# General > General >  Global Warming Propaganda

## Eagleclaw68

All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility, but if the predicted warming could be induced it would probably provide net benefits. However, there is a widespread imagined risk of the warming and politicians are responding to it. Responses to imagined risk are often extreme and dangerous. For example, somebody with a fear of mice may see a mouse and as a response try to jump on a chair causing damage to the chair and injury to himself. There is no point in telling the injured person that mice are harmless because fear is irrational so cannot be overcome by rational argument. 

Widespread imagined risk is to be expected as the end of the twentieth century the end of the second millennium approaches. Prophets of doom have occurred when the end of each past century approached. They always proclaimed that the end of the world is nigh unless people changed their ways and accepted great hardship. So, history suggests that the global warming scare or something like it can be expected at this time. 

Global warming proponents call for reduced CO2 emissions and this equates to a call for cuts in the use of energy, but the energy industries have done more to benefit mankind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. And global warming proponents often call for use of renewables to replace fossil fuels, but that is a call for a return to preindustrial society the industrial revolution occurred when fossil fuels replaced biomass and windpower. It is physically impossible for wind and solar energies to supply the energy needs of the developed world, and the peoples of the developing world are insisting on their right to develop too. 

The past prophets of doom have all been wrong, so it is reasonable to expect today’s doom-mongers to justify their arguments. And this is especially the case when they attack something so clearly beneficial to mankind as the use of fossil fuels. But imagined risk is not rational, so reasonable expectations do not apply. The simple fact that it is physically impossible for CO2 emissions to cause man-made global warming has no effect on imagined fear of global warming. 

Also, some global warming proponents are accepting a good financial income from the global warming scare and have become global warming propagandists to promote their interests. These include some researchers who obtain research grants and some environmental organisations who need donations. They are making a living by promoting fear of man-made global warming. Their behaviour is similar to that of the ‘snake oil salesmen’ in the nineteenth century. Snake oil salesmen sold snake oil that did not require real snakes to make it. Global warming propagandists are selling fear of man-made global warming and that does not require real man-made global warming to make it. 

www.globalwarmingpropaganda.com

----------


## ShelleyCowie

uh-hu...and whats this got to do with the price of cheese? 

Sorry had to be said! Anyways, whats the question or was it just a statement?

----------


## Phill

Aye.......

----------


## Whitewater

I can agree with you on man made global warming. However, global warming does occur, it is perfectly natural as far as the earth is concerned and its relationship with the sun, there are slight tips of the earths axis, this way and that, and in space this changes slightly the earths angle to the sun and other planets, all having effect the climate, these changes occur approx every 6 to 7 hundred years. Sometimes the changes can be very severe. There are also pole reversals which occur from time to time, (not so often a climate change) they cause complete chaos with the planet. I recall reading somewhere in the distant past that we are the 3rd civilisation to walk the earth, so sooner of later one of the prophets of doom will be correct.
To counter global warming the ancient Mayans used to sacrafice virgins, there are not very many of them around these days so we build windmills, equally futile. I know now how Don Quixote must have felt.

----------


## George Brims

I really don't know where to start in answering such nonsense. The oil companies and their paid stooges have made such a great job of turning a scientific issue into a political one that it's probably impossible to have any kind of a reasoned debate about it any more. 

The same thing happened way back in the early 1970s when people started to worry that CFCs in aerosol propellants and air conditioners would cause damage to the ozone layer. This too was hailed as "a physical impossibility*". The chemical industry was at least partially successfully in convincing people it wasn't going to happen. Roll the clock forward to 1985, and woops! there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole, and there's about 4% less ozone in the whole ozone layer every year. Sorry about that folks, seems we were wrong after all, we'll stop using those compounds now. Can we sell you some sun screen in the mean time?

*Please explain the physical principle behind this statement.

----------


## Rheghead

Is it coincidental that anti-global warming propagada is totally void of credible science and heavy on clever wordplay?  :: 

The timing of all this is not coincidental on the eve of a major international agreement on Climate Change, to give this rubbish any airtime is totally irresponsible imho.

----------


## Kenn

Eagleclaw68......where did you source that load of claptrap and do you honestly think it can be verified?

----------


## riggerboy

> Eagleclaw68......where did you source that load of claptrap and do you honestly think it can be verified?



the same place the rest of the twats on here get the information, they get kinda what they want then mutilate it until it is what they believe and hey presto """paste""""

globle warming is a natural effect 

what caused the last ice age " i dont think it was emmission "

----------


## tonkatojo

> the same place the rest of the twats on here get the information, they get kinda what they want then mutilate it until it is what they believe and hey presto """paste""""
> 
> globle warming is a natural effect 
> 
> what caused the last ice age " i dont think it was emmission "


Steady RB, your getting very close to talking common sense.  :Smile:

----------


## roadbowler

little ice age coldest temperatures peaked with the peak of the maunder minimum. The inconvenient medieval warm period happened during the medieval maximum. What's the big mystery? I would have to agree with op and philll. Anthropogenic warming is a scam. It is a scam built on fear. CO2 is an essential  part of the cycle of vitality of every living organism on this planet. Where would you be without it? Hadley centre who advise the metoffice have been hacked. Their deceit is apparent to anyone who wishes to download it. Besides, the metoffice people, cannot tell you an accurate weather forecast for tomorrow afternoon. What business do they have predicting climate 50 - 100 years from now?

----------


## Phill

If the various govt's & science bods who "believe" were all doomed by CO2 emissions are really that bothered why don't they ban fossil fuels?

1st January 2010 Worldwide ban. Oilrigs stop pumping, cars can be scrapped, coal mines can be filled in.
Job done and we all live happy ever after and we plunge instantly into an ice age.





Oh, but what about the money?

----------


## tonkatojo

> If the various govt's & science bods who "believe" were all doomed by CO2 emissions are really that bothered why don't they ban fossil fuels?
> 
> 1st January 2010 Worldwide ban. Oilrigs stop pumping, cars can be scrapped, coal mines can be filled in.
> Job done and we all live happy ever after and we plunge instantly into an ice age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but what about the money?



We certainly would be in an ice age in wor hoose without coal.

----------


## Phill

> We certainly would be in an ice age in wor hoose without coal.



Oh you'll be fine. Y'can use the alternator off yer car ye' cannae use and fashion a windmill out of the front wings n bumpers, windpower see!


 ::

----------


## justlooking

> Oh you'll be fine. Y'can use the alternator off yer car ye' cannae use and fashion a windmill out of the front wings n bumpers, windpower see!


 
where thers a will theres a way  ::

----------


## tonkatojo

> Oh you'll be fine. Y'can use the alternator off yer car ye' cannae use and fashion a windmill out of the front wings n bumpers, windpower see!


Ahdaintseewhatwonalternatorwuddeetivkeepmawarmifyo  riceagecumsivrywonwudneedwofthosemasivewonslikeBly  thpeirsgot... :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> We are convinced that ExxonMobils longstanding support of a small cadre of global climate change
> skeptics, and those skeptics access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it
> increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of
> its diplomacy.
> Senators Rockefeller and Snowe Letter to ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson. Oct 27, 2006


Just the sort of thing that gives flesh to the saying that a lie can travel around the world before the truth has chance to put its boots.

----------


## Dusty

I'm not too well up on all the writings on the Global Warming issue and don't really know which side to believe.
However, I have wondered that if we are currently warming the planet up due to our indiscriminate use of fossil fuels emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, how is it that we are not currently in the middle of a heatwave due to the effects of the Industrial Revolution emissions which lasted a fair time?
Also how come the two wars which produced (albeit shorter but what appeared to be hugly more intense) bouts of pollution due to burning and the burning of forests around the world have had no apparent effect (or at least I haven't seen anything attributing the current increase in global warming to them)?
Just wondering  ::

----------


## Phill

What did justlooking do to upset the mods?

One post and their banned, crikey  ::

----------


## Phill

> Ahdaintseewhatwonalternatorwuddeetivkeepmawarmifyo  riceagecumsivrywonwudneedwofthosemasivewonslikeBly  thpeirsgot...



There's always solar power, you can camp round a pile o' pebbles and use a magnifying glass to heat 'em up one by one. Totally carbon neutral.

----------


## ShelleyCowie

> What did justlooking do to upset the mods?
> 
> One post and their banned, crikey


Thats what i was thinking.  ::

----------


## Tubthumper

This will be EagleClaw having a wee poke and stirring things up again. Not heard from you in a while EC, been away have you? Sober this time? 
And this post, is it your own considered opinion? You haven't joined the debate, I wonder why?

----------


## Eagleclaw68

> This will be EagleClaw having a wee poke and stirring things up again. Not heard from you in a while EC, been away have you? Sober this time? 
> And this post, is it your own considered opinion? You haven't joined the debate, I wonder why?


Its great that someone remembers me so there's my opinion on this issue.

Many people believe that global warming is caused solely by the human beings that are on the planet.  It may be surprising to know that global warming is also a naturally occurring event.  It can easily be argued that whatever global warming occurs naturally on the planet is a fraction of what humans are capable of contributing.  

The human causes of global warming have been occurring for many years.  The various methods in which humans contribute to global warming include everything from driving cars to simply breathing.  Natural causes of global warming can be on a much larger scale that could be from sources outside of our planet.  Whether the cause is natural or human, global warming is a serious problem that everyone should be aware of. 

One natural cause of global warming involves the sun.  Overtime explosions are generated on the surface of the sun and the impact is felt all the way back on Earth.  The impact comes in the form of higher temperatures which directly affect global warming.  These eruptions occur quite normally on the sun and the planet can be regularly subjected to the increased temperatures that result. 

As both the Sun and the Earth orbit there are certain times that the two come closer to one another.  When this happens it is normal to see an increase in temperatures on the planet.  This is a great example of a natural cause of global warming. There is nothing we can actually do to prevent this from happening as it is part of the natural course of the universe.

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info.  Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.

----------


## Kenn

Well most of us will be aware of solar flares and sunspots and although they can contribute to a warming of the earth's atmosphere they also cause other events to happen such as wiping out communications.
With regard to the human contribution to CO2 emmissions common sense tells us that although we had an industrial revolution that was largely powered by fossile fuels,the internal combustion engine must be a far greater emmiter of such gases.Just  one generation back, owning a car was a luxury,now it is quite common to have three in a single family! Worked out pro rata to the ever increasing world population it would be a massive increase in volume of such gases.
The destruction of the tropical rain forrest must also be factored in, it's biggest job was to act like a huge sponge, soaking up the CO2 ,some 50% has been felled within a single life time!

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> _Watch An Inconvenient truth_, its got some good info.  Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.


Got to agree with redeyedtreefrog.

An Inconvenient truth is a very good starting point for anyone wanting an easy introduction to the science behind global warming. After watching it I dug deeper and found that Al Gore has presented pretty much what the scientific community worldwide are in agreement about.

Global warming caused by man ? 

Yes sir, I believe so.

----------


## joxville

The scientific community are the ones who got us into this bloody mess, it's not as bad as we are told. They have to get funding from somewhere so come out with all the scare stories they can think of to get money from Governments to pay for half-assed research......in other words taxpayers money to keep themselves in employment. Every so often another story crops up along the lines of 'We were wrong, it's worse than we thought'. Reading between the lines, what they are actually saying is 'we need even more of your money to continue our research'. 

The other side to the argument which is rarely heard, because Governments and those with an agenda will lose millions of tax £'s, is the fact that we are still coming out of a natural ice age, which takes quite a long time-so I'm led to believe, and one result of that is the seas getting warmer, which in turn absorb less CO2.  

For sure, man-made CO2 levels don't help, but I don't buy all the claptrap from those with a vested interest. They can't be right all the time, can they? (Except when they want to scare us even more).  ::

----------


## Rheghead

I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now?  ::   ::

----------


## Phill

> I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now?


But is it directly due to (man-made) global warming?
I don't KNOW the answer, but this is another bandwagon to jump on and to use as propaganda by those banging the drum.

We readily forget that most major towns and cities in the UK and the majority of the world are built up around rivers or their estuaries. Over the (hundreds) years these have flooded in the past, but they wouldn't have affected people so much or intensely because fewer folk probably lived there and it may have happened every year or two.

Then it doesn't happen for a while the floods get forgotten about and more people move in and houses built. Then there is a flood and everyone says  me how did that happen when their living a few metres from a water course.

What about all the man-made ing about with water courses & dams? This area is in the run off from the Lake district, hasn't there been man made changes to use the lakes as reservoirs?
What impact does it have on an area when a dam fails, either controlled or uncontrolled. Or even just overflowing.

Again I don't know if this has any effect, a direct or indirect effect.
But I convinced it is not directly due to man made emissions.

I used to live in an area that had flood plains close by, huge expanses of prime greenbelt left for agricultural use and recreational use.
The councils made preservation orders to keep them as such. But then some councillors were a little more interested in the money that could be made (personally) by investment from property companies.

All of a sudden houses were popping up on the flood plains, well, they ain't flooded for a few years!

And then there was a bit more rain than usual and surprise, surprise. The houses got flooded!
Global warming they said, why 'avent council built flood defences' they said.

Now I'm not saying Cockermouth is a flood plain that has been ignored and built on. But it is not directly due to global warming from man made emissions either.

----------


## Rheghead

A warmer climate means more evaporation which means more rain, it doesn't really get any simpler than that.

----------


## Eagleclaw68

Mexican scientist warn Earth will enter 'Little Ice Age' for up to 80 Years Due to decrease in solar activity
Excerpt: An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity.

----------


## roadbowler

> I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now?


actually, they mignt. piers corbyn, astrophysicist and agw sceptic could have told them 10 montns ago to brace themselves fOr.... water and gales. ::

----------


## roadbowler

i really should add that it is beyond criminal that the metoffice do not take his methods into consideration. Predicting a storm to hit where it did to the very day of when it happened 10 MONTHS in advance using forecasting methods based on solar activity cannot be sniffed at.  btw.... Another one coming end of december!

----------


## Venture

> What did justlooking do to upset the mods?
> 
> One post and their banned, crikey


Is this a new record for the org.?   :Wink:

----------


## George Brims

> Its great that someone remembers me so there's my opinion on this issue.
> <stuff snipped out>


It's a good thing you stated what followed that first sentence as your opinion. There was hardly anything accurate in what followed.

----------


## George Brims

> The scientific community are the ones who got us into this bloody mess


Nope. we just found it,  like a turd lying on the carpet.




> ... is the fact that we are still coming out of a natural ice age, which takes quite a long time-so I'm led to believe,


It takes a long time, but it's done and dusted quite some time ago. 



> ...one result of that is the seas getting warmer, which in turn absorb less CO2.


Warmer water holds MORE carbon dioxide. That might help in some respects. However the down side is the water becomes more acidic. Bye bye coral reefs.




> For sure, man-made CO2 levels don't help, but I don't buy all the claptrap from those with a vested interest.


Vested interests like the oil companies?

----------


## Rheghead

> Warmer water holds MORE carbon dioxide. That might help in some respects.


Actually I thought the opposite.

----------


## Rheghead

It's not going away people, despite the Sun being at a low ebb, 2009 is still expected to be the 5th hottest year on record.

Cool sun and hot years, funny that, very strange!  :: 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...rds-began.html

----------


## tonkatojo

> It's not going away people, despite the Sun being at a low ebb, 2009 is still expected to be the 5th hottest year on record.
> 
> Cool sun and hot years, funny that, very strange! 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...rds-began.html


I heard this could be different if we had a very cold December, sounds a bit hit n miss to me these so called records.

----------


## Metalattakk

From that same article:



> They also come just a day after critics called for a independent inquiry into    leaked emails which appear to suggest respected scientists were manipulating    data to strengthen the case for global warming.

----------


## Phill

I don't think we have enough reliable data at all, never mind that which is twisted to gain the desired results.

We only really have reliable weather data for the UK since 1914, although some records go back to the 1650's this cannot be relied upon as accurate by today's calibrated standards.

I would imagine we have only really gotten any idea of global weather since WWII. The jet stream was only discovered at the end of the war.

How can we seriously think we have enough data when it's based on a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the time the planet has been in existence.
And during all that time the planet has constantly evolved and changed in many ways, and it will continue to do so.

We still don't have answers for what has happened in the past to the planet, how can we predict the future.

Yes man has had an impact, in many ways, that cannot be denied.
But change is inevitable, whatever we do. Part of the problem is the human psyche and our natural resistance to change.
The planet is changing and carving up the countryside to plant some windmills isn't going to stop the evolutionary/natural/godly process.

It's cyclical surely, as night follows day. The planet will go from heatwave to iceage and back again, one process creates the other.

----------


## tonkatojo

Did they not get data from core samples from glaciers or the arctic that gave better indication of weather pattens, I'm not sure how far back in time they went, perhaps someone will give more info.

----------


## Metalattakk

> It's cyclical surely, as night follows day. The planet will go from heatwave to iceage and back again, one process creates the other.


Absolutely, and there's nothing we can do to stop it in it's tracks. The difference we, as a race, have made on the global climate change is negligible, and will continue to be negligible.

This whole Man-made Global Warming is a myth, perpetuated by money-hungry reactionaries in Government and their chosen 'advisors'.

Have a read here, and learn about Multi-Decadal Oscillation.

----------


## RecQuery

I've really no desire to get into another one of these debates, that being said:

As a fan of science and reason, I question Al Gore and his ilk; the environmentalist movement seems to have been taken over by political groups pushing social agendas, they doctor reports, intimidate and generally act like fundamentalists.

Just to be clear based on what I've read - I believe the climate is changing as it has done so naturally in the past and that human influence is negligible.

Rather than me paraphrasing I offer these as a rebuttal to An Inconvenient Truth.

Penn & Teller: Bullshit - being green (Google Video - 28 minutes)

The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video - 1 hour 16 minutes)

*EDIT:* I should probably add that I do believe we should research alternative forms of energy and recycling, but thats just because research in itself is good and we may find something more efficient or cheaper.

----------


## Rheghead

I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts.  Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers.  Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh.  Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish.  ::

----------


## RecQuery

See now you're acting just like a creationist, its just like watching Stavro argue the existence of god.

My sources are proper science... not pseudo-science how can my sources sell stuff they basically say everything is all right. I never believed in it before the recent scandal and I'm so confident in my position and the evidence that I'll even give the guy a pass on that one situation.

It is your sources that use scare tactic headlines to sell
It is your sources where supposed teams of scientists are stacked with liberal arts majors
It is your sources, that when they do have proper scientists, doctor reports and then don't allow people to remove their names
It is your sources that have been peddling the same stuff repackaged since the 1900's

I take great offence that you assume I haven't researched and read and that your point is correct because you believe it, I look critically and skeptically on everything.

I'd personally like to stick it to large monolithic energy companies, but thats a political opinion, the science just isn't there.

----------


## Rheghead

> the science just isn't there.


You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation?  This has been known since 19th century.  In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly.  What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere?  It isn't really rocket science.

----------


## Phill

Climate change clearly isn't tosh, the climate has consistently been changing. A fact I'm happy to accept.

The headlines and scandal I'm not subscribing too is that we need to handover more taxpayers money to large corporations under the guise of subsidies.

Even in Caithness we have residents brokering deals to cash in on subsidies, ahem, sorry, to make deals to save the planet.
And then fly off round Europe in a private jet.

Now if you take your headlines (based on scientific fact of course) aviation is apparently the single most contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and we're all gonna get taxed if we want to take a flight shared with a few hundred other people.
But, if you have your own windfarm subsidised from our taxes you can fly around in your own comfort tax free  :: 

Hmmmm
I'd go with the facts too. If you can actually find them.

----------


## RecQuery

> You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation?  This has been known since 19th century.  In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly.  What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere?  It isn't really rocket science.


Wow I've been quoted out of context again, I was clearly talking about about a body of evidence designed to make a particular point and not the nature of CO2 - a vast majority of which comes from volcanoes, forest fire and plant decay ... so many parallels with another thread... I'm just bowing out at this point. I'm not qualified to deal with this particular level of stupidity.

----------


## Rheghead

> a vast majority of which comes from volcanoes, forest fire and plant decay ... so many parallels with another thread... I'm just bowing out at this point. I'm not qualified to deal with this particular level of stupidity.


Completely wrong.  Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year.

----------


## roadbowler

between the turds on the carpet and 'fudge factors' in the computer climate model programs something is really beginning to hit the fan! Lmao. Lots of uncomfortable i told you sos' and job vacancies at the cru coming soon! Www.climaterealists.com

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> I don't think we have enough reliable data at all, never mind that which is twisted to gain the desired results.
> 
> We only really have reliable weather data for the UK since 1914, although some records go back to the 1650's this cannot be relied upon as accurate by today's calibrated standards.
> 
> I would imagine we have only really gotten any idea of global weather since WWII. The jet stream was only discovered at the end of the war.
> 
> How can we seriously think we have enough data when it's based on a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the time the planet has been in existence.
> And during all that time the planet has constantly evolved and changed in many ways, and it will continue to do so.
> 
> ...


Seen An Inconvenient Truth yet?  There's some nice graphs that show that process and theres a massive spike about the time we start fossil fuels.

Also, about the weather data, can't they measure stuff from long rods of ice from the poles?

----------


## arana negra

I so wish my late husband was around to answer this thread. He was an environmental scientist. He often used to say that many people that 'talk' on the 'Global Warming' issue had it all wrong it was 'Climate Change' for a start and that many others simply failed to understand the subject and should not be allowed to speak on the subject in public. In his working life he was part if IPPC BAT and IPTS and JRC. If any is interested in his work mail me and I will give you his name to google. He did not blow his own trumpet, a shy man who left an amazing legacy to us all. ( These are not my words but those of work colleagues all over the world)

----------


## JAWS

> Seen An Inconvenient Truth yet?  There's some nice graphs that show that process and theres a massive spike about the time we start fossil fuels.


The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph. 
Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels. 

Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever. 

Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence. 
How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth. 

When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.

----------


## Rheghead

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...nt-danger.html

----------


## Rheghead

> The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph. 
> Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels. 
> 
> Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever. 
> 
> Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence. 
> How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth. 
> 
> When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.


Take it to the scientists since you know better, let the world know that we are ok, nothing to worry about.  You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.

----------


## gleeber

> Take it to the scientists since you know better, let the world know that we are ok, nothing to worry about. You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.


I'm no that bothered about Global warming. I know this back end has been the mildest in caithness for a long time so I'm all for it. Whats interesting here though is how I am beginning to swing with the conspiracy theorists. Normally I wouldnt touch them with a barge pole against the scientists but I think the nos have it, the nos have it.  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

Very sad or it's a wind up.  ::   And it's working...  ::   ::

----------


## Phill

> You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.


I don't think anyone is shrugging it off as if nothing is changing and all is tickety boo.

The climate is changing and we all need to be aware of that. Humankind is spewing out all sorts of emissions and we need to do something about it also.

However I don't see myself as a conspiracy theorist but, as with many things, money is blurring the issue. And one thing I do know a little about is what happens when money becomes involved in research of any kind, for or against.
You pay for the results you want.

It's a long standing game in business, introduce "independent" research via politicians which suggest something bad is going to happen unless we throw money at it.
Where does the money come from? You, me, average bloke n' wifey getting taxed on something.
Where does the money go? To the corporations providing the equipment and services to prevent the bad stuff from happening.

Now this isn't necessarily a bad thing as it can keep money moving and create jobs etc.

Being seen to be "Green" is fashionable and media friendly, so it's worth the likes of Asda Walmart to join the subsidy party and fly half way around the world in a nice big CO2 belching jet to look for prime chunks of Caithness & Sutherland to carve up so they can cash in on the grants from the govt to plant windmills.
They can then tell all their customers ('cept up 'ere) that they are a jolly nice company concerned about the planet.

Double bonus, they can count the windfarm twice to get more money from the gov'ts. Once in the UK and again in the US.


Funny, while out the other day out of 7 windymills I saw only 1 was turning, quite a windy day too.
The're not very reliable either.

----------


## Phill

Ooh yeah, Acid rain.
I did wonder what happened to that one.

----------


## Rheghead

> Ooh yeah, Acid rain.
> I did wonder what happened to that one.


Since the curative action for acid rain is the same for climate change, why should lobby groups run 2 campaigns to cure the same problem and outspend their budget?  Seemples

----------


## Rheghead

> Being seen to be "Green" is fashionable and media friendly,


It wasn't always that way.  Being green was considered to be a crank position despite all the evidence.  What is best?  A spirit of the times which promotes a sustainable future for our children's children or one which keeps the short term interests of profit-making energy providers at an all time high?  You decide which is most probable.

----------


## Phill

LOL!!

Aye.

But it's generally our money that's being spent and their not normally so shy with it.

Not bothered about about £6m on climate porn advertising are they.

----------


## Phill

> You decide which is most probable.


Well my money is here on the most probable: (which in my view actual)




> short term interests of profit-making energy providers at an all time high


But I agree with the sentiment of what we should be teaching our kids.

----------


## Rheghead

> But I agree with the sentiment of what we should be teaching our kids.


Excellent point since the short term interests of today's profit-makers differ greatly from the longterm interests of those that don't have any political interest.....yet

----------


## JAWS

> Take it to the scientists since you know better, let the world know that we are ok, nothing to worry about.  You'll just get laughed at if it wasn't such a serious matter.


Which bit will they be laughing at? That is assuming the scientists concerned are not a carefully selected group with an vested financial or political interest in promoting Man Made Climate Change. 

As for the comments about acid rain and it being caused by the same activities as Climate Change then the problem should be getting far worse as time has gone by. Three decades ago the lakes were supposed to be getting so acidic that they were dying along with trees. The news was full of pictures of fir trees in forests dying where they stood. According to the Global Warmists there as been a massive increase in CO2 since then which would obviously have made the situation far worse. The strange thing is that it simply hasn't happened. The forests up here are certainly not dying where they stand or the forestry would not be planting more trees for them to simply fall down dead. As for the Lochs in the Highlands, by now they should be so acidic there should be nothing living in them, at least if what was predicted three decades ago were true, but they too seem to have failed to have behaved as ordered. People seem to spend  lot of time fishing in them considering all the fish are supposed to be dead by now. The reason the acid rain scare stories were dropped was because the dire predictions were obviously failing to materialise so that scare was quietly dropped.

----------


## gleeber

Like I said global warning only interests me in the respect that it'll be warmer working on a roof in November. I'm fairly green naturally so my conscience is clear.
Global warmings the new bogeyman though and I just took it for granted that the present problems were caused by humankind mostly because I believe the scientists. I know about climate change over thousands of years but the claims being made by the scientific establishment seem pretty clear. 
This thread is enlighening. ::

----------


## Rheghead

> As for the comments about acid rain and it being caused by the same activities as Climate Change then the problem should be getting far worse as time has gone by. Three decades ago the lakes were supposed to be getting so acidic that they were dying along with trees. The news was full of pictures of fir trees in forests dying where they stood. According to the Global Warmists there as been a massive increase in CO2 since then which would obviously have made the situation far worse. The strange thing is that it simply hasn't happened. The forests up here are certainly not dying where they stand or the forestry would not be planting more trees for them to simply fall down dead. As for the Lochs in the Highlands, by now they should be so acidic there should be nothing living in them, at least if what was predicted three decades ago were true, but they too seem to have failed to have behaved as ordered. People seem to spend  lot of time fishing in them considering all the fish are supposed to be dead by now. The reason the acid rain scare stories were dropped was because the dire predictions were obviously failing to materialise so that scare was quietly dropped.


http://www.miljostatus.no/en/Topics/...ide/Acid-rain/

----------


## changilass

Rheggers, for those of us who really can't be bothered clicking a link and wading through a long spiel, would you please summarise what points you are making please.

I HATE links.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheggers, for those of us who really can't be bothered clicking a link and wading through a long spiel, would you please summarise what points you are making please.
> 
> I HATE links.


The point is that acid rain is still an issue and not something that was quietly shelved through no evidence.  Jaws's false assertion just seems to be one of the lies myths that the climate change sceptics try to throw about to muddy the waters.

----------


## gleeber

That was an impressive link Rheghead. Jaws has been left in your wake with his acid rain blurb but Im still dangling by the confidence of the other deniers.

----------


## Rheghead

> Im still dangling by the confidence of the other deniers.


The climatologists are confident about their findings and are ready to go home, be made redundant or reassigned.  It is the deniers that are keeping them at their posts to gather more information on what they already know about.  The IPCC use 3 independent laboratories and they are all coming up with the same conclusions.

----------


## Stavro

> The hockey stick graph which Al Bore uses in his propaganda is a total nonsense. The person who created the graph refused, for a very long time, to state what methods he had used to create it. It was only because two Canadians refused to be fobbed off that he was eventually embarrassed into giving details of his methods. It turns out that whatever figures you use, even totally ridiculous ones, the result is the hockey stick graph. 
> Much of the supposedly accurate information in Bore's film has been shown to be nothing more than wishful thinking, including the story about the islands disappearing under the Pacific due to claims of rising water levels. 
> 
> Anybody remember when all the trees were going to die because of Acid Rain? That little claim disappeared and the trees are still here and growing as strongly as ever. 
> 
> Remember the Hole in the Ozone above the Antarctic? There is a story behind that as well. The scientist who "discovered" it had been carrying out studies for several years. The people providing his grants informed him that, as he had found nothing of scientific interest in that time the current season would be his last and his funding stopped. It was shortly after that that he suddenly made his announcement the hole in the ozone layer. Not that I can see a connection between the two things, I'm sure the treat of no more funding was pure coincidence. 
> How do I know this? Just prior to the millennium the BBC World Service broadcast a fairly long series of ten minute talks each night made by people who were considered to have made some notable contribution to the world in the previous century. The scientist who "discovered" the Ozone Hole was one of them and the information about his funding came straight from his own mouth. 
> 
> When the first computer models were created to predict future trends in the climate they worked wonderfully. When they created predictions for areas around the edges of oceans which were quite feasible the climates for the interiors of continents were so ridiculous that they were an impossibility. When the centres of continents had predicted climates which were within reason the predicted climates for coastal areas were totally unfeasible. What happened? The computer models were adjusted and adjusted and adjusted until they threw out the current predictions. I am always suspicious when somebody who has a certain objective in mind adjusts and adjusts the evidence and eventually arrives at the answer they set out to find. That information again came from the people creating the models well before all the panic which has risen as a result of Kyoto.



Totally agree with this and would add the "coincidence" of dangers to us all from CFCs occurring at just the same time as the particular chemical company's patent on CFCs ran out (so others could have made the stuff and taken some of the market).  :: 

The main "greenhouse" gas is NOT CO2. The main greenhouse gas is H2O and since there has always been the same volume of that about the place ... Al Gore and Co., Inc. must have an alternative agenda.

----------


## Rheghead

> The main "greenhouse" gas is NOT CO2. The main greenhouse gas is H2O and since there has always been the same volume of that about the place ... Al Gore and Co., Inc. must have an alternative agenda.


Who is increasing the amount of water then?

----------


## Stavro

> Who is increasing the amount of water then?


You've lost me there, Rheghead, I thought that I had stated it was remaining the same?  :Smile:

----------


## gleeber

As Ive already said up until yesterday i had little interest in the climate change debate. This thread though is beginning to tread a familiar path. I was kinda swung by Jaws thread but Rhegheads comeback with the Norwegian environmental link and its research about acid rain cant be ignored. Can it?

----------


## Rheghead

> You've lost me there, Rheghead, I thought that I had stated it was remaining the same?


Bingo!  So what's changing the temperature since we've discounted water as the culprit.

----------


## Stavro

> Bingo!  So what's changing the temperature since we've discounted water as the culprit.


Changes in Earth's climate are primarily caused by the Sun.

By the way, if you agree that "we've discounted water as the culprit," and since water is far more important as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, then we have also discounted CO2 as the culprit.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> Changes in Earth's climate are primarily caused by the Sun.


Can you convince me of that?




> By the way, if you agree that "we've discounted water as the culprit," and since water is far more important as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, then we have also discounted CO2 as the culprit.


No we haven't because the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing with temperature in accordance with the hockey stick model.

----------


## Stavro

> Can you convince me of that?


Don't be ridiculous. Do you think that I'm going to waste my time again, just to be greeted with some silly response? I'd have more success teaching sharks to roller skate.  :: 





> No we haven't because the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing with temperature in accordance with the hockey stick model.


See what I mean!

----------


## bekisman

_"Acid rain restricts global warming by reducing methane emissions from natural wetland areas, suggests a global climate study."_

Well that's alright then...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6231-acid-rain-limits-global-warming.html

----------


## Rheghead

> Don't be ridiculous. Do you think that I'm going to waste my time again, just to be greeted with some silly response? I'd have more success teaching sharks to roller skate.


Well we keep coming back to that inconvenient evidence thing.  Not everyone is happy to accept dogma, there's a thing called natural curiosity, the conclusion may not be to our liking but we should accept it non-the-less otherwise we get accused of being deniers.

----------


## rich

The Copenagan conference will be underway early next month.
What would constitute a successful outcome?
 Or, come to that, a lousy outcome?

----------


## Each

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on Channel 4 a couple of years ago said it all.

Its all a conspiracy to fill the pockets of windmill manufacturers...

----------


## Rheghead

> "The Great Global Warming Swindle" broadcast on Channel 4 a couple of years ago said it all.
> 
> Its all a conspiracy to fill the pockets of windmill manufacturers...


It would be easy to think that, in fact that was why that BS was made to make you think that way.

----------


## Stavro

> It would be easy to think that, ...



It would be easy to think that, because it is true.

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514

----------


## Rheghead

> It would be easy to think that, because it is true.
> 
> http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514


No it was total rubbish.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...7/03/swindled/

----------


## rich

This "debate" is classic thud and blunder ORG.
Each side is hunkered down in their particular trench shouting nasty things at each other.
(The powers that be should take the lot of you off the subject until you have calmed down.)
You cant have science without evidence.
Could somebody out there start providing statistics.? Once we have the stats we can link them up as we see fit according to our beliefs.
And then, Gleeber, you  could choose a safe time to get back on your roof (which I suspect you of converting into a wnd machine) without being reduced to a cinder or swept away by a hurricane.

----------


## Through

> The same thing happened way back in the early 1970s when people started to worry that CFCs in aerosol propellants and air conditioners would cause damage to the ozone layer. This too was hailed as "a physical impossibility*". The chemical industry was at least partially successfully in convincing people it wasn't going to happen. Roll the clock forward to 1985, and woops! there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole, and there's about 4% less ozone in the whole ozone layer every year. Sorry about that folks, seems we were wrong after all, we'll stop using those compounds now. Can we sell you some sun screen in the mean time?


The "hole" in the ozone layer was discovered in 1974.   There is evidence that the "hole" in the ozone layer is healing itself.

New Church, M J et al, Evidence for slowdown in stratospheric ozone loss:  first stage of ozone recovery, J Geophys Res, 108(D16) 4507, doi:10.1029/2003JD003471. [AGU]

We have now identified a number of cyclic behaviours exhibited by the ozone layer.   What we don't know, is how was the ozone layer behaving prior to first noticing the "hole" in 1974.   For all we know, the "hole" is normal.

I keep putting "hole" inside quotation marks, because it is not a hole.   It is a thinning of the ozone layer.

Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.

----------


## Through

> Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info.  Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.


Oh yes, the piece of work that earned a Noble Prize for nine scientific errors.   It is now a worthless award.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2007/2288.html

----------


## Through

> Did they not get data from core samples from glaciers or the arctic that gave better indication of weather pattens, I'm not sure how far back in time they went, perhaps someone will give more info.


Well yes they did Tonkatojo.

Unfortunately I can't seem to insert the graph derived from the Vostok icecore, as produced by Petit, et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429 - 436.

What this shows, is a temperature record that goes back more than 420,000 years.   It begins with a warm period and ends with the current warm period.   There are five warm periods in total and four ice ages.   The warm periods are all brief and the ice ages are all long term.

All of the previous warm periods, known as interglacials, are approximately 2 degrees centigrade warmer than the peak of the current warm period.   The peak for this period is in the past.

----------


## joxville

> I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts. Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers. Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh. Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish.


I daresay the majority of people, myself included, find the thought of trawling through scientific papers tedious in the extreme, plus the 'evidence' will be so full of waffle that the man in the street won't be able to understand it, which is the result Government wants anyway. Governments rely on advice from the scientific community, which in turn needs funding, so where will they get the money from? 




> Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone.


I think the drum has been banged for so long and so loud by the 'green supporters' that the two are now inextricably linked.

----------


## Through

Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003.   They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey.   These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.

I have taken a keen interest in Greenhouse Theory and the subsequent Global Warming, Climate Change and Antropogenic Global Warming since I first discovered the theory in Environmental Chemistry around 1981.

Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.

My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.

I have a great many friends, colleagues and associates who are scientists and engineers at all levels from graduates to Professors Emeritus.   On the whole, I have to report that more of the scientist I speak to, also disagree that carbon dioxide causes global warming.

When I meet scientists who agree that carbon dioxide cause global warming, I find that many have not investigated the available evidence and cannot sustain a logical debate.

Of those who can argue beyond the basics, there are two groups.   One group go off to try and find better arguments.   The other group avoid arguing over the real evidence, but rather decide to agree to disagree and cling to the theory and models.   More about models later.

Rothman D H, 2002. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99: 4167 - 4171.   Was able to show not only that carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times as high as they were today, but also that carbon dioxide history "exhibits no systematic correspondence with the geological record of climatic variations at tectonic time scales."

If Greenhouse Theory was correct, carbon dioxide at four times the levels of today, would cause rapid warming, increasing carbon dioxide, even more rapid warming and so on.   This means that we humans are living proof that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming, since we would not be here to discuss the issue.

Many other research teams have found historical instances when carbon dioxide and temperature did completely different things.

For example,

Fischer H Wahlen, et al 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712 - 1714.

Mudelsee M, et al 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583 - 589.

Pagani et al 2005. Marked decline in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations during the paleogene. Science 309: 600 - 603.

If you want more, please message me and I can supply several more references on this theme.

Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming.   History shows us that there are many such events.

Many more research teams have published findings that show past temperature changes have led changes in carbon dioxide levels by periods of hundreds to thousands of years.

----------


## Stavro

> Oh yes, the piece of work that earned a Noble Prize for nine scientific errors.   It is now a worthless award.


Albert Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" should be re-named, "A Convenient Lie."  :Smile:

----------


## Aaldtimer

Originally Posted by *Through*  
_Anyway, this thread is about global warming, not ozone._

Jox..."I think the drum has been banged for so long and so loud by the 'green supporters' that the two are now inextricably linked."

Of course Jox, everything about climate is inextricably linked! :Frown:

----------


## Rheghead

> Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003.   They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey.   These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.
> 
> I have taken a keen interest in Greenhouse Theory and the subsequent Global Warming, Climate Change and Antropogenic Global Warming since I first discovered the theory in Environmental Chemistry around 1981.
> 
> Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.
> 
> My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.
> 
> I have a great many friends, colleagues and associates who are scientists and engineers at all levels from graduates to Professors Emeritus.   On the whole, I have to report that more of the scientist I speak to, also disagree that carbon dioxide causes global warming.
> ...


What will be the effect on global temperatures by doubling the amount of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels?

Plus I don't believe that water is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't have the effect of raising temperatures either.

----------


## gleeber

> Having changed my mind twice, I now disagree that human activites are the main or even a significant cause of global warming, climate change or anything else that you choose to call it.
> 
> My reasons are purely scientific and rely on actual scientific evidence, as published in scientific papers.


That was a good post Through. Very authoritive and comes with enough scientific reference for your opponents to challenge you.
I have little scientific knowledge concerning this issue but I trust science. 
Why, if your opinions are correct, do others come up with a different scenario for global warming? 
Surely it's not that difficult for science in a modern world to say that mans pollution is having an effect on the climate of the planet? Well, the truth is they do say it's a problem but then you and others on this thread say different. 
Whats really going on? 
Is it all down to prestige and how many Nobel prizes can be won? Are the opponets of human induced global warming so cynical in their reasoning that they would rather condemn the results of fellow scientists for deeper personal reasons not too far removed from prestige and Nobel prize envy?
There's a similar impasse in the evolution/creation debate where a small minority of scientists, because they believe in the Bibles interpretation of creation, are blinded to the argument for evolution and throw a number of small spanners into the works to muddy the weaters. They are not necessarily dishonourable and I'm sure some of them believe it, but throwing the baby out with the bath water does nothing to help anyones case. 
Is that what's happening here?
Is the amount of pollution being pumped into the earths atmosphere having absolutely no effect on the ecology of the planet?

----------


## Rheghead

Also, cherry-picking bits out of scientific papers to shore up a particular viewpoint is one of the most widely used tactics of climate change deniers in the blogosphere.

----------


## Rheghead

> Even one instance of carbon dioxide and temperature going their own separate ways would be enough to disprove the theory that carbon dioxide causes global warming.   History shows us that there are many such events.


How does this disprove anything?  ::

----------


## tonkatojo

> Well yes they did Tonkatojo.
> 
> Unfortunately I can't seem to insert the graph derived from the Vostok icecore, as produced by Petit, et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429 - 436.
> 
> What this shows, is a temperature record that goes back more than 420,000 years.   It begins with a warm period and ends with the current warm period.   There are five warm periods in total and four ice ages.   The warm periods are all brief and the ice ages are all long term.
> 
> All of the previous warm periods, known as interglacials, are approximately 2 degrees centigrade warmer than the peak of the current warm period.   The peak for this period is in the past.



That's the one, does it give any indications what were the causes of the ebb and flow of the temperatures ??. or is the data going to blow the "myths" of current global warming. :Frown:

----------


## Stavro

> I don't believe that water is a greenhouse gas.



Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas by a long, long way. Far more effective than CO2.

----------


## Rheghead

> Water vapour is the main greenhouse gas by a long, long way. Far more effective than CO2.


How do you know?   ::

----------


## Stavro

> How do you know?


I found out from someone who has studied atmospheric physics.

----------


## Rheghead

> I found out from someone who has studied atmospheric physics.


How did he know?

----------


## Stavro

> How did he know?


There seems to be no end, and certainly no point, to your silly questions.  :Smile:

----------


## 3of8

> Watch An Inconvenient truth, its got some good info.  Search through some science websites, they'll have credible information.


Yeah, right! More like a very convenient moneymaker.




> A warmer climate means more evaporation which means more rain, it doesn't really get any simpler than that.


Based on what evidence, Rheg? As you have said yourself... 


> Also, cherry-picking bits out of scientific papers to shore up a particular viewpoint is one of the most widely used tactics of climate change deniers in the blogosphere.


.... the same can be said of the believers.

Truth is no-one knows really do they? What we have had is climate-change promoters ramming so called facts down our throats left, right and bloody centre and now, if relevant newspaper reports are correct and to believed, we are to pay for the privilege of pumping carbon into the atmosphere in the form of yet more taxes. 

However, the so called evidential climate change scientists have had their emails leaked suggesting that they were telling lies and manipulating the debate for their own ends, Indeed, any non believing academics were quite often denied funding grants for their own research as they didn't agree with current thinking on climate change. Hypocritical or what?

Harking back to George Brims earlier, a reasoned debate is now really impossible and, on the subject of the ozone layer, a hole is found over the Antarctic. How do we know that there hasn't always been a hole there? Only discovered after satellites found the damn thing. Therefore, why can't we reason that as we've had more than one ice age that the earth will get warmer and colder without our help? We can't, can we?

Are we that smug and superior though to think that the human race alone is solely responsible for what happens on this planet? To quote Shakespeare in Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I believe that rings true even more so today.

----------


## Rheghead

> There seems to be no end, and certainly no point, to your silly questions.


Why are they silly?

----------


## Rheghead

@3of 8  You've heard of the water cycle haven't you?  Seen a kettle lately?  According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.

----------


## 3of8

> I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts.  Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers.  Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh.  Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish.


Some of us, like me, even have degrees in Environmental Science and don't believe what the newspaper selling headlines say, so please don't make out that you may only be the only educated one in our midst.  ::

----------


## Stavro

> ... According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.


Misquoting again, Rheghead? Does the atmosphere not reach saturation with H2O? Have I not stated the primary cause of climate fluctuation to be the Sun and its cycles?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Harking back to George Brims earlier, a reasoned debate is now really impossible.


Scientific debates are of a different nature to socio-political debates, seeing that climate change is a scientific phenomenon and blogospheres can only deal with socio-political debates then I do share that sentiment.

Ultimately, we need to consult with the scientists who are researching this field directly if we are to get the proper picture on climate change.  And we all know what they are saying in accordance with the IPCC.

There are too many 'political scientists' trying to grab the headlines with 'evidence' that disproves AGW, a lot of it is misrepresented scientific papers or even downright lies.  Though some points may be valid which have made scientists to go back and reassess things.

I will suggest anyone to consult realclimate.org as their first port of call on climate change.  They love debunking all that Great global warming swindle rubbish and such like.

I do recognise that most people are more accustomed to socio-political debating and science very often fails to get its point over to the public because of the trap of coming over in an esoteric fashion.  Hence that is why interested groups who want to keep the public away from accepting anthropogenic global warming are already at the advantage.

----------


## Rheghead

> Misquoting again, Rheghead? Does the atmosphere not reach saturation with H2O? Have I not stated the primary cause of climate fluctuation to be the Sun and its cycles?


Not misquoting at all, you said that water (vapour) was a greenhouse gas, I merely took your point further to say that whatever is driving climate change is making the effect worse since water in the gaseous phase is in a thermo-dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase.  I didn't expect you to understand that.

----------


## 3of8

> @3of 8  You've heard of the water cycle haven't you?  Seen a kettle lately?  According to stavro that extra water will make the situation worse, all due to man made emissions.


That's right! Well, almost. The amount of water in the water cycle _never_ changes. What does change is the state of the water e.g. liquid, ice, vapour. Without water vapour, co2 alone wouldn't increase the temperature of the earth by about more than 1 degree, which is why I think we're being penalised, tax wise, for nothing. Water vapour absorbs heat and increases the heat in the atmosphere. Satellite measurements have been made 1982 and 2004 to confirm this (not a great length of time really, is it?). Now as the sun heats the earth, the heat reflected back from objects on the earth, even seawater and snow, is absorbed and trapped by the water vapour up there instead of escaping back into space. Ironically, and I'll have to check my facts again, the increase in solar power means that the black photo-voltaic cells that change the light from the sun into electricity, contributes to reflected heat into the atmosphere!

However, one good volcano eruption would blast enough particles into the atmosphere which has the opposite effect. The particles reflect away the heat from the sun and the earth cools.

----------


## gleeber

> That's right! Well, almost.


I love that.
Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like. It reminds me that the reality of my existance is so far removed from natures wonders to bother too much. We're all living on a lump of rock speeding through the universe at 3000 miles an hour, apparently, in an easterly direction. 
This debate then is very important although if you deny theres a problem you may think theres no need for a debate
Ill be honest though. I still trust in science because I understand the mindset when I think of climate change. I'm aware of the processess and investigation that scientific papers dealing with climate change will be offered to scientific journals where they can be read by anyone and if someones not happy with the research behind that paper then they present their own paper for scrutiny and so it goes on.
I have to say from my position as an ordinary punter watching the news my complete trust goes in the opinions of the scientists who are advising world governments on the latest research into global warming.
Some of you are saying this is a complete swindle and that many people must be involved in the conspiracy. I suppose if we looked into it really carefully we may find the Pope implicated somewhere along the line through the Vaticans practice of using the stock markets and environmentally friendly insurance companies. 
I wouldnt know where to begin if I tried to understand what its all about but isn't it about the use of polutants in modern life
affecting the balance of our naturally evolved climate and that the effects of continuing in the way we are going could be of great importance to future generations?
You guys are saying there is no problem?

----------


## Mrs Bucket

> I love that.
> Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like. It reminds me that the reality of my existance is so far removed from natures wonders to bother too much. We're all living on a lump of rock speeding through the universe at 3000 miles an hour, apparently, in an easterly direction. 
> This debate then is very important although if you deny theres a problem you may think theres no need for a debate
> Ill be honest though. I still trust in science because I understand the mindset when I think of climate change. I'm aware of the processess and investigation that scientific papers dealing with climate change will be offered to scientific journals where they can be read by anyone and if someones not happy with the research behind that paper then they present their own paper for scrutiny and so it goes on.
> I have to say from my position as an ordinary punter watching the news my complete trust goes in the opinions of the scientists who are advising world governments on the latest research into global warming.
> Some of you are saying this is a complete swindle and that many people must be involved in the conspiracy. I suppose if we looked into it really carefully we may find the Pope implicated somewhere along the line through the Vaticans practice of using the stock markets and environmentally friendly insurance companies. 
> I wouldnt know where to begin if I tried to understand what its all about but isn't it about the use of polutants in modern life
> affecting the balance of our naturally evolved climate and that the effects of continuing in the way we are going could be of great importance to future generations?
> You guys are saying there is no problem?


 For goodness sake it is the natural way of things a few decades s ago they yes they were on about a new ice age

----------


## Rheghead

> For goodness sake it is the natural way of things a few decades s ago they yes they were on about a new ice age


they?  Again, the they was just a junior post grad student (or summat similiar) who got lucky with his 15 mins of fame and the media fell in love with him for getting them great headlines to sell newspapers.

----------


## 3of8

> I love that.
> Thats a good post 3of8 but it's a bit technical. Too real if you like.


Yeah, I tried to make it simple, but it's hard. Believe me though, that was a simplistic view.




> You guys are saying there is no problem?


I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.

----------


## Rheghead

> I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.


I'd say 0.17C per decade increase in the last 20 years is something to be alarmed about.   And the levels of CO2 are going by 2-3 ppm per year  now.  Seas levels are going up by ~3mm per year just by thermal expansion.

