Comments on: Under a Green Sky http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=under-a-green-sky Global warming and the future of New Zealand Thu, 24 May 2012 10:44:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: The five scariest things about climate change http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-30593 The five scariest things about climate change Sat, 10 Mar 2012 23:23:08 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-30593 [...] to Emma for pointing me at it. [↩]If you want more info, have a read of Peter Ward’s Under A Green Sky [↩]Related [...] [...] to Emma for pointing me at it. [↩]If you want more info, have a read of Peter Ward’s Under A Green Sky [↩]Related [...]

]]> By: Now or Never: Why We Must Act Now to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future | CleanTechies Blog - CleanTechies.com http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-8800 Now or Never: Why We Must Act Now to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future | CleanTechies Blog - CleanTechies.com Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:59:44 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-8800 [...] The impacts are already alarming. Flannery confesses to find it increasingly difficult over the past two years to read the scientific findings on climate change without despairing. Most dispiriting are the changes occurring in the Arctic, which render hopelessly inadequate much of the human response to the crisis so far.  Flannery has an excursion into the possibility of oceanic death, concluding with the fearful vision of Peter Ward in Under a Green Sky. [...] [...] The impacts are already alarming. Flannery confesses to find it increasingly difficult over the past two years to read the scientific findings on climate change without despairing. Most dispiriting are the changes occurring in the Arctic, which render hopelessly inadequate much of the human response to the crisis so far.  Flannery has an excursion into the possibility of oceanic death, concluding with the fearful vision of Peter Ward in Under a Green Sky. [...]

]]> By: jonno http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-4768 jonno Mon, 23 Feb 2009 02:55:36 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-4768 "In the last 10 years, the earth’s temperature has not risen." Does that mean that every day gets a bit colder than the previous one? That is just crazy... “In the last 10 years, the earth’s temperature has not risen.”

Does that mean that every day gets a bit colder than the previous one? That is just crazy…

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-4766 Bryan Walker Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:55:02 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-4766 Thanks Cindy. At least that explains where he gets his "guess" about temperature rise in relation to doubled CO2 from. But Ayrdale can't claim that Shaviv's article has been ignored. Those are some distinguished climate scientists who have examined it and found it wanting. Thanks Cindy. At least that explains where he gets his “guess” about temperature rise in relation to doubled CO2 from. But Ayrdale can’t claim that Shaviv’s article has been ignored. Those are some distinguished climate scientists who have examined it and found it wanting.

]]> By: StephenR http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-4765 StephenR Mon, 23 Feb 2009 00:46:24 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-4765 <i>In the last 10 years, the earth’s temperature has not risen.</i> That would be devastating, if it hadn't been rebutted approximately 940,000 times. He's either totally ignorant, highly credulous, or dishonest. In the last 10 years, the earth’s temperature has not risen.

That would be devastating, if it hadn’t been rebutted approximately 940,000 times. He’s either totally ignorant, highly credulous, or dishonest.

]]> By: cindy http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-4764 cindy Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:49:00 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-4764 Shaviv's work has been <a href="http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/FullComplaint/p139.htm" rel="nofollow">widely disputed </a> in the peer reviewed literature. Shaviv’s work has been widely disputed in the peer reviewed literature.

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-4761 Bryan Walker Sun, 22 Feb 2009 20:08:29 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-4761 Ayrdale, the conference you anticipate is sponsored by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute" rel="nofollow"> Heartland Institute </a>, whose free market ideology brushes aside science whenever it gets in the way. The health effects of tobacco smoking, or the dangers of global warming can both be ignored - or, if not ignored, questioned by selective tactics. Take a look at what the passage you quote from Shaviv actually says: 1. There have been worries in the past which haven't eventuated. Therefore global warming won't happen 2. On the rising incline of global temperature in recent decades 1998 was warmer than subsequent years (albeit arguably in relation to 2005). Therefore the earth's temperature has stopped rising. Ignore the incline. 3. The rise in temperature over the past century is less than a degree. This is evidently insignificant. Never mind that this level of warming ensures further inescapable warming already in the pipeline. 4. He has a guess, which is wildly at variance with the careful estimates of a vast scientific literature, that doubled CO2 will mean a rise of only 1 degree in global temperature. Is this science? Ayrdale, the conference you anticipate is sponsored by the Heartland Institute , whose free market ideology brushes aside science whenever it gets in the way. The health effects of tobacco smoking, or the dangers of global warming can both be ignored – or, if not ignored, questioned by selective tactics. Take a look at what the passage you quote from Shaviv actually says:
1. There have been worries in the past which haven’t eventuated. Therefore global warming won’t happen
2. On the rising incline of global temperature in recent decades 1998 was warmer than subsequent years (albeit arguably in relation to 2005). Therefore the earth’s temperature has stopped rising. Ignore the incline.
3. The rise in temperature over the past century is less than a degree. This is evidently insignificant. Never mind that this level of warming ensures further inescapable warming already in the pipeline.
4. He has a guess, which is wildly at variance with the careful estimates of a vast scientific literature, that doubled CO2 will mean a rise of only 1 degree in global temperature.

Is this science?

]]> By: Gareth http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-4760 Gareth Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:29:43 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-4760 <blockquote>...and just another <em>of the crank chorus failing to prove</em> that the science is not settled.</blockquote There, fixed that for you.

…and just another of the crank chorus failing to prove that the science is not settled.

There, fixed that for you.

]]> By: Ayrdale http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-4759 Ayrdale Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:11:51 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-4759 Bryan with respect, I don't think so. Shaviv is as you are aware, one of many dissenters, a learned physicist and just another (scientific) voice proving that the science is not settled. Next months conference of dissenters will add to the chorus... http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/07/skepticism_on_climate_change/ Bryan with respect, I don’t think so. Shaviv is as you are aware, one of many dissenters, a learned physicist and just another (scientific) voice proving that the science is not settled.

Next months conference of dissenters will add to the chorus…

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/12/07/skepticism_on_climate_change/

]]> By: Bryan Walker http://hot-topic.co.nz/under-a-green-sky/#comment-4758 Bryan Walker Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:57:59 +0000 http://hot-topic.co.nz/?p=1311#comment-4758 Ayrdale, I'm not sure what you mean by equivocation in this context. If you're referring to my reply to Steve's question it wasn't intended to be equivocal, merely indicating the limits of my ability to know what further information Steve may have been looking for. I am not a scientist. Quoting Nir Shaviv's assurances does nothing in the face of Peter Ward's and so many other scientists' concern. Shaviv does not engage with the realities. You can hardly oppose the paragraph you've quoted against the vast body of scientific work represented in many of the books I've been reviewing on this website. You're welcome to take comfort from him yourself, but it's pointless offering him in this context. Ayrdale, I’m not sure what you mean by equivocation in this context. If you’re referring to my reply to Steve’s question it wasn’t intended to be equivocal, merely indicating the limits of my ability to know what further information Steve may have been looking for. I am not a scientist.

Quoting Nir Shaviv’s assurances does nothing in the face of Peter Ward’s and so many other scientists’ concern. Shaviv does not engage with the realities. You can hardly oppose the paragraph you’ve quoted against the vast body of scientific work represented in many of the books I’ve been reviewing on this website. You’re welcome to take comfort from him yourself, but it’s pointless offering him in this context.

]]>