increase in world population and the advent of cheap motoring, I believe it safe to say there is an anthropogenic component buried within the present level of CO₂. I also think it reasonable to assume the increased level of atmospheric CO₂ has contributed to the late 20th-century warming (and planetary re-greening). With a rate of rise similar to that of the early 20th century, though, we cannot just arbitrarily attribute all of the late century warming to it. If such were the case, what caused the 21st century slow down/stall? As I said:

"Yes, the average global temperature has risen. Yes, CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Yes, global atmospheric CO2 content has increased. Yes, there's likely an anthropogenic component to that increase."

However, there is no clear understanding of the size of the presumed anthropogenic component, nor is there any clear understanding of the level surface heating which can be attributed to it. Laboratory dry air experimentation can offer a clue, but dry air laboratory conditions do not replicate the dynamics of a water vapour enriched atmosphere and its weather systems. (The Charney report ponders an amplifying interaction between the two, but if such is happening it has yet to be discovered.)

With no 'smoking gun' evidence condemning CO₂ and a climate system nowhere near fully understood, the claim we can control climate by controlling atmospheric CO₂ content is dangerous hubris and little different to my speculating that attempts to do so could precipitate a counter climate crisis. Driving the planet into a Little Ice Age would be a far worse prospect than what we’re presently experiencing.

As for Santer, there is no issue of 'think' about what he did: It is a matter of record. He single-handedly altered a report highlighting the aforementioned uncertainties to one of positive attribution. In any other discipline falsifying a report would be considered gross misconduct warranting instant dismissal, if not criminal proceedings. Nothing happened. He then compounded this action, by producing a highly misleading peer-reviewed study, purportedly showing an increasing late 20th-century temperature trend, but which was, in reality, little more than an exercise in 'cherry-picked' start and end dates. Again, not only was he not disciplined, he was actually given support.

Viewed in isolation, one may consider this an aberration – albeit one which completely transformed climate science. But then we have Jonathan Overpeck bemoaning the existence of the Medieval Warming Period – and along comes Michael Mann and his hokey hockey stick graph which does away with it. The IPCC lapped it up. We then have a claque of scientists (centred around Mann) caught fudging and deleting data, and using threat and intimidation to control the climate narrative. These actions were deemed acceptable by 'investigations' so inept and cursory it gives the term whitewash a bad name. And today we have US metrological organisations systematically reshaping the American historical temperature record to allow better correlation with unverified climate model predictions. Perhaps one is more lenient, but this is not science; it is the perversion of science.

*

But you see it is not steadily.

Even though the data and IPCC agree that it is?

*

But there is. All the evidence sais the same thing, it is a matter of interpretation As to how much is man made and how much is natural. The issue I have is does it really matter ? like I said before if it is all man made then we can more easily deal with it, the more it is natural the more we need to fight nature (which should be harder).

The whole rationale for picking on CO₂ is that it's a global phenomenon requiring a global response: meat and drink for an organisation wanting global political change. The evidence that CO₂ is the problem it's claimed to be, though, is far from conclusive – hence all the shenanigans about polar bear extinction, polar ice cap collapse, accelerating sea-level rise, increased wildfires, increased weather event severity, the denigration of those who disagree, threats to the livelihoods of those who dare to do so, the shameless use of a credulous teenager etc. etc.

And if CO₂ isn't the problem the IPCC would have us believe it is, what do you propose we do – modify the ocean and air currents, change our orbital trajectory, put a large UV filter between us and the sun? Sorry, but the idea of combating nature, in this regard, is even more absurd than trying to restrict/reduce CO₂ emissions.


[1]

[2]

[3] [Link: science.sciencemag.org]

[4] [Link: amazon.co.uk]