The global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.6-5.7C by the end of this century alone.  

If states like Bangladesh and Vanuatu had the clarity of mind like yourself then why are they bothered about climate change?

----------


## gleeber

> Yeah, I tried to make it simple, but it's hard. Believe me though, that was a simplistic view.
> 
> 
> 
> I am. I truly believe there isn't. Simply through reading the scientific journals rather than the sensationalist newspaper or TV news headlines. And they are definitely simplified and biased.


 There's your chance then. Go legal. Dont promote this kind of stuff on internet forums. Its for too important for you not to challenge them at the least? 
Otherwise it's no more than a conspiracy theory and believe me I would love to believe you but so far I'm struggling.

----------


## 3of8

> There's your chance then. Go legal. Dont promote this kind of stuff on internet forums. Its for too important for you not to challenge them at the least? 
> Otherwise it's no more than a conspiracy theory and believe me I would love to believe you but so far I'm struggling.


I'm promoting nothing. Expressing an opinion on a thread in a forum is all. Same as I would in the pub or with colleagues.

----------


## 3of8

> I'd say 0.17C per decade increase in the last 20 years is something to be alarmed about.   And the levels of CO2 are going by 2-3 ppm per year  now.  Seas levels are going up by ~3mm per year just by thermal expansion.
> 
> The global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.6-5.7C by the end of this century alone.  
> 
> If states like Bangladesh and Vanuatu had the clarity of mind like yourself then why are they bothered about climate change?


Hmmm. 

The average parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere are between 250 and 350. The average found in a house with good air circulation is between 350 and 1000. So an increase of 2 or 3 ppm isn't going to affect us that much really is it? 

An increase in sea level of around 3mm per year. That's around 30mm in 10 years, at the most an inch and a half, maybe 5 inches in 30 years? 

Global temperatures up by 1.6 to 5.7C in 90 years from now? In 10 years from now, anything could happen to reduce global temperatures by the same or more. Are your figures based on sound scientific evidence or the hysterical rantings of previously mentioned biased scientists?

Don't know much about Vanuatu apart from being in the Pacific somewhere, but Bangladesh is and has been flooded in the rainy season every year beyond living memory hasn't it? That's why they live in houses on stilts. But, I would imagine that the politicians there have been scared senseless by scurrilous claims made by the pro global warming group hence their being bothered.

----------


## gleeber

> I'm promoting nothing. Expressing an opinion on a thread in a forum is all. Same as I would in the pub or with colleagues.


 Well it's your opinion that attracted me. Just like a few others opinions on this matter. I was interested and had been following the debate at a distance and was aware of the wider implications if global warming was man made or not.
If it's man made then your stance whether it's in here or in the pub is criminal and Lord Haw Haw got hanged for less but if your right then the rest of the world is being hoodwinked.
Hang him I say.

----------


## joxville

It's unfair to of scientists _et al_ to bring Bangladesh into the argument since it's a low lying country, with most parts only about 60 feet above sea level. I've no idea what an increase of 1 inch in sea level would mean to the country overall.

----------


## Stavro

> Not misquoting at all, you said that water (vapour) was a greenhouse gas, I merely took your point further to say that whatever is driving climate change is making the effect worse since water in the gaseous phase is in a thermo-dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase.  I didn't expect you to understand that.


You didn't expect me to understand something that you did not say?  :: 

Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas yet? This is really elementary stuff, but I feel that you need to get back to basics before we can make progress in deprogramming you.  :Smile:

----------


## Through

> You mean to say that CO2 doesn't absorb and emit infra red radiation?  This has been known since 19th century.  In fact I think it was Arrhenius who calculated what the temperature of the Earth would be without the presence of greenhouse gases, about -32C if I remember rightly.  What will be the effect of putting more into the atmosphere?  It isn't really rocket science.


Carbon dioxide comprises approximately 0.52% of our atmosphere.   A very small amount.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does indeed absorb and re-emit a small amount of infra red radiation.

Infra red radiation is a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

In any mathematics, small X small X small = very, very small.

Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet.   However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors.   Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.

Spitting in the ocean causes sea level rise in a similar way that additions to a minor component of the atmosphere causes warming.

Advancement of scientific knowledge works in the following way.   An interesting phenomenon is noticed.   Important factors are identified and the thought process generates potential theories concerning how the phenomenon works.   Once a suitable candidate theory is identified, evidence needs to be collected to test the theory.   Three possible outcomes arise:

a)   the evidence agrees with expectations and the theory is accepted (even "proven" theories can be disproved at a later date when a greater understanding is achieved)

b)   the evidence seems to be close to expectations, but does not quite prove the theory

c)   the evidence is widely different from the expected outcomes.

In some cases, theories are completely abandoned, because no modification of the theory is found that gives a better result.

In other cases, theories are modified and retested and sometimes this results in the development of a better theory.

Even accepted theories are update and improved from time to time.

So, how is the evidence collected?

If experiments can be devised and run in a laboratory, then generally all of the relevant factors can be adequately controlled and the evidence can be collected in the most controlled fashion.

However, some phenomena occur on a scale that is just too large to fit into a laboratory.

Sadly, we can not yet construct a hard copy of the planet and its atmosphere to run the necessary experiments in the most controlled way possible and neither can we control any of the factors affecting our climate.   It's a good job we can't do that, can you imagine if the Met Office contacted everyone in the UK to say that they were excluding rain from our weather system for a year long study?

This means that we have to collect evidence from the real system, over which we have no control.

This evidence can be used in different ways.   For example, we can carry out comparisons of one factor against another or we can apply statistics to the input data and investigate the output.   Alternatively, we can construct models and run simulations.

The problem with such simulations or models is that sometimes there is just too much data to process.

This is the kind of thing that our Met Office tries to do.   They have built up some expertise in forecasting our weather, but how often do you hear the complaint that they are just not good enough or words to that effect.   Now that's just the weather over a small area and it achieves a certain accuracy for later today, a bit less accuracy for tomorrow, less for the rest of the week and so on.

Now consider the climate over the whole planet and you'll start to see the scale of the problem.

More on the General Circulation Models that Hadley Centre and others use later, but for now consider that in the lab. a small amount of warming can be measured by subjecting carbon dioxide to a narrow band of radiation and yet for the most part of the planet's history, carbon dioxide moved in the opposite direction to temperature or temperature changed while carbon dioxide did not, or carbon dioxide changed while temperature did not.

----------


## Rheghead

> You didn't expect me to understand something that you did not say? 
> 
> Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas yet? This is really elementary stuff, but I feel that you need to get back to basics before we can make progress in deprogramming you.


What do you think is driving the rise in mean global temperatures?  I come to the altar of knowledge as an innocent child btw since you seem to be all knowing.   :: 

Like Gleeber says to 3of8, go legal, if the IPCC is spinning us all a yarn then you could make zillions out of it.  Go on, make a legal case, it is against the law to be fraudulent.

Nuff said...

----------


## Stavro

> What do you think is driving the rise in mean global temperatures?  I come to the altar of knowledge as an innocent child btw since you seem to be all knowing.  
> 
> Like Gleeber says to 3of8, go legal, if the IPCC is spinning us all a yarn then you could make zillions out of it.  Go on, make a legal case, it is against the law to be fraudulent.
> 
> Nuff said...


No, "nuff" hasn't been said. Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas? Yes or no?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Carbon dioxide comprises approximately 0.52% of our atmosphere.   A very small amount.
> 
> Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does indeed absorb and re-emit a small amount of infra red radiation.
> 
> Infra red radiation is a very tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
> 
> In any mathematics, small X small X small = very, very small.
> 
> Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet.   However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors.   Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.
> ...


Again, we have it in a nutshell, go legal.  Tell the IPCC.   You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the scientists who will peer review your findings.  I'll wait for your paper to come out.  BTW, 0.52% is laughable.

----------


## Rheghead

> No, "nuff" hasn't been said. Do you accept that H2O is a greenhouse gas? Yes or no?


You haven't brought any evidence to me yet.

----------


## Through

> I wonder if the affected people of Cumbria will appreciate any global warming scepticism right now?


Are you now trying to claim that a specific weather in a specific location is attributable to a theoretical process?

I wonder what you will blame the similar events of 1910 on.   Perhaps you are trying to say that it was just as warm in 1910 as it is now.

----------


## gleeber

Thats another good thread through but it doesnt say that global warming is not a result of man made polution nor does it address the catasrophic scenario if nothing is done about emissions into the atmosphere. Do you deny it?
Are you saying that global warming by means of human polution is not a problem on planet earth and worse could be building up to a major ecological disaster and doesnt need to be addressed by the international community?

----------


## Rheghead

> Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.


Tickle a raging bull with a feather and you will make it stop to scatch.

----------


## Stavro

> Again, we have it in a nutshell, go legal.  Tell the IPCC.   You don't need to convince me, you need to convince the scientists who will peer review your findings.  I'll wait for your paper to come out.  BTW, 0.52% is laughable.


Your "contributions" are becomming quite spiteful, in my opinion, and there seems little point in prolonging this discussion, especially due to the fact that you will not even acknowledge that water vapour is a greenhouse gas. This is elementary stuff - but I expect that your teacher, Albert Gore, has not mentioned this fact, is that it?  ::

----------


## Through

> I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts.  Do yourselves a great justice and read some proper science instead of reading great headlines that love to sell newspapers.  Everyone loves a scandal and nothing if it were true would be more scandalous if finding that climate change is a load of tosh.  Come on people, think for yourselves instead of accepting rubbish.


Please quote some hard scientific facts.   There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.

----------


## Rheghead

> Are you now trying to claim that a specific weather in a specific location is attributable to a theoretical process?
> 
> I wonder what you will blame the similar events of 1910 on.   Perhaps you are trying to say that it was just as warm in 1910 as it is now.


I wasn't making a scientific statement, more socio-political one.

----------


## Stavro

> Do you deny it?
> Are you saying that global warming by means of human polution is not a problem on planet earth and worse could be building up to a major ecological disaster and doesnt need to be addressed by the international community?


Can we deny something that does not exist? I don't know. I myself certainly deny the propaganda nonsense, "An Inconvenient Truth." And there certainly is pollution of the Earth caused by us humans. But climate fluctuations are caused primarily by something totally outside of our control - the Sun.

Don't tell the politicians this, or they will tax sunlight.  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> Please quote some hard scientific facts.   There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.


As I said before, blogosphere is not the place to get hard scientific facts.  If you want facts ask a climate scientist, I'm not one and neither are you I'd bet.  I'm not into pissing contests, too old for that.

----------


## gleeber

> Please quote some hard scientific facts. There have been precious few in your posts on this thread so far.


Well it was this link posted by Rheghead that swung my attention towards science.

http://www.miljostatus.no/en/Topics/...ide/Acid-rain/

----------


## Rheghead

> Can we deny something that does not exist? I don't know. I myself certainly deny the propaganda nonsense, "An Inconvenient Truth." And there certainly is pollution of the Earth caused by us humans. But climate fluctuations are caused primarily by something totally outside of our control - the Sun.
> 
> Don't tell the politicians this, or they will tax sunlight.


Tell me what hope have we got to get universal acceptance of hard facts when there are folks out there that still believe in flat Earths and Geo centric theories of the Universe, etc etc.  It seems these knuckle-dragging cogniscenti still feel the need to shout their diatribe to all and sundry.

----------


## Stavro

> Tell me what hope have we got to get universal acceptance of hard facts when there are folks out there that still believe in flat Earths and Geo centric theories of the Universe, etc etc.  It seems these knuckle-dragging cogniscenti still feel the need to shout their diatribe to all and sundry.


Tut tut. So, the answer to my question regarding H2O was ... what exactly?!  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Tut tut. So, the answer to my question regarding H2O was ... what exactly?!


You tell me, it was me that asked the question. ::

----------


## Stavro

> You tell me, it was me that asked the question.


By definition, it was not you who asked my question, but since your attention span seems a trifle limited tonight, I'll ask it again:

Do you accept that H2O (water vapour) is a greenhouse gas?

----------


## Rheghead

> Do you accept that H2O (water vapour) is a greenhouse gas?


Yes but only if you give me a credible link to a website that convinces me.

----------


## Through

> Seen An Inconvenient Truth yet?  There's some nice graphs that show that process and theres a massive spike about the time we start fossil fuels.


Ahh, the famous hockey stick.   Mann, M E, et al, 1998.   Global scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries.   Nature 392:  779 - 787.

This team used several proxies, but mainly tree ring data, to assess temperature changes from 1000 to 1980.   They then stitched on the surface temperature record of the twentieth century, as measured by various thermometers at various locations around the world.

Curiously, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age seemed to have disappeared into the ether.

This paper was critiqued by McIntyre, S and McKitrick, R. Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series.   Energy and Environment 14:  751 - 777.

When this team requested Mann's source data, it was very slow in being provided and seemed to be incomplete.   This is unusual for scientific work and raised suspicions that it had not been peer reviewed prior to publication.   It was found that the data did not produce the results claimed by Mann, due to various errors, including collation errors, unjustifiable truncation, unjustifiable extrapolation, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation and Quality Control defects.   Quite serious faults in scientific work.

It was discovered that Mann's paper relied most heavily on data from tree ring data from bristlecone pine trees in North America.   Graybill, D and Idso, S (1993) Detecting the aerial fertilisation effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment in tree ring chronologies.

There are an awful lot of different proxies that can be used to determine past temperature and the overwhelming majority give good agreement.   A notable exception is the bristlecone pine tree ring data.   This is due to that tree being so slow growing.   Notice that the original researchers were comparing the tree ring data to CO2 and not temperature.   This is why that team chose this particular tree.   It is vastly more suitable for studies into CO2, than temperature, due to the growth nature.

Removing the bristlecone data provided a completely different graph.   A graph without a hockey stick.

Mann and his team knew this.   They had the original paper.

There is more to say about the hockey stick, because it strengthens my argument considerably, but I will come back to that later.

----------


## Through

> Yes but only if you give me a credible link to a website that convinces me.


If you don't know what you're talking about, then you shouldn't be making an argument on the topic.

Greenhouse Theory does, indeed, attribute much more warming to water vapour than to all other sources combined.

If you would like to hire me as a tutor, I charge £30 per hour.

----------


## 3of8

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by 3of8
> Carbon dioxide does have a tendency to warm the planet. However, the effect is very small and is overwhelmed by other factors. Not only that, but every addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere makes a decreasing contribution to warming.


 ::  I think you'll find that it was *Through* who said that, not me!

----------


## Rheghead

Stephen McIntyre?   :: 

Is that your reference? ::

----------


## Through

> I so wish my late husband was around to answer this thread. He was an environmental scientist. He often used to say that many people that 'talk' on the 'Global Warming' issue had it all wrong it was 'Climate Change' for a start and that many others simply failed to understand the subject and should not be allowed to speak on the subject in public. In his working life he was part if IPPC BAT and IPTS and JRC. If any is interested in his work mail me and I will give you his name to google. He did not blow his own trumpet, a shy man who left an amazing legacy to us all. ( These are not my words but those of work colleagues all over the world)


Well said.

It is climate change.

The climate changes.

It always has and, I, for one hope it always will.   It is a natural process and if it was ever possible for us to stop it by some means, how dangerous and un-natural would that be?

Who would get to decide what climate we get?   I know what I'd vote for, but I'm just as confident about what I'd end up with.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think you'll find that it was *Through* who said that, not me!


beg pardon since you are taking it in turns

----------


## Rheghead

> If you don't know what you're talking about, then you shouldn't be making an argument on the topic.
> 
> Greenhouse Theory does, indeed, attribute much more warming to water vapour than to all other sources combined.
> 
> If you would like to hire me as a tutor, I charge £30 per hour.


I was talking to stavro   :: 

Are you all the same person?

----------


## Through

> Since the curative action for acid rain is the same for climate change, why should lobby groups run 2 campaigns to cure the same problem and outspend their budget?  Seemples


There may be some overlap, but these are two different issues.

----------


## Rheghead

> There may be some overlap, but these are two different issues.


yes you just agreed with me and??

----------


## Through

> The climatologists are confident about their findings and are ready to go home, be made redundant or reassigned.  It is the deniers that are keeping them at their posts to gather more information on what they already know about.  The IPCC use 3 independent laboratories and they are all coming up with the same conclusions.


You tend to speak as if all climate scientists think the same and I take that's who you also mean by climatologists.

Bray D and Hans von Storch conducted surveys of climate scientists from as many countries as they could in 1996 and again in 2003. They are currently preparing to conduct another repeat survey. These surveys show that a large proportion of climate scientists disagree that human activities cause global warming.

----------


## Through

> Can you convince me of that?
> 
> No we haven't because the levels of carbon dioxide are increasing with temperature in accordance with the hockey stick model.


Actually, it's not.   If I could manage to include some graphical data in my posts it would be much easier.   When I get a chance, I'll post the graphics on another web site and post the links.

If you look at the work by Hansen et al in 1988, you will see two predictions.   The first assumes that we do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and rises rapidly into the future.   The second assumes enormous cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that would turn all of the rich nations on the planet into paupers.   That graph does pretty much the same thing and then stabilises out at a high temperature.

Of course, that was the forecast in 1988 and we have continued to increase emissions since then.   We should have some real data now.

Yes, we do have some real data now.   Plotting measured temperatures on the same chart, shows that by increasing carbon dioxide even more, the temperatures are far below even the forecast that assumes massive cuts in carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.   QED.

----------


## Rheghead

> Actually, it's not.   If I could manage to include some graphical data in my posts it would be much easier.   When I get a chance, I'll post the graphics on another web site and post the links.
> 
> If you look at the work by Hansen et al in 1988, you will see two predictions.   The first assumes that we do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and rises rapidly into the future.   The second assumes enormous cuts in carbon dioxide emissions that would turn all of the rich nations on the planet into paupers.   That graph does pretty much the same thing and then stabilises out at a high temperature.
> 
> Of course, that was the forecast in 1988 and we have continued to increase emissions since then.   We should have some real data now.
> 
> Yes, we do have some real data now.   Plotting measured temperatures on the same chart, shows that by increasing carbon dioxide even more, the temperatures are far below even the forecast that assumes massive cuts in carbon dioxide.
> 
> Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.   QED.


The hockey stick model which shows that global mean temperatures rise in accordance with rises with carbon dioxide (let alone the host of other gases) is a matter of public record.

----------


## Through

> That was a good post Through. Very authoritive and comes with enough scientific reference for your opponents to challenge you.
> I have little scientific knowledge concerning this issue but I trust science. 
> Why, if your opinions are correct, do others come up with a different scenario for global warming? 
> Surely it's not that difficult for science in a modern world to say that mans pollution is having an effect on the climate of the planet? Well, the truth is they do say it's a problem but then you and others on this thread say different. 
> Whats really going on? 
> Is it all down to prestige and how many Nobel prizes can be won? Are the opponets of human induced global warming so cynical in their reasoning that they would rather condemn the results of fellow scientists for deeper personal reasons not too far removed from prestige and Nobel prize envy?
> There's a similar impasse in the evolution/creation debate where a small minority of scientists, because they believe in the Bibles interpretation of creation, are blinded to the argument for evolution and throw a number of small spanners into the works to muddy the weaters. They are not necessarily dishonourable and I'm sure some of them believe it, but throwing the baby out with the bath water does nothing to help anyones case. 
> Is that what's happening here?
> Is the amount of pollution being pumped into the earths atmosphere having absolutely no effect on the ecology of the planet?


Thank you Gleeber.

Of course pollution has an effect.   There is a huge list of pollutants and each of them may affect one or more aspects of our environment.   Many years ago, I memorised "A Comprehensive Definition of Pollution" for an exam.

When is a pollutant a pollutant?

If you see a field and there's a cow pat, you may feel content and consider the natural surroundings.   If you step into a cow pat, you might then think of it as pollution.

Environmental colleagues of mine once suggested banning chlorine.   Chlorine is all around us.   How did they think we could ban it?   If we could devise a machine capable of collecting every single atom of chlorine on the planet and send it into space, do you think that would be a good thing to do?

Carbon dioxide is a natural substance.   At an oversimplified level, we breathe it out and plants breathe it in.   Would you class it as a pollutant?

Where does it come from?   Fossil fuels?

How did it get into fossil fuels?

Once there was no life.   Imagine that.   Our Earth in its natural state.   Bereft of life.

Micro organisms lived and died in the oceans and sank to the sea bed together with dead plant life.   This occurred over millions of years.

Pockets were covered over and pressed into the Earth.   Subjected to high pressures and temperatures, it was converted into gas and oil.

On land, trees lived and grew.   This occurred over millions of years.   They died and fell over.   Pockets were covered over and pressed into the Earth.   Subjected to high pressures and temperatures, it was converted into coal.

Before this took place, where was that carbon dioxide?   It was in the sky.   The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at that point was immense.   Yet, here we are today.   What happened to global warming?

We have good evidence from this time on our very door steps.   If you visit Achanarras, you will find a site that is among the best on the planet for fossil fish.   These fish lived and died something like 350 million years ago.   At that time, no animals lived on the land.   There was no grass.   There were no trees.   Where was the carbon dioxide?   It was in the sky.   Yet, here we are to argue about it.

Remember that we are about half way through all of the oil and gas that we know of, but that there is a massive amount of coal still in the ground.   Supposing we put all of the carbon dioxide back into the sky.   Is that wrong or is it where it belongs?

Now consider what would happen if we ever ran out of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and remember that we've been down to about 180 parts per million.   If there was no carbon dioxide in the sky, no plants could grow.   There would be nothing for herbivores to eat and they would die.   There would then be nothing for carnivores to eat and they would die.

What would happen if there was more carbon dioxide in the sky?   Well, we know from the original paper by Graybill and Idso (see my previous post about the hockey stick)  that bristlecone pine trees in particular and plant life in general, grows more quickly.   More food for all.   Wait a minute, more food for all.   Isn't that a hot topic just now?

----------


## Through

> The hockey stick model which shows that global mean temperatures rise in accordance with rises with carbon dioxide (let alone the host of other gases) is a matter of public record.


Go and have a look at the work by McIntyre and McKitrick, as well as Wahl, E R and Ammann, C M, 2007 as well as Wegman, E et al, 2006 and show me where they are wrong.

Have you not noticed that the hockey stick used to be trumpeted as THE evidence of human caused global warming and now it barely gets mentioned, except by you?

If the hockey stick data is correct, where is the Medieval Warm Period?   There are thousands of scientific papers from areas all around the globe, all showing that the MWP occurred about 1300.   Compare that against the hockey stick data and explain the difference.   Then remove the bristlecone pine data and see what happens.

Then consider that we have many sources of proxy data detailing the Roman Warm Period about 2,000 years ago, the Dark Ages Cold Period, MWP and the Little Ice Age.   Then consider that the RWP and WMP were both warmer than today and the AGW theory withers and dies.

Wagner B and Melles M, 2001.   A holocene seabird record from Raffles So sediment, East Greenland, in response to climatic and oceanic changes.   Boreas 30:  228 - 239.   Showed that 700 years ago, there was a large population of birds happily living there during the MWP and yet, they are not there today.   It is too cold today.

There are many papers like this and I am happy to reference them for you.

----------


## Through

> Also, cherry-picking bits out of scientific papers to shore up a particular viewpoint is one of the most widely used tactics of climate change deniers in the blogosphere.


Actually, research scientists use scientific literature as a matter of course.   If your argument was correct about scientific papers, then it would apply to any reference text, including all school books and your beloved hockey stick.

----------


## Through

> How does this disprove anything?


Well, let us see.

The IPCC say that it is warm just now and that carbon dioxide levels are high.   So that means carbon dioxide causes global warming.

Well normally you need more than one piece of evidence to persuade the scientific community of something.

Is there any more data?

Yes.   Nearly all of it shows that when carbon dioxide goes up, temperature goes down or when one of them stays the same, the other changes.

If this confuses you, then you shouldn't be trying to convince others, you should be trying to learn.

----------


## Through

> What will be the effect on global temperatures by doubling the amount of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels?
> 
> Plus I don't believe that water is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't have the effect of raising temperatures either.


Doubling carbon dioxide from almost none would not do much, as has been seen in the past.

You don't believe?   Then go and learn some science.

----------


## Through

> That's the one, does it give any indications what were the causes of the ebb and flow of the temperatures ??. or is the data going to blow the "myths" of current global warming.


Sorry Tonkatojo.   The causes need a lot more work.   This work is being stifled, because all the global warmists are taking up disproportionate chunks of funding and if you say you want to research anything that is against global warming, then you don't get any funding.

----------


## Through

> Scientific debates are of a different nature to socio-political debates, seeing that climate change is a scientific phenomenon and blogospheres can only deal with socio-political debates then I do share that sentiment.
> 
> Ultimately, we need to consult with the scientists who are researching this field directly if we are to get the proper picture on climate change.  And we all know what they are saying in accordance with the IPCC.


The scientists whose research I am referencing are researching this field directly and what they are saying is not in accordance with IPCC.

Why don't you go to the climate change seminar run annually by my colleagues next year?   You will learn an awful lot.

Socio-political debates?   Your "argument" on this thread seems more suited to that type of forum.   Your "argument" on this thread is limited and dogmatic.

Why is the scientific debate being stifled?

----------


## Through

> Not misquoting at all, you said that water (vapour) was a greenhouse gas, I merely took your point further to say that whatever is driving climate change is making the effect worse since water in the gaseous phase is in a thermo-dynamic equilibrium with the liquid phase.  I didn't expect you to understand that.


Careful.   You're wandering into the realms of Fluid Mechanics now and that is where the Global Circulation Models fall down.

This is a complicated subject and one I hope to get onto soon.

----------


## Through

> For goodness sake it is the natural way of things a few decades s ago they yes they were on about a new ice age


Yes.   If you look at the ice core data, I defy anyone to say that we will not get another ice age.

----------


## Through

> they?  Again, the they was just a junior post grad student (or summat similiar) who got lucky with his 15 mins of fame and the media fell in love with him for getting them great headlines to sell newspapers.


Actually, the "they" referred to here is the same "they" that you call climate scientists and put on pedestals.

Recently, one of them was about to go on TV to answer the question of why had he changed his argument from a coming ice age to a coming high temperature disaster, when he was told by his university that he was not allowed to.

----------


## Through

> I'd say 0.17C per decade increase in the last 20 years is something to be alarmed about.   And the levels of CO2 are going by 2-3 ppm per year  now.  Seas levels are going up by ~3mm per year just by thermal expansion.
> 
> The global temperatures are expected to increase by 1.6-5.7C by the end of this century alone.  
> 
> If states like Bangladesh and Vanuatu had the clarity of mind like yourself then why are they bothered about climate change?


The Vostok ice core and other data clearly shows that 0.17 C per decade increase is normal and that it is dwarfed by what happens when we come out of ice ages and peak at the beginning of interglacials.

Yes, that's right.   The interglacial periods quickly peak and then cool off.   Our particular interglacial peaked in the past and we are now cooler than that peak.   Not only that, but our interglacial is cooler than all four previous IGs.

You really need to go and look at some data.

As for sea level rise, you are far wrong again.

After the last glacial maximum, that is the maximum quantity of ice during the last ice age, the ice started to melt and sea level started to rise.   This was about 18,000 years ago.   Sea level quickly reached a maximum rate of rise and then gradually started to slow down.   Today, we have the slowest rate of sea level rise for almost 18,000 years.

As I showed you earlier, about 700 years ago there was less ice at Greenland than there is today.

Not only that, but sea level is a very complicated subject.   In some places it is seen to be rising, in others it is falling and in some it is staying the same.

About 85% of all the ice on the planet is at Antarctica.   Even the IPCC in their latest report, admit that Antarctica has not warmed over the period of northern hemisphere warming.   Although Mann, yes, the same one of hockey stick infamy, has produced "information" that the Western peninsula has started to show signs of warming.   How did he do it?   Well, he didn't have enough data, so he took what was available and spliced another data set onto it.   Yes, the same mistakes again.

Nasa is currently measuring the rate of increase in ice at Anatarctica at between 25 GTe and 30 GTe per year.   That is twenty five thousand million metric tonnes of ice to 30 thousand million tonnes of ice increase per year.

----------


## Through

> Don't know much about Vanuatu apart from being in the Pacific somewhere, but Bangladesh is and has been flooded in the rainy season every year beyond living memory hasn't it? That's why they live in houses on stilts. But, I would imagine that the politicians there have been scared senseless by scurrilous claims made by the pro global warming group hence their being bothered.


Why are the authorities in Vanatu making a point now?   Well, they can say that their home is being destroyed by the richest nation on Earth and they can claim money.   They have demanded that America pay them billions in compensation.

Bangladesh?   You are correct 3of8.   However, it suits David Shukman to be filmed by the BBC while he stands in front of the locals building mud walls just like they have been doing as far back as anyone can remember, so that it looks like it is something they have just started to do.   Then he talks about a metre of sea level rise.   The last figure I saw was that average sea level rise was about 1.8 mm, not 3 as Rheghead suggested.   That's a long time to reach a metre even if it stops slowing down.

----------


## Through

> BTW, 0.52% is laughable.


Perhaps you can tell me what you think the carbon dioxide content of our atmosphere is in percentage terms?

How much is nitrogen?
How much is oxygen?
How much is argon?
How much is water vapour?
How much is carbon dioxide?
How much are the other gases?

::Sits back to enjoy the show::

----------


## Through

> What do you think is driving the rise in mean global temperatures?  I come to the altar of knowledge as an innocent child btw since you seem to be all knowing.  
> 
> Like Gleeber says to 3of8, go legal, if the IPCC is spinning us all a yarn then you could make zillions out of it.  Go on, make a legal case, it is against the law to be fraudulent.
> 
> Nuff said...


If we had no sun, then the planet would achieve the background temperature of space.   About -289 degrees C.

What is causing "average" temperature to rise, well, the sun would be a good place to start.

However, it is much more complicated than that.

The temperature record that you are referring to is derived from data from weather stations around the globe.   It was recently established that about 85% of these stations do not meet the standard set for such stations.

Satellite data shows a very much lower temperature than thermometers in weather stations.   Weather balloons have been used to check which are correct, weather stations or satellites.   The weather balloons agreed with the satellites.

Methods of measuring sea surface temperature have changed twice during the last century.

If you were to measure the temperature in your living room, how would you go about it?

With you in it or not?   If you are in it, how does your temperature get measured and averaged with the rest.   How about that drink on the table?   It is part of the room, but how do you average the temperature, taking the temperature of the drink into account.

How about the temperature at different heights?   How about at the window or near the door frame?

Temperature is a very difficult subject.   Why do you pick the average global temperature to discuss?   What does such an average mean?   Should we not use minimum temperatures?   How about maximum temperatures?

If other things affect the temperature reading, how should they be accounted for?

----------


## Through

> Thats another good thread through but it doesnt say that global warming is not a result of man made polution nor does it address the catasrophic scenario if nothing is done about emissions into the atmosphere. Do you deny it?
> Are you saying that global warming by means of human polution is not a problem on planet earth and worse could be building up to a major ecological disaster and doesnt need to be addressed by the international community?


No, but that's not what that point was intended to achieve.   Rheghead implied that Cumbria's recent weather was caused by global warming and I showed that he was in no position to make such a claim.

Yes, I am saying that the scientific evidence does not support the case that human activities, including pollution is causing global warming.

Human pollution is certainly an environmental problem and we have no shortage of real, large and serious problems to address.   We are currently expending enormous resources, money, time and effort on a problem that is not real and that means we are not using those same resources to tackle real problems.   Even if we make enormous cuts in emissions and consign liquid carbon dioxide to holes in the ground (how environmentally friendly is that, do you think?) the climate will carry on doing what it does.   Do you not think that this is a serious problem?

As a point of encouragement, the data suggest that the planet will cool back down.   Oh, no wait.   We don't want to go into another ice age.   Warm is one thing, but cold is catastrophic.

Around the period 1670 to 1705, we hit a cold snap.   This affected more than just Scotland, but if you care to look at the history of our own country, you will see that crops failed, the death rate soared, the number of marriages fell drastically, the birth rate collapsed and there was widespread poverty.

That was just a cold snap.   Imagine an ice age.

What we need to do here, as well as tackle real and immediate issues, is to learn to adapt to the natural climate change that has always been happening throughout the life of the planet and will continue to quite naturally, unless we make a mess of it by taking drastic measures to "control" the climate.   Have you seen some of the mad schemes that there are around these days?   What is your opinion of robotic ships that sail around ejecting chemicals into the atmosphere to cool us down?   Don't believe me?   Go and take a look.   You'll be amazed and possibly frightened like me.

----------


## Through

> As I said before, blogosphere is not the place to get hard scientific facts.  If you want facts ask a climate scientist, I'm not one and neither are you I'd bet.  I'm not into pissing contests, too old for that.


I notice that you haven't been able to make any logical argument against any of the information I have presented here and now you are one step away from name calling.

You seem to have taken a small amount of information from one set of scientists, while excluding the others.   You don't understand what you have, you seem to be saying that you won't go and learn more.

If you can't sustain the argument, then don't try to convince others that you are right.

Anyone who reads this can make of it waht they will.   I have well referenced my argument and it is open to everyone to go and check.

I welcome a good, logical argument based on scientific evidence.   I also have an open mind and if someone can make a better case for AGW, then I will be happy to accept it.   Until then, I will continue to make this information available for those who are prepared to think about the issue and reach their own judgement rather than just be told what one side thinks.

It is quite scary to think that scientists are not permitted to present a logical argument, supported by suitable evidence.   I thought that attitude had died out after Galileo was imprisoned.

----------


## Through

> Well it was this link posted by Rheghead that swung my attention towards science.
> 
> http://www.miljostatus.no/en/Topics/...ide/Acid-rain/


This thread is about global warming.   The link posted by Rheghead is about acid rain.

----------


## Through

> The hockey stick model which shows that global mean temperatures rise in accordance with rises with carbon dioxide (let alone the host of other gases) is a matter of public record.


The hockey stick model has been shown to be false.

If you take a set of red data and subject it to the same statistical processes that Mann and his team applied, you get a hockey stick.

Perhaps you haven't noticed, but since 1998, no year has been as warm as 1998.   700 years ago, it was warming than now.   2,000 years ago, it was warmer than now.

These are hard facts.

Where is this warming?

----------


## Rheghead

The hockey stick is not false it is real, if you plotted temperature against time what do you think you'd get?










> It should be noted that some falsely reported putative “errors” in the Mann et al.
> (1998) proxy data claimed by *McIntyre and McKitrick (2003)* are an artifact of (a) the
> use by these latter authors of an incorrect version of the Mann et al. (1998) proxy
> indicator dataset, and (b) their misunderstanding of the methodology used by Mann et al.

----------


## Rheghead

> Perhaps you can tell me what you think the carbon dioxide content of our atmosphere is in percentage terms?
> 
> How much is nitrogen?
> How much is oxygen?
> How much is argon?
> How much is water vapour?
> How much is carbon dioxide?
> How much are the other gases?
> 
> ::Sits back to enjoy the show::


well since the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere is ~380 ppm by volume, it is just a matter of simple maths to work that one out.  You are well out by over a factor of 10 with your 0.52%.    Frankly I'm not surprised that you think carbon dioxide doesn't contribute anything to global warming if you thought the CO2 levels are now 0.52% and we are only seeing 0.2C rising temperature each decade.  Just goes to show that Stephen Mcintyre isn't the only one who is using false data...

I thought you claimed to know a bit about science?  ::   ::

----------


## gleeber

> well since the carbon dioxide content is ~380 ppm by volume, it is just a matter of simple maths to work that one out. You are well out by over a factor of 10 with your 0.52%. Just goes to show that Stephen Mcintyre isn't the only one who is using false data...
> 
> I thought you claimed to know a bit about science?


Ive read this post very carefully and was interested in throughs input which seems to come from a position of authority. A well argued case I would have said until rheghead comes waltzing in and debunks throughs new found respectability. 
I'm glad your keeping your eyes on the figures Rheghead otherwise an apparently authoritive statement by someone with a deeper subjective reason for debunking human induced global warming may take this thread over and have the whole of the org believing that this modern fad for environmentally friendly awareness is unnecessary and is led by a section of science with a vested interest in perpetuating the swindle. That's basically what through is saying or at least thats how I interpretate his input.
On the one hand through has admitted there is a problem from man made pollution whilst on the other he seems to be arguing theres none.
Usually in a conspiracy theory one knows who the conspirators are but there seems to be no way of deciding here whether Rhegheads the conspirator or whether it's through. Because of my trust in science and awareness of how clever deniers can be my monies on rheghead for not manipulating figures. I still have an open mind though and issue the same challlenge to through as i did tothe other climate change by human pollution deniers on the org. 
Send your paper into the proper authorities, argue your case and then allow others to scrutinise your position. That's real science. Not using an internet forum to blow wind about how many scientists and profesors you know who share your findings. Will they support your findings when you finally present them to the proper authorities or will they at that stage conspire to block your true opinions exposing the great swindle you are suggesting this issue is all about?
One side in this issue is wrong. My monies still on science and unless through can impress that scientific establishment then I feel my monies safe.

----------


## Tubthumper

I thought we (as in we the long-suffering taxpayers of the world) paid scientists to come up with answers. Having followed this thread, it seems to me that pretty much all of them are either rogues or incompetents. They can't agree on evidence, historical facts, test results or data models. Therefore why should we continue to pay them rakes of cash?
As for the argument on here - why bother?

----------


## roadbowler

why bother? Should we be discussing x factor and what's on sky tv instead? Why does or how could anyone think it is not a valid topic to be discussing on a community forum? Aye, the science is complicated however, the climate change scam has very little to do with science and every thing to do with political agendas. Good science has been hijacked which is becoming more and more obvious all the time. In order for good science to prevail we need longer memories, common sense, critical thinking, no political input or brainwashing and certainly the explusion of ego out of all equations and rationale. People need to be very worried about copenhagen and as through said all the stupid and insane ideas of co2 storage amongst other equally wacky ones sprouting up from the capitalist scroungers trying to make money off bad science.

----------


## Tubthumper

> why bother? Should we be discussing x factor and what's on sky tv instead? Why does or how could anyone think it is not a valid topic to be discussing on a community forum? Aye, the science is complicated however, the climate change scam has very little to do with science and every thing to do with political agendas. Good science has been hijacked which is becoming more and more obvious all the time. In order for good science to prevail we need longer memories, common sense, critical thinking, no political input or brainwashing and certainly the explusion of ego out of all equations and rationale. People need to be very worried about copenhagen and as through said all the stupid and insane ideas of co2 storage amongst other equally wacky ones sprouting up from the capitalist scroungers trying to make money off bad science.


All right, tell me this. Are we going to need canoes to get to work in the next 30 years?
Good science has indeed been hijacked, therefore (a) we should stop subsidising stupid scientists and those establishments who continue to train them and (b) we should relax; after all, if it's going to happen anyway, why get worried?

----------


## Through

> The hockey stick is not false it is real, if you plotted temperature against time what do you think you'd get?


Those graphs do not plot temperature against anything.   Can you see what they do plot?   Can you explain why 1998 looks as if it is no longer the warmest year in recent times?   This is one of those hard facts that you love;  1998 is the warmest year in the recent temperature record.   Even the metoffice site shows that.

Compare your graphs with the met versions and explain the difference in overall appearance.

What you have posted seems to have been designed for visual impact.

As for your quote concerning Mann's paper, would you mind giving the source?   If there was no problem with Mann's paper, then why did they publish a corrigendum?

Mann et al, 2004.   Corrigendum:  global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the last six centuries.   Nature 430: 105.

Did you notice that the data sets used by McIntyre and McKitrick were provided by Mann?

Did he ever address the critiques by other research teams?

Wahl, E R and Ammann, C M, 2007.   Robustness of the Mann, Bradley, Hughes reconstruction of northern hemisphere surface temperatures:  examination of criticisms based on the nature and processing of proxy climate evidence.   Climate Change 85: 33 - 69 as well as that by Wegman, E et al, 2006.

If you refer to my previous post, you will see that there is a huge amount of proxy data available.   Why did the Mann research team choose to use the only proxy data that gave his desired result?   Why did they use data from a paper that was designed to determine the fertilisation effect of carbon dioxide on growth?

----------


## Through

> On the one hand through has admitted there is a problem from man made pollution whilst on the other he seems to be arguing theres none.


You are confusing two separate issues Gleeber.

I am arguing that human activities do not cause global warming.

This does not mean that pollution is not a problem.   It means that pollution causes other problems.

----------


## Through

> All right, tell me this. Are we going to need canoes to get to work in the next 30 years?
> Good science has indeed been hijacked, therefore (a) we should stop subsidising stupid scientists and those establishments who continue to train them and (b) we should relax; after all, if it's going to happen anyway, why get worried?


No, we are not going to need canoes to get to work in the next 30 years.

(a)   I agree.   Do you know how many billions the global warming industry is now worth?

(b)   We should not relax.   We should be concentrating on the real probems.   For example, climate change happens.   There's nothing we can do about that.   What we can do is develop ways to cope with climate change.

----------


## gleeber

> You are confusing two separate issues Gleeber.
> 
> I am arguing that human activities do not cause global warming.
> 
> This does not mean that pollution is not a problem. It means that pollution causes other problems.


There's the problem then. I'm not confused. You are creating a conspiracy theory because the mainstream voice of science seems to be saying that human activities are contributing to the present natural evolving ecology of the planet and you are saying it's not. Simple.

----------


## Through

Hard facts for Rheghead.   For references, please see my previous posts.

There is no scientific concensus on climate change.

The carbon dioxide concentration in our atmosphere has been 4 times higher in the past than it is today.

On many occasions, the temperature has been higher in the past than it is today.   This includes 700 years ago, 2,000 years ago and each of the last periods between ice ages.

Maximum rates of temeprature rise are those at the beginning of interglacial periods.

On many occasions in the past, carbon dioxide rose while temperature fell.

The rate of sea level rise has been decreasing for thousands of years.

Currently, there is the slowest rate of sea level rise for the best part of 18,000 years.

----------


## Rheghead

> Hard facts for Rheghead. .


What like the 0.52% rubbish?  Nuff said.

----------


## tonkatojo

This is getting like the "do you believe in god" thread, we won't find out until the time comes, then some will be laughing and some will have red faces.  :Wink:

----------


## Through

Here's one closer to home:

Reference
Dawson, S., Smith, D.E., Jordan, J. and Dawson, A.G. 2004. Late Holocene coastal sand movements in the Outer Hebrides, N.W. Scotland. Marine Geology 210: 281-306.

----------


## Each

I always considered doubt, to be a central tennat of any scientific and rational understanding.

Any particular scientific theory is only valid temporarily - until new evidence comes to light (and it always does).

In fact doubt plays a central role in the need to continually investigate new and better theories for experiences and phenomena that cant be explained to our satisfaction.

It never ceases to amaze me that the green machine seems to hold the concept of doubt in utter contempt.

Describing those who are doubtful about an unsatisfactory explanation of current events as "flat earthers" is quite hypocritical, when it is the green machine itself that is maintaining a "belief" in what they regard as absolute and incontravertable truth.

If they wish to adopt the scientific high ground (and more credibility) they need to grasp the concept of doubt - an start researching the problems within their own theories much more vigorously - and in time come up with a better explanation than the one they currently promoting.

----------


## roadbowler

tubthumper... Nope you can skip the canoe. Yes, the money pulled in to this scam.. Including 22 millon given to phil jones to use nature tricks to hide the decline is atrocious. However, copenhagen happens in less than a month meaning not only will be subsidising the 'research' of this scam we will be subsidising all the developing nations for our co2 'crimes' out of the taxpayers pocket. No time to relax. Yes gleeber a conspiracy. Imagine that?

----------


## Rheghead

> tubthumper... Nope you can skip the canoe. Yes, the money pulled in to this scam.. Including 22 millon given to phil jones to use nature tricks to hide the decline is atrocious. However, copenhagen happens in less than a month meaning not only will be subsidising the 'research' of this scam we will be subsidising all the developing nations for our co2 'crimes' out of the taxpayers pocket. No time to relax. Yes gleeber a conspiracy. Imagine that?


There was no trick to deceive, no scam, no nowt except an illegal hack and gross misrepresentation of data.  The timing of this is not coincidental.

----------


## Rheghead

> I always considered doubt, to be a central tennat of any scientific and rational understanding.


How about blind doubt?

----------


## Through

CRU also publish sea level data on one of their web pages.   They have been measuring sea level at many of the islands in the pacific for a reasonable number of years.   The graphs go up and down a bit, but show no trend overall.   The only dramatic event in the charts, is a fall in sea level, that subsequently returns to a value around the norm.

CRU correlate their own data with previous studies that go back far longer and conclude that there is good agreement.

They then go on to say that their graphs prove an upward trend.

I give you two challenges.

1)   find the web page and let's see how accessible it is to the public.
2)   spot a trend in the charts, either up or down.

----------


## Through

My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.

If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.

However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight.   I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.

----------


## Through

I'm curious Rheghead;  what is your definition of a climate scientist?

----------


## roadbowler

hack illegal or otherwise. They ADMIT to it being all genuine. I' m sure if the hack, which in my opinion was a community service had been into a computer of a dissenting scientist you would be the same as me. It confirms a lot of what i already knew. However, this isn't a time for spitting dummies out, i realise all this has been slightly embarassing for the agw drum bangers but, heads aside we need to look at copenhagen and say, THIS IS INSANE. No matter what camp yer in. I would enjoy to hear about your view of the coincidental timing because in my view it will make NO difference to agendas at copenhagen nor had i ever thought it would.

----------


## Rheghead

> My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.
> 
> If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.
> 
> However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight.   I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.


So you admit to presenting incorrect information, why should I have confidence in your ability to interpret complex data when you can't even do a simple calculation?  

I'm through with your bs.

----------


## Rheghead

> hack illegal or otherwise. They ADMIT to it being all genuine. I' m sure if the hack, which in my opinion was a community service had been into a computer of a dissenting scientist you would be the same as me. It confirms a lot of what i already knew. However, this isn't a time for spitting dummies out, i realise all this has been slightly embarassing for the agw drum bangers but, heads aside we need to look at copenhagen and say, THIS IS INSANE. No matter what camp yer in. I would enjoy to hear about your view of the coincidental timing because in my view it will make NO difference to agendas at copenhagen nor had i ever thought it would.


Do admit it's genuine??  My sources say that they admit to a hack has taken place, no statement so far that the leaked emails etc haven't been tampered with. If it was on the other foot then there would be no need to debunk by deception and misrepresentation.  Why lie about a lie?

----------


## roadbowler

i'm through with this bs. Was that a pun or a dummie hitting the floor? Lol perhaps u need to do soe reading up. They've already explained away what 'keith's nature trick' was but no mention of what decline they were hiding as of yet. They fully admit this email is GENUINE.

----------


## Stavro

> So you admit to presenting incorrect information, why should I have confidence in your ability to interpret complex data when you can't even do a simple calculation?  
> 
> I'm through with your bs.


You are completely hollow, Rheghead. I have been sitting back, looking at your strategy here which, although it seems to have fooled gleeber, does not fool me.

Through presented to you (and everyone else) several very detailed, informative and clearly well-researched postings. In his haste, no doubt, he made a mistake over CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere. These levels are well-known and can easily be found after 20 seconds of searching via Google/Wikipedia. So, what do you do? You spend your 20 seconds searching the CO2 concentration level and then dismiss and ridicule the entire contents of Through's postings. This is an insult to the time and effort that obviously went in to these posts, posts that were meant, no doubt, to be for your benefit as well as everyone else's who are interested in this important topic. It is also indicative of someone (i.e., you) who is so utterly devoid of valid scientific material, knowledge and awareness that all you can do is make these derogatory "responses," and I put "responses" in quotes because in using the word, I am really being kind to you.

The "incorrect information" that you stick to like chewing gum under the school desk, was a simple mistake that Through openly admitted to. But wait a minute here, did you not notice that the real concentration is 13.68 times LESS concentration of CO2 than the figure Through was using? His erroneous figure would have aided YOUR position, if it were correct, not ours. Unlike the Albert Gores of this world, therefore, who made at least NINE errors in his (in)famous presentation, Through's single (subsequently corrected) error had no benefit to the one making it.

----------


## Stavro

> If this confuses [Rheghead], then [Rheghead] shouldn't be trying to convince others, [Rheghead] should be trying to learn.


Yes, I agree.  :Smile:

----------


## ywindythesecond

Time to come out the closet.  Stavro and Through are learning as I did that Reggy has no substance.  He will never respond to a well-made argument, he will always divert it instead.  I cant recall which of you asked him about  water vapour as a greenhouse gas. Ask him again, and if he cant, or more probably wont answer, provide some references. Dont ask too often, he might complain about harassment.
Disappointed Gleeber that you place faith in science and seem to believe it is represented by Reggy.
On my own part, I enjoyed snow in winter and sun in summer as a child.  When my children were growing up, their grandmother went sledging with them.  In the eighties, snow disappeared as a regular feature. 
There is not a huge difference between summer and winter in Caithness. I have been here ten years and the winds are not as I remember them, but perhaps I have just got used to it.
Climate is changing, no doubt about it.  Is it man-made?  Almost certainly some of it is,  but how much? 
I dont know.  But it is not hard to work out that this small country cannot not make any difference to the global effect of mans possible influence on climate.
Perhaps we are responsible for global warming and perhaps we are therefore responsible for climate change.  I prefer to rely on the long term record, and believe that cyclical factors govern our planet more than humans do.
I am a realist.
It is real that flooding in the UK is a major problem.  Our national energies would be better used in preparing for what is a present reality which we need to face than trying to neutralise CO2 emissions from China, which we cannot do, even if that proved actually to be a problem.

