NO WOMBLE, still on wrong thread but of course all can be questioned


A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.

Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Professor Woodcock is Emeritus Professor of Chemical Thermodynamics at the University of Manchester and has authored over 70 academic papers for a wide range of scientific journals. He received his PhD from the University of London, and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a  recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, and a founding editor the journal Molecular Simulation. (h/t Climate Depot)

Professor Woodcock told the Yorkshire Evening Post:

"The term 'climate change' is meaningless. The Earth's climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of 'man-made climate change' is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.

"The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the 'greenhouse gas' causes 'global warming' - in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.

"There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."

He also said:

"Even the term 'global warming' does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it's nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it's not permanent and it's not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense."

Professor Woodcock dismissed evidence for global warming, such as the floods that deluged large parts of Britain this winter, as "anecdotal" and therefore meaningless in science.

"Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and it’s completely unpredictable beyond around five days."

Also, the only reason we regularly hear that we have had the most extreme weather "since records began" is that records only began about 100 years ago.

"The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.

"It's absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don't blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors."

When asked how can say this when most of the world's scientists, political leaders and people in general are committed to the theory of global warming, Prof Woodcock answered bluntly:

"This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it's not up to me to prove it does not exist, it's up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.

"Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming."

This lack of evidence has not stopped a whole green industry building up, however. At the behest of that industry, governments have been passing ever more regulations that make life more difficult and expensive.

"...the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity."

Professor Woodcock is the latest scientist to come out against the theory of man-made global warming. James Lovelock, once described as a "green guru", earlier this month said that climate scientists "just guess", and that no one really knows what's happening.

Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, also said that she was "duped into supporting the IPCC" and added "If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic."

Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing.  When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science).  Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.  A survey of 928 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004).

A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013).  The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming.

consensus pie chart

Lead author John Cook created a short video abstract summarizing the study:

Several studies have confirmed that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 97% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.

sure co2 is a greenhouse gas .. so not sure what the other 3% of the climate scientists are thinking lol

but

they have no idea "what amount" of warming ... as in each IPCC manifesto it changes

the last one was probably their most constructive ... and i watched two climate scientists on A-PAC discuss their findings

the first one said there was imminent and unchangeable disaster ... but when questioned by a person in the audience he (sarcastically imo) answered that person with "you just don't understand climate science" (i thought at the time the IPCC spokesperson must not either as he couldn't explain it)

the second scientist openly engaged his audience in discussion ... and on the tricky questions like how much warming, when and to what extent answered "well we really don't know exactly" ... and that is the truth at last

the IPCC on their LATEST manifesto actually broke down (for the first time) the range of possible warming into the various greenhouse gases (co2, n02, methane)and LO and BEHOLD co2 is a player for sure but at the low end of warming the IPCC themselves (or at least one of their 114 computer simulations) was around only 1-1.5c increase over the next 35 to 85 years ... from 2050 to 2100 ...

and there lies the problem for the IPCC and their buddy Al G

all the exaggeration, all the outright lies (the himalayas) all the alarmism, all the imperfect climate science (relating to clouds & precipitation mainly) have left serious players wondering what they now recommend

it isn't nuclear, AND they see renewable subsidies as pointless alongside the preferred plan - TRADING CARBON CREDITS

FFS

they want 70 more years of big rich miners buying credits off big rich bankers ... allowing them to burn more and more ... but to what end ?

BIGGEST RORT EVER 

do i believe an astronaut or a climate scientist in a discussion on climate???

no

i.e. no they don't want to see more coal dug up so understand the need for a price trigger to encourage moves to cleaner technology

i think it's cold in space

you too Thebas, enjoy

GENEVA—Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached a record high in 2013 as increasing levels of man-made pollution transform the planet, the UN weather agency said Tuesday.
In an annual report, the World Meteorological Organization said that carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed for the largest share of global warming, rose to global concentrations of 396 parts per million last year, the biggest year-to-year change in three decades.
RELATED: WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin (pdf)
That’s an increase of 2.9 ppm from the previous year — and is 42 per cent higher than before the Industrial Age, when levels were about 280 parts per million. The 2012 level was itself up 2.2 ppm from a year earlier.
“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud. “Time is not on our side, for sure.”
The report also said the rate of ocean acidification, which comes from added carbon absorbed by oceans, “appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years.”

