It's amazing how people who are considered masters in their fields of science are suddenly considered nutcases if they simply have issues with the current mainstream view of global warming.
Global warming is indeed occurring, there's no doubt that the average temperature of the Earth has been changing. However the causes of that change are incredibly complex and we really don't know all that much about climate dynamics to say one way or the other whether or not what we're doing is the main cause or not.
Of course, that shouldn't stop us from doing what we can to reduce pollution and waste. Doing what we can to clean up the environment is simply common sense. It's just that it shouldn't be politicized the way it is being today.
Top naturalist: Being warming skeptic cost my career
~ The Rebel ~
2013/01/13 15:10:49
But for the grace of God he would be revered as the man who brought botany to
life through glorious rambling monologues in a time before CGI graphics and
hi-tech film techniques became de rigueur. But his fame and acclaim rolled off
the rails in 2004 when – in the teeth of public opinion and mounting scientific
evidence – he said global warming was nothing but "poppycock". He was deserted
by fans, shunned by peers and, he says, ostracised by broadcasters and
conservation groups that once thrived through his endorsement: he was sacked as
president of the Wildlife Trusts.
Bellamy, who appears not to be able to shake the habit of speaking as if the
camera were still rolling, is unrepentant. He is clear his stance on climate
change ended his TV career.
Nevertheless, in a flurry of rapid hand gestures, gravelly voice – oscillating
between whisper and oratory – through the filter of that full beard, he is
unequivocal. "All of the work dried up after that. I was due to start another
series with the BBC but that didn't go anywhere, and the other side [ITV] didn't
want to know. I was shunned. They didn't want to hear the other side." But does
he still believe he is right? "Absolutely. It is not happening at all, but if
you get the idea that people's children will die because of CO2 they fall for
it," he says, perhaps buoyed by forecasters at the Met Office this week
downgrading a prediction for global warming to suggest that by 2017 average
temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.
life through glorious rambling monologues in a time before CGI graphics and
hi-tech film techniques became de rigueur. But his fame and acclaim rolled off
the rails in 2004 when – in the teeth of public opinion and mounting scientific
evidence – he said global warming was nothing but "poppycock". He was deserted
by fans, shunned by peers and, he says, ostracised by broadcasters and
conservation groups that once thrived through his endorsement: he was sacked as
president of the Wildlife Trusts.
Bellamy, who appears not to be able to shake the habit of speaking as if the
camera were still rolling, is unrepentant. He is clear his stance on climate
change ended his TV career.
Nevertheless, in a flurry of rapid hand gestures, gravelly voice – oscillating
between whisper and oratory – through the filter of that full beard, he is
unequivocal. "All of the work dried up after that. I was due to start another
series with the BBC but that didn't go anywhere, and the other side [ITV] didn't
want to know. I was shunned. They didn't want to hear the other side." But does
he still believe he is right? "Absolutely. It is not happening at all, but if
you get the idea that people's children will die because of CO2 they fall for
it," he says, perhaps buoyed by forecasters at the Met Office this week
downgrading a prediction for global warming to suggest that by 2017 average
temperatures will have remained about the same for two decades.
Read More: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/...
Top Opinion
-
kir 2013/01/13 15:27:53
Global warming is indeed occurring, there's no doubt that the average temperature of the Earth has been changing. However the causes of that change are incredibly complex and we really don't know all that much about climate dynamics to say one way or the other whether or not what we're doing is the main cause or not.
Of course, that shouldn't stop us from doing what we can to reduce pollution and waste. Doing what we can to clean up the environment is simply common sense. It's just that it shouldn't be politicized the way it is being today.
But hey, if that's simple to you then great. You're far better at understanding complex dynamic systems than I am.
Fast feedback climate sensitivity is 0.75 ± 0.125°C/W/m² (3°C per doubling)
Climate sensitivity including slow albedo feedback is 1.5°C/W/m² (6°C per doubling)
Climate sensitivity including slow albedo feedback & non-CO2 GHGs is 2°C/W/m² (8°C per doubling)
Climate sensitivity including all feedbacks between Holocene & ice-free state is ~2.4°C/W/m² (9.5°C per doubling).
Hansen & Sato 2011
Ah you're right. Radiation is a fourth power relation. So let's see. So far you've said that radiative forcing due to CO2 is logarithmic and that radiative cooling is proportional to the fourth power. Those taken together means that CO2 shifts should have very marginal increases in temperature.
You can see that we're on a very steep part of the logarithmic curve compared to CO2 levels which have pertained in the geological past - in the low hundreds rather than multiple thousands of ppm. That's why we're having such a big impact.
"It's amazing how people who are considered masters in their fields of science are suddenly considered nutcases if they simply have issues with the current mainstream view of global warming. "
Climatology was not his field. He clearly knew little about it since he used data from random websites that were proven false.
He was a botanist, and he demonstrated that he based the statements that he made off of his opinions rather than evidence. That way of thinking is not compatible with the scientific method, regardless of the topic.
When asked, Singer said that he got his data from a 1989 article in the publication, "Science". There is no such article.