----------


## gleeber

> Disappointed Gleeber that you place faith in science and seem to believe it is represented by Reggy.


The science I have faith in is represented by science. Remember science? It's a study and understanding of the world around us. 
Ive only followed this issue since this thread started but I'm just as aware of Rhegheads tactics as I'm aware of the prejudices of those of you who disagree with him and deny climate change could be man made. For goodness sake one of the deniers on this thread also denies the evidence for evolution by natural selection.  How am I supposed to have faith in a bunch of deniers whose only challenge to their alternative idea is from a long distance cycilist and a builder. 
Put your findings to the powers that be. Those same scientists who you claim are working a flanker would keep you right, or perhaps even confirm your findings. 
Are there any non denying climate change scientists out there prepared to give the denyiers the credibility they crave by engaging them and allowing those of us who really don't know to have a more balanced view on the subject?
Conspiracy theories are criminal. They plant seeds in peoples minds and the origins of those seeds are usually some deep seated prejudice in the personality of the conspiracy theorist. Alternatively I am prepared to admit that my faith in science may be misled on this subject but that's why these people need challenged. If they are right then we are all being deliberately swindled by the scientific community. If not then this bunch of org deniers are a danger to the understanding and survival of the planet.

----------


## Bobinovich

Unfortunately Gleeber you will always get those on both sides of the fence as well as those well & truly stuck on it. I am not a denier but am sceptic that anything but a fraction of climate change is man-made and therefore anything we do will be a drop in the ocean. It's unlikely that my belief is going to be changed by a debate on here.

However I don't deny that we should be looking after our planet better so do my bit by recycling (fairly keeps the bin empty too!) and would like to have some form of electricity generation at home (if only to keep my electric bills down  :Frown: ).

It has been interesting seeing both sides being debated, but as I am already a sceptic I know which side I'd be more likely to believe.

----------


## Kenneth

I dont understand how all this global warming is making people richer? or how we are being taxed for it?

----------


## changilass

I'm off to sit on Bob's fence, I like the view from there.

----------


## Each

*Paul Reiter* is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control.

Reiter was a contributor to the third IPCC Working Group II (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) report, but resigned because he found himself at loggerheads with persons who insisted on making authoritative pronouncements, although they had little or no knowledge of speciality".

After ceasing to contribute he says he struggled to get his name removed from the Third report.

Reiter is sceptical about the IPCC process, as seen in his April 25, 2006 testimony to the United States Senate:
"A galling aspect of the debate is that this spurious 'science' is endorsed in the public forum by influential panels of 'experts.' I refer particularly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Every five years, this UN-based organization publishes a 'consensus of the world's top scientists' on all aspects of climate change. Quite apart from the dubious process by which these scientists are selected, such consensus is the stuff of politics, not of science.  Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment. The complexity of this process, and the uncertainties involved, are a major obstacle to a meaningful understanding of scientific issues by non-scientists. In reality, a genuine concern for mankind and the environment demands the inquiry, accuracy and scepticism that are intrinsic to authentic science. A public that is unaware of this is vulnerable to abuse"

----------


## Phill

I too echo Bobinovich's sentiments.

Just because I question the propaganda why does that make me a "Denier"?

I don't doubt climate change for a second. I question just how and what our contribution is to it.

I totally agree our emissions need to be addressed and reduced, also our use of the planets resources i.e. forests (read deforestation) pollutants into watercourses and seas, and into the ground.
We're a dirty bunch of s and we need to change.
We also need to look at how and what energy we use, we need to reduce our consumption. Be a "denier or believer" but fossil fuels are a finite resource so we need to look elsewhere.

BUT, I do not believe in carving up wide expanses of unspoilt countryside in the name of "Saving the Planet", that is folly heavily subsidised for the right people.

The propaganda that is being pitched to the many through the tabloid and similar media, is along the lines of "we need to tax everyone on CO2 and plant windmills and all these floods will stop".

The BS is the fact that we can somehow stop or reverse these changes by being "Green" and then everything will be ticketyboo.

I don't believe that by paying more tax for flights etc. is going to stop it raining!

Why are the major governments sending very mixed messages? Stop emitting CO2 they say. We're investing millions in the car industry to get the economy going. Hmmmm reduce CO2 but buy more cars........

Why don't they invest heavily on the cleanest and greenest public transport systems, that'd create jobs and get the economy moving.

Why build coal fired power stations and then tax me for the CO2 my new car emits????

Nothing to do with money then!

I certainly don't rank myself as a screaming conspiracy theorist but in a level headed way I'm quite sure that governments & business' go hand in hand in pushing an agenda to line the pockets of certain sectors.

It's been happening for as long as politics and business' have been around, look at how many MP's etc. are also company directors or go on to be directors after they leave office or they also act as "advisors" to business'.

I also know from personal experience, that under a gov't & EU funded scheme (multi millions of £'s) I and others were told to alter specifications to make "facts" and figures fit.

 Sceptical yes, denier No.

----------


## Stavro

> The science I have faith in is represented by science. Remember science? It's a study and understanding of the world around us. 
> Ive only followed this issue since this thread started but I'm just as aware of Rhegheads tactics as I'm aware of the prejudices of those of you who disagree with him and deny climate change could be man made. For goodness sake one of the deniers on this thread also denies the evidence for evolution by natural selection.


I am the one you refer to who rejects organic evolution as offering a plausible explanation of how life came into being. But if you look at Through's post number 155 on this thread, you will see that Through believes in it. We are here debating the scientific and political evidence and interests behind the climate change lobby - so it does not matter which of us accepts organic evolution and which does not, since the point of this particular debate is to assess the scientific evidence for and against the current hype over man-made climate change. There are many more "deniers" as you refer to us on this thread, and I don't know what their positions are on evolution, nor do I care for the purpose of this debate.

Certainly I remember science, as you put it, because I have used science in this thread and I used it in the evolution/creation discussion on the "Do you believe in a God?" thread.

If there is a science point that you want to bring out regarding CO2-based global warming, then let's discuss it.

----------


## Metalattakk

More CRU-gate analysis here.

Some sentient points made, and a rather relaxed article considering some of the author's previous output.  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> My previous reference to 0.52% was indeed out by a factor of 10.
> 
> If I'd stuck to volumes, of course I would have stated 0.038%.
> 
> However, there are always other ways of looking at things and what I was trying to do was restate the carbon dioxide concentration by weight.   I missed out a zero and should have said 0.052%.


You've still got a lot to explain.

Why have you used unconventional units?  I've seen gas concentrations irt climate change expressed as % by volume, mg/m³ or ppm by volume but never % by mass.

Secondly, and most damning against you, is that even if I convert your figure using conventional methods and using your unconventional units then you are completely off the correct concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by over 25%.

A typo is forgiveable but grooming the figures is not.  Incidentally, that error actually equates to hiding a global temperature warming by CO2 of ~1.3C, twice that of the observed rise over the last century.

----------


## Rheghead

> You are completely hollow, Rheghead. I have been sitting back, looking at your strategy here which, although it seems to have fooled gleeber, does not fool me.
> 
> Through presented to you (and everyone else) several very detailed, informative and clearly well-researched postings. In his haste, no doubt, he made a mistake over CO2 concentration levels in the atmosphere. These levels are well-known and can easily be found after 20 seconds of searching via Google/Wikipedia. So, what do you do? You spend your 20 seconds searching the CO2 concentration level and then dismiss and ridicule the entire contents of Through's postings. This is an insult to the time and effort that obviously went in to these posts, posts that were meant, no doubt, to be for your benefit as well as everyone else's who are interested in this important topic. It is also indicative of someone (i.e., you) who is so utterly devoid of valid scientific material, knowledge and awareness that all you can do is make these derogatory "responses," and I put "responses" in quotes because in using the word, I am really being kind to you........The "incorrect information" that you stick to like chewing gum under the school desk, was a simple mistake that Through openly admitted to.


Data is either wrong or right within calculated parameters. If you had just waited then you would have seen it wasn't just a typo, it was completely wrong. If through wants to spend all ungodly hours reaming of flimflam then that is up to him.  Next time, get your facts right before throwing mud. Which brings me on to your next worthless tirade at me.




> But wait a minute here, did you not notice that the real concentration is 13.68 times LESS concentration of CO2 than the figure Through was using? His erroneous figure would have aided YOUR position, if it were correct, not ours. Unlike the Albert Gores of this world, therefore, who made at least NINE errors in his (in)famous presentation, Through's single (subsequently corrected) error had no benefit to the one making it.


Absolute baloney.

You either don't have a clue about climate change methodology or you are just causing mischief or both.  Through's doubly erroneous figure for the concentration of CO2 would not have helped my position for if I had used it or indeed if the IPCC scientists had used it then it would have grossly hidden ~95% of the projected warming this coming century.

Do you need a lesson?  I'm sure through will help.

Through, care to explain why to stavro?  

<sits back to enjoy the show>

----------


## gleeber

Bobinvochs post is pretty reasonable and if I hadnt got such faith in science I could almost agree with him. I'm not a sceptic though. I take the global warming debate at face value with science being my yardstick. I believe that man made pollution, if not addressed soon will be responsable for  catasrophic events on our planet. I believe it because scientists are saying so.
I would be interested though why Bob is a sceptic? What was it made you start to think this global warming thing was not quite what it is being made out to be? Was it scientific stuff like your seeing being quoted/misquoted here or was it something more personal, just a feeling kind of thing or did you read a book or what?

----------


## Bobinovich

To be honest Gleeber there are so many on both sides who will quote you science, facts and figures, etc. and who can 'twist' the results either way to suit their own agenda.  I do not have the necessary skills to do my own research and finding a totally impartial site on the Interweb (in fact probably anywhere) is impossible.

My gut instinct is what makes me a sceptic.  I feel that nature has its own way around things, a natural cycle, its own ways to acheive equilibrium, etc. and that man has about as much control or input over that as we do the weather.  That's pretty much it.

----------


## Through

Greenhouse Theory shows that AGW is characterized by acting first and most strongly at the poles.

For this reason, the research team referenced below decided to investigate Northern Russia.   If Greenhouse Theory is correct, temperature changes in high latitudes are sensitive indicators of global temperature changes and they can serve as a basis for verifying climate model calculations.

Naurzbaev M M, Vaganov E A, Siderova O V and Schweingruber F H, 2002.   Summer temperatures in Eastern Taimyr inferred from a 2,427 year late Holocene tree ring chronology and earlier floating series.   The Holocene 12: 727  736.

The region studied lies between 70° 30 and 72° 28 North latitude.
They selected living and preserved larch trees, because, it has been established that the main driver of tree ring variability at the polar timber line is temperature (Vaganov et al 1996, Briffa et al 1998, Schweingruber and Briffa 1996).

The study found, the warmest periods over the last two millennia in this region were clearly in the third, tenth to twelfth and the twentieth centuries.

They emphasise that, the warmth of the two centuries AD 1058  1157 and 950  1049 attests to the reality of relative mediaeval warmth in this region.

Their data clearly show that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were both warmer than the Current Warm Period.

This is completely against what is portrayed by the broken hockey stick data of Mann et al (1998 and 1999).

----------


## Through

Rheghead, 0.052% is correct.

20 points if you can work it out.

ps   Nobody help him.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead, 0.052% is correct.
> 
> 20 points if you can work it out.
> 
> ps   Nobody help him.


No it's wrong by ~25% I've already worked it out.!  ::   Show your working, there's a good boy.  This just gets better.

----------


## Through

No Rheghead, 0.052% is correct.

I knew you wouldn't be able to work it out and this limitation is your undoing.

----------


## Rheghead

> No Rheghead, 0.052% is correct.
> 
> I knew you wouldn't be able to work it out and this limitation is your undoing.


You are wrong, I thought you knew about this stuff? ::

----------


## Through

CRU "publish" data on their web site and yet, nobody can find it unless they know where it is.

Unless anyone can tell me that they met my challenge and found the page containing graphs of sea level at the Pacific Islands.

----------


## Through

I do.   0.052% is correct and until you can work it out, you don't.

----------


## Rheghead

> I do.   0.052% is correct and until you can work it out, you don't.


Go back and rework your figures, if you can't see your error the second time then you are doubly inept.

----------


## Through

I think people should realise that IPCC employ about 50 "scientists".   I deliberately used quotes, because more than half of those are modellers, I mean computer programmers, who create the models they use to make forecasts.   In case anyone is wondering, no forecast they have made has ever come true.   Look at the one by Hansen et al in 1988.   Plotting the IPCC average global temperature since 1988 shows that today we are far below the temperature predicted by Hansen et al that was based on enormous cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn, was far below the graph of what would happen if we didn't make cuts.   As you all know, carbon dioxide emissions have increased since 1988.

The theory is wrong.

----------


## Through

The position is clear Rheghead.   At this point in your education, you need to put in some work yourself.   I will not teach you what you need to know, because you need to be capable of working it out yourself.

This issue is quite clearly on display to the message board readers.

Work it out and show you can do it.

----------


## Rheghead

> The position is clear Rheghead.   At this point in your education, you need to put in some work yourself.   I will not teach you what you need to know, because you need to be capable of working it out yourself.
> 
> This issue is quite clearly on display to the message board readers.
> 
> Work it out and show you can do it.


Look, I've caught you out twice putting out erroneous data and you haven't  a modicum of decency to admit to being mischievous.  

I give you a clue, Gas Constants and molecular weights, the equation to convert gas concentrations by mass to those of by volume and visa versa at standard temps and pressure are well-known undisputed aspects of physics.  Even a schoolboy physics student could work it out, no offence to them intended.

Now go back and rework your 0.052%

If this is your tactic, deny deny more blah blah, deny deny, ignore ignore then everyone, even ywindy can see what you are up to.

----------


## RecQuery

> I am the one you refer to who rejects organic evolution as offering a plausible explanation of how life came into being. But if you look at Through's post number 155 on this thread, you will see that Through believes in it. We are here debating the scientific and political evidence and interests behind the climate change lobby - so it does not matter which of us accepts organic evolution and which does not, since the point of this particular debate is to assess the scientific evidence for and against the current hype over man-made climate change. There are many more "deniers" as you refer to us on this thread, and I don't know what their positions are on evolution, nor do I care for the purpose of this debate.
> 
> Certainly I remember science, as you put it, because I have used science in this thread and I used it in the evolution/creation discussion on the "Do you believe in a God?" thread.
> 
> If there is a science point that you want to bring out regarding CO2-based global warming, then let's discuss it.


I believe in evolution by natural selection also, and though Stavro and I were on opposing sides on that one, I agree with his views on this one.

The co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore - even thinks the environmentalist/green movement has been hijacked.

I'd like to see actual facts and figures backed by some references also so I could respond and critique the source and intent of the research.

Admittedly this is a cheap shot but environmentalists have even signed a petition to ban that dangerous substance dihydrogen monoxide

Also, I've actually been to some of these rallies etc, very little discussion or debate goes on its usually a place for people to shill books, sell t-shirts, or listen to music and get high. Not that there is anything wrong with that just don't try to make yourself seem noble.

----------


## Bobinovich

Good grief!  Can you two not go into chat and work this out until you come to an answer you both agree on, instead of pontificating & putting each other down?  Then come back & give us the consensus of your joint opinions  :Grin: 

You appear to be the ones caught on either side of the fence so, putting your varying feelings on the subject aside, and at least come to an agreement on this value!  It's been going on so long now I can't even remember what the value was for  :: !

----------


## bekisman

Bob, let 'em continue, this is really good stuff; over 3,000 'looks' so far, it's got a good following!

----------


## George Brims

> If we had no sun, then the planet would achieve the background temperature of space.   About -289 degrees C.


OOOOPS. There is no such temperature as -289 degrees C. Absolute zero is -273.15 degrees C. Interstellar space is about 3 degrees warmer than that.

----------


## George Brims

> By definition, it was not you who asked my question, but since your attention span seems a trifle limited tonight, I'll ask it again:
> 
> Do you accept that H2O (water vapour) is a greenhouse gas?


Well I will butt in here. Water is a greenhouse gas. It is however not changing its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is, mostly due to anthropogenic sources.

----------


## Cinders392

What about methane?  
The Age of Stupid truely is here!   :Smile:

----------


## gleeber

The plot thickens and the climates changing in favour of science. Poor thought, oops Freudian slip, poor through canna get his sums right and he's trying to convince us that the scientists are swindling us. He nearly had me believing it on Saturday, but Rheghead doggedly stuck in there and exposed the shady side of Global warming denial, which for the sake of a few of you has little to do with healthy scepticism.

----------


## Tubthumper

Where hae ye been ye scientists
  And climate change deniers oh?
  Ye’ve been on ‘boot yer greenhouse gas
  But no sure aboot the flamin' H2O

_If ye could see whit I can see_
_Ye wouldnae stand sae handy-oh_
_Ye science berks have missed the point_
_Dry yer eyes, now here’s a hankie-oh_

  So wir water level’s risin’ up
  The burns are couping o’er-oh
  And the coos and stirks are ankle deep
  Cos the ice-cap's melting rapid-o

_What div ye put in recycling bin_
_Div ye pu’ yer telly plug out so_
_And hev ye got loft insulation in_
_Tae a depth of millimetres 4-0-0_

  So Through says aye and it’s a’ fibs
  While Rheghead says a firm flat ‘no’
  While the rest of us roll wir e'en yince mair
Wishin' Rheg & Through tae school wid go

_And if ye could see whit I kin see_
_A pair a flaming chancer’s oh_
_Who have wasted education on_
_Simply at their computer cantin’-oh_

  Within three years we’ll be to wir necks
  The bairns’ll hev webbed feeties-oh
  And it won’t be buses through to Week
  But a trip on the famous Hamnavoe

_So kin you twa numpties get a clue_
_Whit dis it matter to us aw_
_It’s the sooth o’_ _England__ sinkin’ doon_
_While the North is rising, that no’ braw?_

----------


## bekisman

"_Its the sooth o England sinkin doon_
_While the North is rising, that no braw?_ "

Is that 'cos the couple of Km's of ice we had overhead has all gone and we're bouncing back up?

----------


## Stavro

> Well I will butt in here. Water is a greenhouse gas. It is however not changing its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is, mostly due to anthropogenic sources.


Yes, agreed, but as I said before water vapour is the main greenhouse gas. I think that this point has been made now and, as far as I see it, the next point to concentrate on is the fact that the Earth's temperature/climate follows solar phenomena. If we can reach concensus on that, then the final point is to assess what effect man's influence on the atmosphere is going to have with respect to the main cause and effect (of the Sun cycles).

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Well I will butt in here. Water is a greenhouse gas. It is however not changing its concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is, mostly due to anthropogenic sources.


Given that some bits fall off into space and some bits come in from space, it seems to me that Earth is generally in balance, and it fine-tunes itself. 

I seem to remember from school that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, so all the bits of CO2 are here already, but as Eric Morecambe famously said "not necessarily in the right order" (whilst slapping Andre Preview's chops.)

Thermal mass is a buzzword today. Solid stuff like concrete, bricks, and a planet made of rock gradually store heat, and when the heat source goes away, gradually release stored heat and cool down. I lived in St Petersburg for two years. The traditional city buildings are really solid and chunky. The heat stored in the building fabric in summer lasts till halfway through winter and the cold stored through the rest of the winter keeps the building comfortable till halfway through summer.
Earth is a heat sink just the same. It takes time to warm up and time to cool down, but not in an annual cycle, nor in a human lifetime cycle.
I want to reduce the unnecessary waste I cause. I want to conserve things which I value. 
But I don't want to be railroaded down a "do nothing and die" slippery slope that has no sound foundation and is being exploited for gain by strictly commercial interests which are funded by us the consumers.

----------


## roadbowler

aye, post glacial rebound.

----------


## Phill

> so all the bits of CO2 are here already, but as Eric Morecambe famously said "not necessarily in the right order" (whilst slapping Andre Preview's chops.)



Ha ha, love the Eric Morecambe reference   :: 

'tis right in my head.

I think mother nature has a way of keeping the balance, IF we ARE screwing the planet up my guess is mother nature will let us sink into another ice age and be sure to wipe out as much of mankind as she can, thus removing emissions completely. Job Done.

----------


## tonkatojo

I see yet another set of eminent scientists in the times say the sea levels will at least double the present estimates. ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Well yes they did Tonkatojo.
> 
> Unfortunately I can't seem to insert the graph derived from the Vostok icecore, as produced by Petit, et al, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429 - 436.
> 
> What this shows, is a temperature record that goes back more than 420,000 years.   It begins with a warm period and ends with the current warm period.   There are five warm periods in total and four ice ages.   The warm periods are all brief and the ice ages are all long term.
> 
> All of the previous warm periods, known as interglacials, are approximately 2 degrees centigrade warmer than the peak of the current warm period.   The peak for this period is in the past.


This is the graph that you mean



You will see that the temperature was higher in the previous inter-glcaial periods.  That isn't in dispute.  But there is a huge amount of variance between each cycle to the extent that the 5th period about 400,000 years ago was similiar in temperature as is today, if not a little cooler overall given that the graph is a lot smoother and may give a false impression as the graph gets older.

You should also accept that whatever caused these changes before 300 years ago were non anthropogenic.  Therefore whatever made these changes was completely natural.  All the graph shows is that certain long term cyclical events have a powerful effect on our climate which also create a 'load following' effect of raising carbon dioxide levels thus exacerbating rises in global temperatures.  The graph does not offer any indication of the magnitude of the other events that caused the cyclical nature in the first place or the magnitude of the positive and negative feedbacks that accompanied the changes  hence the notion that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas doesn't quite follow.  Carbon dioxide and other GHGs weren't the driving agent then as they are today.

The thing to remember here is that the longterm trend with the hockey stick was very gradual downward as we would expect from 1000AD to ~1750 and then things took off from there.  The task for those with doubts is to explain why such astronomical changes are taking place after the industrial revolution AND at the same time explain why GHGs aren't causing such rises when the experimentally derived radiative forcing data suggest otherwise.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> This is the graph that you mean
> 
> 
> 
> You will see that the temperature was higher in the previous inter-glcaial periods. That isn't in dispute. But there is a huge amount of variance between each cycle to the extent that the 5th period about 400,000 years ago was similiar in temperature as is today, if not a little cooler overall given that the graph is a lot smoother and may give a false impression as the graph gets older.
> 
> You should also accept that whatever caused these changes before 300 years ago were non anthropogenic. Therefore whatever made these changes was completely natural. All the graph shows is that certain long term cyclical events have a powerful effect on our climate which also create a 'load following' effect of raising carbon dioxide levels thus exacerbating rises in global temperatures. The graph does not offer any indication of the magnitude of the other events that caused the cyclical nature in the first place or the magnitude of the positive and negative feedbacks that accompanied the changes hence the notion that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas doesn't quite follow. Carbon dioxide and other GHGs weren't the driving agent then as they are today.
> 
> The thing to remember here is that the longterm trend with the hockey stick was very gradual downward as we would expect from 1000AD to ~1750 and then things took off from there. The task for those with doubts is to explain why such astronomical changes are taking place after the industrial revolution AND at the same time explain why GHGs aren't causing such rises when the experimentally derived radiative forcing data suggest otherwise.


It is not possible to derive any short-term conclusions from the graph. The graph lines are about 1000 years thick!

----------


## Through

At least you're trying hard with the Vostok data Rheghead.   However, there are a number of very important problems with your argument.

This graph is not a very good example and has poor resolution.   However, you can see the pattern and you can see where we are in the big picture.   We are on the wrong side of the hill for your argument to hold true.   You can see that temperature peaked about seven thousand or so years ago and that we are already significantly cooler.

All through my argument here, remember that physical laws behave the same whether it is now, 1 year ago, 10 years ago and so on back to thousands of millions of years ago.   It will always do the same thing.   We have not invented a new kind of carbon dioxide here.   It is the same carbon dioxide molecule that has always existed.

Now remember Greenhouse states that increased carbon dioxide causes higher temperature, higher temperature causes higher carbon dioxide, and so on.   The fact that carbon dioxide levels have been increased from their record low of all time to where they are today, would therefore mean that they should now be causing temperature increase that causes more carbon dioxide that causes higher temperatures in a rapidly increasing fashion.   Yet, now we have CRU climate scientists exclaiming that it is a travesty that they cannot explain the lack of warming for the last 11 years.   Clearly, carbon dioxide is not driving temperature.

If Greenhouse was correct and given the way that you previously presented graphs of measured temperature, we should already be setting a new high temperature every year.   We're not.

As previously referenced, Rothman (2002) showed that millions of years ago, carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times the level of today.   If Greenhouse was correct, temperature would have rocketed and we would not be here today.   We humans are proof that Greenhouse Theory is incorrect.

Also previously referenced, Fischer et al (1999) Mudelsee et al (2001) and Pagani et al (2005) (plus many others I haven't referenced here) have all shown that historic carbon dioxide and temperature have done completely different things time after time after time.   If Greenhouse was correct, carbon dioxide would drive temperature upwards not just once, but every time.   This is an example of how scientists test a theory against data and show whether it is correct.   Greenhouse failed this test.

Also previously referenced, Petit et al (1999) showed from the Vostok ice core that the end of each interglacial period over the last 421,000 years was characterised by temperature starting to fall while carbon dioxide was increasing toward a maximum value that did not arrive for hundreds of years.   Greenhouse says that this is absolutely impossible.

You then fall into the trap of ignoring the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between 1000 and 1300, evidence of which is demonstrated in many of the papers I've referenced and for which I can quote literally hundreds more from all areas of the globe.

The Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has collated hundreds of these papers and shown that the most commonly determined temperature for MWP was 0.75 deg C higher than the Current Warm Period (CWP).   So, just 700 to 1000 years ago, it was significantly warmer than now and yet carbon dioxide was much lower.   Some papers actually show that MWP was up to 3.75 deg C warmer than CWP.   Papers with this evidence exist from all over the world.

The Roman Warm Period (RWP) has also been shown to have been significantly warmer than CWP.   So, 2,000 years ago it was warmer than now, yet carbon dioxide was much lower.

Some of my previous references have shown that not only has it been warmer in the last 2,000 years or so, but we know that there has been less ice in the North.   You'll be pleased to know that I intend to reference another paper on this shortly.

Even from the rather crude version of the Vostok data that you have presented, it can clearly be seen that the recent temperature change rates you claim to be astronomical are completely dwarfed by the onset of Interglacials.   It is no competition.

There is no scientific concensus.
Temperature today is not a world record.
Carbon dioxide has been much higher in the past, including during periods when temperature was decreasing.
There has been less ice in the North within the last 1,000 years.
Historically, high carbon dioxide and high temperature rarely co-incide.
Since 1998, no year has been as warm as 1998.   (Even the met office web site shows this.)

----------


## Rheghead

> It is not possible to derive any short-term conclusions from the graph. The graph lines are about 1000 years thick!


I wasn't trying to from that graph, I mentioned the hockey stick graph which does suggest that temperatures will continue to rise.

----------


## Through

> I see yet another set of eminent scientists in the times say the sea levels will at least double the present estimates.


Toscano M A and J Wahr, 2003.   Corrected Western Atlantic Sea Level Curve for the last 11,000 years.   Coral Reefs 22: 257 - 270.

This paper shows sea level rise the Last Glacial Maximum.   The graph shows rapid sea level rise as temperature recovered from the last ice age and then it slows away down to its present rate of about 1.8 mm per year.   This is the slowest rate of sea level rise for almost 18,000 years.   The next time you see David Shukman on BBC News talking about 1 metre of sea level rise, remember that even if the rate of rise doesn't keep slowing down, then it will take 556 years to rise another 1 metre.

Close to home, we have evidence that climate change is all natural:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/7735544.stm.

----------


## Through

So why are temperatures not rising now then Rheghead?

Like CRU say, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the lack of warming in the last 11 years.

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

So the Global warming question comes down to two solutions.It does.Well for Weekers anyway.Pick a bit of Caithness landscape thats nearest to yer backdoor.Don't want to be seen as a Caithnessiast.Yer walking out yer backdoor in 50 years time.What is it gonnae be,just the same as normal.I think so :Smile: .Or is it gonnae be folk standing on wee toattie islands waving at one another.I don't think so. :Smile: Global warming propaganda is all wrote by humans.The Earth doesn't care.The planet doesn't give a cahoony about humans.The Earth has been doin just fine.The humans problem is over the moons they have learned to consciously think about things.The Earth is God.God is the Earth.The Bible was written what 1970 years ago,only translated into English what 500.I can hear the power of the Earth by the wind thats blowin outside tonight.So stick yer plonders of scientists in labs where the sun don't shine.Maybe if they went outside now and again and smelt the roses,maybe they might see a different world.The Pseudo Scientists,or the normal punter knows the answer. ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> So why are temperatures not rising now then Rheghead?
> 
> Like CRU say, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the lack of warming in the last 11 years.


I think I can answer that question for Rheggy:



Multi-decadal Oscillation.

----------


## Rheghead

> At least you're trying hard with the Vostok data Rheghead.   However, there are a number of very important problems with your argument.
> 
> This graph is not a very good example and has poor resolution.   However, you can see the pattern and you can see where we are in the big picture.   We are on the wrong side of the hill for your argument to hold true.   You can see that temperature peaked about seven thousand or so years ago and that we are already significantly cooler.


So whatever is has been cooling the Earth during the last 7 thousand years has been cooling the Earth (but you'll notice that the graph is not smooth, it has oscillations).  You will notice that CO2 was going up during this time.  What is your point?  Whatever its true nature, it obviously has been having a greater effect than the mere 20ppm increase of carbon dioxide over that time.




> Now remember Greenhouse states that increased carbon dioxide causes higher temperature, higher temperature causes higher carbon dioxide, and so on.


That is the runaway greenhouse effect that has been a buzzword of late.  It is a concern due to the evidence in the Petit et al graph above but so far I think there is little evidence of it, but I'm willing to be proved wrong there.




> The fact that carbon dioxide levels have been increased from their record low of all time to where they are today, would therefore mean that they should now be causing temperature increase that causes more carbon dioxide that causes higher temperatures in a rapidly increasing fashion.   Yet, now we have CRU climate scientists exclaiming that it is a travesty that they cannot explain the lack of warming for the last 11 years.   Clearly, carbon dioxide is not driving temperature.


Are they claiming it is a travesty that they can't find any warming in the last 11 years?  In the last 11 years there have been 9 years of the 20 hottest on record.  I think this 1998 cooling notion is just misleading as 1998 was just an exceptionally hot year.  Plus, the Sun has been rather quiet in recent years, it is El Nino year next year so it will be interesting to see what happens.




> If Greenhouse was correct and given the way that you previously presented graphs of measured temperature, we should already be setting a new high temperature every year.   We're not.


That because the Earth is not a science experiment where we can do a controlled experiment on it, it is subject to chaos etc.  The underlying trend of temperatures will be going up as seen by the hockey stick graph with downward trends like between 1940 and 1970 when a certain individual grabbed the headlines and exclaimed he predicted we were heading for an ice age.




> As previously referenced, Rothman (2002) showed that millions of years ago, carbon dioxide levels were up to 4 times the level of today.   If Greenhouse was correct, temperature would have rocketed and we would not be here today.   We humans are proof that Greenhouse Theory is incorrect.


That is a big jump to make the conclusion.  However, quoting Rothman (not familiar with his work) is irrelevant as the Earth millions of years ago was a different place, different geology, different currents etc.  And never the less, even if it was much hotter or much colder, animals continue to evolve all kinds of climate as that is what species do, they adapt to changing climates.




> Also previously referenced, Fischer et al (1999) Mudelsee et al (2001) and Pagani et al (2005) (plus many others I haven't referenced here) have all shown that historic carbon dioxide and temperature have done completely different things time after time after time.   If Greenhouse was correct, carbon dioxide would drive temperature upwards not just once, but every time.   This is an example of how scientists test a theory against data and show whether it is correct.   Greenhouse failed this test.


Normally I would agree with that if something does not follow a trend then there isn't a link between the two, as in the case that carbon dioxide levels don't follow rises in temperature, the biggest failing with these authors is that they failed to account for what _was_ causing the changes in temperature despite the rises in CO2, so the conclusion that CO2 doesn't cause global warming doesn't quite follow.




> Also previously referenced, Petit et al (1999) showed from the Vostok ice core that the end of each interglacial period over the last 421,000 years was characterised by temperature starting to fall while carbon dioxide was increasing toward a maximum value that did not arrive for hundreds of years.   Greenhouse says that this is absolutely impossible.


As I said before, CO2 was not the agent causing climate change in the past.  If you look at each peak, as you stated, it is characterised by a fall in temperature.  A gradual downward change, a shallow slope but the temperatures were still on the top of the peak thus causing CO2 to venture into the atmosphere.  I think there is a lag in the system, it may have something to do with the thermo-haline circulation.  Anyway, the rise in CO2 is only characterised during the last cooling from the last peak, the other peaks show immediate coinciding drops in CO2.




> You then fall into the trap of ignoring the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) between 1000 and 1300, evidence of which is demonstrated in many of the papers I've referenced and for which I can quote literally hundreds more from all areas of the globe.
> 
> The Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has collated hundreds of these papers and shown that the most commonly determined temperature for MWP was 0.75 deg C higher than the Current Warm Period (CWP).   So, just 700 to 1000 years ago, it was significantly warmer than now and yet carbon dioxide was much lower.   Some papers actually show that MWP was up to 3.75 deg C warmer than CWP.   Papers with this evidence exist from all over the world.
> 
> The Roman Warm Period (RWP) has also been shown to have been significantly warmer than CWP.   So, 2,000 years ago it was warmer than now, yet carbon dioxide was much lower.
> 
> Some of my previous references have shown that not only has it been warmer in the last 2,000 years or so, but we know that there has been less ice in the North.   You'll be pleased to know that I intend to reference another paper on this shortly.


As I said before, evidence for a global MWP is extremely scant however the evidence from the hockey stick graph sort of shows that temperatures were slightly warmer for 750 years then at the late end of the 19th century things clearly started to change.  Global emperatures are clearly warmer than the global 'MWP' temperatures.  Whether the regional temperatures of northern Europe during the MWP were hotter than the global temperatures of today is irrelevant.




> Even from the rather crude version of the Vostok data that you have presented, it can clearly be seen that the recent temperature change rates you claim to be astronomical are completely dwarfed by the onset of Interglacials.   It is no competition.


I agree up to a point that the certain effects which have caused the interglacial periods have proven to have changed global temperatures over a greater range but they have occurred over many millennia, even during the steep parts of the graph.

What we see over the last 150 years is a rising change in Global temperatures amounting to almost a full degree in centigrade.  A very small time geologically and with nothing to explain it except a little sun activity but a huge rise in greenhouse gases.




> There is no scientific concensus.
> Temperature today is not a world record.
> Carbon dioxide has been much higher in the past, including during periods when temperature was decreasing.
> There has been less ice in the North within the last 1,000 years.
> Historically, high carbon dioxide and high temperature rarely co-incide.
> Since 1998, no year has been as warm as 1998.   (Even the met office web site shows this.)


There is clear consensus amongst scientists.

Where has CO2 been higher than today during the last 420,000 years, the graph is there for you to see.?????

Clearly, there is a general trend over the last 420,000 years where CO2 does coincide with temperature,  peaks and troughs match.  Where they don't coincide, sceptical scientists have not accounted for other factors which may be having an effect or the lag in the response to temperature changes on carbon sinks.  So the conclusion that carbon dioxide does not have an important effect in the here and now doesn't follow.

----------


## JimH

Can I refer all of you to the book "GLOBAL WARMING AND OTHER BOLLOCKS" by Professor Stanley Feldman and Professor Vincent Marks. Published by Metro and available from Amazon for about a fiver.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can I refer all of you to the book "GLOBAL WARMING AND OTHER BOLLOCKS" by Professor Stanley Feldman and Professor Vincent Marks. Published by Metro and available from Amazon for about a fiver.


Despite them being medical professors writing a satirical book, I think you've hit the nail on the head here, a lot of these critics of global warming and its solutions (authors include Christopher Booker, Bjorn Lomborg, Dr J E Etherington, Patrick Michaels, Freeman Dyson, Ian Plimer, Michael Crichton, Alan Carlin, just to name a few) seem to grab the headlines  then lo and behold they are bringing another pseudo-science book out on their 'controversial subject' of their own making.   ::   Could there be a coincidence?

And what makes them do it?  It is gullible clowns like you , me and the rest of us that have too much money in their pocket that buy rubbish. They wouldn't be interested otherwise.  Everyone loves a good conspiracy but it is dangerous when such authors (who should have the intelligence to know better) make them look like plausible scientific journals or popular science books when there is so much at stake.  There can be no clear-cut solution to Climate Change when the waters are being muddied to the wider population who have no particular expertise in science.  What we need is a clear unambiguous message about the true nature of Climate Change.  

Clearly these climate change sceptics are self-interested, motivated by money and greed whereas authors like David MacKay in contrast have published their books about renewable energy online for free download.  I'd go with the altruistic author for a start.

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

> I think you've hit the nail on the head here, a lot of these critics of global warming seem to grab the headlines (Christopher Booker just recently) then lo and behold they are bringing a pseudo science book out on their 'controversial subject' of their own making. 
> 
> And what makes them do it? Cause it is gullible clowns that have too much money in their pocket that buy rubbish, they wouldn't be interested otherwise. Everyone loves a good conspiracy but it is dangerous when such authors make them look like plausible scientific journals or popular science books.


Pseudo science?Thats a favourite saying on here.

How to ride a bike?

The scientist took the bike into his lab measured all the dimensions and put it into his computer.Measured the weight for propulsion then found out after all his calculations on the bike that the lab was too small to go anywhere.

The pseudo scientist,took the bike outside jumped on it,fell off a couple of times,then went off on some lovely adventures.

Science has solutions.
Pseudo Science has better solutions.

----------


## George Brims

> I think people should realise that IPCC employ about 50 "scientists".   I deliberately used quotes, because more than half of those are modellers, I mean computer programmers, who create the models they use to make forecasts.


Two points:
1) IPCC employ about 2,500 scientists. Being off by a factor of fifty is usually considered "an error" in the real world. 
2) Don't get near a computer modeller in a dark alley and try to tell him/her they are not a scientist. If computer modelling didn't work, the landscape would be littered with crashed planes, burned out nuclear power stations, and people screaming at their cell phone because they can't get any service.

----------


## tonkatojo

I have definite proof its a load of tosh a scam, tesco is leading the business world in the fight back against global warming.  ::  ::

----------


## Phill

> I have definite proof its a load of tosh a scam, tesco is leading the business world in the fight back against global warming.


Yes, good to see them taking the lead, whilst their directors trundle about in private jets.

Every little helps as the say!

----------


## Rheghead

I think Ed Milliband just about sums it up.




> The people who want to deny or cast doubt on whether climate change is happening are the most dangerous. They want to tell people that we can stick our heads in the sand and the problem will go away.
> 
> Scientifically, they are the flat-earth brigade of the modern era. The scientific evidence from across the world shows we need to act.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...rth-brigade.do

----------


## Metalattakk

Ed Milliband is talking pish, though I'm not surprised you believe him, Rheggers.

----------


## Rheghead

> Ed Milliband is talking pish, though I'm not surprised you believe him, Rheggers.


He is only taking the same scientific advice as the rest of us.  Would we go into space if it was down to Flat Earthers?

----------


## Metalattakk

> He is only taking the same scientific advice as the rest of us.


And using it to push his own party's agenda. Are you being obtuse?

Also, nice to see you didn't deny my assertion.

----------


## Rheghead

> And using it to push his own party's agenda.


Do you know of any UK political party that disagree's with the mainstream view of the IPCC?  Your implication that the scientific findings is politically motivated is laughable as it is a scientific problem that the political spectrum could do without just now.   ::

----------


## tonkatojo

> Do you know of any UK political party that disagree's with the mainstream view of the IPCC?  Your implication that the scientific findings is politically motivated is laughable as it is a scientific problem that the political spectrum could do without just now.



I think your wrong Rheggy, all the political parties are clapping their hands and drooling about green taxes, all except the greens but what the hell.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think your wrong Rheggy, all the political parties are clapping their hands and drooling about green taxes, all except the greens but what the hell.


Well if I'm wrong and the science is wrong then why doesn't a minority party who is desperate for support denounce the scientific evidence and get rapturous support from the electorate who is clued up on the chain of events?   :: 

Whichever way you look at it, climate warming scepticism doesn't hold water.

If one thing is true then knowledge and wisdom beats ignorance and bias every time.

----------


## George Brims

Some interesting reading here from a famous left-wing rag, quoting that noted Trotskyite M Thatcher was convinced on man-made global warming.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...of-change.html

----------


## Stavro

> Some interesting reading here ...
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/cop...of-change.html



And here -
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

----------


## Metalattakk

> Whichever way you look at it, climate warming scepticism doesn't hold water.


Now you're just being _deliberately_ obtuse.

----------


## Bobinovich

> Well if I'm wrong and the science is wrong then why doesn't a minority party who is desperate for support denounce the scientific evidence and get rapturous support from the electorate who is clued up on the chain of events?


IMO Money / Greed - pure & simple.  There's loadsa money to be made in herding the sheep general population into believing that is us humans who are responsible, and that we must subsequently pay the price.

Your average Joe doesn't know enough to prove otherwise, and no group has sufficient clout to get the existing incumbents in world politics to face the possibility that they've been backing the wrong horse all along.

Therefore until the sheep stop acting sheepish, or a group with cajones to stand up and be counted do their stuff, the politicians will continue to line the pockets of those 'in' on the greatest sting of all time.

Just my opinon of course.

----------


## Rheghead

> Now you're just being _deliberately_ obtuse.


Is it deliberate?

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

Deliberate.Thats the word.Folk have made a god out of what they have taken for granted.IMO :Smile:

----------


## Metalattakk

> Is it deliberate?


Perhaps not. Maybe I've afforded you far too much credit.

----------


## Rheghead

> IMO Money / Greed - pure & simple.  There's loadsa money to be made in herding the sheep general population into believing that is us humans who are responsible, and that we must subsequently pay the price.
> 
> Your average Joe doesn't know enough to prove otherwise, and no group has sufficient clout to get the existing incumbents in world politics to face the possibility that they've been backing the wrong horse all along.
> 
> Therefore until the sheep stop acting sheepish, or a group with cajones to stand up and be counted do their stuff, the politicians will continue to line the pockets of those 'in' on the greatest sting of all time.
> 
> Just my opinon of course.


Let us just remind ourselves again who the real incumbents are.  They are the ones who back oil exploration and give tax incentives to oil industries, open up coal mines, sanction new coal fired power stations, give the go ahead for more nuke, etc etc, yes they are the Government. 

It could flippently be said that that is all about greed and money, but no, that accusation is only reserved for those that want to save the planet instead of wrecking it. :: 

The thing with a Government's science policy is that it is only as convincing as the science that it is based upon.  No matter how well it looks to the uneducated, if the science is wrong then the policy is a sham.  We don't need to be educated in science to appreciate its integrity, we just need to be assured by the scientists that are carrying out the work, and if the science is wrong then the scientists will tell us it is wrong.  That is what science is about, the search for knowledge, not lies.

----------


## Rheghead

> Perhaps not. Maybe I've afforded you far too much credit.


I wish I knew what you were on about.

----------


## Metalattakk

> I wish I knew what you were on about.


As people have said already in this thread, it's a waste of time and effort to debate with you, as your methods and debating etiquette are sadly lacking substance.

If you wish to debate, rise up to a level that allows it.

If you wish to merely stir the pot, take it elsewhere.

----------


## Bobinovich

> Let us just remind ourselves again who the real incumbents are. They are the ones who back oil exploration and give tax incentives to oil industries, open up coal mines, sanction new coal fired power stations, give the go ahead for more nuke, etc etc, yes they are the Government. 
> 
> It could flippently be said that that is all about greed and money, but no, that accusation is only reserved for those that want to save the planet instead of wrecking it.
> 
> The thing with a Government's science policy is that it is only as convincing as the science that it is based upon. No matter how well it looks to the uneducated, if the science is wrong then the policy is a sham. We don't need to be educated in science to appreciate its integrity, we just need to be assured by the scientists that are carrying out the work, and if the science is wrong then the scientists will tell us it is wrong. That is what science is about, the search for knowledge, not lies.


OK so why was all the original CRU data destroyed and only their 'massaged' figures used?  Were the real results not sufficient?

I for one will be following that story with interest - the possibility of renown CC scientists knowingly colluding to ensure the data 'proves' the man-made climate change model could be the biggest swindle in scientific history.

I can only hope (but won't hold my breath) that the independent review concentrates as hard on the content of the hacked data as it does on who released it.  If it turns out to be true then whoever did the hacking deserves praise for doing so - public interest or what!

----------


## Rheghead

> As people have said already in this thread, it's a waste of time and effort to debate with you, as your methods and debating etiquette are sadly lacking substance.
> 
> If you wish to debate, rise up to a level that allows it.
> 
> If you wish to merely stir the pot, take it elsewhere.


That is really rich from you given the base level of your contributions in this thread whilst I was busy giving multipoint replies to through's erroneous points and assertions.

If you can't accept white is white and black is black then why contribute to a science based thread?

----------


## Metalattakk

> That is really rich from you given the base level of your contributions in this thread whilst I was busy giving multipoint replies to through's erroneous points and assertions.
> 
> If you can't accept white is white and black is black then why contribute to a science based thread?


As I said, it's a waste of time even trying to debate with you.

You, by your own account, have whitewashed every single point through made because one or two of his points were erroneous. That's not the actions of one who wishes to debate, nor of one who wishes to use science to prove his point. In fact, that's behaviour exactly reminiscent of those who supplied the IPCC with their original, massaged data.

So, rather than attack me, why not try to answer the points and questions raised short ago by Bobinovich. Oh, wait, answering uncomfortable questions isn't your style, is it?

So, why was the raw CRU data destroyed? Surely any reputable scientist worth his salt would never destroy the original raw data that his findings are crucially based upon?

And surely, by that measure, any findings that a scientist presents is worth only as much as that original raw data? Without the raw data, the findings are worthless. The recent call by the head of the IPCC itself for a thorough investigation bears witness to that.

Now Rheggy, no need to gloss over the questions presented, face up, answer them and contribute to the debate instead of hiding your head in the sand while defiantly shouting "You're all wrong!"

----------


## Stavro

> As I said, it's a waste of time even trying to debate with you.
> 
> You, by your own account, have whitewashed every single point through made because one or two of his points were erroneous. That's not the actions of one who wishes to debate, nor of one who wishes to use science to prove his point. In fact, that's behaviour exactly reminiscent of those who supplied the IPCC with their original, massaged data.
> 
> So, rather than attack me, why not try to answer the points and questions raised short ago by Bobinovich. Oh, wait, answering uncomfortable questions isn't your style, is it?
> 
> So, why was the raw CRU data destroyed? Surely any reputable scientist worth his salt would never destroy the original raw data that his findings are crucially based upon?
> 
> And surely, by that measure, any findings that a scientist presents is worth only as much as that original raw data? Without the raw data, the findings are worthless. The recent call by the head of the IPCC itself for a thorough investigation bears witness to that.
> ...



Excellent points.

The fact is that no real scientist (i.e., one with nothing to hide and nothing to gain) would ever deliberately destroy their original data. The whole point of science is that results are repeatable and theories testable. You cannot verify, nor can you critically test, any hypothesis without the data that supposedly gave rise to the hypothesis.

----------


## Rheghead

> As I said, it's a waste of time even trying to debate with you.
> 
> You, by your own account, have whitewashed every single point through made because one or two of his points were erroneous. That's not the actions of one who wishes to debate, nor of one who wishes to use science to prove his point. In fact, that's behaviour exactly reminiscent of those who supplied the IPCC with their original, massaged data.
> 
> So, rather than attack me, why not try to answer the points and questions raised short ago by Bobinovich. Oh, wait, answering uncomfortable questions isn't your style, is it?
> 
> So, why was the raw CRU data destroyed? Surely any reputable scientist worth his salt would never destroy the original raw data that his findings are crucially based upon?
> 
> And surely, by that measure, any findings that a scientist presents is worth only as much as that original raw data? Without the raw data, the findings are worthless. The recent call by the head of the IPCC itself for a thorough investigation bears witness to that.
> ...


If only you could see the irony, you criticised me and bad repped me for jumping on only one of through's erroneous points in a vain attempt to discredit the sceptical viewpoint despite the fact it was just one point (I am still waiting btw to do the rest), it was several wrapped up as one, when the points you just raised (re the CRU hack) number less and even those are taken out of context and less tenuous.

Try to take a look at yourself.




> OK so why was all the original CRU data destroyed and only their 'massaged' figures used? Were the real results not sufficient?


I will come to that later, but for the mean time think about this, if what you wrote is true and the fact that the hack consisted of 3000 emails stretching over 10 years, where were the remarks to the effect of confirming a world conspiracy on climate change, collusion with other climate research centres to sing from the same hymnsheet and collusion to gain funding from Government?

----------


## Metalattakk

Answer the question, Rheggy. Stop sweeping and deflecting.

----------


## Rheghead

> Answer the question, Rheggy. Stop sweeping and deflecting.


I'm not, give me facts, can you quote the actual email which says these things?

----------


## Rheghead

> OK so why was all the original CRU data destroyed and only their 'massaged' figures used?  Were the real results not sufficient?


From what I've read, no data was destroyed.  As for the 'massaged', there was no attempt to hide the decline in warming deceptively.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Answer the question, Rheggy. Stop sweeping and deflecting.