MARTIN MEISSNER / AP FILE PHOTO

The UN weather agency says carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere reached a record high in 2013.

Between 1990 and 2013, carbon dioxide and other gas emissions caused a 34 per cent increase in the warming effect on the climate, the report said.
The warming effect, or “radiative forcing,” measures the net difference between the sunlight that the Earth absorbs and the energy it radiates back into space. More absorption leads to higher temperatures.
After carbon dioxide, methane has the biggest effect on climate. Atmospheric concentrations of methane reached a new high of 1,824 parts per billion in 2013, up 153 per cent from pre-industrial levels of about 700 parts per billion.
About 40 per cent of the methane comes from natural sources such as termites and wetlands, but the rest is due to cattle breeding, rice agriculture, fossil fuel burning, landfills and incineration, according to the agency.

the end of the world is nigh

and Ted having an ETS that's sends $$$ all over the place and encourages more burning will do what for the environment?
no one here wants excessive pollution but the ETS wont do a solitary thing about it....the EU has done so for 10 years for what??? helped many rort the scheme and get amazingly rich for trading thin air ffs....now the traders want us all to be in on it

BIGGEST RORT EVER

REAL SOLUTIONS TO CLIMATE CHANGE ARE UNDERMINED BY CARBON TRADING

BIGGEST RORT EVER 

more alarmism 

you'd think it would die down ... but of course then the principles in the Private Climate Council including Prof Steffen would no longer have a job

alarmism gone and a sensible plan is the way forward

trading emmissions between rich miners & global bankers on behalf of the UN wealth redistribution plan is ludicrous

BIGGEST RORT EVER

---

over to you Prof Steffen from the Climate Council

https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25008660/sea-level-rises-due-to-climate-change-could-cost-australia-200b-climate-council-report-finds/

The report, Counting the Costs: Climate Change and Coastal Flooding, showed sea levels were likely to rise by between 40 centimetres and one metre over the next century.

The Climate Council succeeded the Australian Climate Commission, which was axed after the Federal Government took office last year.

Professor Steffen said so-called once-in-a-lifetime natural events could become regular occurrences.

"If you look at some of our most vulnerable areas, and the Sydney region is one of those, you would say toward the end of this century that a one-in-100-year flood is going to be happening every few days," he said.


... sigh 

are records supposed to stsy unbroken forever?

BIGGEST RORT EVER

If you look at some of our most vulnerable areas, and the Sydney region is one of those, you would say toward the end of this century that a one-in-100-year flood is going to be happening every few days," he said


OMG better throw more money at the climate council to fund these guys...what a crock...and another example of alarmism to justify their existence.............fk off with your BS

BIGGEST RORT EVER

wouldn't you expect a once in a 100 year flood once in a 100 years?

This SC idiot still doesn't believe in Climate Change 



What a Doofus.

Seems they are smartening up.  No more 10 year predictions that can be shot down when the opposite happens, they will just go closer to 100 years away when nobody will even remember what they said.

the alarmist goose Prof Steeen has used the magic of 114 IPCC computer models where none of them are in 100% agreeance and chosen for some reason to postulate that a once in 100 years event would start happening EVERY FEW DAYS

and suckers tumble in to his political alarmist propaganda

In the  years this thread has been running the deniers have not posted one PEER REVIEWED PAPER by a CLIMATE

SCIENTIST that supports their views.  Plenty of NON-CLIMATE SCIENTISTS have tried. But none have stood the

test of the scientific peer review process.

Of course these non scientists choose to pedal their lies and doubt to eager news papers Like the Murdoch Rags

and use the media to pedal doubt because it cuts through without scruitiny...... rather than have their lies

tested by the REAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

Please post a peer reviewed paper....... you know what that is don't you? 

Of a Climate Scientist that agrees with your denialisim. If you can find one ....