Climate Change Politics

If you think your acidic drip drip torture will be effective then your sadly mistaken.

The truth is out there except for a few fools who are obsessed with misinformation as if it was relevant.

David Eyton

Group Head for Research and Technology, BP Plc
David Eyton was appointed BP's Group Head of Research and Technology (R&T) in April, 2008. He is accountable for technology strategy and its implementation across BP and for conducting research and development in areas of corporate renewal. In this role, he also oversees the technological capability of the company.
Prior to this, David was BP's Exploration and Production (E&P) Group Vice President for Technology, he also managed the Westlake Campus in Houston and led the development of a new approach to Petrotechnical Learning in E&P.
David joined BP in 1982 from Cambridge University with a degree in engineering. During his early career, he held a number of Petroleum Engineering, Commercial and Business Management positions. In 1996, he was named General Manager of BP's North West Shelf interest in Australia. In 2001, he became Lord John Browne's Executive Assistant in the company's London headquarters. Following that assignment, he was Vice President of Deepwater Developments in the Gulf of Mexico.

News from Down Under:

SYDNEY - Australia's Parliament defeated legislation to set up a greenhouse gas emissions trading system on Wednesday, throwing a central plank of the government's plans to combat global warming into disarray.


It is good to see that the Australians have refused to be stampeded. And, along with the scandal coming out of East Anglia in England about cooking the data on climate change, things are beginning to turn better. We'll see what happens in Copenhagen. It is pretty clear that the United States Senate is not going to be stampeded either. So, hope springs eternal.

I'm glad that, even without Wittgenstein, people can recognize that science is no ethics.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia When you consider the scandals that we see from those who oppose the idea of global warming, this is nothing, even if true.

No matter what is said in east Anglia's defence those who are fundamentally opposed to the overwhelming evidence of global warming, will use this as there only excuse to ignore all the other evidence. The selected Emails are out of context

and should never ever constitute all the evidence of global warming being ignored.

Funny how those who breached the security where very selective and excluded those that did their opinion harm.

No, much bigger money and many more lives and much more, are supposed to be at stake than any other issue, ever. Those who oppose the idea of global warming are insignificant at their worst, and in fact, thre are very very few who oppose it, period. Of course, xris cannot distinguish between those who agree that temp has gone up this century, but criticize the IPPC and Hockey Team, and those who deny that temp has gone up 3/4 of a degree or so.
you know next to nothing about that matter, but your opinion is noted and filed. It's a fact that emails can be solid evidence in court. All that has happened so far is that the inquiries have directed one person or set of persons to look at emails but not to analyze the science, while another crew looks at papers apparently selected by an insider, possibly the scientists themselves, papers that were not the basis of the complaints about the science. They did not select any of the papers that contained method that had been contested hotly, especially as to the statistical methods used.
Further the panels and heads of panels are heavily invested. Oxburgh , of course, is a GLOBE International kingpin.


I think you meant to say something like "GW should never be ignored on the basis of the email scandal". Of course, it should not be ignored, period. It would be very silly to ignore anything on the basis of a few scientists' actions, even if they are the big shots.
evidences ? of course, you have NONE.

Same old rhetoric and selective understanding.

If you refused to believe the findings, why should you believe the selected emails

when they where so obviously chosen by those who hacked the computers

. You cant have it both ways.

No amount of honest investigation would satisfy your fundamentalist views.

I know you will never accept data from any source, if it opposes your views.

I would really like to know how you can see the arctic ice retreating and not find a rising temperatures responsible?

"Selective understanding", that is a funny one for you to offer.

Because the scientists admit they wrote them. Duh !
Evidence of hacking ? again, you have NONE. Yes, they were selected, and it appears that they were selected, perhaps in order to sort through before dumping or isolating at some future time.

Incoherent statements, xris. Going with the one way to "have it", as you say, we find that in fact at least one EA University official no longer calls it a hack, but instead an unauthorized release. You call it "a hack", without a scrap of evidence to support your claim.

Going with the other "way to have it"; the emails are admittedly genuine.



a particularly weak logical fallacy presented.

mere flailing, as you know you have no grounding in the subject, and can offer nothing else but this type of attack.
Ice retreat and ice thickness and sea ice and movement, are very tricky subjects, and your question merely shows how extremely oversimplistic a view you have.

Quite apart from that, I did not deny that temperatures have risen this century. You're merely repeating yourself by offering the same non-applicable and fallacious argument.

Find someone who does not believe temps may have risen 3/4 of a degree, to throw your silly - and only - argument against.

Is this the best you can do. You cant refute anything, just this constant drone.