Metty, 
Reggy rarely answers a question. He usually deflects it and asks another one in its place. Quite often, he comes up with good information, but then he gets absorbed with making his point. I have found that it is best to step back, and I hope that one day we could have an informed discussion on renewable energy on this forum.
ywy2

----------


## Metalattakk

> I'm not, give me facts, can you quote the actual email which says these things?





> From what I've read, no data was destroyed.


Again, deflect, deny, sweep sweep, head in the sand.




> SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away  much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global  warming are based.





> The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then  adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The  revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic  tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.


Ref: 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece

----------


## Rheghead

> Metty, 
> Reggy rarely answers a question. He usually deflects it and asks another one in its place. Quite often, he comes up with good information, but then he gets absorbed with making his point. I have found that it is best to step back, and I hope that one day we could have an informed discussion on renewable energy on this forum.
> ywy2


You have just got sour grapes against me because I gave evidence at a planning meeting and debunked all your deceptive photomontage evidence on a windfarm's appearance on the landscape.

And you know what?

My evidence was so absolutely true that you didn't have the courage to attend and challenge me or even get the council to challenge me.

I was there for the taking and you didn't come near.

----------


## Rheghead

> Again, deflect, deny, sweep sweep, head in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> Ref: 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


A quote from where?  The Times? Is that some sort irrefutable information? Your link doesn't even open, typical, just what I come to expect.

Come on quote the email....

----------


## Metalattakk

Rheggy, the link works for me, and everyone else. Maybe your closed mind automatically blocks it like a head-in-the-sand firewall.

Idiocy. Unabashed idiocy.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheggy, the link works for me, and everyone else. Maybe your closed mind automatically blocks it like a head-in-the-sand firewall.
> 
> Idiocy. Unabashed idiocy.


OK it works for me now, but the Times is wrong, it is not what the CRU are saying.  They can't release the data because it is not their's to release and they haven't destroyed any data.

----------


## Rheghead

I will welcome a public inquiry into this affair, truth will prevail.

----------


## Metalattakk

> They can't release the data because it is not their's to release..


Why is it not theirs? Why would they trust and use someone else's raw data?

Jebus H Corbett!

----------


## Stavro

> You have just got sour grapes against me because I gave evidence at a planning meeting and debunked all your deceptive photomontage evidence on a windfarm's appearance on the landscape.
> 
> And you know what?
> 
> My evidence was so absolutely true that you didn't have the courage to attend and challenge me or even get the council to challenge me.
> 
> I was there for the taking and you didn't come near.



This post is far too personal and over the top. You seem to have a habit of this sort of thing.

The fact of the matter, Rheghead, is that you ask for information and when someone takes the time to provide it for you, you scoff at the reference, as you did with the Times Online reference regarding lost data, whilst all of the time you fail to address or deliberately dodge issues directed at your point of view.

----------


## Stavro

> A quote from where? The Times? Is that some sort irrefutable information? Your link doesn't even open, typical, just what I come to expect.






> OK it works for me now, but the Times is wrong...



Is your left mouse button a sort of random number generator? If so, did you get it second-hand from the "University" of East Anglia?  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> Why is it not theirs? Why would they trust and use someone else's raw data?
> 
> Jebus H Corbett!


They do trust it.  Not all Met Offices around the world are happy for their data to be available to third parties.




> Ref: 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece


Very strange, the Times say that the CRU admit to destroying evidence and the CRU released a press statement before the Time article denying any such thing.  The Times can't read simple English




> In relation to the specific requests at issue here, we have handled and responded to each request in a consistent manner in compliance with the appropriate legislation. No record has been deleted, altered, or otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure of all, or any part, of the requested information. Where information has not been disclosed, we have done so in accordance with the provisions of the relevant legislation and have so informed the requester.


https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media.../nov/CRUupdate

----------


## Rheghead

> This post is far too personal and over the top. You seem to have a habit of this sort of thing.
> 
> The fact of the matter, Rheghead, is that you ask for information and when someone takes the time to provide it for you, you scoff at the reference, as you did with the Times Online reference regarding lost data, whilst all of the time you fail to address or deliberately dodge issues directed at your point of view.


Presenting evidence at a planning meeting is not the time or place for personal attacks.  What I did was a matter of public record not a personal attack.

Err, as far as providing evidence, I've been doing that all the way through this thread with reasoned debate to accompany it, if you choose to ignore it then how can I convince you of the opposite? :: 

Are you going to have a go at ywindythesecond for attacking me?

----------


## Stavro

Wow, temperature data certainly does seem to need to be "classified," does it not?  :: 

 "Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

" 'I assume that what is there is highly damaging,' Mr. Horner said. 'These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this.' " 

(Source: _The Washington Times_ - http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...e-data//print/ )

----------


## Rheghead

> Wow, temperature data certainly does seem to need to be "classified," does it not?


Only 5% has third party restrictions placed upon it, that's why the CRU couldn't release the data, the rest is public record.

----------


## Stavro

> Only 5% has third party restrictions placed upon it, that's why the CRU couldn't release the data, the rest is public record.


I fail to see why any weather data at all should have restrictions placed upon it. Can you provide a reference (or direct me to your post, if you have already referenced this claim)?

A fuller quote from the Times Online site that is also in the public record -

 "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away  much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global  warming are based.

"It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to  show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years. 

  "The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following  requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation. 

"The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then  adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected."
(Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6936328.ece)

A question for you: If the climate data were simply "adjusted," then why can we not simply undo the "adjustment" and arrive at the original (now "dumped") data?

----------


## Rheghead

> A fuller quote from the Times Online site that is also in the public record -
> 
>  "SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away  much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global  warming are based.


I've read the press releases on the CRU website and there is no reference admitting to any destroying of data.

It's made up fantasy like the Geocentric Universe.

----------


## Rheghead

> A question for you: If the climate data were simply "adjusted," then why can we not simply undo the "adjustment" and arrive at the original (now "dumped") data?


Who is saying that the said 'dumped' data and the adjusted data are related through the same 'adjustment'?

----------


## Metalattakk

> I've read the press releases on the CRU website and there is no reference admitting to any destroying of data.
> 
> It's made up fantasy like the Geocentric Universe.





> Who is saying that the 'dumped' data and the adjusted data are related through an 'adjustment'?


Sweep. Deflect. Deny. All in the hope that the truth will remain hidden.

I do hope that a public (and not a Government, CRU or UEA-sponsored) enquiry is held to investigate this issue.

Even then, I suspect, Rheggy will still have his head firmly buried in the sand.

----------


## Rheghead

> I do hope that a public (and not a Government, CRU or UEA-sponsored) enquiry is held to investigate this issue.


Will join me on-message with Global Warming when the independent inquiry rules that the attempt to discredit the CRU was unlawful or not in the Public interest?

----------


## Rheghead

> Sweep. Deflect. Deny. All in the hope that the truth will remain hidden.


I'm actually hoping that the CRU hack has unearthed a scientific conspiracy, that way we can say bye bye to green taxes and flog the Earth's resources with abandon.  Something tells me otherwise mind.

----------


## tonkatojo

The met is going to release it's figures on global warming to back up the cause,prepare for a load of amendments like hurricanes etc.
I think I'll be going like Cedric shortly. :Wink:

----------


## davie

In world terms we have the charlatan Al Gore and in .org terms the charlatan Rheghead.

Its a matter of record that friend Al has made billions from his storytelling, whats in it for Rheggers apart from self advertisement ?

----------


## Rheghead

> I whats in it for Rheggers apart from self advertisement ?


Studying the mentality of _denial_.  It is so comical how they squirm and twist out of the blatantly obvious.  

Flat Earth mentality...   ::   :: 

You can bet on one certainty that eventually when they cannot win the arguement so they resort to Ad Hominem attacks such as yours, so when I reply in such manner then they call me the the one who doesn't debate properly.

----------


## davie

just a little touch of pot & kettle here perhaps ( looking back through this load of claptrap)

----------


## Rheghead

> just a little touch of pot & kettle here perhaps ( looking back through this load of claptrap)


Not really because my opinion is based upon good hard solid evidence and everyone elses is based upon misrepresentation, ignorance of the principle of global warming and scurrilous speculation.

----------


## davie

I have no stance on 'global warming' one way or the other but I know a chancer when I see one.

That last statement from the op brings to mind the old saying " They are all oot o step but oor Jock" - or oor Rheggie in this case

----------


## Rheghead

> I have no stance on 'global warming' one way or the other but I know a chancer when I see one.
> 
> That last statement from the op brings to mind the old saying " They are all oot o step but oor Jock" - or oor Rheggie in this case


Chancers use lies and deceit to hide their agenda.  So far I've exposed the lies and deceit of the sceptics.

----------


## bekisman

Reggy: _"Not really because my opinion is based upon good hard solid evidence and everyone elses is based upon misrepresentation, ignorance of the principle of global warming and scurrilous speculation"_
Well, suppose I am a thicko, but a wee bit egocentric there?
Anyway had a quick look ref these UEA emails, and difficult to see it's based upon 'misrepresentation and ignorance'..
Here are a selection of quotes from the emails stolen from computers at the University of East Anglia. Many involve Phil Jones, head of the university's Climatic Research Unit.
*From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999*
"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." 
Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted 


*From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004*
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow  even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" 
The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made. 


*From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009*
"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate" 
Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years. 



*From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003*
I will be emailing the journal to tell them Im having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor. 
Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change. 



*From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008*
"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise." 
Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public. 



*From: Michael Mann. To: Phil Jones and Gabi Hegerl (University of Edinburgh). Date: Aug 10, 2004*
*"*Phil and I are likely to have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots in the near future." 
The scientists make no attempt to hide their disdain for climate change sceptics who request more information about their work. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html
As there were hundreds of sites, here's another one as the Telegraph is not one of Regger's favouites?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024996.php

----------


## Rheghead

OMG Bekisman, you've just revealed that climatologists are human afterall and they don't like their hard work being trashed by those determined to do so and like their private emails to remain so.  The emails are just examples of the vigorous exchange of views that scientists have over their work.

I see nothing there that up-ends the science.




> From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
> "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the *real temps* to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
> Critics cite this as evidence that data was manipulated to mask the fact that global temperatures are falling. Prof Jones claims the meaning of "trick" has been misinterpreted


I would accept that there was a conspiracy if Phil Jones had written *false temps*.  :Wink: 




> From Phil Jones. To: Michael Mann. Date: May 29, 2008
> "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise."
> Climate change sceptics tried to use Freedom of Information laws to obtain raw climate data submitted to an IPCC report known as AR4. The scientists did not want their email exchanges about the data to be made public.


Since when have private emails become 'raw data'?




> From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
> “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
> Prof Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.


So the guy is tired of banging his head against a brick wall wrt someone who is in denial.  I know that feeling very well...




> From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
> "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't... Our observing system is inadequate"
> Prof Trenberth appears to accept a key argument of global warming sceptics - that there is no evidence temperatures have increased over the past 10 years.


Some of the quote is missing here but so what?  Every climatologist wants more and more data, partial data does not mean there is no evidence of warming.




> From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
> "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
> The IPCC is the UN body charged with monitoring climate change. The scientists did not want it to consider studies that challenge the view that global warming is genuine and man-made.


Obviously a quip amongst professionals, but the heart of the matter is that they reviewed the papers and they found that they don't stand up to scrutiny to merit inclusion in the IPCC report, that is the peer review process at work.

----------


## bekisman

Well that's weird, just had a look for more info from the UEA at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews?notFound=true as I saw "There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related...."

Hmmm...

----------


## Tubthumper

I wish that I was clever
  I’d maybe grow a beard
  And get some elbow patches for
  A jumper coloured weird

  I wish that I was clever
  I’d spend my days in thought
  Of how I could make sure that I
  Gained respect that I ought

  I wish that I was clever
  I’d go online with glee
  And criticise the thickies who
  Dared disagree with me

  I wish that I was clever
  It wouldn’t really matter
  If I did not change world at all
  As long as clever natter

  Was undertaken daily by
  Some other folk with brain
  We could remain  fore’er aloof
  And more respect could gain

      I’d get a lot of money
  Thick books upon my shelf
  Because just being clever seems
  To be enough itself

  I know about debate and I
  Can make a point or three
  And back it up with research from 
  Some other folk like me

  Who don’t add one iota to
  The world that we inhabit
  Just go online and argue lots
  With scientific rabbit

  'So globe is getting warmer
  Or cooler could it be
  That’s not for you to argue ‘bout
  Leave that to folk like me!'

  Please people, cut the waffle and
  Provide some kind of answer
  If all you do is argue points
  You’re just another chancer

  We know the world is changing
  We know a sacrifice
  Is needed, but this non-stop crap
  With us cuts no more ice

And whether we all die of drought
  Or in flash floods we drown
  It’s nice to know the thought was there
  As ship of life sinks down

  The world’s in turmoil, so are we
  The clever folk in charge
  For the last 30 years or so
  Have screwed it all up large

  So one in 5 of Jocks can’t read
  The bankers robbed us blind
  A sort of revolution’s what
  I think I have in mind

To earn respect that's based on fact
Not title, name or letter
Where those who earn the money are
The ones who make it better

----------


## Stavro

> ... my opinion is based upon good hard solid evidence and everyone elses is based upon misrepresentation, ignorance of the principle of global warming and scurrilous speculation.


 ::  What an outrageously conceited and stupid comment.

It seems to me that you have some financial interest in wind farm development, since that would explain your earlier outburst regarding a planning meeting and your rubbishing of a montage in the montage-creator's absence, and would also explain your wide variety of tactics here on this thread to defend the official line on man-made (soon to be man-paid-for) global warming, including trying to deflect the discussion onto models of the universe.

Now, getting back to two of the (very) many questions that you have ignored, why can we not simply readjust the "adjusted" data, in order to retrieve the original (now apparently "lost") data? And why is any climate data restricted? Oh, and another question, where is your reference for the 5% figure?

----------


## Stavro

"Al Gore's scheduled December 16th speech with the auspicious title 'Climate Conclusion' has been canceled amid the scandal of Climategate.  About 3,000 Danes had tickets for  the Berlinske Media event that was announced in August.  Al Gore has been the poster child for Global Warming, but has been under scrutiny from scientists who argue against the findings of humans' involvement in our climate.  This was highlighted in the documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle.  A British court had ruled that there were 9 factual errors in An Inconvenient Truth, yet it still won an Academy Award in 2007, along with the Nobel Prize shared with the IPCC. Again in November, mistakes were found in Al Gore's new book begin with the cover. While some are trying to explain away the cancellation, it seems pretty obvious that there is too much skepticism to show up in a large public forum like this.  Mr. Gore had to deal with some hard questions at a book signing this past week, and had the readers escorted away rather than discuss Climategate."   :: 

Source - http://www.examiner.com/x-11224-Balt...-at-Copenhagen

----------


## Rheghead

> What an outrageously conceited and stupid comment.
> 
> It seems to me that you have some financial interest in wind farm development, since that would explain your earlier outburst regarding a planning meeting and your rubbishing of a montage in the montage-creator's absence, and would also explain your wide variety of tactics here on this thread to defend the official line on man-made (soon to be man-paid-for) global warming, including trying to deflect the discussion onto models of the universe.


You are an outright liar.  I hope the moderators pick up on this.  My position of not having a financial interest is a matter of public record with Mr David Russell, the reporter of the planning meeting.

----------


## Rheghead

> Now, getting back to two of the (very) many questions that you have ignored, why can we not simply readjust the "adjusted" data, in order to retrieve the original (now apparently "lost") data? And why is any climate data restricted? Oh, and another question, where is your reference for the 5% figure?


I've told you why already.  The info isn't lost.  And you can't adjust raw data.  I've already said the data is restricted by other met offices around the world.

Follow my link to the CRU website for the 5% reference.

Come on, keep up!!

----------


## Stavro

> You are an outright liar.



Oh dear, I would be concerned about your opinion if it were worth anything, Rheghead, but you have clearly demonstrated throughout this thread that it is not.  :Grin: 

The quote that you keep referring to regarding original data not being lost is only a play on words. They were claiming that it was not DELIBERATELY lost. The reason that other scientists cannot check the claims of the CRU is that the original data used by the CRU was manipulated in some way. If it were a straightforward transformation, then it would be easy to undo it, but it seems that it was not. This means that the original data was in some way modelled, before it was fed into the CRU model. Comprendi?

As regards "restricted" data, consider if you asked someone what the temperature in Wick was last night and they said, "That's confidential." Why would it be confidential or "restricted"? Is the information useful in some way to a Muslim "fundamentalist" who is going to fly a Cessna into Wick town centre (taking care to leave their passport, flight manual and copy of the Koran at the entrance to Wetherspoons, of course)?

Climate change "science" is essentially about computer models, and all of the evidence so far looks very much like the data that does not fit the "in" model is simply "lost," "restricted" or "amended."

----------


## Rheghead

More flim flam, don't waste my time.  I'm into having rational discussions not being subjected to ad hominem attacks.

For the umpteenth time, there is no lost data.  It has been created in the media by misrepresentation of what has been wrote in stolen emails.




> As regards "restricted" data, consider if you asked someone what the temperature in Wick was last night and they said, "That's confidential." Why would it be confidential or "restricted"? Is the information useful in some way to a Muslim "fundamentalist" who is going to fly a Cessna into Wick town centre (taking care to leave their passport, flight manual and copy of the Koran at the entrance to Wetherspoons, of course)?


I can think of one very good reason, the data may have been collected in a war zone or a region of conflict.

----------


## Stavro

> More flim flam, don't waste my time.  I'm into having rational discussions not being subjected to ad hominem attacks.
> 
> For the umpteenth time, there is no lost data.  It has been created in the media by misrepresentation of what has been wrote in stolen emails.


Lighten up, Rheghead, you need to relax from the stress of dishing all that negative rep out to all and everyone!

Take a look at -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uw5Wd...layer_embedded

and then 

http://peacerebelgirl.wordpress.com/...-warming-scam/

Some good stuff there, I hope you'll agree.

----------


## Rheghead

> Lighten up, Rheghead, you need to relax from the stress of dishing all that negative rep out to all and everyone!.





> Your calling me a liar is without foundation and just shows your infantile behaviour.


In reply to your bad rep, you claiming that I have a financial interest in windfarms is without foundation so that shows your infantile behavior.

----------


## gleeber

> I wish that I was clever
> Id maybe grow a beard
> And get some elbow patches for
> A jumper coloured weird


This is an interesting and very topical thread even though tubthumpers lampoon would make such entertainment extinct.
I'm still with Rheghead. Science stands the test of time and the great thing about it is it's always in flux. If someone screws up with the figures or tells porkies there's always a bunch of truth seekers (scientists)  ::  waiting to pounce on any indiscretion.
That's how I think rhegheads case is so strong and his opponents have reverted to personal stuff. For sure rheghead can be a pain in the neck but who can't? 
I still believe the basix tenet that man made pollution is interacting with the natural process of the planet and creating a new kind of climate change both artificial and natural.I believe it because I trust science. You lot are saying science is untrustworthy. Nothing like this has ever happened before in the history of man and if it's right then we have to pay attention to it. 
Gut feelings are not enough to condemn the science. My gut feeling wwould probably be the same as bobs because I'm human and my decisions come from various different factors. However the science seems to be saying something different.
There may be some crooked and misled scientists but science is completely trustworthy.

----------


## Stavro

> That's how I think rhegheads case is so strong and his opponents have reverted to personal stuff.



I wonder if you are reading the same thread as the rest of us?

Take another look at posts numbers 302, 304 and 311 for instance (and that's only on the current page).  :Smile:

----------


## Stavro

> I can think of one very good reason, the data may have been collected in a war zone or a region of conflict.



Are you serious?  ::

----------


## gleeber

> I wonder if you are reading the same thread as the rest of us?
> 
> Take another look at posts numbers 302, 304 and 311 for instance (and that's only on the current page).


Aye. The same thread but it appears our interpretation may be different. Which parts of those 3 posts you quote annoy you? And, why?

----------


## Tubthumper

I'm a bit scared to interfere here, however...
I thought global warming was happening because the Amazonian rainforests are being chopped down. At least that's what concerned climatologists were saying a few years back.
I suppose that is a duff theory, as you simply can't make big money by not cutting down trees. And that, I fear, is the point; Just as every other worthwhile facet of our lives is hijacked and turned into a business opportunity, marketing ploy or political sound-bite, even our childrens future need for gills has been seized.
I like science. Scientists are often just 'ladies of the night' in lab coats though.
So who out of you lot are actually scientists then? Rheg? Through? Gleeber? Stavros?

----------


## Boozeburglar

Is it really a bad thing to put our resources into finding alternative fuels and alternative means of producing energy? Surely if the findings on GW are somewhat inaccurate, it does not matter if the result is a move towards a better way of living.

----------


## gleeber

> So who out of you lot are actually scientists then? Rheg? Through? Gleeber? Stavros?


Why do you ask the question tubhunter?

----------


## Tubthumper

If youse are genuine, practicing, competent scientists then (ladies of the night or not) I'll start to be more impressed by the passion and links in your posts. 
If you're not genuine scientists, or if you're not practicing or competent, I'll start to think of youse more as just empty vessels making a lot of noise.
But don't take it to heart - youse provide a lot of entertainment.
Boozeburglar - I agree with you.

----------


## gleeber

> If youse are genuine, practicing, competent scientists then (ladies of the night or not) I'll start to be more impressed by the passion and links in your posts. 
> If you're not genuine scientists, or if you're not practicing or competent, I'll start to think of youse more as just empty vessels making a lot of noise.
> But don't take it to heart - youse provide a lot of entertainment.
> Boozeburglar - I agree with you.


That's what I thought you would think. Who do they think they are. It shines thtrough your poetry. 
PS. I'm a scientific builder. :Wink:

----------


## Tubthumper

> That's what I thought you would think. Who do they think they are. It shines thtrough your poetry. 
> PS. I'm a scientific builder.


That's good. Are you practicing & competent?

----------


## Rheghead

> So who out of you lot are actually scientists then? Rheg? Through? Gleeber? Stavros?


I have a degree in chemistry and environment science and I work in a chemistry environment albeit not in relation to climate science.

----------


## gleeber

I practice plenty and am plenty competant.  I just wish global warming would kick in before I stop practicing. ::

----------


## Tubthumper

> I practice plenty and am plenty competant.  I just wish global warming would kick in before I stop practicing.


Plenty of business, building dams, flood defences etc. if things go the way predicted - by one side of the argument that is!



> I have a degree in chemistry and environment science and I work in a chemistry environment albeit not in relation to climate science.


Good, so you're not an empty vessel then. 
However I wonder, is it something in me, something in the Brit/Scot psyche, some inverted snobbery, perhaps a healthy scepticism, that means I trust a builder more than a scientist? 
Generally that is, not aimed at you Rheghead!

----------


## Rheghead

> Good, so you're not an empty vessel then. 
> However I wonder, is it something in me, something in the Brit/Scot psyche, some inverted snobbery, perhaps a healthy scepticism, that means I trust a builder more than a scientist? 
> Generally that is, not aimed at you Rheghead!


I think scientists can talk in esoteric terms which can be alien to most people.  Also some people still carry an anti-geek/brainbox snobbery into adult life.  So yes, your observation is fair.

----------


## gleeber

> Plenty of business, building dams, flood defences etc. if things go the way predicted - by one side of the argument that is!
> 
> Good, so you're not an empty vessel then. 
> However I wonder, is it something in me, something in the Brit/Scot psyche, some inverted snobbery, perhaps a healthy scepticism, that means I trust a builder more than a scientist? 
> Generally that is, not aimed at you Rheghead!


It's in you right enough Tubs. It comes out in your poetry.

----------


## Tubthumper

> It's in you right enough Tubs. It comes out in your poetry.


God! Have I turned into a socialist?

----------


## Stavro

> 



So, to recap, each pixel on the above graph represents 1,160 years. This means that we can only infer an association between temperature increase and atmospheric CO2 concentration to within +/- 580 years from this graph.

On larger scales, we see that CO2 concentrations follow temperature increases, not cause them.

We also see from this graph, as Through pointed out, the large scale oscillations between warm periods and ice ages, and the fact that we are currently entering a trend of decreasing global temperature.

Current CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would mean, if Albert Gore Co., Ltd., Inc. were correct, that the global temperature, based upon this graph, would increase by more than 12 degrees C above the point marked as zero on the delta temp axis.

Also, since H2O is by far the most significant greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric concentration remains pretty constant, the almost linear (apart from a few regions where this does not hold) relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature increase adds further proof that it is temperature that causes CO2 increases and not vice versa.

----------


## Tubthumper

...and then there are some scientists who just ignore eveything that's going on around them.
How you doing there Stavros?

----------


## Rheghead

> relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature increase adds further proof that it is temperature that causes CO2 increases and not vice versa.


That is basically correct in the absence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide when it was the natural cycles that was driving climate change.

How do you arrive at the 12C?

----------


## Stavro

> That is basically correct in the absence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide when it was the natural cycles that was driving climate change.
> 
> How do you arrive at the 12C?


My point is that natural cycles drive CO2 concentration and not vice versa, although I do agree that man has added to the CO2 concentration.

380 ppmv of CO2 would be off the graph - it would be just at the top of the image (i.e., slightly above the upper extent of the graph). Then, assuming a mean displacement between CO2 and temperature change from this graph, it turns out that the associated temperature change would be +12.16 degrees C.

----------


## Rheghead

> My point is that natural cycles drive CO2 concentration and not vice versa, although I do agree that man has added to the CO2 concentration.
> 
> 380 ppmv of CO2 would be off the graph - it would be just at the top of the image (i.e., slightly above the upper extent of the graph). Then, assuming a mean displacement between CO2 and temperature change from this graph, it turns out that the associated temperature change would be +12.16 degrees C.


That was my point as well but the effect that CO2 is contributing to the global temperature.

It would be erroneous to extrapolate the effect on temperature from palaeolithic carbon dioxide levels to those of the present day because it wasn't carbon dioxide that was driving climate change, it was a small player in relation to other factors.   So 12C is a gross over estimate.

From the graph, if we take a trough and peak measurement of CO2 say, 180ppm and 310ppm, we see that the temperature typically rises from delta -9C to 2C, some 11C approximately.  The CO2 contribution to that could only be ~2.3C, corresponding to only 21% of the total warming at the peak of one cycle if we ignore other feedbacks.

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

The Earth is God.Thats why I don't go to church.Because I saw the sky this morning at 5am in the morning.One of the many miracles I have seen.Its just a pity when humans take things for granted they cannae see things that are miraculous.Global warming is down to humans who don't want to die and trying to solve something on wee computer screens and wee bits of paper.Take a look around,one of the only living planets that we are aware of.The Dinosaurs,the main folk of thier time,killed off what wi,a meteor an Ice Age.If the Earth can kill off big beasties like that,then humans will share the same fate.Probably most,but the one's who learn to survive will.

Love pseudo science me. :Smile:

----------


## Stavro

> ...and then there are some scientists who just ignore eveything that's going on around them.
> How you doing there Stavros?


Fine, Tub, thank you.

I certainly do not ignore what's going on around me, I only ignore the idiots!  :Grin:

----------


## Stavro

> That was my point as well but the effect that CO2 is contributing to the global temperature.
> 
> It would be erroneous to extrapolate the effect on temperature from palaeolithic carbon dioxide levels to those of the present day because it wasn't carbon dioxide that was driving climate change, it was a small player in relation to other factors.   So 12C is a gross over estimate.
> 
> From the graph, if we take a trough and peak measurement of CO2 say, 180ppm and 310ppm, we see that the temperature typically rises from delta -9C to 2C, some 11C approximately.  The CO2 contribution to that could only be ~2.3C, corresponding to only 21% of the total warming at the peak of one cycle if we ignore other feedbacks.



I agree with you that it was not CO2 driving climate change.

And if we go with the figure of 2.3 degrees C, then will that not be negated by the downward trend in global temperature from external causes?

----------


## Rheghead

> I agree with you that it was not CO2 driving climate change.
> 
> And if we go with the figure of 2.3 degrees C, then will that not be negated by the downward trend in global temperature from external causes?


Yes, it certainly was in the palaeolithic period after the peaks of high temperature, whatever was causing the cooling thereafter was enough to overcome the positive feedback in relation to the rise in carbon dioxide.

----------


## Stavro

> Yes, it certainly was in the palaeolithic period after the peaks of high temperature, whatever was causing the cooling thereafter was enough to overcome the positive feedback in relation to the rise in carbon dioxide.


What staggers me is the phenomenally fast and extreme drop in temperature needed to fast-freeze a mammoth. What would have caused that?  ::

----------


## Tubthumper

> I certainly do not ignore what's going on around me, I only ignore the idiots!


It must be a lonely life. Mind you, idiocy is just in the mind of the beholder, eh?

----------


## oldmarine

My opinion on global warming is that it is cyclic and has wavered between hot and cold throughout the centuries. It has become a political football ever since Al Gore was awarded for his opinion. Currently, professors from the U of Arizona are under investigation for their part in misrepresenting the facts.

----------


## northener

> What staggers me is the phenomenally fast and extreme drop in temperature needed to fast-freeze a mammoth. What would have caused that?


No fast freezing required, Stavro.

Any animal living in a sub-zero climate/weather period stays alive by generating heat. Once it dies it's temperature will quickly drop to that of the surrounding area before decomposition sets in. If the surrounding area is already sub-zero, then freezing of the flesh will take place very quickly.

There's been a few examples of this discovered over the years, the most notable being this fella.

----------


## Rheghead

> My opinion on global warming is that it is cyclic and has wavered between hot and cold throughout the centuries. It has become a political football ever since Al Gore was awarded for his opinion. Currently, professors from the U of Arizona are under investigation for their part in misrepresenting the facts.


You are quite correct, it is cyclical and it has wavered between hot and cold throughout centuries.  And the human-scale sized  of these cycles will continue at increasingly higher temperatures in the future depending on how much GHGs will get pumped into the atmosphere and their respective half-lives of depletion.  It is debatable if the next ice-age will be post-poned or even cancelled, my opinion is that it won't.  I think CO2 will return to pre-industrial levels before then.  What is of grave concern is what is going to happen in the next 100 years.  The Earth may go through a couple of cycles in that time but temperatures are projected to go up by an average 3 degrees centigrade, that is a lot in such a short time.  

The problem politically is that the most powerfully sceptical and fearful of short term changes to their lifestyles (for no immediate benefit to them) are people who will be long dead before the worst predictions of climate change take place.

----------


## Stavro

> ... The Earth may go through a couple of cycles in that time but temperatures are projected to go up by an average 3 degrees centigrade, that is a lot in such a short time.


This projection is based upon a computer model. The computer model, in turn, is based upon assumptions which may be erroneous or seriously flawed, and it operates with raw data. In the case of the CRU at East Anglia, the original data is not available for other researchers to test. This defeats the scientific method and therefore the current Copenhagen get-together cannot be said to be based upon science, but upon a political agenda.





> The problem politically is that the most powerfully sceptical and fearful of short term changes to their lifestyles (for no immediate benefit to them) are people who will be long dead before the worst predictions of climate change take place.


No, I don't think that is the main problem at all. Genuine, highly qualified scientists in this field are saying that the Climate Change lobby is not based on scientific fact, but on political agenda. Pushing through Climate Change legislation is therefore another assault on liberty and a further excuse to rob people via taxation.

----------


## Rheghead

> This projection is based upon a computer model. The computer model, in turn, is based upon assumptions which may be erroneous or seriously flawed, and it operates with raw data. In the case of the CRU at East Anglia, the original data is not available for other researchers to test. This defeats the scientific method and therefore the current Copenhagen get-together cannot be said to be based upon science, but upon a political agenda.


It is basic commonsense as well.

Computer modelling is a science, what is more scientific than creating a scientific model and testing it?  The computer models work for the palaeolithic timeline so why should it not work for the future?  If you are gonna discredit computer models then you'll have to come up with a better angle than trivialising them as a political tool.




> No, I don't think that is the main problem at all. Genuine, highly qualified scientists in this field are saying that the Climate Change lobby is not based on scientific fact, but on political agenda. Pushing through Climate Change legislation is therefore another assault on liberty and a further excuse to rob people via taxation.


That is laughable, the genuine highly qualified scientists in this field are the ones whose work is being discredited by powerful lobbies who scientific advisors are under qualified or know nothing about climate science such as yourself.

----------


## Stavro

> Computer modelling is a science, what is more scientific than creating a scientific model and testing it?  The computer models work for the palaeolithic timeline so why should it not work for the future?  If you are gonna discredit computer models then you'll have to come up with a better angle than trivialising them as a political tool.


I'm not discrediting computer modelling in general, just this Albert Gore computer model in particular (and for the reasons that I and others have been continually telling you).





> That is laughable, the genuine highly qualified scientists in this field are the ones whose work is being discredited by powerful lobbies who scientific advisors are under qualified or know nothing about climate science such as yourself.


Well, if I know nothing about it, then  given that I know at least as much as you do, if not more, then you know nothing about it either, so why are we bothering to discuss it?  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, if I know nothing about it, then  given that I know at least as much as you do, if not more, then you know nothing about it either, so why are we bothering to discuss it?


It seems you know little about the technical aspects of climate change but know something of the sceptical arguements.  ::

----------


## tonkatojo

> It seems you know little about the technical aspects of climate change but know something of the sceptical arguements.



At least one of you has seen the light, give it a rest and agree to disagree. :Frown:

----------


## Stavro

> At least one of you has seen the light, give it a rest and agree to disagree.


That wouldn't be difficult if he had presented enough evidence to the contrary!  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> That wouldn't be difficult if he had presented enough evidence to the contrary!


Well I might as not bother considering your inability to reason anything.  I've countered all your sceptical arguements with good reasoned answers and sound scientific evidence. I cannot go on with this, either you have a political reason to deny such overwhelming evidence or you are on a wind up.  Saying it isn't evidence doesn't change a thing.  You may think that trolling someone until you have the last word is a victory but it isn't unless your posts are reasoned.  I'm sorry you feel that way.

----------


## David Banks

I believe the real problem is pollution. When global warming was discovered, it seemed like a simpler problem to attack, and it was 'chosen' as the most urgent global 'problem.'
Getting rid of CO2 _should_ reduce the generation of other pollutants.
In other words, global warming is the truth, just not the whole truth.

PS: I have not read all of the postings, and hope I am not stealing someone else's idea.

----------


## Tubthumper

You know, I think I recognise this chap...

----------


## Tubthumper

Anyone remember the ex-orger who used the internet persona Gene Hunt? Who burned his bridges in a vile diatribe against the fair people of Caithness?

----------


## Bobbyian

Phew what a thread  its taken me two days to catch up  
I tend to side with rhegers and Gleber at the moment but I haven´t given up 
by the way no mention of the dust trail from the graph or is it irrelevant?..
I´ll go and sit on a High wall so the water don´t get me and see what happens

----------


## Tubthumper

And what became of Eagleclaw, who started the thread off?

----------


## Flashman

> I think Ed Milliband just about sums it up.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...rth-brigade.do


 
Stopping Climate Change is about as effective as trying to stop the tide coming in.

So people who dare question man made climate change are the flat earth brigade of the modern era? Well your the King Cnut of the modern era Rheghead!  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Stopping Climate Change is about as effective as trying to stop the tide coming in.
> 
> So people who dare question man made climate change are the flat earth brigade of the modern era? Well your the King Cnut of the modern era Rheghead!


Where is your evidence that a reduction in CO2 levels will not eventually reversed climate change?

It is the positive feedback from CO2 and other GHGs that are raising global temperatures.  If we extrapolate the hockey stick graph along the gradient of the medieval period to the modern period then we should be much colder now.

You may have a point politically in that it may be futile because individual nations are developing and want to burn as much oil and gas as they can but in principle it should be possible.

----------


## Flashman

> Where is your evidence that a reduction in CO2 levels will not eventually reversed climate change?
> 
> It is the positive feedback from CO2 and other GHGs that are raising global temperatures. If we extrapolate the hockey stick graph along the gradient of the medieval period to the modern period then we should be much colder now.
> 
> You may have a point politically in that it may be futile because individual nations are developing and want to burn as much oil and gas as they can but in principle it should be possible.


Im no scientist but I think the crux of this issue is that this has now ceased to become a proper Scientific debate and has turned into a Political Guillotine so to speak where differing views are met with hostility.

This issue has really heated up in the last few weeks in a bad way and for the pro lobby to start shouting that anyone who differs from thier view is in denial is not only un-scientific but at worst downright dangerous.

But am I the only one on earth that finds it a bit suspect that the man made climate change theory has taken root at the exact same time when energy resources are dwindling and human energy demand is going to outstrip the supply. 

I must stress im no Scientist, so throwing up concrete evidence for and against I cannot do. But I have not seen the evidence that can totally prove that CO2 emissions from humans only is warming the planet as opposed to natural climate change and any doubt is worthy of a voice.

----------


## Stavro

Since this thread was started under the name of 'Global Warming Propaganda', I think it interesting to note that the propaganda machine of the developed nations, the mainstream media, are diverting attention away from the content of the published emails of supposed scientists and onto who it might have been who hacked into the site and broadcast those emails. We now have the usual blame-it-on-Russian-spies, for instance!

On the other hand, real scientists who resigned from the IPCC (a political organisation) over false science claims and misrepresentation, do not get their views aired by that same media machine.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> ....and any doubt is worthy of a voice.


Whilst I normally would agree with that statement in a political debate, in a scientific debate, giving Climate Change Scepticism an equal voice when their arguements have not got the general consensus of the scientific community would constitute a _distorted balance_.

----------


## Stavro

> Whilst I normally would agree with that statement in a political debate, in a scientific debate, giving Climate Change Scepticism an equal voice when their arguements have not got the general consensus of the scientific community would constitute a _distorted balance_.


http://www.hyscience.com/archives/20..._al_gore_s.php

Watch the video:
"30,000 scientists. 9,000 PhDs" !!   ::

----------


## Rheghead

> http://www.hyscience.com/archives/20..._al_gore_s.php
> 
> "30,000 scientists. 9,000 PhDs" !!


What field of study?  Geology?  :: 

The first scientific field to suffer in a world where a carbon deal has been struck would be oil exploration.

----------


## Stavro

> What field of study?  Geology?



I see that you make a guest appearance (minus your glasses) on this one, Rheghead -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLg...mbedded#at=139

 ::  ::

----------


## gleeber

> What field of study? Geology?


Nonsense, commonly known on the org as stavroism.
http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issu...t/john_coleman

----------


## steeko

"For example, somebody with a fear of mice may see a mouse"

Genius  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

Just a question, let's say we have this thread in 2100 and the prediction of global temperatures increasing by 3C has come true.  Will people be still saying that anthropogenic climate change isn't taking place?   ::

----------


## Stavro

> http://www.uscentrist.org/about/issu...t/john_coleman



From the author of the page you have cited: "While I have done a fair amount of research on the arguments, I must admit I could be wrong ..."

Your mind has been made up for a long time, gleeber, so pull the other one.

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

What a wave of pseudoscience recently!

Cant be bothered reading the whole thread, im tired and there's 19 pages of it, so cant really argue without risk of repetition.  But it really annoys me that the anti-global-warming guys have nicked the title of "Sceptics".  Thats for proper science only.   :Wink:

----------


## Flashman

It's just a labryinth of theories dressed up as facts this issue.

I dont think we actually have a correct understanding of what is going on yet. Human history is full of glaring scientific mistakes (like thinking the plague was airborne) and i fear this may just be another human error.

One thing is for sure, the climate does not stay the same and this is the natural order of things... so if say we slip into a mini ice age do we then look for reasons why we caused it?

Can humans actually accept they have no control of the climate and weather? Man made gases are still gases natural to earth we are I think only a 1/4 of the overall CO2 emissions of the planet. We seem to have reached an age where we try and react rather than adapt as our ancestors would of done.

It mirrors in the natural world aswell, we seem to struggle with the concept that species become naturally extinct and usually look to blame ourselves.

Anyways, we cant even predict the weather correctly a week in advance!!

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

Read David Bellamys point yesterday in the paper.That this is the defrost from the last Ice Age.Also saw a picture of the difference between the Arctic in 2001 to now in 2009.I was amazed by this picture,because there is virtually no landmass underneath the ice.So this Ice has been floating on the water.Like a big massive Ice cube.How can they explain oceans rising.If ye have a cup of water with an ice cube in it,the water level disnae change after it melts.
I was always a fan of David Bellamy,not as much as Attenborough.I like his theory,I like his thinking.

Should add the ice cube water experiment,disnae work if there is whisky in the glass,then the levels do differ.LOL

----------


## Rheghead

Global Warming scepticism has now become a belief system within blogosphere. It relies heavily on political arguements on scientific issues and denials of certain basic facts.

----------


## Aaldtimer

Which paper was DB's article in Ced? Could you provide a link?
Re your ice cube...at least 50% of it is under the surface already. Remember water expands when it freezes, so no change in the level of the glass would be noticed when the cube melts. :Smile:

----------


## Green_not_greed

"Global warming", "climate change" and "CO2" are simply the new buzzwords, abused by politicians and their advisers/supporters worldwide.  Claiming to save the planet by making some miniscule effort so puny to the actual planet's biosphere that it is not worth the bother - and certainly not worth the money - has become very trendy indeed.   The buzzwords have successfully been whipped up to a frenzy - almost to hysteria - by the media, and the gullible continue to swallow the lot.  

This hysteria is being supported by big business - and governments - because it is all about money.  It has  all to do with actually caring about our planet.

----------


## gleeber

> This hysteria is being supported by big business - and governments - because it is all about money. It has  all to do with actually caring about our planet.


I think this is one of the more cynical comments Ive read since I took an interest in this debate. A complete denial that we may be responsable for polluting our planet using greed as the new buzz word. I sincerely hope that you have more facts at your hand than the emotional diatribe your offering the org.

----------


## Bobinovich

When looking at the graph does it not make you think that, just possibly, we are on a natural ~100,000 year cycle of heating & cooling  :: ?

...and is it really so hard to believe in this day and age that the greed of big business and world governments shouldn't actually be questioned  :: .

----------


## gleeber

Everything should be questioned. Big business, although obscene at times is the oil that lubricates the system that allows us to enjoy a standard of living in the 21 century that earlier generations could only dream of. 
I have read too much scientific research on this matter in the past week not to be convinced that our planets future may be in jeapordy from an artificially induced climate change if we dont do something about it. 
Scepticism is healthy but denial could be disasterous.

----------


## Tubthumper

That's 19 pages we've filled. Answer me these questions: 1) This debate/argument has achieved precisely what? 2) What are YOU doing about pollution/ global warming/ energy crisis? 3) What can the grand old technological County of Caithness do to ameliorate the postulated looming crisis (and coincidentally generate jobs & make a bit of post-Dounreay dosh)?

----------


## Metalattakk

> Scepticism is healthy but denial could be disasterous.


Then the scientists should be able to display their results clearly and be able to show, without any sceptical doubt, that what they present is completely above board and utterly, unequivocally true.

The thing is, they can't.

I'm all for Rheggy's indefatigable belief in science. What I can't understand is his unerring, unquestioning belief in 'scientists'.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Everything should be questioned. Big business, although obscene at times is the oil that lubricates the system that allows us to enjoy a standard of living in the 21 century that earlier generations could only dream of. 
> I have read too much scientific research on this matter in the past week not to be convinced that our planets future may be in jeapordy from an artificially induced climate change if we dont do something about it. 
> Scepticism is healthy but denial could be disasterous.


*"Scepticism is healthy but denial could be disastrous"*

There are those in denial that climate change is man-made and there are those in denial that climate change is a natural phenomen.

To those at the extremes, everyone else is a sceptic or a denier.

My view is that natural phenomena are greater than mans influence, but that man should do what is *reasonable* to limit his damage to the environment.

It is not *reasonable* to insist that windmills at all costs will save the day, and that those who oppose are somehow social outcasts, when the simple economics, and environmental credentials of windfarms don't support them.

It is not *reasonable* to ruin Caithness in an attempt to "save the planet" when its effect would be neglible, even if it was proven to have an effect.

And money *is* at the heart of the rush to wind, not planet saving.
ywy2

----------


## Rheghead

> And money *is* at the heart of the rush to wind, not planet saving.
> ywy2


And making money from oil, coal and gas far outstrips any money from renewable energy.  It would be naive for us to think that a green energy revolution would come from the quiet glades of middle Britain without the robust interests of large energy companies.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> A complete denial that we may be responsable for polluting our planet using greed as the new buzz word.


If you read what I posted there is no denial - and in fact no word either way on man's effect (or otherwise) on the planet.  Justified or otherwise, "climate change" is being used simply as an excuse to make money.  And lots of it.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> And making money from oil, coal and gas far outstrips any money from renewable energy.


ROC trading is the new oil bonanza...

----------


## gleeber

> Then the scientists should be able to display their results clearly and be able to show, without any sceptical doubt, that what they present is completely above board and utterly, unequivocally true.
> 
> The thing is, they can't.


I think most reputable scientists, from a number of countries as well as those who work in places like the earths poles have come up with particularly clear results in their efforts to warn the governments of the world that natural global warming is being affected by the pollution man is belching out into the atmosphere every second of every day of every century since James Watt first saw the energy source contained in steam. 



> I'm all for Rheggy's indefatigable belief in science. What I can't understand is his unerring, unquestioning belief in 'scientists'.


You see MA? You have that wrong and that's where the propeganda lurks. In misquoteas and personal prejudices. I can't talk for Rheghead but i Know, without asking him that he doesnt have an unquestioning belief in scientists. That's probably why you dont understand it.





> If you read what I posted there is no denial - and in fact no word either way on man's effect (or otherwise) on the planet. Justified or otherwise, "climate change" is being used simply as an excuse to make money. And lots of it.


Your name exposes your prejudices Of course there's big business in climate change and why not? What exactly bothers you about creation of wealth whether it's through climate change or organic farming?

----------


## gleeber

> *"Scepticism is healthy but denial could be disastrous"*
> 
> There are those in denial that climate change is man-made and there are those in denial that climate change is a natural phenomen.
> 
> To those at the extremes, everyone else is a sceptic or a denier.
> 
> My view is that natural phenomena are greater than mans influence, but that man should do what is *reasonable* to limit his damage to the environment.
> 
> It is not *reasonable* to insist that windmills at all costs will save the day, and that those who oppose are somehow social outcasts, when the simple economics, and environmental credentials of windfarms don't support them.
> ...


Please dont talk about Caithness being ruined because local farmers are lining their pockets with the global warming shilling.  What you are saying is your perception of Caithness is being ruined. That's different and it is *unreasonable* to suggest the whole county is being ruined because of your own personal prejudices.

----------


## Rheghead

Climate Change scepticism is fine by me, Climate Change cynicism isn't.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Please dont talk about Caithness being ruined because local farmers are lining their pockets with the global warming shilling. What you are saying is your perception of Caithness is being ruined. That's different and it is *unreasonable* to suggest the whole county is being ruined because of your own personal prejudices.


I didn't say any of these things.  Can you answer these questions?
How many turbines are operational in Caithness?How many have planning consent waiting to be built?How many are subjects of planning appeals that could be consented at any time?How many are in the planning department being processed and could come up for a decision at any time?How many more are in the pipeline (scoping) and could be lodged with planners at any time?How many are you prepared to accept?How much does each average turbine cost the consumer in subsidies paid through our electricity bills per annum?Who gets this money?

----------


## gleeber

> I didn't say any of these things.


LOL Denier par excellence. 
I cant answer any of those questions but I know a man who probably could.
Well I could probably answer 2
How many more?
I love Caithness and windmills have fitted in very well to my perception of the county. How many more is completely at the mercy of the planning department. At the moment I'm ok with it and find the antis rather tiresome. I know, my own personal prejudice.
Who gets the dosh?
Well after the initial building and the wages paid to the men who built them I assume the landowner gets a nice slice. Lucky so and so.

----------


## bekisman

Income?
Not quite sure where this payment to farmers comes from but thought our electricity bills would come down?
_"Depending on the size of turbine and on wind speed, landowners can earn between £5,000 and £8,000 a year for each turbine. ."_
http://www.eon-uk.com/libraries/uk/images/Downloads%20-%20EON%20and%20you/Cash_Crop_Brochure.pdf
_"In return, farmers forming part of the company could see a £15,000 income from hosting a single 3MW wind turbine,"_
http://www.newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco/view_item?listid=1&listcatid=94&listitemid=1694

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

> Which paper was DB's article in Ced? Could you provide a link?
> Re your ice cube...at least 50% of it is under the surface already. Remember water expands when it freezes, so no change in the level of the glass would be noticed when the cube melts.


It was the Daily Mail,Aaldtimer.It was a report on all the views of the scientists,sceptics and deniers.It was actually a very interesting read seeing all the different points of view.The photograph of the Ice change was on the double page.
Remember in the late 70's and Early 80's 'The protect and survive',leaflet for the threat of a nuclear war,how to build yer own nuclear bunker.Very scary it was.Must have been worse for the folk in the early sixties during the Cuban Missile crisis.I was more scared of this than I am now of global warming.
For Global warming though,folk are re-cycling more,trying new energies.All good choices.The problem is that we still have fossil fuels,its human nature,we will not take the subject serious until the last drop of oil is used,last bit of coal burnt.
Once its all used,the Earth will return to normal over a time.One true human flaw,they think time is now,time is millions of years.Millions of generations.The luxuries we take for granted now will be fewer.Communities will become local again instead of global.Sailing boats will come into fashion again.
Honestly I should stop reading the Daily Mail it makes me sound intellectual.

