CO2 Good

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

To be continued...

[Teallaura]

...

• Today the average temperature of the earth is about 14.5 degrees Celsius (58 degrees Fahrenheit), decidedly closer to the Ice Age level than the Greenhouse Age level and only 2.5 degrees above the temperature at the height of the last major glaciation. The fact is we are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age and it is possible another major glaciation may occur sometime in the next 10,000 years, but that is a prediction, not a fact....

*emphasis mine

Huh? Which is the fact - the Ice Age thing?

[John Reece]

*emphasis mine

Huh? Which is the fact - the Ice Age thing?

I also had to re-read the sentence trying to ascertain what exactly it means.

I take it that "the fact" is in the first half of the sentence, and the "prediction" is in the latter half of the sentence.

I'm glad to see that you are reading these excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter.

[JonathanL]

*emphasis mine

Huh? Which is the fact - the Ice Age thing?[/INDENT]

I don't see the problem. The "fact" clearly refers to the "we are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age" part of the statement, while the "prediction" couldn't possibly refer to anything other than the "it is possible another major glaciation may occur sometime in the next 10,000 years" part of the statement.

[Teallaura]

I don't see the problem. The "fact" clearly refers to the "we are still in the Pleistocene Ice Age" part of the statement, while the "prediction" couldn't possibly refer to anything other than the "it is possible another major glaciation may occur sometime in the next 10,000 years" part of the statement.

Okay, that's how I read it at first but it's grammatically awkward (don't reuse the same phrase in the same sentence unless you have to or are making a point that way - better yet, don't do it at all!) and struck me as contradictory.

Actually, 'prediction' could refer to the first part - ages are ultimately subjective, after all - and the second part isn't actually a prediction, it's a proposed possibility.

[Teallaura]

I also had to re-read the sentence trying to ascertain what exactly it means.

I take it that "the fact" is in the first half of the sentence, and the "prediction" is in the latter half of the sentence.

I'm glad to see that you are reading these excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter.

Good, it's not just me!

Thanks!

[JonathanL]

Actually, 'prediction' could refer to the first part - ages are ultimately subjective, after all - and the second part isn't actually a prediction, it's a proposed possibility.

No, it couldn't, not unless you want the author to blatantly contradict himself. Notice how he writes "but that is a prediction, not a fact", having already stated us being in the Pleistocene Ice Age as "fact". You're right about him misusing the word 'prediction' though.

[Teallaura]

'Could' - but it would be a strain. Only possible because the construction is awkward and there aren't any real predictions anyway.

[JonathanL]

'Could' - but it would be a strain. Only possible because the construction is awkward and there aren't any real predictions anyway.

You're wrong, and I'm content with leaving it that way if you are.

[Teallaura]

You're wrong, and I'm content with leaving it that way if you are.

Am not - said the thing was confusing, didn't I?

And at this point I'm just being annoying so we can quit now if you like.

[John Reece]

Continued from post #17 above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

• We know global levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have risen steadily from 315 parts per million (ppm) to nearly 390 ppm since scientists began taking regular measurements at Mauna Loa on the big island of Hawaii in 1958. This is a very short time compared to the 3.5 billion years of life on earth. Many scientists assume that human emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels are the main cause of this increase. Some scientists question this assumption. It is a fact that CO2 levels were much higher than they are today during previ
ous eras. This will be discussed in detail later.

• The average temperature of the earth has fluctuated during the past 
100 years, sometimes cooling, sometimes warming, and in balance has increased somewhat, especially during the periods from 1910 to 1940 and from 1980 to 1998. Since 1998 there has been no further warming and apparently a slight cooling. There is a lot of controversy around the accuracy of these trends. In particular there is a concern that many of the weather stations used to determine the global average were originally in the countryside but over the years have been swallowed up by expanding urban development. The “urban heat island effect” refers to the fact that concrete and heat from buildings results in an increase in temperature in urban areas compared to the surrounding countryside, thus the possibility exists that the results have been skewed.

[there is a loss of text at this point in the internet copy of the book chapter from which I am posting excerpts -JR]

.... or hacked, from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the U.K. shocked the climate change community. It was quite clear from a number of email exchanges that the scientists with this most important source of information had been manipulating data, withholding data, and conspiring to discredit other scientists who did not share their certainty that humans were the main cause of climate change. These revelations were quickly dubbed “Climategate” and have since been hotly debated in climate change circles. It is very difficult to find a balanced account of this scandal. Commentary is divided sharply, with believers claiming that while the scientists involved behaved badly, this does not change the fact that the science is clear that humans are causing warming, while skeptics claim the revelations demonstrate the books have been cooked, placing the entire hypothesis of global warming in doubt.

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

These are just some of the many questions we must answer if we are to make intelligent choices about the direction public policy should take on the subject of climate change.

[at this point, text has been lost from the online source of these excerpts -JR]

.... the fact that both CO2 and temperature are increasing at the same time does not prove one is causing the other. It may be that increased CO2 is causing some or most of the increased temperature. It may also be that increased temperature causes an increase in atmospheric CO2. Or it may be they are both caused by some other common factor, or it may be just coincidental they are both rising together and they have nothing to do with one another. Correlation does not prove causation.

To be continued...

[John Reece]

Continued from last post above ↑

Continuation of excerpts from Patrick Moore's publicly available online book chapter titled "Climate of Fear" [footnote documentation omitted]:

Temperatureonline source

To be continued...