So now you wont admit the ice is retreating

it might be because the temperature is rising

but not by as much as we are told.:perplexed:

What is your position exactly? There is nothing tricky about the ice retreating year after year, it is real simple. The temperatures are rising and its melting them, simple. The evidence is there for all to examine , it does not require weather stations or intrigue about emails or any other nit picking by deniers, its there to be seen.

it is real simple

Your waffling again. The Arctic has never experienced this retreat of ice before without a dramatic event causing it and disastrous effects from it

Quote:

Waffling ? I asked you to make a clear claim for once, so I could accept it or not.

Quote:

so dont make out its a common phenomena.

I did not make out that it is a common phenomena for great loss of ice. I object to statements claiming that it has never happened before without modern industry, that it never happened before , or that it did happen, and was globally disastrous. Even volcanoes are disastrous, on quite a scale too...but disasters are commonplace. So we are talking global scale disaster that accompanied previous warming thought to be equal or greater than todays measured temps. Is that your claim ? That you can accept that it was just as warm recently ( within the last few thousand years), but that it was disastrous ? Or that it never was very warm like this in the last few thousand years ? What is your claim, please ?

Quote:

I'm not going to argue with you over how much it has heated up

why should you argue with me over that ? I accept IPPC fugures as an approximate, to be correct enough. Don't you ?

Quote:

but it is obviously enough to see what we are seeing.

this is your logic problem in a nutshell. You say that temperature measurements ( here we must assume that you are not talking about heating up on your front porch, but are talking about global temp rise) are enough to let you see what you are seeing.
May I suggest that we talk the same language, and instead of telling me "you see what you see", you tell me what reputable sources SAY is measurable, and what the measurement is for ice retreat, globally.

I don't really care about the ice on your front porch. It does not convey much to me about global changes, if you tell me that an icicle just melted away last week.
so please state your global claim about ice retreat in numerical terms.

Quote:

...When the permafrost is in danger of melting, we have problems

no, we are talking first about observations, not about possible dangers resulting. That comes after we know what you are talking about.
Danger always exists. We want to know more than that. We want to know numbers, because it's never zero, a "yes" or no to "danger". Even if we go along with you on this, we would have to say that the danger of AGW existed at the start of industrialization, but the events causing abrupt warming had not yet occurred. Nevertheless, that danger was there long ago. Right ? So we are not talking about "danger is there" per se. It has to be described and quantified so that we are discussing the same thing.

Tell us the global figures for "ice retreat". That was your claim. Give us what facts you are claiming have been told us, on "ice retreat". It was the whine, now turning into the waffle.
You seem unable to answer as to how much ice has retreated,even roughly, ballpark...1/4 gone ?

I mean, is it .05 % globally or 5% globally this century, or 55 % , globally ? just a rough estimate, please, so we know what it is that your claim is about.

xris;169030 wrote:

Your waffling again. The Arctic has never experienced this retreat of ice before without a dramatic event causing it and disastrous effects from it

Quote:

Waffling ? I asked you to make a clear claim for once, so I could accept it or not.

I did not make out that it is a common phenomena for great loss of ice. I object to statements claiming that it has never happened before without modern industry, that it never happened before , or that it did happen, and was globally disastrous. Even volcanoes are disastrous, on quite a scale too...but disasters are commonplace. So we are talking global scale disaster that accompanied previous warming thought to be equal or greater than todays measured temps. Is that your claim ? That you can accept that it was just as warm recently ( within the last few thousand years), but that it was disastrous ? Or that it never was very warm like this in the last few thousand years ? What is your claim, please ?

why should you argue with me over that ? I accept IPPC fugures as an approximate, to be correct enough. Don't you ?


this is your logic problem in a nutshell. You say that temperature measurements ( here we must assume that you are not talking about heating up on your front porch, but are talking about global temp rise) are enough to let you see what you are seeing.
May I suggest that we talk the same language, and instead of telling me "you see what you see", you tell me what reputable sources SAY is measurable, and what the measurement is for ice retreat, globally.

I don't really care about the ice on your front porch. It does not convey much to me about global changes, if you tell me that an icicle just melted away last week.
so please state your global claim about ice retreat in numerical terms.

no, we are talking first about observations, not about possible dangers resulting. That comes after we know what you are talking about.
Danger always exists. We want to know more than that. We want to know numbers, because it's never zero, a "yes" or no to "danger". Even if we go along with you on this, we would have to say that the danger of AGW existed at the start of industrialization, but the events causing abrupt warming had not yet occurred. Nevertheless, that danger was there long ago. Right ? So we are not talking about "danger is there" per se. It has to be described and quantified so that we are discussing the same thing.