Right I'm off to look at the titties in The Sun,bring me back to normal. ::  :: 

Cannae find a link Aaldtimer,sorry,ma computer knowledge is zilch.Definitly in yesterdays Mail though :Smile:

----------


## Tubthumper

Could it be that our overpopulated world will shortly prove unable to support the human race in its present form? And if so, is our demise (or at least the demise of a substantial proportion of the population) not an inevitable part of the natural cycle? Having worked this out, I feel much more relaxed.

----------


## Rheghead

> Could it be that our overpopulated world will shortly prove unable to support the human race in its present form? And if so, is our demise (or at least the demise of a substantial proportion of the population) not an inevitable part of the natural cycle? Having worked this out, I feel much more relaxed.


Thank you for that quasi-Darwinian outlook.  Let us be under no illusion what that _demise_ entails, war, disease, damage to delicate ecosystems and just about anything that we don't really want.

What makes this quasi-Darwininan outlook appear so _stupid_ is that we knew it was coming and we will do absolutely nothing about it which is in contrast to previous global extinctions.

We have a problem because population is set to double by 2050 and yet attempts to address that is the last taboo in the western world.  The land changes in 2050 will be enormous which will change the albedo of the land thus raising the temperature of the Earth even more, causing more strain on the use of available freshwater.  It is a viscious circle and we need to get a grip on our species.

Go and watch Richard Attenborough's Horizon programme on iplayer, absolutely depressing but also hits home the reality of it all like a sledgehammer.

----------


## Rheghead

> Carbon trading is the new oil bonanza...


Which is a tax on fossil fuels, not renewable energy.  Therefore fossil fuels is all about generating money for the Treasury, not supplying energy.  So why does the Treasury give tax incentives for the oil industry then heavily tax their product?  We doubly pay for them that is why.

----------


## Tubthumper

> We have a problem because population is set to double by 2050 and yet attempts to address that is the last taboo in the western world.  The land changes in 2050 will be enormous which will change the albedo of the land thus raising the temperature of the Earth even more, causing more strain on the use of available freshwater.  It is a viscious circle and we need to get a grip on our species.


What do you suggest we do then, wise science person? Stop breeding or get into selective breeding?  
Or just accept our fate and try to manage it to the best conclusion?

----------


## Rheghead

Automatic castrations for anyone who mutters anything that can be construed as cynicism against the conclusions of the IPCC.

Seriously though population control is something that we should be discussing more, i am glad that a high profile presenter like Attenborough broached the subject.  

To mitigate the worst effects, I think immigration control is a must, the extra from Africa, India etc will automatically be turned into high energy users in UK rather than if they were kept in their own country where Gordon Brown is pumping billions into renewable energy schemes.

Renewable energy is all about fairness because of the distribution, no country has a monopoly on it.

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

Population control?Thats not the solution.How can ye control 6 Billion,when some teachers are saying they cannae control 30 pupils.

Its simple the answer and if ye don't know it,tough.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> schemes.
> 
> Renewable energy is all about fairness because of the distribution, no country has a monopoly on it.


I don't understand this. Could you please explain.

----------


## Aaldtimer

Rheg..."We have a problem because population is set to double by 2050 "...   
I watched that programme as well, and as I understood the figures, DA was talking about the population having trebled in the last 50 years that he had been involved in broadcasting, and the present level being some 7.5 billion, projected to become some 9 billion by 2050(or was it 2060?). ::

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't understand this. Could you please explain.


I thought it was fairly self-explanatory and I feel a little silly making a detailed explanation, suffice to say that the Sun's energy falls upon the Earth evenly and tapers off towards the poles.  I can see no circumstances where a nation would wage war against another due to one wanting its renewable energy reserves.

----------


## ywindythesecond

*Answers to questions on post #389*

How many turbines are operational in Caithness? *48*How many have planning consent waiting to be built?* 28*How many are subjects of planning appeals that could be consented at any time? *33*How many are in the planning department being processed and could come up for a decision at any time? *95*
How many more are in the pipeline (scoping) and could be lodged with planners at any time? *83-93* How many are you prepared to accept? *?????*How much does each average turbine cost the consumer in subsidies paid through our electricity bills per annum? *About £300K each turbine.*Who gets this money? *Mostly the developers and the generating company. The landowner probably gets £8-10K per turbine per annum and the community often gets some money as well, but only a very small part of it.**Answer to Bekisman on post #391*
This is why your electricity bills are going up through wind energy, not down.

----------


## Rheghead

> [*]How many are you prepared to accept? *?????*


Why didn't you just say that you think there is enough already?

I personally think a maximum of 500MW would be OK obviously others wouldn't want any.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Why didn't you just admit that you think there is enough already?
> 
> I personally think a maximum of 500MW would be OK obviously others wouldn't want any.


I asked Gleber the question.

----------


## Rheghead

> I asked Gleber the question.


You asked Gleeber the same questions but you also answered them in that typical duplicitous style.

----------


## Cinderella's Shoe

OK heres a question for all you experts on green matters out there.

There was a programme on TV last week saying that with a 2 degree rise in temperatute by 2050, it will cause sea levels to rise by 4-5m and the polar bears will all be killed.  Sounds very like the modelling scenarios being promoted by some scientists.

OK - the question is....I think it was a lot warmer in the middle ages (around 1200-1400) than it is now.  Grapes were grown in north England and south Scotland.  So probably at least a couple of degree warmer than now.  So if a 2 degree rise is so devastating, (1) why do we still have polar bears and (2) why doesn't written history record this?

----------


## Rheghead

> OK heres a question for all you experts on green matters out there.
> 
> There was a programme on TV last week saying that with a 2 degree rise in temperatute by 2050, it will cause sea levels to rise by 4-5m and the polar bears will all be killed.  Sounds very like the modelling scenarios being promoted by some scientists.
> 
> OK - the question is....I think it was a lot warmer in the middle ages (around 1200-1400) than it is now.  Grapes were grown in north England and south Scotland.  So probably at least a couple of degree warmer than now.  So if a 2 degree rise is so devastating, (1) why do we still have polar bears and (2) why doesn't written history record this?


Do you think that an anectdotal reference to grapes being grown in the UK can be good evidence to suggest that global temperatures were higher in the medieval period?  

Grapes can be grown in colder climates than today though the quality can be affected by climate factors.  Could it be fair to say that political forces at the time may have forced English and Scottish farmers to seek a home-grown wine market due to trade blockades etc and settle for poorer quality?

----------


## Green_not_greed

Actually I think the Shoe may be right.

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=...d-rediscovered

Looks like politically motivated scientists may have manipulated this data too - removing it from records at it didn't fit their "hockey stick" theory.

----------


## Stavro

> OK - the question is....I think it was a lot warmer in the middle ages (around 1200-1400) than it is now.  Grapes were grown in north England and south Scotland.  So probably at least a couple of degree warmer than now.  So if a 2 degree rise is so devastating, (1) why do we still have polar bears and (2) why doesn't written history record this?


(1) Because it was not devastating to polar bears.
(2) Because people (and polar bears) were too busy enjoying the warmer weather I expect.

An increase of 4-5m in mean sea level is an enormous amount, equaled only by the proposed hikes in all sorts of taxation necessary to fund the new world order.

Water expands on freezing, so its volume will contract upon thawing, but ~10% of the ice mass will be above the water line. So although there is no evidence that the polar ice caps are melting, even if they did melt to a large degree, I reject the 4-5m rise claimed by mainstream propaganda merchants.

P.S. Have a look at carbon derivatives - the latest scam by the banks to fleece us all.  ::

----------


## Stavro

"The AGW [man-made global warming] brigade have mistaken the current warm period for a trend caused by carbon emissions. But the detailed science says it could be natural and part of a cycle.

"Behind the scenes at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no consensus – the dissenting views have been covered over in the summary documents for policy makers – and among UK and EU politicians it’s even worse, and criminally expensive for the British taxpayer." 

(Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-prepared.html )

----------


## tonkatojo

> "The AGW [man-made global warming] brigade have mistaken the current warm period for a trend caused by carbon emissions. But the detailed science says it could be natural and part of a cycle.
> 
> "Behind the scenes at the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there is no consensus  the dissenting views have been covered over in the summary documents for policy makers  and among UK and EU politicians its even worse, and criminally expensive for the British taxpayer." 
> 
> (Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-prepared.html )


Your right Stavro, once we have been fleeced left right and centre with green taxes and subsidised the third world even more than ever, they the green brigade and governments will declare it all a success when after its all nature that just keeps rolling on. :Frown:

----------


## Rheghead

> once we have been fleeced left right and centre with green taxes and subsidised the third world even more than ever, they the green brigade and governments will declare it all a success when after its all nature that just keeps rolling on.


Could it be argued that it was the third world that has been subsidising us?

I mean, look at the wealth that the slave trade created for Britain and America.  Secondly, the economies of the colonial past sought to import goods from Africa and Asia at cheap prices at the expense of exploiting indigenous peoples and is still happening today.

----------


## Stavro

> Your right Stavro, once we have been fleeced left right and centre with green taxes and subsidised the third world even more than ever, they the green brigade and governments will declare it all a success when after its all nature that just keeps rolling on.




Have to admire her pluck!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4...eature=related

----------


## tonkatojo

> Could it be argued that it was the third world that has been subsidising us?
> 
> I mean, look at the wealth that the slave trade created for Britain and America.  Secondly, the economies of the colonial past sought to import goods from Africa and Asia at cheap prices at the expense of exploiting indigenous peoples and is still happening today.



Just because some dubious figures get quoted doesn't make it fact.

Don't blame countries for buying the cheapest goods or us for indulging in that practice, its called capitalism, what it seems you want is global communism.

----------


## tonkatojo

> Have to admire her pluck!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbLK4...eature=related



He's not the only con ma is he, governments have recognised the lucrative con as well, now I hear the banks are introducing "green taxes" as well, well there's a surprise (ha ha).
I personally think the only "green" thing is the people that are being conned into believing this man made global warming theory.

----------


## Stavro

> He's not the only con ma is he, governments have recognised the lucrative con as well, now I hear the banks are introducing "green taxes" as well, well there's a surprise (ha ha).
> I personally think the only "green" thing is the people that are being conned into believing this man made global warming theory.


How true!  ::

----------


## Cinderella's Shoe

> Do you think that an anectdotal reference to grapes being grown in the UK can be good evidence to suggest that global temperatures were higher in the medieval period?


No but this can (thanks for the link)

http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=...d-rediscovered




> Grapes can be grown in colder climates than today though the quality can be affected by climate factors.  Could it be fair to say that political forces at the time may have forced English and Scottish farmers to seek a home-grown wine market due to trade blockades etc and settle for poorer quality?


I think you'll find that that particular period was a boom period for trade between the east coast of Scotland/North England and Europe - in particular Holland, and to a lesser extent France, Germany and Denmark.  Scots merchants in Holland were envied and generally extremely wealthy. So there was no trade blockade!

----------


## Rheghead

> No but this can (thanks for the link)
> 
> http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=...d-rediscovered


Surprise, surprise, another book being advertised for sale, hardly impartial science... :: 

http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....&postcount=248

Again, no link can be drawn between grapes being grown and higher temperatures.

----------


## gleeber

Have you completely lost your pumpkin Cinderella? What has grapes being grown in the middle ages in Britain got to do with the present artificially induced global warming being forecast by most reputable scientists and being accepted by every government on the planet with the exception of Emporor Stavros and a few other worthies?

----------


## tonkatojo

> Have you completely lost your pumpkin Cinderella? What has grapes being grown in the middle ages in Britain got to do with the present artificially induced global warming being forecast by most reputable scientists and being accepted by every government on the planet with the exception of Emporor Stavros and a few other worthies?



I know nowt about grapes but it sounds like you've eaten a few sour ones.

----------


## gleeber

> I know nowt about grapes but it sounds like you've eaten a few sour ones.


Why do you think that?

----------


## tonkatojo

> Why do you think that?


Could it be because of the emperor quip and followers.

----------


## gleeber

> Could it be because of the emperor quip and followers.


 I dont know. Is it? I dont get it.

----------


## tonkatojo

> I dont know. Is it? I dont get it.


Never mind, perhaps a scientist will explain.

----------


## gleeber

> Never mind, perhaps a scientist will explain.


Why cant you explain? You said it. I'm not that bothered mind you. Its just kind of interesting.

----------


## tonkatojo

> Why cant you explain? You said it. I'm not that bothered mind you. Its just kind of interesting.



Perhaps because I don't profess to be a scientist, but as your not bothered....

----------


## gleeber

Well anyway. Ive no sour grapes. Maybe you have I dunno.
I was poking fun at Stavros. I know hes able to take it. 
This thread has been really interesting. Some of you think it's only scientists who can think about things like this but that's your loss. Global warming is a very topical subject and it needs more discussion. I happen to trust science but the antiis haqve some good points too. its good to be able to discuss it in a light hearted manner.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> LOL Denier par excellence. 
> I cant answer any of those questions but I know a man who probably could.
> Well I could probably answer 2
> How many more?
> I love Caithness and windmills have fitted in very well to my perception of the county. How many more is completely at the mercy of the planning department. At the moment I'm ok with it and find the antis rather tiresome. I know, my own personal prejudice.
> Who gets the dosh?
> Well after the initial building and the wages paid to the men who built them I assume the landowner gets a nice slice. Lucky so and so.


OK Gleeber, the 48 windmills you have seen in Caithness have fiitted very well to your perception of the county. 
I would not say that the 48 turbines we have are too much for Caithness. I think the 25 very large turbines which have planning permission at Camster will be a big surprise to the people of Caithness when they start going up, and I believe it was a mistake to permit them.
The 3 consented turbines at Causwaymire will make little difference when they are built, but that will make 76 turbines in Caithness.
If the Baillie and Stroupster windfarms are consented after appeal, there could be 109 turbines in Caithness.
If the 95 turbines which could come up for approval at a planning hearing at a few days notice at any time are consented, there could be 204 turbines in Caithness.
If the 83-93 turbines in scoping are approved , we could have 287 to 297 turbines in Caithness.
Gleeber, we are committed to 76 turbines in Caithness, and there are plans for 297. How many do you think is reasonable, and where do you think they should go?

----------


## Stavro

> Well anyway. Ive no sour grapes. Maybe you have I dunno.
> I was poking fun at Stavros. I know hes able to take it. 
> This thread has been really interesting. Some of you think it's only scientists who can think about things like this but that's your loss. Global warming is a very topical subject and it needs more discussion. I happen to trust science but the antiis haqve some good points too. its good to be able to discuss it in a light hearted manner.



Ah, gleeber, hasn't the northerner shot you yet? Drat, I'll have to think up another plan.

----------


## Rheghead

this is hilarious :: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN6_R...layer_embedded

----------


## Cinderella's Shoe

> this is hilarious
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN6_R...layer_embedded


Yes isn't it.

Senior mason 1, "ecowarrior" 0

----------


## Rheghead

> Yes isn't it.
> 
> Senior mason 1, "ecowarrior" 0


He sounds like a lawyer, she was right to say that she will have to read up on his facts before making a judgement.

He was the better orator, she is Norwegian and struggled to get her point across in her non-native tongue.  Better orated twaddle is still twaddle.

----------


## clash67

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmYG9...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAL8d...eature=related
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4YfnlVzJZo&feature=related
http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLKrSM5hRxI&feature=related

Please watch all of these, very interesting.

----------


## gleeber

I just caught a bit of Prince Charles giving a speech and he said we only have 7 years to put it right. What's he talking about?
That Lord guy was a bully and as right wing as stanley Matthews. The Norwegian lassie didnt have to do all the research the Lord was expecting her to do. She trusted the research and the organisations who were campaigning for change. He was bang out of order.

----------


## Rheghead

I used to analyse stuff on a Fourier transform infra red spectroscope and one of the interference effects from background readings were carbon dioxide and water vapour levels.  In realtime it was possible to see the absorption spectra alter rapidly due to just the breath from the operator.  It demonstrated how powerful a greenhouse gas carbon dioxide was being in the atmosphere if it could absorb infra-red light over such a short distance and at such low concentrations.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> That Lord guy was a bully and as right wing as stanley Matthews. The Norwegian lassie didnt have to do all the research the Lord was expecting her to do. She trusted the research and the organisations who were campaigning for change. He was bang out of order.


You mean she was brainwashed enough to believe everything she was spoon fed by the likes of greenpeace and other political lefty groups, without checking any of it first.  He was quoting published data underpinned through research and science.  

Anyone who stands up and protests should expect to face those who don't have the same beliefs as them.  He wasn't bang out of order - he was simply putting his point across in a different way to her and her friends (or should that be comrades?).

So yes, I believe it is Worshipful Master Mason 1, brainwashed trendy 0....

----------


## Rheghead

> So yes, I believe it is Worshipful Master Mason 1, brainwashed trendy 0....





> American Physical Society article on climate sensitivity
> 
> In July 2008 Monckton wrote an article about climate sensitivity for the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society.[25][26], concluding: *"it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration [surface temperature] will rise not by the 3.26 °K [sic] suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K."*
> 
> Some media commentators interpreted the publication of his paper as a sign that the American Physical Society had abandoned its earlier support for the scientific consensus on climate change.[27] In response, the APS reaffirmed its unchanged position on climate change and pointed out that the newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society "carries the statement that *'Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.'* This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."[28] The APS further added a disclaimer to the top of Monckton's article stating: "...Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. *The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions*."[29] In a response[30], Monckton called the APS "red flag" "discourteous" and claimed his paper had been "scientifically reviewed in meticulous detail". Notwithstanding, Arthur Smith, long-time member at the APS Forum, has identified 125 errors, irrelevancies, and contradictions in the article.[31][32]


125 errors is a lot more than what Al gore was accused of making in his Inconvenient Truth video.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> 125 errors is a lot more than what Al gore was accused of making in his Inconvenient Truth video.


Monckton read Classics at Cambridge and has a diploma in journalism.  So certainly not a scientist.  In fact pretty typical for a hereditary peer.  But it wasn't his data that he was quoting in the movie.  I do think we was being selective in what he quoted - but it was from published scientific and government papers.

----------


## Rheghead

Monckton mentioned that Arctic sea ice hasn't shrunk over the last 30 years and that he got his info from proper sources.  So why does wikipedia not relect this on their arctic ice shrinkage page?

As you can see from the diagram, the sea ice has been shrinking.

----------


## Metalattakk

Aye, it's on wikipedia so it must be true.  :: 

Is there not some wiki version of Godwin's Law that needs to be invoked here?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Aye, it's on wikipedia so it must be true. 
> 
> Is there not some wiki version of Godwin's Law that needs to be invoked here?


It is pretty lame for anyone who disagrees with something on wiki to just discard it because it's on wiki.

----------


## Metalattakk

> It is pretty lame for anyone who disagrees with something on wiki to just discard it because it's on wiki.


It's also pretty lame to use wikipedia as a tool to propagate your point of view. Jesus, even the bairns aren't allowed to use it for their homework.  ::

----------


## Boozeburglar

Carbon Trading will be used to redress the manufacturing imbalance between more developed and less countries. 

Meanwhile the developed countries will change at a snail's pace, because the legislation encourages them to be complacent.

Humppppphhhhhhhhhh.

----------


## Rheghead

> It's also pretty lame to use wikipedia as a tool to propagate your point of view. Jesus, even the bairns aren't allowed to use it for their homework.


Of course I could easily have just chosen another source.

http://www.answers.com/arctic%20sea%...Arctic_sea_ice

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107

----------


## Metalattakk

> Of course I could easily have just chosen another source.
> 
> http://www.answers.com/arctic%20sea%...Arctic_sea_ice


LOL! That even references wikipedia as it's source.

face/palm 

 :: 




> http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107


Ah, NASA. And remind me again who provides their funding? Could it be the same people that are pushing this whole man-made Global Warming myth?

Hmmm....

----------


## Rheghead

> Ah, NASA. And remind me again who provides their funding? Could it be the same people that are pushing this whole man-made Global Warming myth?
> 
> Hmmm....


The American Government?  Throughout the Bush era who was no advocate of AGW.  Your paranoia/cynicism has reached new levels.  :: 

As for the wiki jibe, all info is referenced to proper sources.

----------


## Flashman

> The American Government? Throughout the Bush era who was no advocate of AGW. Your paranoia/cynicism has reached new levels. 
> 
> As for the wiki jibe, all info is referenced to proper sources.


 
We still arguing on this one chaps!

Just saw on the news that things are seriously heating up outside the conference today... and it's definatly of the man made variety!  :Smile:

----------


## northener

> We still arguing on this one chaps!
> 
> Just saw on the news that things are seriously heating up outside the conference today... and it's definatly of the man made variety!


 
I find it rather odd that some of the 'activists' are keen on invading and breaking up a world summit that is trying to find a way forward to stop climate change.

Am I missing something?

----------


## Flashman

> I find it rather odd that some of the 'activists' are keen on invading and breaking up a world summit that is trying to find a way forward to stop climate change.
> 
> Am I missing something?


 
I think they are a little frustrated at the lack of progress but it is a bit Ironic lol

I would guess there is alot of activists there just to have a ruck with the police.

----------


## Stavro

> I find it rather odd that some of the 'activists' are keen on invading and breaking up a world summit that is trying to find a way forward to stop climate change.
> 
> Am I missing something?



Yes, all 23 pages of this thread I think.

----------


## northener

> Yes, all 23 pages of this thread I think.


True. 
Although I doubt that the past 23 pages have revolved around whether to break up the Copenhagen Summit or not.....

----------


## Aaldtimer

> I find it rather odd that some of the 'activists' are keen on invading and breaking up a world summit that is trying to find a way forward to stop climate change.
> 
> Am I missing something?


Reminds me of some graffiti I saw in the '70s...

"Stop Violence...Let's have a Peace Riot!!"   ::

----------


## northener

> Reminds me of some graffiti I saw in the '70s...
> 
> "Stop Violence...Let's have a Peace Riot!!"

----------


## joxville

> 


How dare you publish a pic of someone enjoying a fag, don't you realise how irresponsible that is? Hmm, well.........do you? I've a good mind to report you to ASH!  :Wink:

----------


## Green_not_greed

Um...back to the ice data, here is what Monckton was referring to



For what its worth, the actual data can be found at

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/

----------


## Rheghead

> Um...back to the ice data, here is what Monckton was referring to
> 
> 
> 
> For what its worth, the actual data can be found at
> 
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/SEAICE/


It is interesting to see that there has been a steady decline in sea ice in the last decade when exactly the time that the sceptics claim that the Earth has been cooling.  Plus the graph only plots area of ice with no plot of the _volume_ of ice.  The larger fluctuations in the last 3 years is what you would expect if the ice recovery in the winter months just amounts to a 'thin' surface covering.  In other words, the graph is a major cause for concern.

----------


## Green_not_greed

Well that's not how the science journalists picked it up.  They all reported much along the same lines of this report:

*Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.*

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. to officially list the polar bear a threatened species, over objections from experts who claimed the animal's numbers were increasing.

----------


## Rheghead

> Well that's not how the science *journalists* picked it up.  They all reported much along the same lines of this report


I wouldn't expect anything less from them.

----------


## Green_not_greed

So you've picked up something from the data that they missed completely?

You should write and tell them.

----------


## Metalattakk

> I wouldn't expect anything less from them.


LOL!

"Your paranoia/cynicism has reached new levels."  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> LOL!
> 
> "Your paranoia/cynicism has reached new levels."


LOL, hardly since my comments are justified, it was GNGs post!  Journalists are journalists, for what it's worth, I think your disillusionment is also caused by journalists from the opposite side of the debate.

----------


## joxville

> Well that's not how the science journalists picked it up. They all reported much along the same lines of this report:





> I wouldn't expect anything less from them.


I'd hazard a guess that the science journalists are probably better informed than Al Gore will ever be, yet too many have been taken in by his misinformation.

----------


## Rheghead

> I'd hazard a guess that the science journalists are probably better informed than Al Gore will ever be, yet too many have been taken in by his misinformation.


I'd hazard a kettle of fish that the science journalists that keep giving out a misrepresentational viewpoint from the peer reviewed conclusions of the IPCC are different entirely than the science journalists of sceptical science.

----------


## joxville

> I'd hazard a kettle of fish that the science journalists that keep giving out a misrepresentational viewpoint from the peer reviewed conclusions of the IPCC are different entirely than the science journalists of sceptical science.


You have to admit there must be many scientists using the Climate Change agenda because it's a good earner, regardless of the weight of evidence for and against climate change. Equally, I'm sure there are many scientists funded by oil companies to argue against the pro-camp. All we seem to get is spin from one camp or the other. We hear that models are made and continually adjusted until the desired result is reached, and neither side is willing to let the other check the evidence; that the ozone depletion was only 'discovered' in 1974 when a scientist had a threat of losing his funding, yet no-one knows what it was like prior to his announcement, maybe it's always been like that-continually increasing and decreasing in size. 

I don't trust any Government spin, the cynic in me sees it as yet one more excuse for them to tax us more, yet we already pay a bloody fortune in taxes, where will it end? I believe the Government is doing us all a great dis-service in taking the word of the pro-camp, it should be forcing scientists from both sides to have *all* the available evidence peer reviewed and made public. I'm not intelligent enough, and I dare say I speak for a lot of people, to understand all those graphs and technical data. I rely on science and this country's Government to tell me in plain English what I need to know, yet I feel they are failing me, I really don't know who to believe. 

I accept that we are pumping too much CO2 into the atmosphere and it needs to be substantially lowered, but how low does it have to go? What is an acceptable level that the planet will be able to function without us doing any more damage? Is there a danger that we could lower it too much and cause other problems? 

Tony Blair stated in 2006 that we had seven years to save the planet, see here, yet didn't he declare something similar when he came to office? Prince Charles said in March 2009 that we had eight years to save the planet, see here, and amended that figure last night by declaring it was now seven years, here, so who is right? Do you see why I find it hard to believe the enviromentalists? They can't even get their own arguments straight, continually changing the scare stories. I want to believe that we can make a difference, but they are making it so difficult for me.

----------


## Aaldtimer

Anybody watching the raft of TV progs in the last few Days?
The Climate Wars, BBC2/Man on Earth,Ch4/David Attenburgh on one of the other channels which I canna quite remember. ::

----------


## Green_not_greed

Just remember that the BBC is the Government's mouthpiece - and nowhere nearly as impartial as it used to be (and still claims to be).

----------


## northener

> Just remember that the BBC is the Government's mouthpiece - and nowhere nearly as impartial as it used to be (and still claims to be).


"Used to be"?...

I remember hearing the same opinion regarding the BBC being used thirty years ago by those who didn't like what they were hearing.

----------


## Rheghead

> Just remember that the BBC is the Government's mouthpiece - and nowhere nearly as impartial as it used to be (and still claims to be).


Were they their mouthpiece during the aftermath of the Dr David Kelly suicide?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Tony Blair stated in 2006 that we had seven years to save the planet, see here, yet didn't he declare something similar when he came to office? Prince Charles said in March 2009 that we had eight years to save the planet, see here, and amended that figure last night by declaring it was now seven years, here, so who is right? Do you see why I find it hard to believe the enviromentalists? They can't even get their own arguments straight, continually changing the scare stories. I want to believe that we can make a difference, but they are making it so difficult for me.


Sorry Jox, where is the conflict here?  They are both saying we have a very short time to save the planet.

Do you think we would have a clearer picture if we discard all the scientists who take the huff and all their websites and books which don't pass the peer-review process of the IPCC?

----------


## Metalattakk

> Sorry Jox, where is the conflict here?  They are both saying we have a very short time to save the planet.


See, there's the problem in a nutshell. Who says the planet needs saving? I think you'll find that 'the planet' will quite happily soldier on regardless. It doesn't need you and your ilk to 'save' it, Rheggy.




> Do you think we would have a clearer picture if we discard all the scientists who take the huff and all their websites and books which don't pass the peer-review process of the IPCC?


No, we'd have a clearer picture if those with a political agenda (and I'm including you in this, Rheghead) would stop propagating their scaremongering lies.

----------


## joxville

> Tony Blair stated in 2006 that we had seven years to save the planet, see here, yet didn't he declare something similar when he came to office? Prince Charles said in March 2009 that we had eight years to save the planet, see here, and amended that figure last night by declaring it was now seven years, here, so who is right? Do you see why I find it hard to believe the enviromentalists? They can't even get their own arguments straight, continually changing the scare stories. I want to believe that we can make a difference, but they are making it so difficult for me.





> Sorry Jox, where is the conflict here? They are both saying we have a very short time to save the planet.
> 
> Do you think we would have a clearer picture if we discard all the scientists who take the huff and all their websites and books which don't pass the peer-review process of the IPCC?


The conflict is Tony Blair, in 2006, saying we have seven years to save the planet, yet last night, three years after Blair, Prince Charles quoted the same figure. Shouldn't it now be down to four years? If the 'green' campaigners such as T.B. & P.C. give us conflicting figures then why should I believe them? Are we going to be told the same story in 2012? I know 3 years is neither here nor there when you consider how long the planet has existed, but it's important to people like me who want to believe yet the conflicting advice is making it very difficult to do so. I've followed this thread from the beginning and learned a lot from it, yet I'll always be sitting on the fence if I don't understand the evidence. 


*Stavro #362:* _On the other hand, real scientists who resigned from the IPCC (a political organisation) over false science claims and misrepresentation, do not get their views aired by that same media machine._

That was news to me. I had heard of the IPCC and assumed they were a science led body, now I'm told they are more politically led! Do we now have politicians advising politicians on the environment, instead of real scientists? No-one trusts politicians yet we are allowing them to use the biggest threat facing mankind-the death of our planet, against us. 

The IPCC said it so it must be true; Bill McGuire of the UCL Hazard Research Centre said it so it must be true; Tony Blair said it so it must be true; you want us to embrace the whole climate change 'evidence' without question, yet you won't accept any counter-argument. How can we put our trust in the IPCC and others if we are not being given the full facts?

----------


## Flashman

> Sorry Jox, where is the conflict here? They are both saying we have a very short time to save the planet.


Short time to save our own backsides more like!! The Planet will be thriving long after our demise.

Joxville I could not agree more, people who question the impact of man made climate change are not doing so just for the sheer hell of it. It's because the information avalible is confusing and conflicting and becoming incresingly political.

----------


## Rheghead

> Anybody watching the raft of TV progs in the last few Days?
> The Climate Wars, BBC2


Yep and you will have seen the powerfully impacting experiment with the candle and the tube of CO2,  it is still on iplayer.  There can be no doubt about the greenhouse effect.

----------


## Rheghead

> That was news to me. I had heard of the IPCC and assumed they were a science led body, now I'm told they are more politically led! Do we now have politicians advising politicians on the environment, instead of real scientists? No-one trusts politicians yet we are allowing them to use the biggest threat facing mankind-the death of our planet, against us.


It was the American government that insisted on a political element being at the heart of the IPCC because they didn't want global warming used as a stick to beat America, so then the IPCC has tended to play down the impact of Climate Change.  You would see no arguement from the scientific element for the removal of the politics of climate change.

----------


## Rheghead

> No, we'd have a clearer picture if those with a political agenda (and I'm including you in this, Rheghead) would stop propagating their scaremongering lies.


What political agenda would that be?  Knowing how unpopular the impact of the curative steps will have on our lives, if the political parties could shelve global warming then they would.  It truly is an _inconvenient truth_.

----------


## Metalattakk

> What political agenda would that be?  Knowing how unpopular the impact of the curative steps will have on our lives, if the political parties could shelve global warming then they would.  It truly is an _inconvenient truth_.


Nonsense. Why would they kill the goose that is laying all these carbon trading eggs?

----------


## Rheghead

> Nonsense. Why would they kill the goose that is laying all these carbon trading eggs?


If it was only the Conservative party who were the ones who promise to raise your fuels bills by 100%, take your car off you because you can't afford to run it and only let the rich to take a foreign holiday, do you think they'd have any chance of getting into power?

Such is the folly of your reasoning.

----------


## joxville

> It was the American government that insisted on a political element being at the heart of the IPCC because they didn't want global warming used as a stick to beat America, so then the IPCC has tended to play down the impact of Climate Change. You would see no arguement from the scientific element for the removal of the politics of climate change.


Isn't it time other countries stood up to America instead of kow-towing to them all the time? Is it because America is viewed as having the biggest clout? America, once again, refuses to take part unless it suits them, just like they did at the inception of the United Nations-they refused to be a member unless the HQ was based in America. That the rest of the world bows down to one of the most corrupt, immoral and unscrupulous nations on this planet is sickening, it shows how weak those other nations are. If the dangers of global warming and climate change are so serious then other countries should stand up to America's bullying, impose trade sanctions on them, after all, America has never been slow at doing it to others.

----------


## Stavro

> ... a political element being at the heart of the IPCC


At last, you admit this.





> You would see no arguement from the scientific element for the removal of the politics of climate change.


Probably not, but we definitely do see arguments within the scientific element over the root cause of any climate change.

As for your comment to Metalattakk on political parties, all three main parties in the UK are basically the same bunch. They lie just as frequently as one another, engage in fraudulent activity just as well as each other, line their pockets just as well as each other and proclaim themselves to be our necessary saviours just as well as one another.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

Haha, now you've got the 3 main parties colluding together just to back up your world view, this gets even better.  

And I thought you couldn't make this sort thing up even if you'd really tried... ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> Haha, now you've got the 3 main parties colluding together just to back up your world view, this gets even better.


Inter-party collusion wasn't even hinted at, Rheggy. So why would you try to imply there was, rather than either answer his point or ignore his post?

This is just typical forum tactics from you, reading something and seeing something that's not even there, then basing your response around that very lie. It is not reasoned, intelligent debate.




> And I thought you couldn't make this sort thing up even if you'd really tried...


He isn't making it up, as I've just explained. Ya plum.

(Now _that_ was reasoned, intelligent debate.  :Wink: )

----------


## Rheghead

> Inter-party collusion wasn't even hinted at, Rheggy. So why would you try to imply there was, rather than either answer his point or ignore his post?
> 
> This is just typical forum tactics from you, reading something and seeing something that's not even there, then basing your response around that very lie. It is not reasoned, intelligent debate.
> 
> 
> 
> He isn't making it up, as I've just explained. Ya plum.
> 
> (Now _that_ was reasoned, intelligent debate. )


Yes he was hinting that they were colluding.  Are you reading the same post as me or am i blind?




> all three main parties in the UK are basically the same bunch. They lie just as frequently as one another,

----------


## Stavro

> Yes he was hinting that they were colluding.  Are you reading the same post as me or am i blind?


Difficult choice, but I think ... you are blind.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> Difficult choice, but I think ... you are blind.


Well others aren't and they can make their own mind up. :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> Inter-party collusion wasn't even hinted at, Rheggy. So why would you try to imply there was, rather than either answer his point or ignore his post?


For the record, do you think they are colluding on Climate Change just to get more taxes?

----------


## Stavro

> For the record, do you think they are colluding on Climate Change just to get more taxes?


I know that this question was not asked of me, but I would like to make a reply anyway.

Politicians, of all parties, are *in the main* just a bunch of selfish, money-grabbing liars, and they form a veneer over a structure that we do not see. When you start to perceive the chipboard under the veneer, then you will start to see "man-made" climate change for what it is - a useful tool.

In the meantime, you should not mislead people by claiming that "real" science is fully behind Albert Gore and the political animal, the IPCC.

----------


## Rheghead

> In the meantime, you should not mislead people by claiming that "real" science is fully behind Albert Gore and the political animal, the IPCC.


Science isn't science unless it uses the scientific method.  That means that other scientists should be able to concur the findings of other scientists using the same data and form a consensus.  

The sceptic scientists have their findings trashed by others via the peer review process then they take the cream puff by writing a book or a website.  That isn't science, that is intellectual fraud.

The sceptics can't agree on climate change.  So there is absolutely no consensus in the sceptic camp.  Some just claim there is no warming, some claim there is but the cause is just natural, some claim mankind is contributing but insignificantly.  They'd be all arguing amongst themselves if they weren't so politically motivated by greed and self preservation and yet the world's press would have us believing that they sing with one voice.

----------


## joxville

> They'd be all arguing amongst themselves if they weren't so politically motivated by greed and self preservation and yet the world's press would have us believing that they sing with one voice.


Is this the same press that failed to tell us that the IPCC was a predominantly political body, and that the true scientists weren't given a voice by the politico's within, the very same politico's that are whiter than white and not motivated by 'greed and self-preservation'. I wouldn't suggest the press of bias.

Why is it I can hear the ending to The Italian Job in my head?  :Wink:

----------


## Stavro

> Is this the same press that failed to tell us that the IPCC was a predominantly political body, and that the true scientists weren't given a voice by the politico's within, the very same politico's that are whiter than white and not motivated by 'greed and self-preservation'. I wouldn't suggest the press of bias.
> 
> Why is it I can hear the ending to The Italian Job in my head?


 :Smile: 

"As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian  more particularly Siberian  temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann. Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil "



(Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/ )

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

All I want to hear from our government is a year.What year will oil and coal be no more?

----------


## Rheghead

> Is this the same press that failed to tell us that the IPCC was a predominantly political body, and that the true scientists weren't given a voice by the politico's within, the very same politico's that are whiter than white and not motivated by 'greed and self-preservation'. I wouldn't suggest the press of bias.
> 
> Why is it I can hear the ending to The Italian Job in my head?


The IPCC isn't predominantly political.  It is predominantly scientific with political elements.  It is the predominantly scientific element that discuss and peer review the science.  True scientists wouldn't allow themselves along with their  debunked findings to become the doyen of massively influential lobby groups.

----------


## ywindythesecond

[quote=joxville;633730]The conflict is Tony Blair, in 2006, saying we have 

*Stavro #362:* _On the other hand, real scientists who resigned from the IPCC (a political organisation) over false science claims and misrepresentation, do not get their views aired by that same media machine._

That was news to me. I had heard of the IPCC and assumed they were a science led body, now I'm told they are more politically led! Do we now have politicians advising politicians on the environment, instead of real scientists? No-one trusts politicians yet we are allowing them to use the biggest threat facing mankind-the death of our planet, against us.] quote 

Anyone who watched last nights "The Big Debate" can have no doubt that scientists can be manipulated by politicians. Ann Glover, Salmond's chief scientific adviser was totally political and almost devoid of scientific input.
It was a programme designed to showcase the Scottish Renewables Forum, and the one man who managed to ask a searching question was instantly sidelined.

It is well worth the watching on BBC iplayer at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode..._Green_Future/

----------


## Stavro

> It is the predominantly scientific element that discuss and peer review the science.


Shame that the peers doing the reviewing stitch the "results" in their favour. (As the leaked emails indicate.)





> True scientists wouldn't allow themselves along with their debunked findings to become the doyen of massively influential lobby groups.


Massively influential lobby groups have massive amounts of money, and money is desperately needed by scientists.

----------


## George Brims

> Massively influential lobby groups have massive amounts of money, and money is desperately needed by scientists.


That is exactly Rheghead's point. The massively influential lobby groups are OIL COMPANIES, and they are buying most of this manufactured skepticism. And you are buying into it.

----------


## Stavro

> That is exactly Rheghead's point. The massively influential lobby groups are OIL COMPANIES, and they are buying most of this manufactured skepticism. And you are buying into it.


Most research funding in the UK comes from the Research Councils, which are government agencies.

As for whether oil companies have a different (contrary) agenda, I don't think it is as simple as that. There are certainly a lot of politicians, past and present, who have interests in oil companies and the like.

----------


## Rheghead

sobering thoughts

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/1...te+Progress%29

----------


## Phill

Mr Obama (some dude from the US ?) has trundled his way across the Atlantic again to Oslo. 1 man and at least 6 aircraft today, anyone's guess as to how many others in the last couple of days.
How many tonnes of CO2 has that cost the planet?

----------


## Flashman

Well from Mr Obama's own words he makes it clear what number 1 and number 2 priority is and it aint the planet.

he said, "climate change would pose unacceptable risks to international security, the world economy and the planet"


I think the real core issue here is energy, future lack of, and ovewhelimg demand of.

This will alost certainly come to the front in the next 30 to 40 years once the man made climate change farce has run it's usefullness to world powers.

----------


## Rheghead

> This will alost certainly come to the front in the next 30 to 40 years once the man made climate change farce has run it's usefullness to world powers.


Bit like the millenium bug, we go all green and fend off a 2C increase and we look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.

----------


## joxville

> Bit like the millenium bug, we go all green and fend off a 2C increase and we look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.


...and the climate change/global warming doom-mogers will take the credit for what the planet sorts out naturally.

----------


## Rheghead

> ...and the climate change/global warming doom-mogers will take the credit for what the planet sorts out naturally.


No measures to tackle climate change can be effective without the Earth's natural processes in taking out carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. :Wink:

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

I'm not sure what to make of Global Warming.

Certainly, we have contributed to pollution, this last century most notably. With the population rocketing to awesome numbers this last 60yrs, man needs more of everything;

More houses, more cows, more animals full stop! With more animals there's more plastics in order to package that food. Then there's more plastic being used when we bag our shopping. & how does our food, from around the world, get onto our shelves? Transport. The more vehicles there are on the road, & in the air, the dirtier the air is & with more vehicles, there's more factories adding dirty air into the atmosphere.

& where does our rubbish go? Sadly, the majority of it goes in to the sea, polluting our waters & poisoning the fish. We eat the fish, so it makes me think just what is going in to my system.

& with more people, we need more clean water. Where will this come from? The fact of the matter is, we'll run out of clean water one day. & also with rising water levels, & more people & more houses, & more of everything, where are we going to make the space?

This is how man contributed to polluting the planet, but no matter what we do, the planet will STILL heat up.

The planet has been getting steadily warmer since it was born, also, the Sun is getting bigger & bigger, meaning it's creeping ever closer to Earth. Hence why the planet is heating up, therefore it's inevitable that one day, the Sun will suck in Earth...

I believe this is why Scientists are looking to find a way to Mars, we need to move further away, or else, we're toast!

----------


## joxville

It takes hundreds of years for the seas to warm up and cool down, like wise the climate, and very few of us are going to be around to see what impact any changes proposed now will have in 30-50 years time. If a massive cut in man-made pollution has no effect and the planet continues to heat up, what is the 'greens' argument going to be based on then? 









(I suppose they'll just say it was because we left it too late making changes at the turn of this century)  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> It takes hundreds of years for the seas to warm up and cool down, like wise the climate, and very few of us are going to be around to see what impact any changes proposed now will have in 30-50 years time.


Most people want the best future for their kids.  They certainly wouldn't want them subjected to war, famine and other undesirable effects.  So it is totally beyond me why a responsible person would want to gamble with their children's welfare with a business as usual attitude.

----------


## joxville

> Most people want the best future for their kids. They certainly wouldn't want them subjected to war, famine and other undesirable effects. So it is totally beyond me why a responsible person would want to gamble with their children's welfare with a business as usual attitude.


I can't argue with that. I just wish some world leaders would take the same viewpoint and instead of spending money on senseless wars, spend it on improving living standards, then I wouldn't mind the high taxes that we pay....but I still wonder, what if all we do to combat global warming makes no difference, what happens next? Do we fry?

----------


## tonkatojo

> I can't argue with that. I just wish some world leaders would take the same viewpoint and instead of spending money on senseless wars, spend it on improving living standards, then I wouldn't mind the high taxes that we pay....but I still wonder, what if all we do to combat global warming makes no difference, what happens next? Do we fry?


Probably roast, Jox. :Frown:

----------


## Stavro

Not _billions_, but _trillions_! 

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/th...americans-tril

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> Not _billions_, but _trillions_! 
> 
> http://www.climatechangefraud.com/th...americans-tril


Just another scam in order to gain more money :: 

No matter what we do, we can't cool the planet down. We can make it a cleaner, healthier place to live, but still, we will eventually burn.

----------


## George Brims

> It takes hundreds of years for the seas to warm up and cool down, like wise the climate, and very few of us are going to be around to see what impact any changes proposed now will have in 30-50 years time. If a massive cut in man-made pollution has no effect and the planet continues to heat up, what is the 'greens' argument going to be based on then?  
> (I suppose they'll just say it was because we left it too late making changes at the turn of this century)


We've probably already left it too late. We don't own this planet, we've only borrowed from our grandchildren. And they are going to be livid.

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

> We've probably already left it too late. We don't own this planet, we've only borrowed from our grandchildren. And they are going to be livid.


They won't be livid George.For ye are probably blethering the same as I do to ma kids.The human race will survive,it won't be 6 billion it will be less.Survival of the fittest they used to say,pish,survival of the want to survive.Mad Max wisnae such a bad film after all.

----------


## Aaldtimer

So,a fudge eh?....
"
Reacting to the Copenhagen "deal", John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. 
"There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty," he observed. 
"It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen."  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> So,a fudge eh?....
> "
> Reacting to the Copenhagen "deal", John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said: "The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. 
> "There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty," he observed. 
> "It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen."


Well we could have done without Sarah Palin's anti-science rant.  ::

----------


## bekisman

Here's Palin's 'rant':
"PALIN: Yes. Well, as the nation's only Arctic state and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state. And we know that it's real.
"I'm not one to attribute every man  activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet."
"But there are real changes going on in our climate. And I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is, how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/06/network.climatechange

----------


## Rheghead

I was referring to this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120803402.html

It is quite clear from the stolen emails that the scientists did not destroy data or act in a fraudulent way to deceive the public and yet senior politicians still keep grinding out this rubbish.  Vested interest? Go figure.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> I was referring to this
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...120803402.html
> 
> It is quite clear from the stolen emails that the scientists did not destroy data or act in a fraudulent way to deceive the public and yet senior politicians still keep grinding out this rubbish. Vested interest? Go figure.


 
Well, you seem to have taken a 180 degree turn around from your earlier post on science journalists...




> I wouldn't expect anything less from them.


You can't have it both ways!

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, you seem to have taken a 180 degree turn around from your earlier post on science journalists...
> 
> 
> 
> You can't have it both ways!


Eh??  Sorry not following your train of thought.

----------


## Rheghead

Look at Nick Griffin who has some strong views on Climate Change.  Of course his _denialism_ isn't just restricted to climate science, is it?  

Do you really want to be seen standing shoulder to shoulder with these idiots?  Be afraid people, be very afraid...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL6lUv7Tsj0

----------


## bekisman

This is an anti-science 'rant'?

"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known, exposes a highly politicized scientific circle -- the same circle whose work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference. 
The agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the weather, but they would change our economy for the worse. 
 
The e-mails reveal that leading climate "experts" deliberately destroyed records, manipulated data to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, and tried to silence their critics by preventing them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. What's more, the documents show that there was no real consensus even within the CRU crowd. Some scientists had strong doubts about the accuracy of estimates of temperatures from centuries ago, estimates used to back claims that more recent temperatures are rising at an alarming rate. 

This scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics. As governor of Alaska, I took a stand against politicized science when I sued the federal government over its decision to list the polar bear as an endangered species despite the fact that the polar bear population had more than doubled. I got clobbered for my actions by radical environmentalists nationwide, but I stood by my view that adding a healthy species to the endangered list under the guise of "climate change impacts" was an abuse of the Endangered Species Act. This would have irreversibly hurt both Alaska's economy and the nation's, while also reducing opportunities for responsible development. 

But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs. And those costs are real. Unlike the proposals China and India offered prior to Copenhagen -- which actually allow them to increase their emissions --President Obama's proposal calls for serious cuts in our own long-term carbon emissions. 
In fact, we're not the only nation whose people are questioning climate change schemes. In the European Union, energy prices skyrocketed after it began a cap-and-tax program. Meanwhile, Australia's Parliament recently defeated a cap-and-tax bill. Surely other nations will follow suit, particularly as the climate e-mail scandal continues to unfold. 
Hmm.. interesting

----------


## Margaret M.

> Well we could have done without Sarah Palin.


There, that's better.

----------


## bekisman

Global Warming?
31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs (But they are all wrong aren't they Rheghead?)

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

----------


## Cinderella's Shoe

> Look at Nick Griffin who has some strong views on Climate Change.  Of course his _denialism_ isn't just restricted to climate science, is it?  
> 
> Do you really want to be seen standing shoulder to shoulder with these idiots?  Be afraid people, be very afraid...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL6lUv7Tsj0


No more than I want to be seen standing next to Al Gore.

----------


## Rheghead

> Global Warming?
> 31,486 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs (But they are all wrong aren't they Rheghead?)
> 
> http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php


How many are bona fide climatologists?

When questioned about the inclusion of a Dr Geri Halliwell (now removed on the insistence of the Spicegirl), do you have any comment about the petition collator's response "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake"

----------


## Rheghead

> No more than I want to be seen standing next to Al Gore.


Do you find it strange (or perhaps not so strange when you really think about it) that there seems to be a lot of Global Warming Scepticism amongst the local anti-windfarm brigade?  I mean, the more mud you can chuck at the science means more objections and votes against in community council ballots which try to get opinions on a wind farm coming near you, right?   ::   ::

----------


## bekisman

Rheghead: How many are bona fide climatologists? When questioned about the inclusion of a Dr Geri Halliwell (now removed on the insistence of the Spicegirl), do you have any comment about the petition collator's response "When we're getting thousands of signatures there's no way of filtering out a fake" You may have seen the two chaps outside Ethel Austin in Wick, with their petition for supporting wind farms, well, I signed, so did my wife;, Mr Ben Down & Mrs Eileen Over, hmm are they 'filtering' too?

