James Delingpole vs George MonbiotPosted on March 4th, 2010 3 comments
James, James, yet again you betray your apparent lack of comprehension about Science, the way it works, the things it says, the truth it holds. Your accusations are in my opinion completely unfounded, baseless. It seems your inquiring mind has been corrupted by the Climate Obstructers’ continual rant of denial after denial.
Here’s a challenge : read up about the “time lag”, the “warming inertia” in the Climate system, and then come back with an alternative scenario that other people can accept, with facts, figures and falsifications of mainstream opinion. I’m sure your employer could come up with the funds to buy the research papers you need to read to come to an well-informed view. Alternatively, you could try e-mailing the authors for gratis copies of their work. If you show yourself a genuine student of Science, I’m sure people will share their data and research with you freely :-
“The Climate Change Commitment : T. M. L. Wigley : Even if atmospheric composition were fixed today, global-mean temperature and sea level rise would continue due to oceanic thermal inertia. These constant-composition (CC) commitments and their uncertainties are quantified. Constant-emissions (CE) commitments are also considered. The CC warming commitment could exceed 1°C. The CE warming commitment is 2° to 6°C by the year 2400. For sea level rise, the CC commitment is 10 centimeters per century (extreme range approximately 1 to 30 centimeters per century) and the CE commitment is 25 centimeters per century (7 to 50 centimeters per century). Avoiding these changes requires, eventually, a reduction in emissions to substantially below present levels. For sea level rise, a substantial long-term commitment may be impossible to avoid. National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA. E-mail: email@example.com”
“Prof Tom Wigley : Honorary Professor & Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO : Email : T.Wigley@uea.ac.uk”
“How Much Warming are We Committed to and How Much can be Avoided? : Bill Hare and Malte Meinshausen : Abstract This paper examines different concepts of a ‘warming commitment’ which is often used in various ways to describe or imply that a certain level of warming is irrevocably committed to over time frames such as the next 50 to 100 years, or longer. We review and quantify four different concepts, namely (1) a ‘constant emission warming commitment’, (2) a ‘present forcing warming commitment’, (3) a ‘zero emission (geophysical) warming commitment’ and (4) a ‘feasible scenario warming commitment’. While a ‘feasible scenario warming commitment’ is probably the most relevant one for policy making, it depends centrally on key assumptions as to the technical, economic and political feasibility of future greenhouse gas emission reductions. This issue is of direct policy relevance when one considers that the 2002 global mean temperatures were 0.8± 0.2 ∘C above the pre-industrial (1861–1890) mean and the European Union has a stated goal of limiting warming to 2 ∘C above the pre-industrial mean: What is the risk that we are committed to overshoot 2 ∘C?… Bill Hare (Visiting Scientist) (Corresponding author) : Email: firstname.lastname@example.org : Malte Meinshausen : Email: email@example.com”
The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report is all online (although the links have changed from a month ago. As the people who maintain the website don’t seem to understand the importance of permalinking, they change the whole website around every couple of years without telling anybody) :-
Working Group 1
Chapter 10 “Global Climate Projections”
Section 10.7 “Long Term Climate Change and Commitment”
If you don’t understand anything, just ask me.Climate Change, Media Anthropogenic Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Change Science, Climate Science, George Monbiot, Global Warming, IPCC, James Delingpole
3 responses to “James Delingpole vs George Monbiot”
Doesn’t Delingpole look annoyed at the end of that short debate ! Not surprising, seeing as how he is made to look like the fact-averse denialist he truly is.
Well done, George : having done Plimer and now Delingpole, who is next ?
Yeah, I agree. Clearly made to look like he has never read a thing about the subject that he writes most of his columns about, save perhaps a Christopher Booker book or two.
Nothing I’ve read by Delingpole on this subject makes me believe he has even a passing acquaintance with the actual scientific arguments for AGW, nor even that he is interested in them.
He is a contrarian and a libertarian who hates lefties, environmentalists and “big government” and that’s what drives his belief in climate change being a huge fraud. The science isn’t relevant so why bother with it.
Leave a reply