Tell us the global figures for "ice retreat". That was your claim. Give us what facts you are claiming have been told us, on "ice retreat". It was the whine, now turning into the waffle.
You seem unable to answer as to how much ice has retreated,even roughly, ballpark...1/4 gone ?

I mean, is it .05 % globally or 5% globally this century, or 55 % , globally ? just a rough estimate, please, so we know what it is that your claim is about.

what purpose does your waffling serve? I have made a statement that global warming is evident. We see the ice in the arctic, not my front porch, retreating more than it has ever done. The degree of change over such a short period without obvious natural causes, indicates temperature change, what more would you require. It is more than ever evident that the permafrost will be the next significant indication, do you deny this? If you require the precise figures look them up and if you dispute them, say so...
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Arctic to be 'ice-free in summer'
I wonder what is your view on the ice retreating? is it that its a natural process with increased temperatures not affecting this obvious unnatural occurrence. Like all deniers you start with denying the temperature rises then start dropping back to defend your position by saying its not mans influence but a natural phenomena. Its not natural and it could be devastating.

memester;169074 wrote:

xris;169030 wrote:

Your waffling again. The Arctic has never experienced this retreat of ice before without a dramatic event causing it and disastrous effects from it what purpose does your waffling serve? I have made a statement that global warming is evident. We see the ice in the arctic, not my front porch, retreating more than it has ever done.

Please, instead of making your claim, once again, you are very vague. Not only vague, but you now make two claims

1/ that is has warmed this century, according to what we are told, 3/4 of a degree roughly, and this I already told you over and over, that I accept point blank. What about my acceptance point blank, entire and complete acceptance, that the temp has risen this century, do you not comprehend ?
2/ You claim that "we see" artic ice > no, I never personally see arctic ice...I see photos, some , like Al Gore's are photoshopped.
some are probably real snapshots of chosen locales that have melting going on.

Have you been looking at such photos , and then telling uis "what we see", or have you been looking at other photos...I do not know what you have seen, you see !

This is why yu need to give numbers,, even rough numbers, instead of claiming that it's "what we see" ( I don't see ANY arctic ice, personally, and so must rely on credible reports given in figures. Understand ? ) I don't just go by your excitement level.

Just give us the numbers that you claim. You've been saying we see it, you've been saying it's clear...so tell us..give us the rough figures.

How about this - it may help you stop waffling... is the figure of global ice loss something like .05 % or something like 50 % ?

Is is closer to 15 % or closer to 2 % ?

c'mon, it can't be THAT hard to answer, or it means you know nothing about what you claim is told to us !

what do your sources tell you, xris ? what kind of loss has happened ? 10 % ?

or is the "ice retreat" you've been "seeing" coming from this kind of representation: Ryan Maue studies hurricanes at university, in Florida, so he noticed this latest fraudulent presentation by Gore right off the bat. Ice gone, but hurricanes added...oops spinning wrong way.

Not finding any, Gore airbrushes in hurricanes for his new book | Watts Up With That?

so what I'm really asking, is what your real claim is here...
1/ That it's never been this hot ? Is that your claim ? Apparently not.

2/ That it's never been this hot without disaster ? Nope, You won't directly say that either.

3/ Your whole claim, apparently, is that it got hotter recently, and that some unspecified % of ice has been lost globally - and if I agree, you then come forward with an insult.

Is that your whole approach to this ? Your whole evidence is a prediction such as this

Quote:

The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during the summer in as little as ten years' time, a top polar specialist has said.

instead of telling what actually has happened, as you claimed has happened, and as you claimed we have been told has already happened, and that we all "know", if we've been paying attention, has already happened, and as we "see" has already happened, according to yourself, Sir !

so what is it ? what has happened with numbers, please.

About 25 % gone ? what's your problem with telling us your claim ?

xris;169115 wrote:

memester;169074 wrote:

Please, instead of making your claim, once again, you are very vague. Not only vague, but you now make two claims

1/ that is has warmed this century, according to what we are told, 3/4 of a degree roughly, and this I already told you over and over, that I accept point blank. What about my acceptance point blank, entire and complete acceptance, that the temp has risen this century, do you not comprehend ?
2/ You claim that "we see" artic ice > no, I never personally see arctic ice...I see photos, some , like Al Gore's are photoshopped.
total phony ...4 extra hurricanes photoshopped in, and most of the arctic ice "rubbed out".

Have you been looking at such photos , and then telling uis "what we see", or have you been looking at other photos...I do not know what you have seen, you see !