Rheghead: Do you find it strange (or perhaps not so strange when you really think about it) that there seems to be a lot of Global Warming Scepticism amongst the local anti-windfarm brigade? I mean, the more mud you can chuck at the science means more objections and votes against in community council ballots which try to get opinions on a wind farm coming near you, right? . Considering you are anti-nuclear power station - which lets be honest  Heysham 2 is capable of supplying over 1.5 million homes - enough electricity to keep three cities the size of Liverpool supplied during peak loading hours - how many piddling turbines do you need for that? and that's if the wind's blowing (but not too hard of course). 
And Reggy, you with over 8,000 postings (!) on the Org, are certainly using a lot of energy - never mind it's most likely coming up the National Grid, via the Interconnector to France, whoops, that means the dreaded nuclear power.. oh dear. Come on Reggy, as you are for wind turbines and I'm for science Nuclear, who's the luddite? 
Nuclear Power? bring it on..  
Living near a nuclear power station; well Dounreay was fine, here's another:

*Louisa Whenday is secretary of the Dungeness Residents Association**. 
* Most people were not here when the plant was built, so most aren't worried because you wouldn't move here if you were. I find it no threat at all. The company is very transparent and open. I live not more than 100 yards from Dungeness B and it doesn't worry me. I think it's exceptionally well regulated. The greatest fear for us is terrorism but even that would take something really big, much bigger than an aeroplane or a bomb. To be honest, everyone is so used to seeing it, they'd miss it. I think it's really quite gorgeous, especially at night when it's lit up. It looks like a ship at sea. It is one of our major employers so the 10-year extension is economically good for the area. It means a lot of accommodation is required and local shops and services benefit from it. 

Bit more about sceptics:
*List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti  fic_assessment_of_global_warming

Even below, they are throwing doubt on honesty:
Furthermore, the House of Lords Economics Committee has recently stated that, "We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations."

The IPCC has not just become a body of political scientists, but scientific politicians as well. These peoples professions have become adulterated with the idealism of environmental morality.
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York brought to light the "absolute horror stories" about how some scientific journals and political bodies have engaged in the suppression of climate-sceptic scientists trying to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. This conference included many afflicted current and former IPCC scientists from all over the globe.

Miskolczi said he wanted to publish and discuss his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims that NASA refused to allow him. He recently said that, "Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."

A consensus in one branch of science does not mean a consensus across all branches. For example, a recent survey of 51,000 scientists in Canada from the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists found that 68% of them disagreed with the statement that the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled. The survey also stated that only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to "human activity such as burning fossil fuels."
http://www.tfa.net/climateweek/2009/08/political-scientists-and-scientific-politicians.html

So bottom line.. call me a romantic, but I like to see Scotland as the beautiful scenic country it was, and not with jarring unnatural blots on the landscape, I would like to see my energy bills come down, and not, in the case of Spital windfarm with it's 30 turbines to put £240,000 a year into someone's back pocket. I want to see Nuclear Power Stations, CO2 free, that work continuously. 
England's getting 'em and as soon as wee eckie legs it they'll be here, otherwise can you see it when 'our' nuclear ends, scrabbling around for the candle and matches, expect we'll have to take England's power (nuclear) on windless days, but then you're taking France's already Reggy..

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

If the Wind Turbines are noisy to the locals, then that's fair enough as I wouldn't like to live near noisy Windmills myself. However, if the noise can be reduced, or even the location of the Windmills moved, then I can't see the problem. After all, they're nicer to look at than Pylons...

----------


## Rheghead

> Considering you are anti-nuclear power station


Now I'm convinced that you make it up as you go along.

----------


## Rheghead

I think someone is trolling trawling through all my posts which mention nuke/nuclear.   ::  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> A consensus in one branch of science does not mean a consensus across all branches. For example, a recent survey of 51,000 scientists in Canada from the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists found that 68% of them disagreed with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” The survey also stated that only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to "human activity such as burning fossil fuels."
> http://www.tfa.net/climateweek/2009/08/political-scientists-and-scientific-politicians.html


Do you think the reason for that disparity of opinion could in part be because Canada has perhaps the largest oil reserves in the world but in the form of oil sands?  I understand oil sands are very difficult to extract as the oil is mixed in with rock debris.  They are the _dirty man_ of oil reserves which you can only extract if you are desperate.  The extraction process will require a very BIG carbon footprint to extract which sort of dwarfs the carbon footprint which is associated with cleaner arabian oil.  I'm convinced that exploiting Canada's reserves will transform the Canadian economy and the global oil price at the same time.  Doubting climate change may be just another facet of economic expedience if curbs to limit CO2 emissions will harm your local prosperity.

----------


## bekisman

Who said on the 10 Feb 05: _ "I would be a lot happier about the scientists who claim that humans are causing Global Warming if they present one piece of evidence to prove without doubt that we are doing so. So far they haven't. I am not sure that we are causing Global Warming, and if we are why should we try to stop it? I can see evidence for having renewable energy because fossil fuels will eventually run out but no other."_
Answers on a postcard to Al Gore

----------


## Rheghead

> Who said on the 10 Feb 05: _ "I would be a lot happier about the scientists who claim that humans are causing Global Warming if they present one piece of evidence to prove without doubt that we are doing so. So far they haven't. I am not sure that we are causing Global Warming, and if we are why should we try to stop it? I can see evidence for having renewable energy because fossil fuels will eventually run out but no other."_
> Answers on a postcard to Al Gore


I think I said that, I've come a long way in those 5 years.  I think I was giving the verdict on a 'beyond reasonable doubt' basis  rather than on a balanced of probabilities.  And I got my objectivity clouded by some clever Republican propaganda.

----------


## bekisman

Now there's a thought:

Mike Hulme has wonderfully collated the wide and various reasons why we disagree on climate change into one book with as much an impartial standpoint as is possible. It has opened my eyes and made me realise that not all of us see the world as I do.

----------


## Rheghead

> Now there's a thought:
> 
> Mike Hulme has wonderfully collated the wide and various reasons why we disagree on climate change into one book with as much an impartial standpoint as is possible. It has opened my eyes and made me realise that not all of us see the world as I do.


Yes, a good read, I've got a copy.

----------


## badger

> If the Wind Turbines are noisy to the locals, then that's fair enough as I wouldn't like to live near noisy Windmills myself. However, if the noise can be reduced, or even the location of the Windmills moved, then I can't see the problem. After all, they're nicer to look at than Pylons...


There's one big difference between Pylons and Wind Turbines as far as sight is concerned - turbines move so draw the eye more than a stationery object.  Noise per se is not the only problem - it's more complicated than that involving Aerodynamic Modulation.  Flicker causes all sorts of problems.  It's not just a case of reducing the actual sound.  I'm glad to see you don't want to live near them but who does?  With the Govt. set on its present course they'll be everywhere.

----------


## Scorpio12thNov

> There's one big difference between Pylons and Wind Turbines as far as sight is concerned - turbines move so draw the eye more than a stationery object. Noise per se is not the only problem - it's more complicated than that involving Aerodynamic Modulation. Flicker causes all sorts of problems. It's not just a case of reducing the actual sound. I'm glad to see you don't want to live near them but who does? With the Govt. set on its present course they'll be everywhere.


As I say I don't know a lot about Wind Turbines, but if the noise can be reduced &/or they be located far enough away from homes, then it's a clean renewable source of energy. There's lots of different renewable energy sources - wave power, solar panels, under water turbines etc. etc. 

Admitably, some renewable energy sources have been tried, tested, & have failed. But the world wasn't built in a day, & technology will be our only saviour... :Wink:

----------


## bekisman

#531 Now there's a thought:

Mike Hulme has wonderfully collated the wide and various reasons why we disagree on climate change into one book with as much an impartial standpoint as is possible. It has opened my eyes and made me realise that not all of us see the world as I do. 

Rheghead: #532 _Yes, a good read, I've got a copy._ 

Come on Reggy, I aint got a copy, and  it was certainly not me who wrote [#531,] - I was merely pointing out that the person who did wrote this review won't accept 'that others can see the world differently'.. ok?

----------


## Rheghead

> Come on Reggy, I aint got a copy, and  it was certainly not me who wrote [#531,] - I was merely pointing out that the person who did wrote this review won't accept 'that others can see the world differently'.. ok?
> [/SIZE]


On the contrary, I think the person who wrote that review was admitting that he accepts that people do see the world differently.

Would it be fair to say that if someone who wants to support an organisation which opposes wind farms in their area then they might be tempted to publically cast doubts on the science behind Climate Change on the local message forum even though they might privately see no problem with it?

----------


## bekisman

you're talking about yourself then Reggy?

----------


## Rheghead

> you're talking about yourself then Reggy?


Sorry I don't follow you, I thought it was me that wasn't casting doubts on the science.

Are you gonna answer anything that I ask of you?

----------


## bekisman

you must concentrate Reggy!

Hmm.. very interesting reading, this;"Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?".. Anyway it's getting late, soon be off to bed don't want to be on the PC at all hours (got a wife you see)..
Debunking Modern Climate Myths
This is the title-question of a major review article by C.R. de Freitas of the School of Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, which was published in the June 2002 issue of the _Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology_.  Its focus is the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content and what the consequences of that phenomenon might be for earth's climate and biosphere
*Fallacy 1*: _Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates_.  It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years.  He also wonders what is _alarming_ about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.
*Fallacy 2*: _Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle_.  In reality, says de Freitas, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon."  He also notes that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.
*Fallacy 3*: _There is a close relationship between changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature_.  De Freitas debunks the implied message of this myth, i.e., that it is changes in CO2 that drive changes in temperature, by citing many well-documented cases where just the _opposite_ occurred, over periods ranging from months to millennia, reminding us that correlation does not prove causation and that cause must precede effect.
*Fallacy 4*: _Global temperature has increased over the past two decades_.  Although data gathered by various types of thermometers do indeed indicate warming in many places over this time period, the concurrent growth of cities and towns, according to numerous scientific studies cited by de Freitas, has increased so dramatically that much - if not _all_ - of that warming may be due to an intensifying of the _urban heat island_ phenomenon.
*Fallacy 5*: _Satellite data support IPCC claims on observed and projected global warming_.  No way, says de Freitas; climate models predict significant warming of the _lower atmosphere_, which is not evident in the satellite temperature record.  Hence, the only data set that provides a truly _global_ perspective of atmospheric temperature actually provides "direct evidence against the IPCC global warming hypothesis."
*Fallacy 6*: _Global climate trends during the past century are very unlike those of the past_.  This highly-heralded falsehood is soundly refuted by de Freitas, who cites the results of a host of scientific studies that demonstrate the warming of the past century is but the most recent phase of a natural climatic oscillation that over the past millennium brought the world the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and now the Modern Warm Period.
*Fallacy 7*: _There are reliable forecasts of future climate_.  No credence can be given to this claim, says de Freitas, until the models making the forecasts have been _verified_, which likely will not happen anytime soon.  In fact, he notes that "earth's atmosphere has warmed only about 10 per cent as much as climate models forecast, averaged over the last 30 years."  The reason?  "Large uncertainties associated with most model parameters."
_Fallacy 8_: _Significant anthropogenic global warming is underway_.  First of all, as de Freitas has noted, there may not be _any_ warming currently occurring.  Second, as he has demonstrated, much of what _may_ be occurring may be _natural_.  Third, much of what little man-induced warming may exist may not be due to CO2 emissions, but rather to urbanization, changes in land use, and various other greenhouse gases and particulates.
_Fallacy 9_: _Global warming will produce a rise in sea level_.  Again, not so, according to de Freitas.  For one thing, he notes there has been no acceleration in long-term sea level rise over the past century.  Plus, he cites the work of many scientists who suggest that warming could result in greater snowfall over the polar ice caps, transferring large amounts of water from the oceans to the ice sheets and possibly _halting_ sea level rise.
*Fallacy 10*: _Global warming will result in more extreme weather events_.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as de Freitas demonstrates.  Whether it be extremes of heat and cold, droughts, floods, hail, tornadoes or hurricanes, there is absolutely no evidence that these phenomena have increased globally over the twentieth century.  In fact, there is much empirical evidence to suggest that more warmth leads to a more _stable_ climate.
*Fallacy 11*: _IPCC's predictions are reasonable_.  In addition to the many problems associated with current climate models, IPCC warming predictions are based on future greenhouse gas scenarios that are patently *un*reasonable.  Over half of their predictions, according to de Freitas, assume that atmospheric CO2 is increasing _twice_ as fast as it actually is, while methane concentrations have fallen steadily for the past seventeen years.
*Fallacy 12*: _Observed temperature trends are those predicted by climate models_.  It is difficult to see how this statement can be believed when, as noted by de Freitas, (1) "observed global warming is so much less than predicted by conventional climate models," (2) so _fantastically_ less than the high-end warming that is used to leverage political action, (3) possibly due to other causes than CO2, or (4) even non-existent.
_Fallacy 13_: _There is a consensus that greenhouse induced climate change is a major threat_.  Quoting de Freitas, "scientists are a well-educated, diverse and ill-disciplined assortment of freethinkers."  To believe such a group would reach a consensus on so complex an issue is ludicrous in the extreme.  Indeed, de Freitas' own paper, with its many references, is ample proof that true science is alive and well ... and dissenting.
_Fallacy Fourteen_: _The threat of human-caused climate change justifies taking the action proposed in the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol_.  If there is a consensus on anything related to this issue, it is that Kyoto's effect on temperature "would be imperceptible," writes de Freitas.  "So," he continues, "in addition to being ineffective, costly, and unfair to industrialized nations, the Kyoto Protocol is also unnecessary."  To which we say ... _Amen_!

----------


## Rheghead

Instead of pasting and copying anti global warming propaganda.  

Could you discuss fallacy No1 with me?  Can you give me a reference where this is not so?

I suspect you can't.

----------


## Metalattakk

> Instead of pasting and copying anti global warming propaganda.  
> 
> Could you discuss fallacy No1 with me?  Can you give me a reference where this is not so?
> 
> I suspect you can't.


Read this: http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse.../deFreitas.pdf

Then perhaps rephrase your question so it makes sense.

----------


## Rheghead

> Read this: http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse.../deFreitas.pdf
> 
> Then perhaps rephrase your question so it makes sense.


So instead of just posting a link, can you quote the relevant information and state their measurement methodology?  I'm really curious.

Direct CO2 measurements started in 1959 and average yearly increases were about 1ppm, now they are between 1.5-2.5ppm.

----------


## Metalattakk

> So instead of just posting a link, can you quote the relevant information and state their measurement methodology?  I'm really curious.


If your curiosity doesn't extend to reading the damn link, then why would I feel in any way inclined to explain every little piece of minutiae to you.

His references are all there. It's up to you to refute them.

----------


## Rheghead

> If your curiosity doesn't extend to reading the damn link, then why would I feel in any way inclined to explain every little piece of minutiae to you.
> 
> His references are all there. It's up to you to refute them.


Err that is laughable, have you actually read it?  ::  ::

----------


## Metalattakk

Yep. Refute it then, instead of giggling like a wee lassie.

----------


## Rheghead

> Yep. Refute it then, instead of giggling like a wee lassie.


So you claim to have read it, have you given the same amount of attention to the real guys who are doing climatology?

----------


## Metalattakk

> So you claim to have read it, have you given the same amount of attention to the real guys who are doing climatology?


So you don't refute it. Good. I didn't think you would.

----------


## Rheghead

> So you don't refute it. Good. I didn't think you would.


I want to know the specific parts in that link that you are referring to.  I'm calling your bluff if you hadn't realised.   ::  

If you've read it then you can go straight to the appropriate passage.

I suspect you won't.  ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> In general, data show that human-caused CO2 is levelling off, despite increased emissions (Figs. 2, 3). This is believed to be the result of natural stabilizing feedbacks. Carbon dioxide is food for plants. The more there is, the more they use. There are countless studies that show the effect of an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is to increase the growth rates of most plants (Soon et al., 1999). This is especially so in trees but also in grasses(Daepp et al., 2001; Edwards et al., 2001; Lilley et al., 2001a, 2001b; Craine and Reich, 2001; Lee et al., 2001; Reich et al., 2001; Nowak et al., 2001).


Some of his references are underlined above. Get off your arse and research them yourself. Refute them if you can. And the rest.

----------


## Rheghead

> Some of his references are underlined above. Get off your arse and research them yourself. Refute them if you can. And the rest.


To say that plants are growing faster because of higher CO2 levels is not the same as saying that carbon dioxide levels are appearing to be levelling off is it?

 ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> To say that plants are growing faster because of higher CO2 levels is not the same as saying that carbon dioxide levels are appearing to be levelling off is it?


I can't help it if you cannot (or will not) understand the words in front of you, however giggle-some it may make you.

----------


## Rheghead

> I can't help it if you cannot (or will not) understand the words in front of you, however giggle-some it may make you.


Obviously you can't reason that because you can't see that an increased plant growth doesn't mean that CO2 levels are tailing off.  You need to prove a correlation.

OK, where is the data set that suggests that CO2 levels are tailing off?  ::

----------


## Metalattakk

Where does it say that CO² levels are tailing off? 

Again, an epic failure to read and understand the words presented to you.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> If the Wind Turbines are noisy to the locals, then that's fair enough as I wouldn't like to live near noisy Windmills myself. However, if the noise can be reduced, or even the location of the Windmills moved, then I can't see the problem. After all, they're nicer to look at than Pylons...


Pylons are a consequence of windfarms, not an alternative to them.

----------


## Rheghead

> Where does it say that CO² levels are tailing off? 
> 
> Again, an epic failure to read and understand the words presented to you.





> It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years


tailing off leveling off same thing

----------


## Rheghead

> Pylons are a consequence of windfarms, not an alternative to them.


How many pylons have been built as a result of wind farm development in Caithness?

----------


## Metalattakk

> It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years
> 			
> 		
> 
> tailing off leveling off same thing


So you're arguing about the 'propaganda' that bekisman presented, rather than the actual published work that the 'propaganda' was based upon?

Honestly, Rheggy, for a self-proclaimed scientist you're using distinctly amateur methods.  :: 

As I said to you - read the .pdf document that I linked to. No mention of the CO² levels tailing off there.

----------


## Rheghead

> So you're arguing about the 'propaganda' that bekisman presented, rather than the actual published work that the 'propaganda' was based upon?
> 
> Honestly, Rheggy, for a self-proclaimed scientist you're using distinctly amateur methods. 
> 
> As I said to you - read the .pdf document that I linked to. No mention of the CO² levels tailing off there.


So why didn't you correct Bekisman when you had the chance?  ::   ::

----------


## Metalattakk

I posted the link to the .pdf! What more do you want? It's not my fault you won't read the damn thing!

Anyway, interesting to see your line of argument has withered when faced with some competent, referenced information. I look forward to reading your dissection and ridicule (with references of course) of the points put forward by C.R. de Freitas in 2002.

Would it be folly of me to hold my breath until you do?  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> I posted the link to the .pdf! What more do you want? It's not my fault you won't read the damn thing!
> 
> Anyway, interesting to see your line of argument has withered when faced with some competent, referenced information. I look forward to reading your dissection and ridicule (with references of course) of the points put forward by C.R. de Freitas in 2002.
> 
> Would it be folly of me to hold my breath until you do?


If you were keen to prove your point of view, why didn't you challenge Bekisman's post in relation to Fallacy 1.  

Thank you for proving his first point as bogus.




> No mention of the CO² levels tailing off there.


Your words...

----------


## Metalattakk

Ah right, so it's an absolute refusal on your part to read the .pdf that bekisman's copy & paste was errantly based on?

A truly pathetic attempt to point-score.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> How many pylons have been built as a result of wind farm development in Caithness?


None so far, but, as you seem to be clued up on these things, how much more wind energy from Caithness can the existing infrastructure accommodate before the transmission lines have to be upgraded?

----------


## Rheghead

> Ah right, so it's an absolute refusal on your part to read the .pdf that bekisman's copy & paste was errantly based on?
> 
> A truly pathetic attempt to point-score.


No I need you to validate your evidence which is in contrast to bekisman's post.

You can't be both right at the same time and using conflicting evidence and come to the same conclusion.

----------


## Rheghead

> None so far, but, as you seem to be clued up on these things, how much more wind energy from Caithness can the existing infrastructure accommodate before the transmission lines have to be upgraded?


I understand that existing proposals are of the 'embedded' generation type so do not rely on more pylons.  I'll be happy for you to provide references to the contrary.

----------


## Metalattakk

> No I need you to validate your evidence which is in contrast to bekisman's post.
> 
> You can't be both right at the same time and using conflicting evidence and come to the same conclusion.


Who says we're coming to the same conclusion? Where do you get this stuff from - do you just pluck it out of thin air?

I know you're not an idiot-savant, despite your attempts to convince me.  :Grin: 

P.S. Have you read the .pdf yet? Or do I have to issue a challenge?

----------


## Rheghead

> Who says we're coming to the same conclusion? Where do you get this stuff from - do you just pluck it out of thin air?
> 
> I know you're not an idiot-savant, despite your attempts to convince me. 
> 
> P.S. Have you read the .pdf yet? Or do I have to issue a challenge?


So you are challenging Bekisman's evidence since your pdf says otherwise?  It seems you need to get your act together.

I'll just refer his replies to your post since you seem to know better.  ::

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I understand that existing proposals are of the 'embedded' generation type so do not rely on more pylons. I'll be happy for you to provide references to the contrary.


Just answer the question "_how much more wind energy from Caithness can the existing infrastructure accommodate before the transmission lines have to be upgraded?"_

----------


## Metalattakk

> So you are challenging Bekisman's evidence since your pdf says otherwise?  It seems you need to get your act together.
> 
> I'll just refer his replies to your post since you seem to know better.


This is a sham of a debate, and your constant avoidance, necessity to point-score and spin, is the main reason for it being so.




> Just answer the question </snip>


Am I required to hold my breath again? Rheggy doesn't do question answering.  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> Just answer the question "_how much more wind energy from Caithness can the existing infrastructure accommodate before the transmission lines have to be upgraded?"_


I don't know but the new Beauly-Denny transmission line will require less pylons!!!  ::  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> This is a sham of a debate, and your constant avoidance, necessity to point-score and spin, is the main reason for it being so.


OK then, forget about me, why don't you just challenge Bekisman's Fallacy 1?  seemples

----------


## Metalattakk

> OK then, forget about me, why don't you just challenge Bekisman's Fallacy 1?  seemples


To paraphrase the current Christmas No.1, "_Forget_ you, I won't do what you tell me."

Here's a question for you to ignore, Rheggy.

Can you read the following .pdf, and refute, with references, the points that C.R. de Freitas makes?

http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse.../deFreitas.pdf

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I don't know but the new Beauly-Denny transmission line will require less pylons!!!


Just answer the question "_how much more wind energy from Caithness can the existing infrastructure accommodate before the transmission lines have to be upgraded?"_

----------


## oldmarine

This has been a very interesting topic. It continues to be debated by both sides of the equation so to speak. I believe this world-wide topic began with Al Gore after he won a world prize on the subject GLOBAL WARMING. What I remember about Al Gore, he was defeated when he ran for president in the USA. He could not even carry his own state Tennessee. His own state did not believe in him. I certainly don't when it comes to a scientific topic such as this one. Even the scientists are lined up on different sides for this topic.  

I read the paper by C.R. De Fereitas with a degree of interest.  A thought came to mind when he wrote his Fallacy #13 with a statement "Scientific issues are not decided by ballot. They are decided by observations that support a theory or hypothesis. In addition, in his conclusion he wrote "Climate change science is a new area of study and inadequacy of scientific understanding."  I am not an expert on this subject, but what he has written in his paper does make sense to me. 

I have always been led to believe that global warming is cyclic and we are currently in a warming cycle.  I can remember, not too many years ago, when people thought we were in a cooling cycle. I am 84 years of age, thus it cannot be too long ago, but perhaps longer than most of the people participating in this debate. 

We all have opinions and I certainly have mine.  I am not a politician like Al Gore plus my degree in science is limited to Electronic Engineering, thus I don't consider myself an expert on the subject of global warming/cooling.  I do try to read both sides of the subject.  With politicians I don't hold much credence and I see diverse opinions between scientists.  Thus, it becomes very difficult to know who is correct and who is not.

----------


## Rheghead

> To paraphrase the current Christmas No.1, "_Forget_ you, I won't do what you tell me."
> 
> Here's a question for you to ignore, Rheggy.
> 
> Can you read the following .pdf, and refute, with references, the points that C.R. de Freitas makes?
> 
> http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse.../deFreitas.pdf


I tell you what, you point out the relevant pieces that you want to discuss and we'll take it from there, sound fair enough?

----------


## Rheghead

> We all have opinions and I certainly have mine.


There is a vast difference between putting forth an opinion which is honestly held and that of intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to propagate a lie.

----------


## bekisman

Has anyone out there got any idea whatsoever what Rheggy is on about?

Anyway I'm having a nice Christmas, free of politics and waffle...

Merry Xmas everyone!

----------


## gleeber

> Anyway I'm having a nice Christmas, free of politics and waffle...
> 
> Merry Xmas everyone!


 That's a matter of opinion cos from where I'm sitting your in it to the neck. 
Merry christmas to you too.

----------


## Rheghead

> *Fallacy 1: Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at alarming rates. It just ain't so, according to de Freitas, who notes that annual CO2 concentration increases appear to be leveling off in recent years.* He also wonders what is alarming about the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, which dramatically stimulates the growth rates and enhances the water use efficiencies of essentially all of earth's plants.
> Fallacy 2: Humans are big players in the global carbon cycle. *In reality, says de Freitas, "anthropogenic CO2 emissions are only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of the atmospheric reservoir of carbon."* He also notes that the increase in the air's CO2 content over the past few centuries could well have been the result of earth's oceans giving off the gas in response to the planet's recovery from the Little Ice Age.




Consider the graph of CO2 above.  Take two points approximately 130,000 years ago from the peak to a low point where it is steepest and linear.  Where I took the two points the difference is approximately 87ppm.  The time over which that change took place is 8000 years.  The annual increase each year during that period was 0.011 ppm.  

We are currently seeing increases of 1.5-3ppm, over 2 orders of magnitude higher!  I think that pretty much debunks Defreitas's claims that anthropogenic carbon dioxide was only 3% of the natural carbon cycle!

----------


## bekisman

Hey Reggy if you are going to quote, please try and get it right: it's not 'putting forth an opinion' it's 'putting forth a point of view' and you missed out 'that' after 'and', and before 'intentionally'.. I know I Google, but...

"Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth an opinion which is honestly held and that of intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to propagate a lie. 
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts."

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4087

----------


## Rheghead

> Hey Reggy if you are going to quote, please try and get it right: it's not 'putting forth an opinion' it's 'putting forth a point of view' and you missed out 'that' after 'and', and before 'intentionally'.. I know I Google, but...
> 
> "Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
> There is a vast difference between putting forth an opinion which is honestly held and that of intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to propagate a lie. 
> There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
> Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts."
> 
> http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4087


Well it just goes to show how great minds work alike. lol

----------


## Metalattakk

> I tell you what, you point out the relevant pieces that you want to discuss and we'll take it from there, sound fair enough?


I asked you a simple question and you seem to want to skirt around it and lower the topic into one of 'I say - you say'. I'm not interested in that, I want to know if you can refute what the estimable Mr de Freitas says in his article.

It's fairly obvious that you won't, or can't. You'd rather pick on bekisman to try to appear to be right.

I await still, with some eagerness, your referenced denials of all or any of the points C.R. de Freitas mentions in his article.

----------


## Rheghead

> I asked you a simple question and you seem to want to skirt around it and lower the topic into one of 'I say - you say'. I'm not interested in that, I want to know if you can refute what the estimable Mr de Freitas says in his article.
> 
> It's fairly obvious that you won't, or can't. You'd rather pick on bekisman to try to appear to be right.
> 
> I await still, with some eagerness, your referenced denials of all or any of the points C.R. de Freitas mentions in his article.


I thought you wouldn't pick out anything, that would mean taking the time out and read something, wouldn't it?

----------


## Metalattakk

> Consider the graph of CO2 above.  Take two points approximately 130,000 years ago from the peak to a low point where it is steepest and linear.  Where I took the two points the difference is approximately 87ppm.  The time over which that change took place is 8000 years.  The annual increase each year during that period was 0.011 ppm.  
> 
> We are currently seeing increases of 1.5-3ppm, over 2 orders of magnitude higher!  I think that pretty much debunks Defreitas's claims that anthropogenic carbon dioxide was only 3% of the natural carbon cycle!


Did you make that graph yourself in MS Paint? De Freitas includes references  in his article to back up his claims, where are yours?

----------


## Metalattakk

> I thought you wouldn't pick out anything, that would mean taking the time out and read something, wouldn't it?


You're pathetic. I'm still waiting for you to answer my simple question.

----------


## Rheghead

> Did you make that graph yourself in MS Paint? De Freitas includes references  in his article to back up his claims, where are yours?


That graph comes from Vostok ice core data.

----------


## Metalattakk

> That graph comes from Vostok ice core data.


So you say. References please.

----------


## Rheghead

> You're pathetic. I'm still waiting for you to answer my simple question.


When you actually contribute something worthy of a reply then I will do so gladly.  Fact is, you can't justify your ignorance and you just resort to insults.

----------


## Metalattakk

> When you actually contribute something worthy of a reply then I will do so gladly.  Fact is, you can't justify your ignorance and you just resort to insults.


So you refuse to answer my simple question? Why should I, or anyone, listen to your views?

----------


## Alan16

> There is a vast difference between putting forth an opinion which is honestly held and that of intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to propagate a lie.


I can't say I one hundred percent understand the context of this, but I would like to say that both of these require intent. Being wrong is not the same as deceiving and lying. 




> Can you read the following .pdf, and refute, with references, the points that C.R. de Freitas makes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Rheghead
> 
> 
> I tell you what, you point out the relevant pieces that you want to discuss and we'll take it from there, sound fair enough?


Rheghead, I've debated with you before and I believe you are an intelligent individual. However, on this occasion you seem to be acting with a degree of stupidity. You have repeatedly dodged the question - Metalattakk clearly asks you to point out what you specifically feel is incorrect in the .pdf. Not a difficult question to understand. You're an intelligent man, just answer the question or admit you can't. 

With respect, and wishing you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Alan16. And remember, smile - it's free!  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> So you say. References please.


You can find the same data in another graph and more on the National Ice Core laboratory website.

http://nicl-smo.unh.edu/icwg/ICWG2003.pdf

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead, I've debated with you before and I believe you are an intelligent individual. However, on this occasion you seem to be acting with a degree of stupidity. You have repeatedly dodged the question - Metalattakk clearly asks you to point out what you specifically feel is incorrect in the .pdf. Not a difficult question to understand. You're an intelligent man, just answer the question or admit you can't. 
> 
> With respect, and wishing you all a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, Alan16. And remember, smile - it's free!


with respect Alan, I'm not spending hours going through something that MA has spent 2 minutes on from a google search.  I'm not convinced he has read any of it so why should I find something from his link that I don't agree with when I'm sure he hasn't even read himself?  If he actually points things out from his link and rationalises it in a way that supports his view that AGW is a hoax then I can be assured that he has read it.

----------


## Alan16

> with respect Alan, I'm not spending hours going through something that MA has spent 2 minutes on from a google search.  I'm not convinced he has read any of it so why should I find something from his link that I don't agree with when I'm sure he hasn't even read himself?  If he actually points things out from his link and rationalises it in a way supports his view that AGW is a hoax then I can be assured that he has read it.


I suppose you have a fair point there - the problem with joining in halfway through a debate. If either of you have not read it, I would thoroughly suggest that you both do. I'm familiar with the paper away from the Org, and it is most interesting read. As the thread has been going on for 30 pages you can perhaps empathise with why I have not read all of it, and I did not realise that that was the view Metalattakk took. Just to throw in my 2 cents worth, I do believe that climate change is a fact, however I would disagree - to an extent - with the media about how much of an effect man has had. This would, I believe, happen over time anyway.

----------


## Metalattakk

> with respect Alan, I'm not spending hours going through something that MA has spent 2 minutes on from a google search.  I'm not convinced he has read any of it so why should I find something from his link that I don't agree with when I'm sure he hasn't even read himself?


This is an outrage. I've read the article, every word. You haven't. Yet you accuse me of ignorance?

Another new low from you, Rheghead, and yet another attempt to wriggle out of answering my question.




> If he actually points things out from his link and rationalises it in a way that supports his view that AGW is a hoax then I can be assured that he has read it.


Why do I need to 'rationalise it in a way that supports my view' for you? The whole article presents a rationalised view that AGW is a hoax.

If you'd have read it you'd have noticed.

----------


## Metalattakk

> You can find the same data in another graph and more on the National Ice Core laboratory website.
> 
> http://nicl-smo.unh.edu/icwg/ICWG2003.pdf


Where are the references for the graph you actually presented?

P.S. Nice edit by the way. Don't think I didn't see it.  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> This is an outrage. I've read the article, every word. You haven't. Yet you accuse me of ignorance?


Yep I do because in the 29 minutes from my reply to Bekisman in which he first mentions Defreitas, you 'lo and behold' provided a link to his work, all 30 pages of it.  Now unless you are a speed reader extraordinaire which I doubt, how could you or anyone have read and digested anything what he says in his 'paper'?

Nuff said.

----------


## Rheghead

> Where are the references for the graph you actually presented?
> 
> P.S. Nice edit by the way. Don't think I didn't see it.


 if you would only read.... 

Petit et al. (1999) that is the only reference, get the paper.

----------


## Metalattakk

> Yep I do because in the 29 minutes from my reply to Bekisman in which he first mentions Defreitas, you 'lo and behold' provided a link to his work, all 30 pages of it.  Now unless you are a speed reader extraordinaire which I doubt, how could you or anyone have read and digested anything what he says in his 'paper'?


Did I say I had read all of it before I posted the link? Eh, no. I took the opportunity to search for the original magazine article that bekisman's post was referring to because I was interested in its contents. I found it after some searching and posted the link for anyone else who might be similarly interested. I thought you might have been one of those people actually. How wrong I was... :: 

Then, I read it.




> Nuff said.


'Nuff said'? Is that the same as 'End of' or 'FACT'.

----------


## Rheghead

> Did I say I had read all of it before I posted the link? Eh, no. I took the opportunity to search for the original magazine article that bekisman's post was referring to because I was interested in its contents. I found it after some searching and posted the link for anyone else who might be similarly interested. I thought you might have been one of those people actually. How wrong I was...
> 
> Then, I read it.


So you admit to not reading it, I thought as much.  So you couldn't highlight anything in it, could you, when I asked? :: 

So now that you have read it and I haven't.  Could you point out the relevant parts?

----------


## Metalattakk

> So you admit to not reading it, I thought as much.


Are you an idiot? I just admitted to reading it.




> So now that you have read it and I haven't.  Could you point out the relevant parts?


Yep. All of it. Every word is relevant. If your argument hinges on me quoting little snippets for you to get your teeth in to (or small mind around) then I'm sorry, but no. Not gonna happen. Do the hard work yourself.

Don't let the magnitude of it all prevent you from reading the article. As Alan16 says, it's very enlightening.

Edit: Here's the link again for Rheggy's benefit: http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse.../deFreitas.pdf

----------


## Rheghead

> Are you an idiot? I just admitted to reading it.


I was just getting the truth out of you and I got it.  You hadn't read it.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Edit: Here's the link again for Rheggy's benefit: http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse.../deFreitas.pdf


Would it be fair to say that the friendsofscience are a front-organisation that receives money from the oil industry??

----------


## Metalattakk

> I was just getting the truth out of you and I got it.  You hadn't read it either.


Not when I first posted it, no. And then I did. You still haven't.

And that makes you the winner how?

----------


## Rheghead

> And that makes you the winner how?


You think this is about point scoring?

----------


## Metalattakk

> Would it be fair to say that the friendsofscience are a front-organisation that receives money from the oil industry??


Possibly. I have no idea. I don't care who hosts the file. I'm only interested in the contents.

No doubt you'll summarily dismiss it out of hand now, in a classic denialist stylee. And you call yourself a 'scientist'.  ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> You think this is about point scoring?


For you, this whole thread has been about point-scoring. Your recent verbiage with bekisman is ample proof of that.

That's also why you won't read C.R. de Freitas' article. You're not interested in the truth, just scoring petty points.

----------


## Rheghead

> for you, this whole thread has been about point-scoring. Your recent verbiage with bekisman is ample proof of that.


Quite wrong, I've come in for a lot of abuse in this thread.  My points are all valid which are peer-reviewed and not bunkum from seedy blogsphere stuff and that is why you lot resort to abuse.

I do have the moral highground though, one which has its foundations in truthful interpretation of data not like that limpy trendline from defreitas's temperature graph that precludes the following years temperatures. ::

----------


## Metalattakk

> I do have the moral highground though, one which has its foundations in truthful interpretation of data not like that limpy trendline from defreitas's temperature graph that precludes the following years temperatures.


Which temperature graph are you on about?

----------


## Rheghead

> Which temperature graph are you on about?


The one from your link the one which is referenced with 'World Climate Report'  which incidentally is another front organisation for the oil industry, Patrick J Michaels is involved with it.

It is a case of 'because that oilman said it because that oilman said it because that oilman said it so it must be true'.  :Grin:

----------


## Metalattakk

> The one from your link the one which is referenced with 'World Climate Report'


I take it you mean Fig. 11.

In what way does it preclude the following year's temperatures, given that the referenced information is taken from a 2001 document?

----------


## Rheghead

> I take it you mean Fig. 11.
> 
> In what way does it preclude the following year's temperatures, given that the referenced information is taken from a 2001 document?


It's out of date.  If you add on the years 2001-2009 then the data will not support a leveling off of the data.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k...XczwyP2tLpBHIQ

If you use Excel then you can plot it for yourself.  And if you are wondering about references then it mentions them in the left column.

----------


## Eagleclaw68

Has anybody been outside these recent day's more like the start of another Ice age?

----------


## Metalattakk

> It's out of date.  If you add on the years 2001-2009 then the data will not support a leveling off of the data.


De Freitas doesn't say anything about a 'levelling off of the data' regarding Fig. 11.

Fig. 11. doesn't show or indicate a 'levelling off of the data' either.

Edit: In fact, de Freitas is arguing that the graph does not corroborate with the satellite data.




> The natural variability of the satellite record matches
> changes in the surface record, but no trend is obvious such as
> the globally averaged surface record shows (Fig. 11).

----------


## Metalattakk

> Has anybody been outside these recent day's more like the start of another Ice age?


Nah, Tug's weather station is reporting an outside temperature of 3.8 degrees. We're now entering a Mini Warm Period.  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> Which temperature graph are you on about?


Sorry I meant co2 concentrations in fig 2.  It's been a long night, forgive the slip up.

----------


## Metalattakk

I'll forgive the slip-up in much the same manner that you have forgiven simple slip-ups presented to you previously by other commenters.

In other words - "In no way shall I do so".

I did, for a small while, think that you were able to differentiate and qualify exactly which graph you were referring to. It seems I am wrong, by your own admission. What does that say about the rest of your arguments? Maybe all those long words in C.R. de Freitas' article have blown a few fuses in your rapidly failing neural network.

Even if you can't decide which graph you are talking about, or are unable to differentiate, the fact remains that the preclusion of future, unknown data cannot possibly be used to point-score, which is effectively what you tried to do.

Please do try to answer my question.

----------


## Rheghead

If we look at Defreitas's fig 2 on Metalattakk's link then you will see a weak trendline forced through a set of spongy data points which makes out that the co2 is levelling off.  If you plot the data which I supplied above then you cannot draw a drop off.  Iow, defreitas has cherry-picked how he wants the data to be viewed.



I've taken the liberty to plot the data set for you.  As you can see the CO2 does not level off but is in fact rising linearly or even exponentially, you decide.

And here is a plot of the net changes in annual CO2 levels which is a basically an upgrade on Defreitas's Fig.2.  I suppose we have the power of hindsight to debunk Defreitas??



I wouldn't want to attempt an accurate trendline through this spongy set of data points (though Defreitas felt he could put one on his graph  :: ) but it is clear that there is no level off in annual CO2 increase as the graph shows an overall increase into the 2000-2008 period.

----------


## Metalattakk

De Freitas' Fig 2 graph shows the growth rate of human caused CO² has dropped off, not the amount of CO² in the atmosphere. If you'd have read his article you'd have seen that.

See, this is the problem with you attacking the article one section at a time. you're not seeing the full picture.

----------


## Rheghead

> De Freitas' Fig 2 graph shows the growth rate of human caused CO² has dropped off, not the amount of CO² in the atmosphere. If you'd have read his article you'd have seen that.
> 
> See, this is the problem with you attacking the article one section at a time. you're not seeing the full picture.


Wrong, Defreitas is using the same data set as me and has plotted the growth levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. 



> Fig. 2. *Trend in growth rates of atmospheric concentrations of carbon
> dioxide from 1960 to 2000 showing the levelling off in recent times
> (from World Climate Report, 2001b).*


You will see that the data points are the same 1960-2000.  My second graph doesn't show a drop off with the extra data in the 2000-2008 period.

Why don't you just accept that Defreitas has cooked the data to show what he wants to show?  I couldn't have made it more plainer to see.

If you can't accept this then the problem is that your bias is blinding your better judgement, if so then we are through on this subject as I can't rationalise the arguement with you.  The ball is in your court to show acceptance of my points and then we can move onto the other issues that I have with the article.

----------


## Stavro

> Quite wrong, I've come in for a lot of abuse in this thread.  My points are all valid which are peer-reviewed and not bunkum from seedy blogsphere stuff and that is why you lot resort to abuse.
> 
> I do have the moral highground though, one which has its foundations in truthful interpretation of data not like that limpy trendline from defreitas's temperature graph that precludes the following years temperatures.


Had to laugh at this. What's that saying? "The pot calling the kettle black." Yes, I think that's it.  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> Had to laugh at this. What's that saying? "The pot calling the kettle black." Yes, I think that's it.


any examples of where I'm guilty of this?

----------


## Stavro

> any examples of where I'm guilty of this?


Plenty. Any examples where you are not?  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> Plenty. Any examples where you are not?


i asked for examples, I'll even apologise if it makes you feel better. :Smile:   :Wink:

----------


## Stavro

> I'll even apologise if it makes you feel better.


Okay, accepted!  :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> Okay, accepted!


Well it is the time for the spirit of goodwill!  :Smile:

----------


## Metalattakk

> Wrong, Defreitas is using the same data set as me and has plotted the growth levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.


He has plotted the *growth rate*, not the actual level of CO² in the atmosphere. Is the difference lost on you?

----------


## Rheghead

> He has plotted the *growth rate*, not the actual level of CO² in the atmosphere. Is the difference lost on you?


He plotted the same as me using the same dataset, he plotted the growth in CO2 in each year and he called it growth rate. 

Figure 2 in your link and my second graph are the same except mine has the extra data points for the 2000-2008 period.

Are you going to agree that there is no levelling off in the annual growth of carbon dioxide or not?

You asked me to find flaws in Defreitas's methodology and I have done.  You need to agree for us to move on to his other erroneous methods.

----------


## Metalattakk

> Figure 2 in your link and my second graph are the same except mine has the extra data points for the 2000-2008 period.


Those added data points of yours could suggest that there is indeed a 'dropping off' happening. Just because you can't be bothered (or wouldn't like) to try to add the trend line in to all his (and your) spongy data doesn't mean it can't be done, and doesn't mean he's wrong.

CO² levels are rising. But *not at the same rate* as before.

----------


## Bobinovich

Well seeing as Rheghead's got the data why doesn't he get Excel to plot a best-fit graph?  My eyes see a shallowing out in the average data (based on number of points above and below being the same) much like that below but maybe with the actual figures to hand it would look different.

----------


## Metalattakk

> Well seeing as Rheghead's got the data why doesn't he get Excel to plot a best-fit graph?


I can only surmise that he has already done so, but doesn't like the result as it doesn't fit his argument. Maybe that's why he's so keen for me to agree blindly with him so we can 'move on'.  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> Well seeing as Rheghead's got the data why doesn't he get Excel to plot a best-fit graph?  My eyes see a shallowing out in the average data (based on number of points above and below being the same) much like that below but maybe with the actual figures to hand it would look different.


Haha, nice one, Defreitas would be proud of you.   Funny how you got the line bunched up down at the bottom in the most recent?

Which settings should I use polynomial?  Logrithmic? linear best fit?  I must try it.   ::  

As an aside, I'm not saying that there isn't a leveling off, just saying the data doesn't support one, and especially not for the reasons Defreitas claims, ie the ability of plants to build up there CO2 sink characteristics.  If we see a levelling off is because of a downturn in economic activity.

So all I can say is that Defreitas's claims can be ignored because I've proven that there is a bias in the representation of the data.  No question about that.

----------


## bekisman

I am not a climate scientist (have we any on the Org? - if so, speak now), but I can read, I'm reasonably intelligent, I do not accept blindly what is told me.. and in spite of a certain person uttering the following it's not made the slightest difference - why should it?

_"anti-global warming propagada is totally void of credible science" .. "to give this rubbish any airtime is totally irresponsible imho". .."I've watched and read all the sceptical propaganda and it all doesn't stand up to the hard scientific facts"..."read some proper science Come on people, think for yourselves" ...."Jaws's false assertion just seems to be one of the lies myths that the climate change sceptics try to throw about to muddy the waters"..."It seems these knuckle-dragging cogniscenti still feel the need to shout their diatribe to all and sundry". ..."I thought you claimed to know a bit about science?"..."So you admit to presenting incorrect information, why should I have confidence in your ability to interpret complex data when you can't even do a simple calculation?"..".Go back and rework your figures, if you can't see your error the second time then you are doubly inept". ..."the Times is wrong"..."It seems you need to get your act together".."Your paranoia/cynicism has reached new levels".. "Studying the mentality of denial. It is so comical how they squirm and twist out of the blatantly obvious"...."Global Warming scepticism has now become a belief system within blogosphere"...."Fact is, you can't justify your ignorance"..".I do have the moral highground though"...."If you can't accept this then the problem is that your bias is blinding your better judgement"...."my opinion is based upon good hard solid evidence and everyone elses is based upon misrepresentation, ignorance of the principle of global warming and scurrilous speculation"...  AND   "Climate Change scepticism is fine by me.".

_ 
I am not stupid because I'm accused as a global warming denier; the planet is getting warmer but is it really down to us humans when 85.2% of Co2 is not man-made?.
I've come across this (Link at bottom) it's a long piece but well worth ploughing through. A number of paragraphs stuck in my mind. It's headed: *'Cold Facts on Global Warming'* and mentions like these:...

'If fossil fuel use increases or decreases, atmospheric carbon dioxide will also increase or decrease proportionately'. 
Comment added 1/5/2008: 
This last point has been misinterpreted by some commentators. To clarify, this means that if we were to stop emitting carbon dioxide, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere would rapidly return to pre-industrial levels. Geologists tell us that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of five to ten years. In contrast, the IPCC says it is 50-200 years. Whatever the actual number, there is no question that emitting CO2 will cause it to accumulate over short periods. But other processes, such as sequestration, also work against it, causing the levels to decrease rapidly over time. This fact is the very basis of the effort among global warming advocates to lower CO2 emissions. Indeed, if this were not true, there would be no possible benefit to reducing CO2 emissions, as CO2 levels would ratchet up indefinitely, whether by natural or artificial means, without limit. 
How long will it take to double CO2 levels?. Another issue that people are confused about is the rate of increase of carbon dioxide. Some people think that CO2 is rising dramatically. This is probably because of graphs like the one below. [fig 6] However, in hard science journals, the graph above would be considered dishonest, because the y-axis starts at 290 instead of zero. This misleads the reader into thinking that CO2 levels have undergone a huge increase when in fact, CO2 levels have only increased by 23.7% since 1900. When the data are plotted honestly, with the y axis starting at zero, the true scope of the change becomes clear.
According to the US Department of Energy, about 14.8% of the total CO2 is man-made. The remainder is caused by natural forces, such as volcanoes and forest fires [25]. At the current rate of increase, CO2 will not double its current level until 2255.
Some climatologists, making assumptions about ever-increasing rates of carbon dioxide production, assert that the doubling will occur within a few decades instead of a few centuries. However, they are doing sociology, not climatology. They are assuming that fossil fuel consumption will increase drastically over current levels. This is very unlikely. The only honest way to estimate the change of CO2 levels is to make predictions based on what is happening now, not what might happen in some hypothetical future society; otherwise, we are merely inflating our predictions by indulging in speculation about future social trends. 
Many people have used tricks like these to exaggerate the amount of global warming, and this has made it into a political issue. Most people would have great difficulty feeling an increase of 0.6 degrees Celsius. Any effects of such a small change would be slow and subtle. In general, if you are able to see or feel some change, that means it is almost certainly not caused by CO2-induced global warming.
http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

----------


## Metalattakk

> As an aside, I'm not saying that there isn't a leveling off, just saying the data doesn't support one <snip>


Yet you cannot (or will not) prove this is true.




> </snip> and especially not for the reasons Defreitas claims, ie the ability of plants to build up there CO2 sink characteristics.  If we see a levelling off is because of a downturn in economic activity.


More unfounded claims and mere speculation, of course.

----------


## Rheghead

> I can only surmise that he has already done so, but doesn't like the result as it doesn't fit his argument. Maybe that's why he's so keen for me to agree blindly with him so we can 'move on'.


Here is the trendline which is calculated by Excel.



Nuff said

----------


## Metalattakk

> Here is the trendline which is calculated by Excel.
> 
> 
> 
> Nuff said


Yet no references or notes about the method used. Why should I believe you? Just because you say so?

I don't think so.

----------


## Rheghead

> Yet no references or notes about the method used. Why should I believe you? Just because you say so?
> 
> I don't think so.


Why would you accept Defreitas's plot when it is clearly biased? Is it because you are biased as well so it reinforces your belief.

Am I right?