This is why yu need to give numbers,, even rough numbers, instead of claiming that it's "what we see" ( I don't see ANY arctic ice, personally, and so must rely on credible reports given in figures. Understand ? ) I don't just go by your excitement level.

Just give us the numbers that you claim. You've been saying we see it, you've been saying it's clear...so tell us..give us the rough figures.

How about this - it may help you stop waffling... is the figure of global ice loss something like .05 % or something like 50 % ?

Is is closer to 15 % or closer to 2 % ?

c'mon, it can't be THAT hard to answer, or it means you know nothing about what you claim is told to us !

what do your sources tell you, xris ? what kind of loss has happened ? 10 % ?

or is the "ice retreat" you've been "seeing" coming from this kind of representation: Ryan Maue studies hurricanes at university, in Florida, so he noticed this latest fraudulent presentation by Gore right off the bat. Ice gone, but hurricanes added...oops spinning wrong way.

Not finding any, Gore airbrushes in hurricanes for his new book | Watts Up With That?

Dont try and side track the argument, keep to the point in question. So you dont believe the ice is retreating, is that correct? and you dont believe it will disappear all together in twenty years? is that correct? You need to know more than it is has significantly reduced, you need to know by exactly what amount before you will accept it has...and you dont think this is waffling? Unlike you I believe the consensus of evidence that the ice has significantly reduced, without seeing it my self.

memester;169123 wrote:

xris;169115 wrote:

Dont try and side track the argument, keep to the point in question.

I've been egging you on to make your claim clear, which you refuse to do. You simply keep repeating what I agree with and making an accusation. the rest you won't make a clear statement on ( what has ALREADY happened, as claimed ).

Quote:

So you dont believe the ice is retreating, is that correct?

No, you are incorrect. I explained at the start that ice retreats, ice melts.
You need to give us a real claim about the masive ice loss globally.
why can't you do such a simple thing, to make your claim clear ? You claim it has been told to us.

Quote:

and you dont believe it will disappear all together in twenty years? is that correct?

I don't. No scientist does believe that story, as far as I know. Can you tell us who says ice will be gone in twenty years ?

Quote:

You need to know more than it is has significantly reduced, you need to know by exactly what amount

not at all. using words such as "significant" is pure stonewalling and waffling, not committing, unless it has numbers attached.

Quote:

before you will accept it has...and you dont think this is waffling? Unlike you I believe the consensus of evidence that the ice has significantly reduced, without seeing it my self.

By how much ? I don't even know what you consider "significant", as it's a term tossed about and usually for person tossing it about, it has no firm meaning at all.
I know ice has reduced LOTS in some locations. Again, make a clear claim...there is too much evidence saying that ice disappeared before, fairly recently.

Why is it that you claimed we had been told about the massive ice loss, and now you can't tell me even very very roughly, how much ?

Globally, it's been 0.3 % or 30 % or 15 % or 60 %....you got absolutely no clue ?

Your refusal to accept the facts

The Arctic Ocean could be largely ice-free and open to shipping during the summer in as little as ten years' time, a top polar specialist has said. "It's like man is taking the lid off the northern part of the planet," said Professor Peter Wadhams, from the University of Cambridge.

you have not provided the facts that you claim we have been told.
If this is all you have to say, then good riddance, we have your prediction, though you have no idea how such a prediction is made.


that's really about all that you gave us, isn't it ? whereas you claimed that we have been told and we can see and so on...but you can't say "it's half gone, for good".

it's quite funny, really. I'm ready to accept the rough figures, but you just don't have any.
As for the professor's prediction....oops, it's not a firm prediction, it says "could be largely". Can't go wrong with "could be", rather than giving us numerical terms and expert statistical analysis.

but stay tuned... let's see about this Wadham statement. It seems now very clear that you've no ability at all to look deeper at anything beyond a headline, so I'll do a little research for you.

first off, he conducted research aboard a Greenpeace vessel. Right there, research was being done. with ties to an activist extremist group.

but we'll ignore that for now and look deeper

Nothing but rhetoric. You have not answered one question with any sincerity

you avoid the truth like it might infect you.

Do you understand significant?

The summer ice has reduced by 35% over the last two decades

causing the decline in the hunting abilities of man and beast. The majority of scientists predict it will be non existent in the summer period within the next thirty years. Many now tell us the permafrost is in danger, do you deny this also??.Can you deny any of this without more of your rhetoric. Will you actually answer a question? "Your house is on fire" not all of it, most of it , its getting hotter and it will burn down.

"The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.
Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable. "
November 2, 1922 The Washington Post..