----------


## Metalattakk

> Why would you accept Defreitas's plot when it is clearly biased? Is it because you are biased as well so it reinforces your belief.
> 
> Am I right?


No idea. I am happy to accept de Freitas' graph simply because he is qualified to write on this subject, and as part of an extensive summary it is relevant. There's more to this issue than one graph, or even one published article.

You however, are not a scientist, far less one who is versed in and knowledgeable of climatology. Why should I blindly believe you, especially when you behave so evasively when asked simple questions?

And, to be blunt, bekisman's statement about all your trumpeting not changing his mind also holds true for me: The more you shout "I'm right, I know everything, and anyone who doesn't believe me is an idiot/knuckle-dragger/flat-earther/bozo!" the more I'll look down on your opinions with disdain.

----------


## gleeber

> And, to be blunt, bekisman's statement about all your trumpeting not changing his mind also holds true for me: The more you shout "I'm right, I know everything, and anyone who doesn't believe me is an idiot/knuckle-dragger/flat-earther/bozo!" the more I'll look down on your opinions with disdain.


Thats either the greatest freudian slip of all time or you misunderstand the art of discussion MA. ::  
I'm still not convinced and still support rhegheads view. There wasnt much I could contribute when it got all technical  but I followed it closely because it really is an important issue. Iv'e been taken in by the popular propeganda being propegated by the press  ::  that humans are causing global warming. My minds made up and it would take more than a renegade scientist in New Zealand to change it. The popular theory is that we are responsable. 
I leave it to the scientists to sort out and then I make my own mind up a bit like theology.
The politics involved is a different matter and sometimes I think that gets in the way of facts. Politics makes it much more personal
Both sides need to be aware of deeper prejudices when discussing something of this nature. The recent Copenhagen freebie is a perfect example of politics being A huge house with differnt parties going in in different rooms. Its pure nonsense and the fact that they couldnt make a decision leads me to believe that they are not convinced of the danger either.

----------


## Bazeye

Its started raining here again.

----------


## Metalattakk

> Thats either the greatest freudian slip of all time or you misunderstand the art of discussion MA.


I don't quite follow the link to Freud, but I always thought discussion was a two-way street.  :: 




> There wasnt much I could contribute when it got all technical  but I followed it closely because it really is an important issue. Iv'e been taken in by the popular propeganda being propegated by the press  that humans are causing global warming. My minds made up and it would take more than a renegade scientist in New Zealand to change it. The popular theory is that we are responsable. 
> I leave it to the scientists to sort out and then I make my own mind up a bit like theology.
> The politics involved is a different matter and sometimes I think that gets in the way of facts. Politics makes it much more personal
> Both sides need to be aware of deeper prejudices when discussing something of this nature. The recent Copenhagen freebie is a perfect example of politics being A huge house with differnt parties going in in different rooms. Its pure nonsense and the fact that they couldnt make a decision leads me to believe that they are not convinced of the danger either.


I can't disagree with much of that, except that popular theory doesn't necessarily mean it's correct.

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm still not convinced and still support rhegheads view. There wasnt much I could contribute when it got all technical  but I followed it closely because it really is an important issue. Iv'e been taken in by the popular propeganda being propegated by the press  that humans are causing global warming. My minds made up and it would take more than a renegade scientist in New Zealand to change it. The popular theory is that we are responsable. 
> I leave it to the scientists to sort out and then I make my own mind up a bit like theology.


Indeed you should because the source of evidence is very important.  Defreitas produced a graph (fig 2) which purports to show that carbon dioxide growth is slowing down.  I proved that was erroneous, however, one worthy remark about that graph is that it is referenced to a blog called World Climate Report.  It's editor is a climatologist called Patrick J Michaels.  He has come in for a rough time lately for being a 'denier' because he claims that warming will be at the lower end of IPCC predictions 

http://www.cato.org/research/article...ls-031016.html

but regardless of this, he claims that carbon dioxide levels are actually increasing in contrast to De Freitas.  ::  




> But we also assume carbon dioxide continues to go into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the increase from year-to-year isn't constant, but itself is increasing. The effect of increasing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with the fact that more and more carbon dioxide produces less and less warming compels our climate projections for the future warming to be pretty much a straight line.


  If that is the case, and let us assume that Michaels's data wrt to Fig2 is correct and I confirmed that it is, how come Deffreitas has managed to indicate a levelling off in carbon dioxide levels?  

It doesn't add up unless DeFreitas has cooked the graph to show what he wants to show (Bobinovich also had a good go at it), he wants his cake and eat it.

----------


## ywindythesecond

_[Last edited by Rheghead; 27-Dec-09 at 11:34. ]_

Why don't you state your reasons for editing your posts? You do quite a lot of it and sometimes after people have responded to them.

----------


## Metalattakk

> I proved that was erroneous


No you didn't. You simply painted it that way. In the famous words of mathematics teachers worldwide - Show your workings.




> but regardless of this, he claims that carbon dioxide levels are actually increasing as well


Why do you have such a problem with this? De Freitas does not deny that CO² levels are rising. I don't think anyone does. So why are you trying to say that these people should?

----------


## Rheghead

> Why do you have such a problem with this? De Freitas does not deny that CO² levels are rising.


Defreitas denies that that the rate of increase is in itself increasing.  Michaels's comment showed that that Defreitas's fig 2 was erroneous.  Why do you not accept this?

As for proof of the trendline in the data, why don't you plot the data in Excel yourself instead of sitting banging your own drum beat of denial?  I'm not hiding anything, my posts are entirely falsifiable if you can come up with anything substantial to suggest otherwise...

----------


## Metalattakk

> ]As for proof of the trendline in the data, why don't you plot the data in Excel yourself instead of sitting banging your own drum beat of denial?  I'm not hiding anything, my posts are entirely falsifiable if you can come up with anything substantial to suggest otherwise...


So you're not going to provide the workings on request? Then your information is worthless and I cannot blindly believe it.

Just another case of "I'm right, you're all wrong and if you don't believe me you must be a fool".

----------


## Rheghead

> So you're not going to provide the workings on request? Then your information is worthless and I cannot blindly believe it.
> 
> Just another case of "I'm right, you're all wrong and if you don't believe me you must be a fool".


The whole crux of the peer-review process is that any conclusions by any one scientist using the same dataset can be independently confirmed by another.

That is why no amount of persuasion that I can provide will convince you.  

You need to do it for _yourself_ using Excel.

----------


## Metalattakk

> Defreitas denies that that the rate of increase is in itself increasing.  Michaels's comment showed that that Defreitas's fig 2 was erroneous.  Why do you not accept this?


Wait, I missd this.

De Freitas did not deny that CO² levels were rising. He denied that CO² levels were rising at alarming rates. Why do you have such trouble comprehending basic English?

----------


## bekisman

I'm still a bit confused by what Gleeber said in #637:

 _"I'm still not convinced and still support rhegheads view"_ [that humans cause Global Warming]

and: _"Iv'e been taken in by the popular propeganda being propegated by the press that humans are causing global warming."_ [it's propaganda that humans cause Global Warming]

Are these not directly contradictory?

----------


## Rheghead

> Wait, I missd this.
> 
> De Freitas did not deny that CO² levels were rising. He denied that CO² levels were rising at alarming rates. Why do you have such trouble comprehending basic English?


I agree, he _denied_ it.  ::

----------


## gleeber

> I'm still a bit confused by what Gleeber said in #637:
> 
> _"I'm still not convinced and still support rhegheads view"_ [that humans cause Global Warming]
> 
> and: _"Iv'e been taken in by the popular propeganda being propegated by the press that humans are causing global warming."_ [it's propaganda that humans cause Global Warming]
> 
> Are these not directly contradictory?


Ive tried to avoid the silly nit picking inherant in this thread but in your case I will make an exception.  :: 
I imagine the bit that confuses you is the 'Ive been taken in bit' Would you rather I said I am completely trustworthy of the science and scientists involved in trying to warn us that we are burning the planet out?

----------


## bekisman

that ain't nitpicking, that's diametrically opposed.. leave it, it's not _that_ important ::

----------


## gleeber

> that ain't nitpicking, that's diametrically opposed.. leave it, it's not _that_ important


If it wasnt that important yopu would have left it. ::

----------


## bekisman

nah, it's the day after Boxing Day, nothing doing, so just wondered

----------


## Cedric Farthsbottom III

Scotland Rules.We have the best weather in the world.Global warming,my experiment the other day in the back garden proved that its not happening in Scotland anyway. :Smile:

----------


## scotsboy

Great thread this one. For the record I'm with Rheghead and George Brimms on this issue.

----------


## Cinderella's Shoe

> Great thread this one. For the record I'm with Rheghead and George Brimms on this issue.


Someone living in the Middle East approving that Caithness is covered with wind turbines - that says it all!

----------


## oldmarine

> Scotland Rules.We have the best weather in the world.Global warming,my experiment the other day in the back garden proved that its not happening in Scotland anyway.


*Good to know that. I always enjoyed my time in Scotland. I don't see the problem where I live in Tucson, Arizona. We have not set any new records for high temperatures wher I live. A person by the name of Al Gore, who could not get elected in his own state of Tennessee, made a lot of money on his statements stating global warming was going on all over the world. I believe it has become a political issue.*

----------


## Stavro

> *A person by the name of Al Gore, who could not get elected in his own state of Tennessee, made a lot of money on his statements stating global warming was going on all over the world. I believe it has become a political issue.*


Yes, I believe it is a political issue on a grand scale. This means money for lobby groups. This means pressure on countries to tow the line and on "scientists" to fudge their results and keep contradictory conclusions out of the scientific journals.  ::

----------


## scotsboy

> Someone living in the Middle East approving that Caithness is covered with wind turbines - that says it all!


I was alluding more to the weight of scientific evidence behind anthropogenic climate change...........but for the record I dont mind wind turbines either.

----------


## Stavro

> I was alluding more to the weight of scientific evidence behind anthropogenic climate change ...


I didn't think that there was any.  ::

----------


## scotsboy

> I didn't think that there was any.


Can't legislate for what you think Stavro.

----------


## bekisman

Oh no they are all at it! 
Fair enough Christmas and New Year has taken our eye off the ball, but this may well be the tip of the iceberg.. Who can you believe these days?

Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia (CRU) is alleged to have done.

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Esse...a-manipulation

New Zealand global warming data manipulation..

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage932803/pg1

----------


## Stavro

> Oh no they are all at it! 
> Fair enough Christmas and New Year has taken our eye off the ball, but this may well be the tip of the iceberg.. Who can you believe these days?
> 
> Climate scientists in New Zealand today accused the foremost climate-research institution in New Zealand of data manipulation of the same type as the East Anglia (CRU) is alleged to have done.
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d25-New-Zealand-climate-agency-accused-of-data-manipulation
> 
> New Zealand global warming data manipulation..
> 
> http://www.godlikeproductions.com/fo...sage932803/pg1


Further confirmation, if any is needed, that "man-made" global warming is not "true" science, but is certainly "real world" science, where data is fudged to fit the paradigm and appease the (political) funding source.

Perhaps they could vaccinate scientists against this disease?  :Smile:

----------


## NapalmDeath74

Man made climate change total myth and down right lie so called scientist, politicians being financed, influenced by certain big company’s and convenient for these company’s for their puppet scientist, politicians forecast doom and gloom coursing mast climate change hysteria world wide. Climate Change is a natural cycle determined by the distance Planet Earth is from the Sun, the closer we are to the sun the hotter it gets like it is now, the further away from the sun means Ice age. Many scientists the one’s not in the pocket of big company’s say we are heading toward a ice age, some small signs are starting to appear like the changing course of the Gulf stream and its changing depth, this won’t course an ice age to come overnight but the first serious signs could be in the next 50 to 100 years, the Scottish climate could be similar to Greenland. Man is responsible for destroying habitats ego systems, cosmetically destroying the planet but mans contributing to carbon emissions is a small percentage. If you take into consideration natures contribution to carbon emissions for example volcano erupts that's 100years of mans carbon emissions in one day, all the large animals in the world passing wind and messing , in Autumn leafs rotting away contribute to green house gases, man is just a small percentage compared to natural phenomenon.

----------


## bekisman

Ah now I see; it's a 27 year cycle we're in.. read on:

*Pouring cold water on global warming*
Global cooling has arrived. Global warming is dead.
_Wednesday, 13 May 2009_ 
There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that far from global warming the earth has now entered a period of global cooling which will last at least for the next two decades.   

Evidence for this comes from the NASA Microwave Sounding Unit and the Hadley Climate Research Unit while evidence that CO2 levels are continuing to increase comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. 
Professor Don Easterbrook one of the principle speakers at the recent World Conference on climate change held in New York in March this year attended by 800 leading climatologists, has documented a consistent cycle of warm and cool periods each with a 27 year cycle. Indeed the warm period from 1976 to 1998 exactly fits the pattern of climate changes for the past several centuries long before there were any CO2 emissions. Greenland Ice core temperature measurements for the past 500 years show this 27 year cycle of alternating warm and cool periods. Recently the global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased again from 1976 to 1998 and has been decreasing ever since. 
However throughout this time CO2 has been added to the atmosphere in increasing amounts. This point was brought out by at the New York conference by Vaclav Klaus the rotating President of the EU and President of the Czech Republic. If CO2 emissions cause temperature rises than why is it that every 27 years the earth climate switches to a cooling mode with decreasing temperature? Clearly there is another explanation that does not include humans. . 
Nearly ten years into the 21 century it is clear that the UN IPCC computer models have gone badly astray. The IPCC models have predicted a one degree increase in global temperature by 2011 with further large temperature rises to 2100. Yet there has been no warming since 1998 with a one degree cooling this year being the largest global temperature change ever recorded. Nasa satellite imagery from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California has confirmed that the Pacific Ocean has switched from the warm mode it has been in since 1977 to its cool mode, similar to that of the 1945-1977 global cooling period. 
The evidence that the earth is in a cooling mode rather than a warming mode is there for all to see. the RSS(Remote Sensing System) in Santa Rosa California has recorded a temperature fall of two to three degrees in the Arctic since 2005, while US Army buoys show an increase in Arctic ice thickness to 3.5 metres. North America has had two of its worst winters for sixty years with the temperature in Yellowstone Park falling to a staggering minus 60 degrees. 
About 46” of snow fell in New York in two weeks! Last February Toronto had over 70 cms of snow, more than anything since 1950! Snow has fallen in parts of China and Asia for the first time in living memory while Britain had its worst January for twenty years. Alps have best snow conditions in a generation ran a newspaper headline last December. Strange indeed that the BBC , who likes us to believe it is impartial does not mention these freezing temperatures and Arctic conditions. 
Some warming in the Antarctic has only been on a small 20 mile strip of the Antarctic Peninsula as a result of the 1977- 1998 warming period. This is insignificant compared to the overall size of the huge Antarctic continent. 
Studies by the WeatherAction team(weatheraction.com) led by astrophysicist Piers Corbyn and also the measurements of sun spots by the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial physics in Irkutsk in Russia show that over the last 50 years solar activity has been at its highest for the past several thousand years. 
The Russian physicists have analysed sun spot activity from 1882 to 2000 and have noted that the minimum of the cycle of solar activity will occur around 2021 to 2026 and that we will be facing not global warming but global cooling leading to a deep freeze around 2050. 
The UN IPCC graphics have left out the medieval warming period (950-1300AD) and the Little Ice Age (1350- 1850). This alters the picture entirely and does not then portray the alternating warm cool warm cool cycle of recorded world temperatures. Also statements put out by the UN IPCC are unrepresentative of many of its members. I do not recall any votes being taken of the opinion of members. 
At the New York climate change conference in March as well as Vaclav Klaus delegates also heard Dr Richard Linzen from MIT probably the leading climatologist in the world today, as well as Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for astrophysics and Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute who all demolished the global alarmists case piece by piece. 
In his speech the EU President Vaclav Klaus had these controversial words for the environmentalist lobby. 
“Environmentalists-even mainstream environmentalists are less concerned about any crisis posed by global warming than they are eager to command human behaviour and restrict economic activity” He also said “their true plans and ambitions: to stop economic development and return mankind centuries back. 
They are interested in their businesses and their profits made with the help of politicians” 
He got a standing ovation from the assembled audience. 
His assertion about the involvement of politicians is not surprising. This whole movement is in many parts a political movement with nearly all the recognised climatologists throughout the world dissenting from the man made global warming theory. 
This can be seen on the US Senate Environment committee web site with over 700 leading climatologists from 24 different countries including Nobel Prize laureates all dissenting from the man made global warming theory. It has been well reported that at least one of the architects of Koyoto has strong links with the New Age Movement which is not a movement that would promote economic growth. 
_Terri Jackson is a Queens graduate physicist, climatologist and formerly founder of the Energy Group at the Institute of Physics, London._ 

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/environment/pouring-cold-water-on-global-warming-14299972.html#ixzz0blsk3zMi

----------


## Green_not_greed

There's gold in them there turbines!!!

The Times published a list of Britain's latest "green" millionaires, all rich from taxpayers money through government subsidies.  This is what "being green" is all about!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6968333.ece

----------


## roadbowler

for an analysis of the climategate emails try... http://assassinationscience.com/climategate

----------


## oldmarine

> There's gold in them there turbines!!!
> 
> The Times published a list of Britain's latest "green" millionaires, all rich from taxpayers money through government subsidies. This is what "being green" is all about!
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6968333.ece


Looks like our Arizona governor wants to join in on some of this. She wants to go nuclear power, wind turbines, etc. This appeared in yesterday's paper. I don't know the fall-out on this one yet.

----------


## Rheghead

> Ah now I see; it's a 27 year cycle we're in.. read on:
> 
> *Pouring cold water on global warming*
> Global cooling has arrived. Global warming is dead.
> _Wednesday, 13 May 2009_ 
> There is now irrefutable scientific evidence that far from global warming the earth has now entered a period of global cooling which will last at least for the next two decades.   
> 
> Evidence for this comes from the NASA Microwave Sounding Unit and the Hadley Climate Research Unit while evidence that CO2 levels are continuing to increase comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. 
> Professor Don Easterbrook one of the principle speakers at the recent World Conference on climate change held in New York in March this year attended by 800 leading climatologists,


Just a few questions.

How many scientists from the Hadley Climate Research Unit were at this conference on Climate Change?

You mentioned '800 leading climatologists' but what were they leading?

 ::  ::

----------


## Stavro

We could do with a bit of this global warming that we are shortly to be taxed for, I think.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/8447023.stm

 :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> At the New York climate change conference in March as well as Vaclav Klaus delegates also heard *Dr Richard Linzen from MIT* probably the leading climatologist in the world today, as well as Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for astrophysics and Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute who all demolished the global alarmists case piece by piece.


I see Dr Richard Linzen's paper with Choi 2009 has come under a lot of criticism.  Not being thoroughly robust with data seems to be the criticism.  Some climatologists are now claiming it as a nonsense paper.

----------


## Neil Howie

in response to bekisman
*  
New Zealand climate agency responds to charges of data manipulation* 

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d26-New-Zealand-climate-agency-responds-to-charges-of-data-manipulation


trawling websites on the other ends of the earth, or the illeagal hacking climateologists servers (climategate) to spin info.  Is this the critical debate?  Is this the opposition?

With so much vested oil/gas/nuclear interests, where does the "conspiracy" really lie?

And what does this have to do with the weather?



---Insert smug quote here---

----------


## Stavro

> trawling websites on the other ends of the earth, ...


... is the whole point of the World Wide Web.





> ... the illeagal hacking climateologists servers (climategate) to spin info. Is this the critical debate? Is this the opposition?


It's more important to know what misleading and criminal activity was going on behind closed web servers, than to bother with who spilled the beans by breaking into those servers or otherwise.





> ---Insert smug quote here---


Notes to oneself can often be revealing!  :Smile:

----------


## bekisman

So we all know that the climate change people have an agenda, and that agenda has little reliance on ethical and factual observation and reporting. So what? Does anyone think that will stop the coming taxation and elimination of freedoms that will be applied to all of us because of global warming? Of course not. I don't know why we even talk about it any more. We're done until someone decides to do something decisive to insure your freedom and well being and I don't see that coming in the near future. 
And
Note too that all the older readings have been shifted _downward_. If you really are compensating correctly for a move by shifting all readings subsequent to the move upward, you should be leaving the prior temperatures alone. Unless you want to create a false upward slope. 

At least they mention: "Last week, thousands of private emails between scientists were released raising charges of collusion, data manipulation and falsifying of data." (smug)

----------


## bekisman

Now there's a thought:

*Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming* (October 2009)
There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem  35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008

http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming

----------


## Stavro

> So we all know that the climate change people have an agenda, and that agenda has little reliance on ethical and factual observation and reporting. So what? Does anyone think that will stop the coming taxation and elimination of freedoms that will be applied to all of us because of global warming? Of course not.


Very many people in this country seem to be dumbed down by EastEnders and Coronation Street, while the politicians sell them into slavery. Yet the politicians do seem to be bothered by the truth coming out, which is perhaps why they keep saying that "the debate is over," to more and more things. 





> I don't know why we even talk about it any more. We're done until someone decides to do something decisive to insure your freedom and well being and I don't see that coming in the near future.


But why would anyone bother doing something decisive, if we ourselves do not bother to speak out and to do something ourselves?

----------


## roadbowler

why should we wait for someone else to do something for us? That's the problem in the world today. Everybody waiting for somebody else to do something for us. What for? What are we waiting for? This is what the democracy moderno is about. Vote for somebody you don't care for to represent you and hope things go well?? No thanks. End result is our government will be taxing us for our carbon emissions whilst we freeze in our beds.  ::

----------


## northener

What a strange world we live in.

Everyone agrees that the ship is sinking, yet some appear to be arguing over what is actually causing the ship to sink and don't want follow a line of possible recovery that may stop everyone from drowning....even though they don't have any viable alternative.

----------


## bekisman

That's governments for you..

----------


## Rheghead

> What a strange world we live in.
> 
> Everyone agrees that the ship is sinking, yet some appear to be arguing over what is actually causing the ship to sink and don't want follow a line of possible recovery that may stop everyone from drowning....even though they don't have any viable alternative.


Recovery might include throwing some of their precious shinies over the side and some are not willing to do that while the poor rest of the passengers in steerage are busy helping out with the bucketing out.

----------


## bekisman

Reggy: _"Recovery might include throwing some of there precious shinies over the side and some are not willing to do that while the poor rest of the passengers are busy helping out with the bucketing out."_ 

What more can we do Reggy?, Greenpeace's John Sauven said Copenhagen was a _"crime scene, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport"._ 
I'm not a Climate Change scientist (and for all the hot air, don't think we have any on the Org). Ok I do agree we are in a warming phrase - although there's going to be a two decade levelling out, before it may rise, is that right Reggy? - I mean the 20 year hiatus?
My(pleb) belief ref global warming is that it is a natural phenomenon; a cycle which has been in existence for eons. 

Ok fully agree cut down pollution, did anyone else travel through Eastern Germany before the wall came down? the smell of chemicals, cheap coal fumes, low octane fuel that pervaded the DDR at that time? 

Governments make the decisions, our august Mr Brown representing Britain did his best.. us plebs can't do much. Oh yea stop objecting to windfarms, will that mean we can shut down regular power stations? nah..

Me? every light in our house is compact fluorescent, and don't whine 'they're too dim' I use the 30w in and 150w out if I need brighter light (Morrisons). And you can easily get much brighter bulbs; how about Energy Saving Spiral 85 watt Warm White BC -that slings out 425 watts of light (yea that's right) and it fits a normal light fitting.. http://www.bltdirect.com/product.php?pid=266&cat=48&nm=An+Energy+Saving+Spi  ral+85+watt+BC
I've 12 inch of insulation in all my lofts, I've got cavity wall insulation, my fridge and freezer are energy efficient, When we buy vegetables I put them in layers of sand (clamping) so they are fresh after months - saves journeys out by car, I'm disabled and unfortunately need a car.  I've ripped our baths out, now only shower, my basin has a spray fitting. My oil boiler has increased it's efficiency every year it's serviced. My oil bill is £45 a month, my electric £40. Shopping I carry my own boxes/freezer bags in the car and transfer from trolley direct into these (get extra points).. I only use my PC when needed I don't want argumentum ad hominem but 8 hours a day for a PC/Monitor is c300kwh..

So yes I think I'm doing my bit.. (I wonder what the more vocal are doing?)

________________________________________
"A little learning is a dangerous thing"; Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744)

----------


## Each

UAH which has monitered global temperatures via satallite since 1979 have published their latest results up to 21 Dec 2009.

Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D, climatologist and former NASA scientist said...

"While the large amount of year-to-year variability in global temperatures seen in the above plot makes it difficult to provide meaningful statements about long-term temperature trends in the context of global warming, the running 25-month average suggests there has been no net warming in the last 11 years or so."

more at...http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/...te-0-28-deg-c/

I guess the ships not sinking after all ! 

PS. I have also invested a lot upgrading the insulation in my own hoem - which was a great comfort this winter and has saved me a packet in electric bills - I use all CFL low energy bulbs and my wife religously recycles - we may even add a solar panel... 

It saves money, uses resources efficiently and is all part of a healthy lifestyle - it wont make a blind bit of difference to global temp / sea level rises.

----------


## Rheghead

> What more can we do Reggy?, Greenpeace's John Sauven said Copenhagen was a _"crime scene, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport"._ 
> I'm not a Climate Change scientist (and for all the hot air, don't think we have any on the Org). Ok I do agree we are in a warming phrase - although there's going to be a two decade levelling out, before it may rise, is that right Reggy? - I mean the 20 year hiatus?
> My(pleb) belief ref global warming is that it is a natural phenomenon; a cycle which has been in existence for eons.


Frustrating isn't it?  :: 

I also do what you are doing in the home (though I flew to Canaries this New Year, my last flight was 2005, slap my wrist!!) but if we all do a little then only a little will get done. I think what we are doing with bulbs, recycling, local veg etc  is the easy stuff and is very little collectively, not that we shouldn't be doing it btw.

What more can we do?  Well a big voice would be good at the polls, bring green issues right to the top of the political agenda like a protest vote for the Green party even if you think they are a bunch of numpties, that way the major parties will take notice like they did back in 1989.  You can write to your MP/Energy Secretary and express your demand for more renewable energy or grants for micro-generation.

I think we _may_ be in for a plateau of temperature increases as natural cycles cancel out the effects of GHGs but what happens after that?  Temperatures are sure to soar again, natural cycles don't negate the existance of AGW, they either accelerate or decelerate its effects.  

La Nina has reduced temperatures over the last 3 years and we may be in for a shock with an overdue El Nino, we'll just have to wait and see, one thing is for certain, the increases in GHGs are giving an gradual underlying increase each year which pushes up the height effects of these natural cycles and negates their troughs.

----------


## roadbowler

northener, agreed. Strange world. But, why do we need to agree on anything in order to recover? In my opinion we don't. Especially on this issue. Of who that are dictating to us that we must reduce our carbon footprint are actually doing it themselves? They aren't. I'm pretty sure even the pushers of this propaganda know it's complete crap as well or we'd be seeing action instead of mouth from them personally wouldn't we? Go to the government website and search the word 'sustainable'. They love this word but, make the practicalities of putting it into simple practice nigh on impossible. Oh, you want to sell local foods, sundries, cosmetics etc etc. Fill in all these forms, get these licences, these assessments, inspection by local councils, pay us money, pay us money. Oh, you want to produce your own electricity? Fill in these forms, pay us lots of money. We might give you a grant for it too but, there is more forms and permissions and inspections and by the end of it you'll have spent a lot more money then if you skipped the grant. Oh you want to build a sustainable house? With local local! materials? Oh, no you canna do that, only norwegian or finnish wood is certified to satisfy part l of the building regs. Besides, in caithess breeze blocks are the vernacular and that is all we allow. Sustainability connotates more self and community reliance but, the government want to be the self and community which will not and could not ever work. This tells me they do not actually want sustainability at all! They want all of us in perpetual childhood filling in their forms, paying them their babysitting money, giving us their expert opinions on every subject expecting us to believe without question and asking them for permission to blow our noses. What a joke. How much will people put up with??

----------


## oldmarine

Someone started this thread out with the label "propaganda."  In reading all the comments so far I have nothing to convince me that this is anything but propaganda.  I have lived on this mudball called Earth for more than 84 years  I have witnessed extreme temperature swings during my time here.  I remember a period about 3 decade ago when it was called global coolling.  Then some politicians (who had no experience with this) wanted to make a game out of it and came up with the global warming bit.)  A lot of money and and an award was given out for coming up with the global warming theory propaganda.  Scientific data explaining both sides of this propaganda has been thrown at us. While I have seen recent happenings with lower temperatures occuring in the states of Gerogia and Florida and I believe the same thing is happening in the UK it is difficult for me to visualize any global warming occuring.  

My opinion is that our world has had extreme temperature swings throughout it's entire history.  One can find periods of so-called global warmings and some of global cooling.  Nothing as approached what was called the Ice age period that so far is history.  

I have stated it before and I will stete it again. This is all a part of cyclic temperature changes.  The current one has become a political game of both sides trying to convince the other side. Time will be the determing factor for deciding who is correct and who is not.

----------


## bekisman

Reggy: _"I think we may be in for a plateau of temperature increases as natural cycles cancel out the effects of GHGs"_ 

Translation: you agree 'we _may_ have twenty years of no Global Warming'?

----------


## joxville

_Edited_[quote=bekisman;643887]So yes I think I'm doing my bit.. (I wonder what the more vocal are doing?)

I got rid of my V8 Jaguar and bought a 2 litre Diesel car, that was enough of a sacrifice.  ::

----------


## bekisman

Funnily enough I got rid of our 2.4ltr petrol automatic and bought a Volvo V70 2.00 D SE - very nice (after twenty years driving automatics, took a while to get used to gears again - especially coasting up to the Thurso traffic Lights and trying to pull away in 4th! - AND repeating 'Diesel, Diesel, Diesel' to myself when I go to fill up!

----------


## Rheghead

> Reggy: _"I think we may be in for a plateau of temperature increases as natural cycles cancel out the effects of GHGs"_ 
> 
> Translation: you agree 'we _may_ have twenty years of no Global Warming'?


may but unlikely on balance.

----------


## roadbowler

You think man is creating global warming through ghg pollution but, you now admit natural cycles will cancel it out? Therefore, a temperature plateau? Have you had a good think about this statement? A lot of alarmists have taken up this same rationale impediment the past few months. Must be contagious. :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> You think man is creating global warming through ghg pollution but, you now admit natural cycles will cancel it out? Therefore, a temperature plateau? Have you had a good think about this statement? A lot of alarmists have taken up this same rationale impediment the past few months. Must be contagious.


The Earth cooled from 1940-1970, do you think climatologists haven't this into consideration but still they are advocating we cut GHGs.

----------


## roadbowler

your uncertainty over your own argument isn't helping your argument. You underestimate the universe and its workings and overestimate mans doings. Essentially, your statement says to me that man creates ghgs and then natural cycles balance them out. Meaning, therefore, even if mans carbon emissions could cause warming it doesn't matter as it's cancelled out by natural processes. Ie. So, man causes no warming at all. Well, no kidding. What you are saying is pretty much what i think. A fairly elementary understanding of ecology. Everything balances itself out in nature however, the problem appears to be that sometimes when nature balances itself it can wipe out entire species, entire habitats, or even entire planets. Man is only a tiny fraction of a fraction of this ecosystem which the ecosystem can deal as easily with or without. Makes no difference to the whole. Man is only capable of doing what nature allows it capability to do. Man can not wipe out the planet and it is arrogant to think we could and man can not stop mankind from being wiped out by nature. However, one thing seems to be certain, man can probably be trusted to wipe out themselves by tinkering with things they think they know about but, don't.  :Wink:

----------


## bekisman

There we have it..

Reggy tells us: _'we [may unlikely on balance] have no Global Warming for the next 20 years"_

A lot of people did not know that as they believed Mann's Hockey Stick graph.. This is interesting:


The hockey stick representation of the temperature behaviour of the past 1,000 years is broken, dead. Although already reeling from earlier analyses aimed at its midsection, the knockout punch was just delivered by _Nature_ magazine. Thus the end of this palooka: that the climate of the past millennium was marked by about 900 years of nothing and then 100 years of dramatic temperature rise caused by people. The saga of the hockey stick will be remembered as a remarkable lesson in how fanaticism can temporarily blind a large part of the scientific community and allow unproven results to become mainstream thought overnight.

The Hockey Stick is dead. This once-feared icon of global warming purported to show annual average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere for the past 1,000 years. It was derived from the climatic information that is stored in a variety of climate-sensitive or climate proxy data recordsthings such as tree rings, coral banding records, and sediment cores. Its called the hockey stick because its long handle corresponds to 900 years (from 1000 to 1900) of little temperature variation, and its blade represents 100 years (1900 to 1999) of rapid temperature rise (Figure 1). The hockey stick made its debut in the journal Geophysical Research Letters in 1999 in a paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes that built upon a 1998 paper by the same authors in the journal _Nature_ which detailed the methodology for creating a proxy temperature reconstruction.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/03/03/hockey-stick-1998-2005-rip/

----------


## Rheghead

> There we have it..
> 
> Reggy tells us: _'we [may unlikely on balance] have no Global Warming for the next 20 years"_
> 
> A lot of people did not know that as they believed Mann's Hockey Stick graph.. This is interesting:
> 
> 
> The hockey stick representation of the temperature behaviour of the past 1,000 years is broken, dead. Although already reeling from earlier analyses aimed at its midsection, the knockout punch was just delivered by _Nature_ magazine. Thus the end of this palooka: that the climate of the past millennium was marked by about 900 years of nothing and then 100 years of dramatic temperature rise caused by people. The saga of the hockey stick will be remembered as a remarkable lesson in how fanaticism can temporarily blind a large part of the scientific community and allow unproven results to become mainstream thought overnight.
> 
> ...


Every incoherent slag against the hockey stick gains many more votes for it.  :Grin:

----------


## DeHaviLand

> Every incoherent slag against the hockey stick gains many more votes for it.


Did you really just call Bekisman an "incoherent slag"? :Grin:

----------


## bekisman

Yes, I was really really hurt by that, in fact speechless, especially after Reggy said: "_"Try to debate things without resorting to ad hominem, I think it stifles honest debate, I'm trying too"._

----------


## Rheghead

> Yes, I was really really hurt by that, in fact speechless, especially after Reggy said: "_"Try to debate things without resorting to ad hominem, I think it stifles honest debate, I'm trying too"._


nice one ::

----------


## Stavro

> Every incoherent slag against the hockey stick gains many more votes for it.


I think that your "debating" on this topic has been of a consistently poor quality throughout, but this latest piece of drivel by you really drops the lower limit of your quality range enormously.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

De dum de dum de dum <taps fingers on desk waiting for the next coherent post>

----------


## JAWS

> Someone started this thread out with the label "propaganda."  In reading all the comments so far I have nothing to convince me that this is anything but propaganda.  I have lived on this mudball called Earth for more than 84 years  I have witnessed extreme temperature swings during my time here.


You are right, oldmarine. In the 1930s, due to rapidly receding Arctic ice, Russian scientists were predicting that the North Pole would be ice-free within a decade. Anybody with even a slight knowledge of WW2 will know that their predictions were rather incorrect, there being some of the coldest winters during that century. 
Like you I also recall the same dire predictions of the commencement of the next Ice Age. Fads come and fads go with "experts" jumping on each creating a bandwagon effect whilst attempting to bully dissenters into silence. Even a cursory look at the history of science will show how many times the absolute known truth has been found to be wrong but only after periods when those challenging the "known truths" have been either silenced or dismissed as ignorant fools for not accepting . 

Even within the last century it was an established scientific fact that the Universe was static, always had been and always would be, with even Einstein, despite his genius, accepting that fact. There was only one Galaxy, and that was the one we were in, to suggest otherwise was as ridiculous as suggesting there may be little green men out there. Then, in the 1920s, somebody called Hubble, who was not even a scientist but only a rich amateur astronomer, looked through his rather large telescope and discovered there were other galaxies and not only that but some of them were not static but rushing away from us at a very rapid rate. The absolute certainty of the scientifically provable Static Universe was nothing more than fanciful rubbish and those who knew that for a fact were completely wrong. 

Scientist, just as with any other group of people, can be prone to following the herd especially when that herd is very vocal and forceful and has cornered the market in getting funding in support of it's specific theory. And don't anybody fall for the assertion that just because many experts and most politicians are in agreement on it then it must be right. 

Anybody remember the panic created over the non-existent Millennium Bug which was going to cripple every computer system in the world and the billions spent supposedly curing it? And what actually happened? The Millennium came and went and the computer systems of the whole world, whether cured of the non-existent Millennium Bug or not, just carried on working as normal. The only thing the Millennium Bug did was empty the pockets of the gullible and filled the pockets of those "experts" who saw they were onto a very lucrative scam by claiming that if only people would follow their advice and pay them to cure the problem they could prevent something which was not going to happen anyway. 

Naturally, if anybody afterwards challenged their scam, they were able to claim that the fact nothing had happening didn't prove a thing because as they'd acted to remove the Bug it wasn't there to create chaos. It's a good scam, invent a problem, claim you have the expensive solution, get people to pay for your solution and when nothing happens claim it was your brilliance which prevented it and in the meantime just watch the money roll in.

----------


## roadbowler

perhaps you'll find coherence in the Miskolczi Constant? Equilibrium, balance, sun, water. Makes perfect sense to people, even children, who pay intuitive respect to nature and learn from it, now scientifically proven and repeatable by scientists everywhere.

----------


## George Brims

> Even within the last century it was an established scientific fact that the Universe was static, always had been and always would be, with even Einstein, despite his genius, accepting that fact. There was only one Galaxy, and that was the one we were in, to suggest otherwise was as ridiculous as suggesting there may be little green men out there. Then, in the 1920s, somebody called Hubble, who was not even a scientist but only a rich amateur astronomer, looked through his rather large telescope and discovered there were other galaxies and not only that but some of them were not static but rushing away from us at a very rapid rate. The absolute certainty of the scientifically provable Static Universe was nothing more than fanciful rubbish and those who knew that for a fact were completely wrong.


Hubble was a professional astronomer working at Mount Wilson on the 100-inch telescope (lots of other rich amateurs in the field, but not him). Other galaxies were known before that facility (then the world's largest telescope) was built (heck you can see some of them with binoculars), but Hubble was able to prove they were too far away to be part of the Milky Way. He then discovered that further galaxies were receding (the further away the faster), due to the expansion of the Universe. There was no dogma about a static Universe. Rather, there was no reason to suppose it wasn't static, until Hubble's results. 




> Anybody remember the panic created over the non-existent Millennium Bug which was going to cripple every computer system in the world and the billions spent supposedly curing it? And what actually happened? The Millennium came and went and the computer systems of the whole world, whether cured of the non-existent Millennium Bug or not, just carried on working as normal. The only thing the Millennium Bug did was empty the pockets of the gullible and filled the pockets of those "experts" who saw they were onto a very lucrative scam by claiming that if only people would follow their advice and pay them to cure the problem they could prevent something which was not going to happen anyway. 
> 
> Naturally, if anybody afterwards challenged their scam, they were able to claim that the fact nothing had happening didn't prove a thing because as they'd acted to remove the Bug it wasn't there to create chaos. It's a good scam, invent a problem, claim you have the expensive solution, get people to pay for your solution and when nothing happens claim it was your brilliance which prevented it and in the meantime just watch the money roll in.


This is complete nonsense. The world was full of computer code that was ready to fail when the clocks ticked over into 2000. I know, I wrote some of it. Lots of simulations were run to diagnose where the really serious problems were likely to occur, and the problems were fixed. There was a lot of silly hype in the press about the possibility of disaster, but most people involved knew pretty much everything had been sorted in time. 

People who claim the whole thing was a scam are just trying to draw an analogy between being warned about one very real problem, and being warned about another, but that's a pretty duff debating point.

----------


## Rheghead

This website has 2009 as the hottest year in the southern hemisphere and equal 2nd hottest globally despite the sun being at its least active for years.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/1...te+Progress%29

We still have an el nino to come, probably this year.  Any bets that 2010 will break records?

----------


## Each

I would take a bet - I can forsee a dificulty though - taking a wager would require an objective assessment and agreed basis for measurement and interpretation of the results...

... nothing that I have read on this thread would suggest that either would be forthcoming.

Night will be interpreted as day and vice versa.

PS the southern hemispher is already experiencing EL Nino conditions and inspite of that average global temp have not deviated from the norm !

----------


## Rheghead

I just wonder what is causing the high global temperatures if it can't be the sun or GHGs?  Deduction tells me GHGs.  The UK Met office is predicting that 2010 will the hottest year on record.  If Globl Warming is a hoax then the Met Office couldn't make that prediction and thus it will be statistically unlikely that 2010 will break records.  Here is my 2p, how many sceptics will still be saying that global warming is a hoax if we are still here in 2011 and 2010 becomes the hottest year on record?

----------


## roadbowler

it won't be the hottest on record. Metoffice huh? Lol what happened with their barbeque summer forecast and mild winter forecast. If you believe anything the metoffice tell you you are very gullible.  wonder how many alarmists shut their traps when the penn state crew take up their prizes in the $50 million whistleblower sweepstakes?

----------


## Rheghead

Well the sceptics claim that the Earth is cooling yet 2009 is the second hottest globally and hottest down under.  I'll stick with the Metoffice I think for my info.

----------


## Each

> ... I'll stick with the Metoffice I think for my info.


That will be tha same met office that established / relies upon the now infamous/discredited Hadley Centre for its climate predictions. We all know now how they like to spin their propoganda.

No I think Ill stick to the historical / empirical data collected by NASA satallites about the actual temperature rather than a loopy computer modeling.

----------


## scoobyc

> Well the sceptics claim that the Earth is cooling yet 2009 is the second hottest globally and hottest down under. I'll stick with the Metoffice I think for my info.


 and the same crew that predicted a mild winter and the councils then downscaled their gritting operations ::

----------


## Rheghead

> and the same crew that predicted a mild winter and the councils then downscaled their gritting operations


We've had a very cold snap of weather, but the winter is only just over 3 weeks old, we'll see if it is actually a harsh winter come March time.  My bet is another mild one.

----------


## Rheghead

> Reggy: _"I think we may be in for a plateau of temperature increases as natural cycles cancel out the effects of GHGs"_ 
> 
> Translation: you agree 'we _may_ have twenty years of no Global Warming'?


Get this, this idea that the Earth is in for some cooler climates is based upon the work of a Dr Mojib Latif.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/1...te+Progress%29

I think this quote from him in response to the charge that climate deniers from Fox news were misquoting his work is really appropriate in this debate.




> I don’t know what to do. They just make these things up.


Says it all really.

----------


## Tubthumper

Global Warming is truly democracy in action. The needs of the majority (everyone in the western world bar Rheghead and a few other obsessives) are met at the expense of the few (Rheghead, Dr Geri Halliwell, some other hairy allegedly clever types). 
We've all known for the past 20 years at least, that oxter spray, fridges and excessive car use were bad for the environment. And we all decided as mature adults, to carry on regardless. 
There's nothing you can do about it Rheg, no point in girning, might as well give it a rest now.
Democracy. And no need for lies or stupid expensive polls either!

----------


## northener

On the plus side, when the next Ice Age does eventually come and eradicate mankind from most of the planet, at least the world will be a better place for it. :Wink:

----------


## roadbowler

> We've had a very cold snap of weather, but the winter is only just over 3 weeks old, we'll see if it is actually a harsh winter come March time.  My bet is another mild one.


 ehm.. The meteorological winter ends the last day of february, so, will see by the end of february. Btw. We are in the 7th week NOT the 3rd week of winter. Pretty foolish bet to make considering the first half turned out coldest for a few decades. Parliament and even the BBC are grilling the metoffice over their inaccuracy. However, there is someone who did predict the cold snap we just had several months in advance and he says cold snap for february after brief respite end of january. I'll let you guess who that was?!

----------


## bekisman

Roadbowler; Not the chap mentioned at the end of the 'snow chain' thread is it? (bet it is though)

----------


## clash67

ITS A SCAM! and I will be posting bits n' bobs now and then revealing other scams that our precious government has pulled of at our expense but here is something everyone should watch regarding climate change.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7tMY3ou0Yo&feature=related

----------


## roadbowler

hi clash. Canna watch the link i've no got broadband. What is the subject?

----------


## Kenn

Well if nothing else, this thread is causing a lot of hot air,wonder if that has anything to do with the current thaw?

----------


## 3of8

> ITS A SCAM! and I will be posting bits n' bobs now and then revealing other scams that our precious government has pulled of at our expense but here is something everyone should watch regarding climate change.
> 
> http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7tMY3ou0Yo&feature=related


Corrected your link to this so that it works

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7tMY...eature=related

----------


## clash67

Thanks 3of8.
I hope this one works...its part 1 of 2 but couldn't get part two..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgQX3...eature=related

----------


## roadbowler

> Roadbowler; Not the chap mentioned at the end of the 'snow chain' thread is it? (bet it is though)


 yea, just read it, we're on the same page.

----------


## 3of8

> Corrected your link to this so that it works
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7tMY...eature=related


Really good! 

So the gauntlet has been thrown down. Will Al Gore rise to the challenge? I think not.

----------


## clash67

> hi clash. Canna watch the link i've no got broadband. What is the subject?



Lord Monkton shows how manipulated the data is that was put forward by Al Gore and offers a challenge to Gore to debate the issue on international TV.

----------


## bekisman

Very interesting, pity it was just a cable TV company - what does the Org's Environmental consultant have to say?

Monckton, did he not fund 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

----------


## roadbowler

bekisman. The org environmental consultant is busy still trying to figure out when winter is. :Wink:  Clash. Thanks. Yea, watched a two and half hour video a few months back of monckton giving a speech at some university in america totally tearing apart the fantasy gore facts. Twas pretty good. The realists have been challenging the gorists and alarmists for quite a while but, no takers.

----------


## bekisman

bekisman. The org environmental consultant is busy still trying to figure out when winter is. You might well be right! :: 

My money is on Piers Corbyn: http://www.weatheraction.com/

----------


## roadbowler

i see that the metoffice is receiving another grilling today from the bbc and corbyn getting a lot of mention in the same article for his forecasting skills. Lol i also notice the big english horse racing circuits are now turning to corbyn for forecasts instead of the metoffice too. Article accuses metoffice of warming bias! Imagine that?! Bekisman. I think i know whos money is safest!

----------


## Neil Howie

In order to predict the weather, it may be best to pick the opposite of what the Met Office say.

BBC- forecasting trouble


Oh, and Mockton, while I'm here, try this link


---insert smug quote here---

----------


## oldmarine

Looks like Al Gore has won a few converts.  I certainly won't place my money on him as a winner.  I've gone through too many cold nights here in usually HOT Arizona to place so much faith in what Al Gore (who is not even recognized in his home state of Tennessee) tries to sell to the world. Believe what you want, but as far as me and my house we refuse to believe.

----------


## Neil Howie

dont like Al Gore, and I've never seen the film

----------


## Stavro

The Times Online states:

"Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a  benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most  detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the  world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could  vanish by 2035.

"It has ... emerged that the ... report was ... based on a short  telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then  based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

"Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not  supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most  serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely  to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on  climate change.

"The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred  Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New  Scientist. Pearce said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his  claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: 'Hasnain told me then that he was  bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not  been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had  no formal status so I reported his work on that basis.   Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In  other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan  glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related  only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.'


"Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of  the Himalayas claim as 'voodoo science'. "   :Grin: 



For the full report see - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...fset=12&page=2

----------


## _Ju_

Lets look at the big picture here. We are well on our way to 7 billion on this planet. In my lifetime the population has almost doubled (I am in my 30's). Do we really think that thesenumbers have no significant effect on the enviroment? If we do then even lemmings have more sense than us.

----------


## roadbowler

ju, whilst i do not buy the agw theory on global warming i do not disagree that humans are doing a lot of stupid things. Mostly greedy things which are harming the planet and harming themselves. As for population, again, nature controls this, not humans. However, it is humans that are creating desertification, chopping down rainforests and using poor farming methods and raping and exploiting the planets resources which can lead people to think there is a population problem. Perhaps, humans need to look at how they can conserve and reverse their impact on nature in order to make way for an expanding population? Maybe it even needs to be extreme?

----------


## _Ju_

> ju, whilst i do not buy the agw theory on global warming i do not disagree that humans are doing a lot of stupid things. Mostly greedy things which are harming the planet and harming themselves. As for population, again, nature controls this, not humans. However, it is humans that are creating desertification, chopping down rainforests and using poor farming methods and raping and exploiting the planets resources which can lead people to think there is a population problem. Perhaps, humans need to look at how they can conserve and reverse their impact on nature in order to make way for an expanding population? Maybe it even needs to be extreme?





http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
Very interesting lecture. It makes (me) realise that I do not need a degree in enviromental sciences or mathematics to figure out that it doesn't matter what personal beliefs I have about global warming/sustainability/population growth.

The following is a very illustrative mathematical model of population growth extracted  from the same lecturer [For Jar, read earth]  I still recomend listening to the whole thing :


Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy



Bacteria grow by doubling. One bacterium divides to become two, the two divide to become 4, the 4 become 8, 16 and so on. Suppose we had bacteria that doubled in number this way every minute. Suppose we put one of these bacteria into an empty bottle at 11:00 in the morning, and then observe that the bottle is full at 12:00 noon. There’s our case of just ordinary steady growth: it has a doubling time of one minute, it’s in the finite environment of one bottle [Earth].

I want to ask you three questions. Number one: at what time was the bottle half full? Well, would you believe 11:59, one minute before 12:00? Because they double in number every minute.

And the second question: if you were an average bacterium in that bottle, at what time would you first realise you were running of space? Well, let’s just look at the last minutes in the bottle. At 12:00 noon, it’s full; one minute before, it’s half full; 2 minutes before, it’s a quarter full; then an 1/8th; then a 1/16th. Let me ask you, at 5 minutes before 12:00, when the bottle is only 3% full and is 97% open space just yearning for development, how many of you would realise there’s a problem?

Now, in the ongoing controversy over growth in Boulder, someone wrote to the newspaper some years ago and said “Look, there’s no problem with population growth in Boulder, because,” the writer said, “we have fifteen times as much open space as we’ve already used.” So let me ask you, what time was it in Boulder when the open space was fifteen times the amount of space we’d already used? The answer is, it was four minutes before 12:00 in Boulder Valley. Well, suppose that at 2 minutes before 12:00, some of the bacteria realise they’re running out of space, so they launch a great search for new bottles. They search offshore on the outer continental shelf and in the overthrust belt and in the Arctic, and they find three new bottles. Now that’s an incredible discovery, that’s three times the total amount of resource they ever knew about before. They now have four bottles, before their discovery, there was only one. Now surely this will give them a sustainable society, won’t it?

You know what the third question is: how long can the growth continue as a result of this magnificent discovery? Well, look at the score: at 12:00 noon, one bottle is filled, there are three to go; 12:01, two bottles are filled, there are two to go; and at 12:02, all four are filled and that’s the end of the line.


*************************************************


Our end of the line is coming long alot quicker than we want to admit. We are living in a great big Ponzi scheme that our kids and gran kids will be paying for.

----------


## roadbowler

> http://globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
> Very interesting lecture. It makes (me) realise that I do not need a degree in enviromental sciences or mathematics to figure out that it doesn't matter what personal beliefs I have about global warming/sustainability/population growth.
> 
> The following is a very illustrative mathematical model of population growth extracted  from the same lecturer [For Jar, read earth]  I still recomend listening to the whole thing :
> 
> 
> Dr. Albert Bartlett: Arithmetic, Population and Energy
> 
> 
> ...


 ah. Well in terms of population growth, humans don't need to know what time the bottles' full because nature tells them what time the bottles' full. Humans do what nature tells them with no back talk or straight til beds wi smacked bums. (in our new pc culture they would be sent to the step for a time out and reasoning then bed) but, anyways, here is what i submit for pondering. As you say, since you were born, population may have doubled _but,_ since the 1970's fertility rates have plummeted to 50% less. Male genital deformation has increased 200% accounting for extremely low or no sperm count in these males. Since the 70's, 3 million less boys have been born than what is natural. Hhmmm.

----------


## Stavro

> ah. Well in terms of population growth, humans don't need to know what time the bottles' full because nature tells them what time the bottles' full. Humans do what nature tells them with no back talk or straight til beds wi smacked bums. (in our new pc culture they would be sent to the step for a time out and reasoning then bed) but, anyways, here is what i submit for pondering. As you say, since you were born, population may have doubled _but,_ since the 1970's fertility rates have plummeted to 50% less. Male genital deformation has increased 200% accounting for extremely low or no sperm count in these males. Since the 70's, 3 million less boys have been born than what is natural. Hhmmm.


Yes, and don't forget the estrogens, antibiotics, GM tinkering, etc.

To compare human population growth with the population of bacteria in a petri dish seems a bit stupid to me.

----------


## roadbowler

yea, the gm tinkering. When an annual plant either sickens or prepares to die from age, what does it do? It puts all it's strength into developing seed so it can at least reproduce before it dies. That is what it lives for. Humans do relatively the same thing. However, now man and plant are still doing to the same thing but, differently. Humans tinker with the plants so, they cannot either produce seed or produce unviable seed so, they can control and capitalise on one of our basic human rights. Food. This also denies us the independence to grow our own food without having to pay the likes of monsanto every year for seed. The eu in its infinite wisdom has also banned the sale of any seed (mostly healthy heirloom non'gm varieties that produce seed that you can save for free) that is not on their official vegetable seed list. Equalling 11,000 years of successful, natural breeding of hundreds of thousands of old heirloom variety of food plants being lost to bureaucracy. And, humans according to the statistics i've quoted above are also losing their ability to reproduce and "produce viable seed" through mans ill thought tinkering with their food, water, medicine and environment. On either side of the analogy there is only one common culprit.  (btw. The fertility rate statistics i quote are from a cbc documentary called, "the disappearing male")

----------


## _Ju_

> ah. Well in terms of population growth, humans don't need to know what time the bottles' full because nature tells them what time the bottles' full. Humans do what nature tells them with no back talk or straight til beds wi smacked bums. (in our new pc culture they would be sent to the step for a time out and reasoning then bed) but, anyways, here is what i submit for pondering. As you say, since you were born, population may have doubled but, since the 1970's fertility rates have plummeted to 50% less. Male genital deformation has increased 200% accounting for extremely low or no sperm count in these males. Since the 70's, 3 million less boys have been born than what is natural. Hhmmm.


Growth is growth. Zero growth is what will keep the population as it is now, at 7 billion. Zero growth is what will keep consumption of resoures, including hydrocarbons, at current levels, giving us maybe a few more hundred years of coal and oil (if what is presumed to be out there can be found and economically extracted). <Here begins my ironic tone> Growth is not zero, even with what you percieve to be the imminent extinction of the human being due to lack of fertile males. The good news bowler, is that in mamls, as any farmer will tell you, it is the female that determines the maximum potential number of newborns. you do not need to have anywhere close to a one to one ratio of male/female to maintain the growth of a mamal population, so there is hope for humans yet.  <here ends my ironic tone>






> Yes, and don't forget the estrogens, antibiotics, GM tinkering, etc.
> 
> To compare human population growth with the population of bacteria in a petri dish seems a bit stupid to me.


What can I say to this other than paint me a  metaphor an' call me stupid, honey.

----------


## roadbowler

trust me, i know. Ai willie visits us every summer.  :Wink:  however, do you ever wonder why it is that given the statistics no government anywhere is running around trying to figure out why it is that humans fertility rate has dropped 50% but, they will spend how many millions on trying to stop the planet warming a degree? Secondly, your assumption that zero growth will keep the population the way it is at 7 billion needs another look. To keep the population at it is as you say you want zero growth you'll also need another miracle of zero death. :Wink:

----------


## Phill

> since the 1970's fertility rates have plummeted to 50% less.


So Durex have helped save the planet?
Unless your after a fast track council flat then the fertility rate seems to pick up!

----------


## Turquoise

I may be wrong but it's a theory I've held for some time.

In underdeveloped countries, the birth rate tends to be higher due to a lack of contraception/cultural factors, but is evened out by a high death rate due to disease/sanitation etc

Now however, many of these people are moving to developed countries where there is available medical care and better living conditions.  Therefore, the death rate of these people is lowered.  Culturally though, these people will continue to breed at the same rate as they did before and before long there's a massive hike in population.

----------


## roadbowler

> So Durex have helped save the planet?
> Unless your after a fast track council flat then the fertility rate seems to pick up!


 ha HA! (my best lisa simpson laff) ::

----------


## fred

> I may be wrong but it's a theory I've held for some time.
> 
> In underdeveloped countries, the birth rate tends to be higher due to a lack of contraception/cultural factors, but is evened out by a high death rate due to disease/sanitation etc
> 
> Now however, many of these people are moving to developed countries where there is available medical care and better living conditions.  Therefore, the death rate of these people is lowered.  Culturally though, these people will continue to breed at the same rate as they did before and before long there's a massive hike in population.


No, the death rate in the underdeveloped countries is exactly the same as the death rate in developed countries.

One per person.

----------


## roadbowler

bbc must really be fed up with the metoffice. They have put their weather forecasting contract out to tender! First time in 87 years too! Lol google, "bbc weather forcasting contract tender" was in the guardian!

----------


## _Ju_

> trust me, i know. Ai willie visits us every summer.  however, do you ever wonder why it is that given the statistics no government anywhere is running around trying to figure out why it is that humans fertility rate has dropped 50% but, they will spend how many millions on trying to stop the planet warming a degree? Secondly, your assumption that zero growth will keep the population the way it is at 7 billion needs another look. To keep the population at it is as you say you want zero growth you'll also need another miracle of zero death.


A planet warming a few degrees can and will cause altered weather patterns, more violent storms, flooding in some places and drought in others. This can affect whole populations dramamtically, even killing them. Reversing that temperature rise is not a manouver that can be carried out in a short time. With our current numbers, fertility, frankly, is not a problem. And cleaning up the enviroment we live in, it is thought, would resolve many of the causes of infertility. That is why a couple degrees centigrade, are at the moment more important  than what ypu call a 50% drop in fertility.

Zero growth is not magically stopping death. Think a bit. Zero growth would be when birth (and sucessfully raising the child) and death rates equal eachother. Zero growth in consumption of resources is when the ammount of resource consumed does not go up per unit of time. 




> In underdeveloped countries, the birth rate tends to be higher due to a lack of contraception/cultural factors, but is evened out by a high death rate due to disease/sanitation etc
> 
> Now however, many of these people are moving to developed countries where there is available medical care and better living conditions. Therefore, the death rate of these people is lowered. Culturally though, these people will continue to breed at the same rate as they did before and before long there's a massive hike in population.


Historically, in every culture, families were big and had many children, including (untill very recently) Europe (and the UK). Many children were needed because labour was manual and because many children died before adulthood. As conditions improved (food safety, mechanisation, medical improvements), more children survived into adulthood and the natural tendency was a drop in the number of children people were having. The same applies to these african cultures. Infact their are charities that support women/mothers specifically, that show that small improvements to the family economy through the mother lead to healthier families, fewer births and infantile deaths.

----------


## roadbowler

are you really saying that you think that by "stopping" global warming we will reduce violent weather and droughts? I'm afraid it's just not true. Why is it 10 years ago they told us to prepare for more storminess in the north atlantic and exactly the opposite has happened? See fair isle weather statistics on their website. Besides, the idea that man can stop global warming in the first place is ludicrous and arrogant. Fertility rates down 50% in the past 40 years and you think it's not important? Is this argument for the sake of argument? Well, i do believe there are plenty of people who share your view on population. Sorry, i do not. However, i do agree with you about cleaning up the environment. Unfortunately, ju, the people who capitalise in the name of progress use a lot of classy words like sustainabilty and green but, the reality of the matter is that they are not interested in cleaning up the environment, just lining their pockets.

----------


## Stavro

> What can I say to this other than paint me a  metaphor an' call me stupid, honey.


If you are worried about natural resources for feeding an ever-increasing population, honey, then perhaps we should stop fattening livestock, like beef cattle, since we can feed up to 20 times more people with the food that the cattle eat, than with the fat and meat that the cattle are slaughtered for.

----------


## _Ju_

> If you are worried about natural resources for feeding an ever-increasing population, honey, then perhaps we should stop fattening livestock, like beef cattle, since we can feed up to 20 times more people with the food that the cattle eat, than with the fat and meat that the cattle are slaughtered for.


If people do not want to give up their energy rich lifestyles, and are plundering the futures resources to maintain their comfort, with the possibility of destroying a livable enviroment,  how on earth would you force them to go veggie? 


Obviously no one listened to the links posted, and barely read the extract on the diagonal. Yet it was called stupid (or I was...not clear about which). The link was about exponencial growth, what it means in real terms of resources (not just food, but energy, space, materials, etc). It does not bother me if you don't want to be bothered about listening t it, but it's bad form to comment on it if you can't be bothered. (oooooppppppsssssss, I almost forgot), Honey.

----------


## Tubthumper

> No, the death rate in the underdeveloped countries is exactly the same as the death rate in developed countries. One per person.


You're back Fred

----------


## Stavro

> If people do not want to give up their energy rich lifestyles, and are plundering the futures resources to maintain their comfort, with the possibility of destroying a livable enviroment,  how on earth would you force them to go veggie?


So what "resources" are you talking about, honey? Clearly not food, because you have skipped the point. Are you talking about metals to build cars with? Is taxing the population going to solve the population problem?

----------


## roadbowler

well, let's breakdown the realities of giving up our energy rich lifestyles. Transport. We do not live in a community based society our food chain relies largely on imports. People no longer have community based incomes, they travel/commute to work to make money to buy imported consumer goods, the basics of those that used to be provided locally but, no longer. Petrochemical industry by-products support the clothing, plastic, food and pharmaceutical industry among others that are again imported to you many even most of which could be and have in the past been provided locally. Building materials, all manufactured elsewhere and imported to you eventhough a vast majority could be provided here. Power. Haha! Caithness could be entirely 100% self sufficient in renewable energy but, we aren't? We largely export that too. And import energy from elsewheres in forms of gas, coal, electricity and oil. And so on, and so on. Even if people wanted to reverse this, they are not allowed too. The capitalst economy depends on the peoples interdependence. The government who fully supports this system is not prepared to give up this system even though they say we need to live more "sustainably". So, the people are not really in the position to give up an energy rich lifestyle even if they wanted to, are they?

----------


## Stavro

Good post, but I think that the main problem with this system is that the governments do not issue the money, but borrow it from private sources.

----------


## roadbowler

well, i think whether global warming is an issue or not or whether you think it is or not people are trying to do their bit in small ways; recycling, carsharing, buying local etc. But, my point is that to really make a difference the impediments standing in our way are largely out of our control. Frankly, i think it's gone too far and would literally take a transformation of consciousness to change which i just don't see happening.

----------


## _Ju_

> well, i think whether global warming is an issue or not or whether you think it is or not people are trying to do their bit in small ways; recycling, carsharing, buying local etc. But, my point is that to really make a difference the impediments standing in our way are largely out of our control. Frankly, i think it's gone too far and would literally take a transformation of consciousness to change which i just don't see happening.


I absolutely agree.

----------


## bekisman

*Climate body admits glacier error* 
By Richard Black 
Environment correspondent, BBC News website 



Seeing that Rheghead is not posting on these particular threads anymore, thought, well what the hell.. 
Stavro has also mentioned this, but the startling point is that it's not the Times but this is (Government mouthpiece) the BBC!!! 

The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel admits that it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts. 
A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed. 
Some commentators maintain that taken together with the contents of e-mails stolen last year from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, it undermines the credibility of climate science. 
The claim that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035 appears to have originated in a 1999 interview with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine. The figure then surfaced in a 2005 report by environmental group WWF - a report that is cited in the IPCC's 2007 assessment, known as AR4. 
An alternative genesis lies in the misreading of a 1996 study that gave the date as 2350. 
AR 4 asserted: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world... the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." 
Dr van Ypersele said the episode meant that the panel's reviewing procedures would have to be tightened. 
Slow reaction? The row erupted in India late last year in the run-up to the Copenhagen climate summit, with opposing factions in the government giving radically different narratives of what was happening to Himalayan ice. 


In December, it emerged that four leading glaciologists had prepared a letter for publication in the journal Science arguing that a complete melt by 2035 was physically impossible. 
"You just can't accomplish it," Jeffrey Kargel from the University of Arizona told BBC News at the time. 
"If you think about the thicknesses of the ice - 200-300m thicknesses, in some cases up to 400m thick - and if you're losing ice at the rate of a metre a year, or let's say double it to two metres a year, you're not going to get rid of 200m of ice in a quarter of a century." 
The row continues in India, with Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh calling this week for the IPCC to explain "how it reached the 2035 figure, which created such a scare". 
Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck in Austria - who led a different portion of the AR4 process - said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in 2006, before AR4's publication. 
"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview. 
He said that people working on the Asia chapter "did not react". He suggested that some of the IPCC's working practices should be revised by the time work begins on its next landmark report, due in 2013. 

(Hi Fred, long time no see!)

 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8468358.stm

----------


## Green_not_greed

> *Climate body admits glacier error* 
> By Richard Black 
> Environment correspondent, BBC News website 
> 
>  
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8468358.stm


So is it co-incidental that this is only admitted after Copenhagen?????  I think not.  It gets more like the X-files every day!

GNG

----------


## Stavro

And for the icing on the cake - 

"         BRUSSELS bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5million of taxpayers’ money last year to promote the theory that human activity is causing global warming, it emerged yesterday.     

"The European Commission handed out huge cash sums to Climate Action Network, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund. In one case, British and other European taxpayers paid out more than £700,000 to Friends of the Earth Europe – more than half the pressure group’s 2009 budget.

"The payouts came to light after questions by UKIP Euro MP Godfrey Bloom. He said the cash was perpetuating unfounded claims about global warming.

"Environment Commissioner *Stavros* Dimas insisted that the groups’ aims and objectives were in tune with EU policy."

 :: 


(Source - http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/152595 )

----------


## fred

> If you are worried about natural resources for feeding an ever-increasing population, honey, then perhaps we should stop fattening livestock, like beef cattle, since we can feed up to 20 times more people with the food that the cattle eat, than with the fat and meat that the cattle are slaughtered for.


Cows eat grass, wonderful stuff grass, grows everywhere all by itself and the leaves go right to the ground so as how much it's eaten it still keeps on growing, converting sunlight to energy, a better solar panel than anything man can make.

Unfortunately people don't do too well if they try to eat it. Cows do, they make milk and meat and some of the best organic fertiliser you can get out of it, wonderful creatures cows are.

----------


## Cinderella's Shoe

> And for the icing on the cake - 
> 
> "         BRUSSELS bureaucrats gave climate change groups more than £1.5million of taxpayers money last year to promote the theory that human activity is causing global warming, it emerged yesterday.     
> 
> "The European Commission handed out huge cash sums to Climate Action Network, Friends of the Earth and the World Wildlife Fund. In one case, British and other European taxpayers paid out more than £700,000 to Friends of the Earth Europe  more than half the pressure groups 2009 budget.
> 
> "The payouts came to light after questions by UKIP Euro MP Godfrey Bloom. He said the cash was perpetuating unfounded claims about global warming.
> 
> "Environment Commissioner *Stavros* Dimas insisted that the groups aims and objectives were in tune with EU policy."
> ...


Well stuff me sideways with a turbine!!!!

----------


## roadbowler

> Cows eat grass, wonderful stuff grass, grows everywhere all by itself and the leaves go right to the ground so as how much it's eaten it still keeps on growing, converting sunlight to energy, a better solar panel than anything man can make.
> 
> Unfortunately people don't do too well if they try to eat it. Cows do, they make milk and meat and some of the best organic fertiliser you can get out of it, wonderful creatures cows are.


 i would agree. Cows are the most civilised beasts on the planet. I love my cows. However, you could seed a cow pasture with vegetable and herb seedballs and clover and in five years time you would have established the same pasture with twice or more as much food for human consumption then you'd get from the slaughter of the beasts. In places like somalia, this is precisely what they are doing.

----------


## Stavro

> Cows eat grass, wonderful stuff grass, grows everywhere all by itself and the leaves go right to the ground so as how much it's eaten it still keeps on growing, converting sunlight to energy, a better solar panel than anything man can make.
> 
> Unfortunately people don't do too well if they try to eat it. Cows do, they make milk and meat and some of the best organic fertiliser you can get out of it, wonderful creatures cows are.


Your knowledge of grass is astounding.

Cows do not "make meat," they are the meat.

Fertilizer is necessary when fields are overworked. Leaving a pasture fallow one year in seven does away with a need for fertilizer, organic or inorganic.





> i would agree. Cows are the most civilised beasts on the planet. I love my cows. However, you could seed a cow pasture with vegetable and herb seedballs and clover and in five years time you would have established the same pasture with twice or more as much food for human consumption then you'd get from the slaughter of the beasts. In places like somalia, this is precisely what they are doing.


Yes, and if the crop is something like soya bean, then the ratio is apparently 10-20 to 1, I believe.  :Smile:

----------


## fred

> i would agree. Cows are the most civilised beasts on the planet. I love my cows. However, you could seed a cow pasture with vegetable and herb seedballs and clover and in five years time you would have established the same pasture with twice or more as much food for human consumption then you'd get from the slaughter of the beasts. In places like somalia, this is precisely what they are doing.


No that isn't what they are doing in Somalia, in Somalia they keep livestock, livestock provides them with 40% of their GDP and 65% of their export earnings.

----------


## roadbowler

well fred what they don't tell you is that a man named fukuoka went there to give the people seeds which they later arrested him for and are currently gaining back their once unarable land (mostly likely due to their desparate overgrazing). Which most likely accounts for their meat economy. I'm saying they are claiming back desert by growing vegetables and are able to feed more of their people.

----------


## Green_not_greed

A reality check for CO2 reduction?

A recent study in Australia examined options for cutting CO2 emissions from electricity generation compared with a "Business as Usual" option over the period 2010 to 2050. The six options comprise combinations of coal, gas, nuclear, wind and solar thermal technologies. The conclusions: *The nuclear option reduces CO2 emissions the most, is the only option that can be built quickly enough to make the deep emissions cuts required, and is the least cost of the options that can cut emissions sustainably.* Solar thermal and wind power are the highest cost of the options considered. The cost of avoiding emissions is lowest with nuclear and highest with solar and wind power. 

Write up is at

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/01/0...uts-realities/

Full report at

http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpre...ities_v1a1.pdf

----------


## fred

> well fred what they don't tell you is that a man named fukuoka went there to give the people seeds which they later arrested him for and are currently gaining back their once unarable land (mostly likely due to their desparate overgrazing). Which most likely accounts for their meat economy. I'm saying they are claiming back desert by growing vegetables and are able to feed more of their people.


As I travel around Caithness what do I see? I see grass, grass growing in the fields and grass growing on the side of the roads, where land meets the sea there is grass and on the hilltop there is grass, that is natures way. I see things which eat the grass, rabbit and deer, I see things which eat the things that eat the grass, that is natures way.

You can fight nature if you like, you'll never win but if a man works hard and if he's lucky he might grow enough to feed his family. He won't grow enough to feed a hundred families though, to do that you must work with nature not against her.

----------


## northener

> bbc must really be fed up with the metoffice. They have put their weather forecasting contract out to tender! First time in 87 years too! Lol google, "bbc weather forcasting contract tender" was in the guardian!


More to do with the fact that the Beeb is looking for a cheaper version. 

The Met Office is still trusted by serious users such as Aviation and Marine. The morning forecast on BBC breakfast is usually fairly good, but most viewers want to know if they'll get their new hat wet when they go to the shops or if it's going to be sunny enough to put the kitten in the garden......
Standby for even more dumbed down weather reports coming your way......

----------


## Green_not_greed

> bbc must really be fed up with the metoffice. They have put their weather forecasting contract out to tender! First time in 87 years too! Lol google, "bbc weather forcasting contract tender" was in the guardian!


Well I hope Tuggs is going to bid... could do with some decent forecasts!

----------


## bekisman

With us 'out west' seems a problem with the weather forecasts. For a long period I would compare our weather to that predicted - one case was where we were being battered with a Force 8-9 which was - at that time - ripping and blowing our 2 metre-high chicken fencing to bits, a lot of damage done - the BBC weather says a mild wind.. Contacted them on a number of occasions when they were 100% wrong and it's a micro-climate we have here..?

Found this website: http://weather.slimyhorror.com/ and although light humour seems to indicate that by using your own simple 'accuracy' (It is said that a good prediction of tomorrow's weather is that it will be same as today's) it can be more accurate than the BBC..
So what have we learned? Can we fault the prescience of the BBC's five day forecasts? Yes. The weather predicted by the BBC for four days time was just 30-40% accurate - i.e. they get it wrong around two times out of three. 

The weather predicted by the BBC for four days time was just 30-40% accurate - i.e. they get it wrong around two times out of three.

Long Range? forget it, I've thrown away my new barbeque for the promised hot summer and I'm getting snow socks for the car for the mild winter.. it'll never be an 'exact science' this butterfly flapping it's wings in Guatemala etc..

----------


## fred

> Well I hope Tuggs is going to bid... could do with some decent forecasts!


Man should learn how to control the weather, like cows do. If they want it to rain they all go and lie down under the hedges and it rains, if they want it to be fine they just go and stand out in the middle of the field and make the sun shine.

Wonderful creatures.

----------


## northener

> With us 'out west' seems a problem with the weather forecasts. For a long period I would compare our weather to that predicted - one case was where we were being battered with a Force 8-9 which was - at that time - ripping and blowing our 2 metre-high chicken fencing to bits, a lot of damage done - the BBC weather says a mild wind.. Contacted them on a number of occasions when they were 100% wrong and it's a micro-climate we have here..?
> 
> Found this website: http://weather.slimyhorror.com/ and although light humour seems to indicate that by using your own simple 'accuracy' (It is said that a good prediction of tomorrow's weather is that it will be same as today's) it can be more accurate than the BBC..
> So what have we learned? Can we fault the prescience of the BBC's five day forecasts? Yes. The weather predicted by the BBC for four days time was just 30-40% accurate - i.e. they get it wrong around two times out of three. 
> 
> The weather predicted by the BBC for four days time was just 30-40% accurate - i.e. they get it wrong around two times out of three.
> 
> Long Range? forget it, I've thrown away my new barbeque for the promised hot summer and I'm getting snow socks for the car for the mild winter.. it'll never be an 'exact science' this butterfly flapping it's wings in Guatemala etc..


Forget the BBC, use the Inshore Marine section on the Met Office site. A damn site more useful to us than the Beebs' 'one size fits all'.


Todays forecast for Strathy Point :Wink: :

_Cape Wrath to Rattray Head including Orkney_
*Strong winds are forecast*
_For coastal areas up to 12 miles offshore from 1200 Wed 20 Jan until 1200 Thu 21 Jan_
*24 hour forecast:*

_Wind__Southeast 5 to 7 occasionally gale 8.__Sea State__Moderate or rough, occasionally very rough in far north.__Weather__Occasional rain.__Visibility__Moderate or good._*Outlook for the following 24 hours:*

_Wind__Southeast 6 to gale 8, occasionally severe gale 9.__Sea State__Rough or very rough.__Weather__Rain.__Visibility__Moderate or good, occasionally poor._

You can pull down isobar charts and windspeed/temperature charts to draw your own conclusions, too. 
Like I said, the Beeb forecasts are just a general overview for the general public in Suburbanshire, no use 'in the wilds' or if you've got work to do.

----------


## bekisman

Yep I use _'Cape Wrath to Rattray Head including Orkney'_ BBC Weather, during the storms here, hoping that the forecast is right as the house trembles; kinda 'fingers crossed - hope they're right' wish..

But I've found this one to be pretty good too ref the wind: http://magicseaweed.com/msw-surf-charts2.php?chart=1&res=500&type=wind&starttime=12  52195200

----------


## northener

> Yep I use _'Cape Wrath to Rattray Head including Orkney'_ BBC Weather, during the storms here, hoping that the forecast is right as the house trembles; kinda 'fingers crossed - hope they're right' wish..
> 
> But I've found this one to be pretty good too ref the wind: http://magicseaweed.com/msw-surf-cha...ime=1252195200


Aye, Magicseaweed has a good rep, too. Trusted by Surfies everywhere! ::

----------


## roadbowler

> As I travel around Caithness what do I see? I see grass, grass growing in the fields and grass growing on the side of the roads, where land meets the sea there is grass and on the hilltop there is grass, that is natures way. I see things which eat the grass, rabbit and deer, I see things which eat the things that eat the grass, that is natures way.
> 
> You can fight nature if you like, you'll never win but if a man works hard and if he's lucky he might grow enough to feed his family. He won't grow enough to feed a hundred families though, to do that you must work with nature not against her.


precisely. Have a look at fukuoka, that is what his type of farming is about, you throw out the seedballs and let it reseed and reseed. The types of vegetables that like the climate and soil conditions reseed ad crossbreed until you get vegetables that aren't the ones that you recognise from the shop. But, more robust and nutritional vegetables that have naturally designed themselves to be perfect food for all animals sharing the locale. That's nature. Secondly, sheep is not natural. Those are imported. Lots of them around. Not nearly the amount of deer that would be here naturally either. Things eat the things that eat the grass but, the top of this food chain would have probably been wolves at one time. No trees either. It's actually a very unnatural, very manmade landscape what we see now. I know there are by my count 72 medicinal herbs that grow within a 5 mile radius of my place. Maybe 20 of those grew in my fields. However, where i've planted a few hundred trees no longer gets grazed and i now have huge stands of herbs that never grew there previously since i've left this bit to its own devices. Just in a few years, i've probably got 50 medicinal and edible herbs instead of the 20 types i used to have. That's by doing nothing but, planting a few trees and keeping animals off this particular bit.

----------


## roadbowler

> Well I hope Tuggs is going to bid... could do with some decent forecasts!


i was actually thinking the same exact thing! Go tuggs!  :Grin:

----------


## fred

> precisely. Have a look at fukuoka, that is what his type of farming is about, you throw out the seedballs and let it reseed and reseed. The types of vegetables that like the climate and soil conditions reseed ad crossbreed until you get vegetables that aren't the ones that you recognise from the shop. But, more robust and nutritional vegetables that have naturally designed themselves to be perfect food for all animals sharing the locale. That's nature. Secondly, sheep is not natural. Those are imported. Lots of them around. Not nearly the amount of deer that would be here naturally either. Things eat the things that eat the grass but, the top of this food chain would have probably been wolves at one time. No trees either. It's actually a very unnatural, very manmade landscape what we see now. I know there are by my count 72 medicinal herbs that grow within a 5 mile radius of my place. Maybe 20 of those grew in my fields. However, where i've planted a few hundred trees no longer gets grazed and i now have huge stands of herbs that never grew there previously since i've left this bit to its own devices. Just in a few years, i've probably got 50 medicinal and edible herbs instead of the 20 types i used to have. That's by doing nothing but, planting a few trees and keeping animals off this particular bit.


Sheep are very much a part of nature, as is man.

We already have a robust and nutritional food for the animals sharing the local, it's called grass, it grows very well without any seedballs. People put a great deal of time, effort and money into trying to stop it growing every summer.

What is being advocated is kinecide, bovine cleansing. When man needed power to pull his plough who did he turn to? The cow. When man needed boots for his feet and harness for his horse who did he turn to? The cow. When man needed butter and cheese for his bread who was there for him? The cow. When man needed meat for his table where did he get it? The cow.

Now it's "clear off we want to grow couscous". Typical.

----------


## roadbowler

> Sheep are very much a part of nature, as is man.
> 
> We already have a robust and nutritional food for the animals sharing the local, it's called grass, it grows very well without any seedballs. People put a great deal of time, effort and money into trying to stop it growing every summer.
> 
> What is being advocated is kinecide, bovine cleansing. When man needed power to pull his plough who did he turn to? The cow. When man needed boots for his feet and harness for his horse who did he turn to? The cow. When man needed butter and cheese for his bread who was there for him? The cow. When man needed meat for his table where did he get it? The cow.
> 
> Now it's "clear off we want to grow couscous". Typical.


 lmao!  ::  i absolutely would not condone any kind of kineocide! Besides cous cous is wheat and wheat wouldna do well in caithness.  :Wink:  i reckon in 5-7 years i'll be able to let my cows and horses go back in this bit not to graze heavily but, to pick n' choose herbs there that are good for them nutritionally and to help heal them of any ailments they're suffering; like laminitis for example.  Horses and cows are good at that, they know what they need and will seek out what they need if made available. Most of these aren't available in their pasture now as its grazed then cut for silage.

----------


## roadbowler

> Aye, Magicseaweed has a good rep, too. Trusted by Surfies everywhere!


 i find netweather.tv pretty good too.

----------


## fred

> lmao!  i absolutely would not condone any kind of kineocide!


Seems to me that was what Stavro was advocating.

----------


## northener

> Seems to me that was what Stavro was advocating.


Stavro is a vegitrouble Aryian, Fred. So therefore not to be trusted on matters pertaining to meat. :Wink: 

And welcome back!

----------


## Phill

> Now it's "clear off we want to grow couscous". Typical.



Oh goody, does this mean I should start planting couscous trees, how do they fare in the Caithness Climate.

----------


## Phill

> *The nuclear option reduces CO2 emissions the most, is the only option that can be built quickly enough to make the deep emissions cuts required, and is the least cost of the options that can cut emissions sustainably.*



No surprises there, I have said for a long while the best thing we can do is get another reactor fired up at Dounreay.

----------


## Phill

I have spent a little time studying the weather, even did an exam in it once, so I feel I am suitably qualified to put my tuppence in, not that I ever let my lack of knowledge and qualifications stop me anyway.

This is the future:


As the man Gary here has turned to the latest in technology I would advise the same.

----------


## Stavro

> Seems to me that was what Stavro was advocating.


Seems to me that you need to do a bit more homework, fred.  :Smile:

----------


## bekisman

*Climate e-mails row university 'breached data laws' 
*　
Sorry to bring this tread up, but it's still going on.. trying to prevent sceptics getting the information.. terrible, who can you trust?

A university unit involved in a row over stolen e-mails on climate research breached rules by withholding data, the Information Commissioner's Office says.Officials said messages leaked in November showed that requests under the Freedom of Information Act were "not dealt with as they should have been". 
But too much time has passed for action against the University of East Anglia. 
The UEA says part of a probe into the case will consider the way requests by climate change sceptics were handled. 

'Legal obligations'

The leaked files include documents, detailed data and private e-mails exchanged between leading climate scientists. 
But academics deny claims the material showed science had been manipulated. 
Professor Phil Jones, who has stood down as director of the Climatic Research Unit while the review takes place, has said he stands by his data and insisted that the emails had been taken "completely out of context". 

In a statement, Deputy Information Commissioner Graham Smith said it was an offence under section 77 of the Freedom of Information act "to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information". 
He said the requests were made by a climate change sceptic in the 2007-2008 period and as the case was more than six months old "the opportunity to consider a prosecution was long gone" under existing legislation. 

Mr Smith said the ICO was "gathering evidence from this and other time-barred cases to support the case for a change in the law". 
He added: "We will be advising the university about the importance of effective records management and their legal obligations in respect of future requests for information." 

Norfolk Police have launched an inquiry into the case. 
Meanwhile, former civil servant Sir Muir Russell is heading an independent review to examine whether there is evidence that data was manipulated or suppressed in a way which was "at odds with acceptable scientific practice". 
The UEA said it would also explore how freedom of information requests had been acted on. 
　　
　
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8484385.stm

----------


## Flashman

Anyone with half an ounce of sense would at least question man-made climate change. 

I cant believe how blindly we follow corrupt politicians in this day and age.

----------


## _Ju_

> Anyone with half an ounce of sense would at least question man-made climate change. 
> 
> I cant believe how blindly we follow corrupt politicians in this day and age.


It's more comfortable, for our conscience and and lifestyle, to choose to disbelieve or deny global warming.

----------


## Stavro

> It's more comfortable, for our conscience and and lifestyle, to choose to disbelieve or deny global warming.


I notice that you did not include the words "man-made."

We cannot disbelieve nor deny changes in the earth's climate, since these occur all of the time, are outside of our control and have obvious effects. It is the "man-made" aspect that this thread is all about.

Politicians have a global agenda (fact), and a few people who have been scientifically trained seem to be willing to lend support to that agenda (in my opinion).

----------


## _Ju_

> I notice that you did not include the words "man-made."
> 
> We cannot disbelieve nor deny changes in the earth's climate, since these occur all of the time, are outside of our control and have obvious effects. It is the "man-made" aspect that this thread is all about.
> 
> Politicians have a global agenda (fact), and a few people who have been scientifically trained seem to be willing to lend support to that agenda (in my opinion).


my bad: *MAN MADE global warming*

----------


## roadbowler

comfortable to whom and in what way? Are you implying there is no such thing as an environmentalist who doesna buy the anthropogenic theory of global warming? I mean, this what it sounds like your saying. Many of the climate alarmists camp do like to use this argument. However, in my experience of my acquaintences, the folk that don't buy it are actually the ones doing _more_ to change their lifestyle to adopt better ways of living lighter on the land. Some of whom are actually persecuted in many ways for doing so or trying to do.  


> It's more comfortable, for our conscience and and lifestyle, to choose to disbelieve or deny global warming.

----------


## _Ju_

> It's more comfortable, for our conscience and and lifestyle, to choose to disbelieve or deny global warming.


Our= us, you me, individuals, people, voters, laymen and women.

----------


## hunter

I don't think climate change has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The planet's ecosystem is so complex I don't think anyone's brain is big enough to piece it all together exactly.

But vitrually every leader of every nation, based on the advice of their country's best scientific advisors, seems to think there's sufficient probability in the evidence to warrant action. I'm not inclined to argue with them.

Mankind has been pumping all sorts of rubbish into the environment since the industrial revolution in particular. I'm inclined to think it's not very healthy for the planet to treat it like a giant sewer.

----------


## Stavro

> Our= us, you me, individuals, people, voters, laymen and women.


We are now on the 40th page of this thread and your definition of 'our' seems to have ignored the foregoing 39 pages.

----------


## roadbowler

hunter, i mostly agree with what you're saying. However, most of the "proof" they've been trying to shove down peoples throats is now under serious dispute. Climategate, which is now subject to an inquiry by the government. Glaciergate. I actually know many people who did not buy certain properties, some 50 ft above sea level because of the dire warnings of glaciers and icecaps melting causing massive sea level rises. Now, it's turning out to be complete rubbish. They admit it so far on the glaciers. I find it very difficult to trust the word of any government claiming to be so concerned about humanity and the planet when they're busy starting illegal wars, killing  millions in sanctions and slaughter, and spraying yugoslavia to iraq with du. And that's just for starters.

----------


## gleeber

> hunter, i mostly agree with what you're saying. However, most of the "proof" they've been trying to shove down peoples throats is now under serious dispute.


I wouldnt say the proof is under serious dispute because for everything the antis throw at the scientists, the scientists have a comeback. That's good science. 
There's no doubt though that more people have started taking notice of the problem , I only started taking notice myself at the beginning of this thread. What happens then is that a lot of people, not so well informed, will be swayed by the opinions of others without seeing or reading any research on the subject. Before you know it everyones saying that there were 3 shooters on the day president Kennedy was shot.

----------


## roadbowler

the 'antis' said nothing about glaciers. The alarmist scientists did. The guy is saying he/they exaggerated all over the place. 3 shooters. Yes, a bit like, they harbour terrorists, no, they've got wmd's, yea maybe harbour terrorists and besides saddam is a very bad man. Oh, they've not got many terrorists and well, no wmds' either. But, hey seeing we've come out all this way why not a bit of torture and 'save' the warring religious factions in iraq. I'm pretty certain not even 40% of the public would give the same answer about 'why' we're in iraq. so, yes i agree gleeber, people do generally believe what they're told if its repeated often enough. But, not cause we're stupid. I see the same thing happening with the global warming issue. The agenda is the same but, if the road gets bumpy they keep talkin, creating a chaotic multi faceted argument just to weed out the majority who canna be bothered wi the frustration and confusion and go with what they are told. Good scientists do not hijack the peer review process nor do they tweak and/or withhold data.

----------


## _Ju_

> We are now on the 40th page of this thread and your definition of 'our' seems to have ignored the foregoing 39 pages.


I am talking about my post (about what I meant by "our") to which you asked for clarificaton.  Got it?

----------


## Flashman

I tell you what really annoys me and probably puts alot of people on the Anti-man made climate change boat by default is the way the other side of the argument speak

We are constantly told we are less-informed, reactionist, lazy, flat world thinkers, liars and living in denial.

This is simply not true and quite frankly insulting to many scientists, for starters the climate of the world changes dramtically over time naturally so this HAS to be taken into account

Politically there is alot of money at stake, big companies involved and this should ring alarm bells  straight away.

And most importantly the data is simply not there, we have far too little data over a miniscule amount of time to say what is going on for sure and thats clearly evident in the scientific divide over the issue and already we are seeing claims made years ago NOT coming true.

----------


## Stavro

> I wouldnt say the proof is under serious dispute because for everything the antis throw at the scientists, the scientists have a comeback. That's good science.


By "comeback," we can include such tactics as keeping the scientists' names on the IPCC list of members, when they have specifically asked for their name to be removed; or making sure that they fail the peer review process, so that their work does not get published; or how about 'losing' data, such that "scientific results" cannot be replicated or confirmed; ...

Secondly, you speak of "antis," as if they are somehow unrelated to "scientists." Loads of "antis" are scientists. The official, government view does not mean that it is THE scientific view, but simply that this is the view that the government is going to fund.

----------


## bekisman

More details of the source the IPCC get their info from (right up to date this: Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010)

*UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article* 

The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. 

The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.

In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information. 

However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them. 

The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master's degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

Well I never!　
　
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...e-article.html

----------


## ducati

> More details of the source the IPCC get their info from (right up to date this: Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010)
> 
> *UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article* 
> 
> The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. 
> 
> The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
> 
> In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information. 
> ...


I'd have thought the best place to get anecdotal evidence would be from someone who had seen the phenomenon with their own eyes.

- I wasn’t going to do that. ::

----------


## Aaldtimer

I, for one, actually totally agree with you Ducati!
People who know what they are seeing with their own eyes, and have the experience, convince me more than any scientist sitting in a lab in front of a computer.
Their was a chap on the news recently who had been studying the glaciers in Switzerland (IIRC) for the last 20 years or so, and had the photographic evidence to prove it. ::

----------


## Metalattakk

Aaldtimer (and ducati to an extent), the issue of climate change is not under discussion. Everyone is pretty much in agreement. The world is undoubtedly warming up.

The issue that is being debated is the extent to which we, as a species, are responsible for it doing so.

My personal opinion is that we, the human race, can't possibly hope to attain such an elevated level of influence over the wondrously self-sufficient and self-perpetuating planet that we currently inhabit.

But then it's easy for me to say that as I don't stand to profiteer from saying otherwise.  :Wink:

----------


## Aaldtimer

MA, I am more and more coming round to the same opinion as yourself (and others).
Another con by the "Big Money"! ::

----------


## fred

> More details of the source the IPCC get their info from (right up to date this: Published: 9:00PM GMT 30 Jan 2010)
> 
> *UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation and magazine article* 
> 
> The United Nations' expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain tops on a student's dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine. 
> 
> The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
> 
> In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information. 
> ...


I think the moral of this story is if you want to know the truth about receding glaciers there are two places you shouldn't look, one is in an IPCC report and the other is the Telegraph.

If you want to know the truth you should look here:

http://www.wgms.ch/fog/fog9.pdf

----------


## ducati

> I think the moral of this story is if you want to know the truth about receding glaciers there are two places you shouldn't look, one is in an IPCC report and the other is the Telegraph.
> 
> If you want to know the truth you should look here:
> 
> http://www.wgms.ch/fog/fog9.pdf


If this is the sort of document you read on a regular basis you really should get out more.

----------


## joxville

> If you want to know the truth you should look here:
> 
> http://www.wgms.ch/fog/fog9.pdf


Sorry, I lost interest after the first dozen acronyms.

----------


## fred

> If this is the sort of document you read on a regular basis you really should get out more.


You think I should base my beliefs on the headlines in the Telegraph?

I'll stay home and know what I'm talking about thanks.

----------


## ducati

> Aaldtimer (and ducati to an extent), the issue of climate change is not under discussion. Everyone is pretty much in agreement. The world is undoubtedly warming up.
> 
> The issue that is being debated is the extent to which we, as a species, are responsible for it doing so.
> 
> My personal opinion is that we, the human race, can't possibly hope to attain such an elevated level of influence over the wondrously self-sufficient and self-perpetuating planet that we currently inhabit.
> 
> But then it's easy for me to say that as I don't stand to profiteer from saying otherwise.


No. The issue being discussed is the OP believes that Manmade Global Warming is a tool being used by "them" to influence "us" in some way I still can't fathom. And he or she (the OP) presumably wants to see who agrees.

I don't.

----------


## bekisman

Thanks Fred, Interesting, bit different from the reported 'be all gone by 2035' bit - especially when this report (page 94 second para: 'Deglaciation of large parts of the world end of 21st Century'?)

Some folk are saying there is no Global Warming - in spite of NASA not finding any increase - but is it man-made?



Nice to see you back Fred - where yo bin? :Wink:

----------


## ducati

> You think I should base my beliefs on the headlines in the Telegraph?
> 
> I'll stay home and know what I'm talking about thanks.


Yes, why not. Telegraph Media Group are the biggest hub of multimedia information in Europe and unless you really believe they are out to get you...

----------


## dafi

I dont believe it is propaganda my self.

Liked this tho...

http://www.treelobsters.com/2010/01/...harlatans.html

----------


## golach

> Some folk are saying there is no Global Warming - in spite of NASA not finding any increase - but is it man-made?


It is just one big Conspiracy, and no doubt Fred will tell us by whom in the near future. 3 guesses who it will be.

----------


## joxville

> It is just one big Conspiracy, and no doubt Fred will tell us by whom in the near future. 3 guesses who it will be.


The tooth fairy?
Lord Lucan?
The odd sock thief?

----------


## fred

> Nice to see you back Fred - where yo bin?


Well it got to the stage where no matter what I posted someone would reply saying "fred's one of those conspiracy theorists you can safely ignore everything he says".

Forget the GTN-G report folks, I posted the link, probably written by a bunch of nutters.

----------


## ducati

> Well it got to the stage where no matter what I posted someone would reply saying "fred's one of those conspiracy theorists you can safely ignore everything he says".
> 
> Forget the GTN-G report folks, I posted the link, probably written by a bunch of nutters.


That's good Fred, very good. The first step to a cure is recognising the problem. Now, if you feel yourself sliding try repeating this Mantra: 

The world is what it seems and theyre not out to get me-go on Fred try it now..

----------


## Boozeburglar

> ehm.. The meteorological winter ends the last day of february


I did not think there was a set date for this.

----------


## roadbowler

> I did not think there was a set date for this.


 if i'm not correct, you could have been sure rheghead would have corrected me. :Wink:  Not only does the meteorological winter start December 1st, the meteorological "year" starts then as well.

----------


## Boozeburglar

That may be a convenient approximate date, but I was sure it depends where you are and what your average temperatures are over a given period of time amongst other things.

----------


## roadbowler

> That may be a convenient approximate date, but I was sure it depends where you are and what your average temperatures are over a given period of time amongst other things.


yea, obviously. Ie. Australias meteorological winter will be opposite. But, quite right, in the northern hemisphere, it starts dec. 1 in the majority of places, not all though. However, rheghead was speaking about the uk specifically.

----------


## Boozeburglar

If Jan/Feb/March is colder than December/Jan/Feb then surely the winter will have been Jan/Feb/March?

----------


## roadbowler

well, perhaps you should take up your issue with the metoffice? ::

----------


## roadbowler

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8492333.stm uh hmmm. :Grin:

----------


## George Brims

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8492333.stm uh hmmm.


And this is relevant why? Perhaps because you don't understand the difference between weather and climate, or the difference between one year and a long term trend, or local weather/climate and a global average?

----------


## _Ju_

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8492333.stm uh hmmm.


So global warming means it gets hot.....?

----------


## George Brims

> So global warming means it gets hot.....?


Warmer. That's why it's called "warming". Averaged over the whole globe. That's why it's called "global".

----------


## roadbowler

the relevance is that the peddlers of agw are the same "scientist" crowd who have been telling us to expect warmer, wetter, milder winters have got it wrong. Again. Perhaps it is they who do not understand weather in relation to climate. As I've commented some 10 or 12 pages back in this thread, they consistently get this wrong and will continue to if they keep pushing their agw pseudo-science bias. I expect we'll see a repeat with another bbq summer forecast.

----------


## _Ju_

> the relevance is that the peddlers of agw are the same "scientist" crowd who have been telling us to expect warmer, wetter, milder winters have got it wrong. Again. Perhaps it is they who do not understand weather in relation to climate. As I've commented some 10 or 12 pages back in this thread, they consistently get this wrong and will continue to if they keep pushing their agw pseudo-science bias. I expect we'll see a repeat with another bbq summer forecast.


Wetter milder winters on AVERAGE.

----------


## bekisman

Just a thought, but with the cold weather breaking long-held records all over the northern hemisphere, dose this not effect the theoretical averages they expect. i.e would this not bring them down?

----------


## roadbowler

nah ju, i'm speaking about this particular winter. The article i link to is about _this winter._ A mild winter was predicted. Just like the bbq summer of last which never happened. A decade or so ago, they also predicted increased storminess in the north atlantic due to milder winters on average, due to agw global warming and they are wrong about that as well. See fair isle weather statistics. And, 2013 is going to be here soon. I wonder how ice free the arctic will be in summer? I'm merely pointing out their serial alarmist propaganda that they are constantly pushing that they are consistently wrong about.

----------


## _Ju_

Where were you last summer? In Caithness it was roasting for days on end. Kids were getting a spanish sunburn on Reiss sands. In my experience of Caithness it was one heck of a barbacue summer.

----------


## fred

> Where were you last summer? In Caithness it was roasting for days on end. Kids were getting a spanish sunburn on Reiss sands. In my experience of Caithness it was one heck of a barbacue summer.


What is a barbecue summer?

Is it a summer so hot every one is roasting or is a summer so pleasant that people will be able to invite friends round for a barbecue of an evening most weekends?

----------


## oldmarine

*I still go with the theory that it is all cyclic whether hot or cold, warm or cool. Everyone has an opinion and I express mine.*

----------


## ducati

> *I still go with the theory that it is all cyclic whether hot or cold, warm or cool. Everyone has an opinion and I express mine.*


I thought we had established at the beginning of this 42 page saga that global warming was a fact and the "establishment" were trying to convince us for various nefarious reasons that it was man made. The conspiracy camp thought it was natural.

Now it seams that Global warming isnt happening at all, evidenced by the fact it is cold??

----------


## horseman

How in the name of great God in creation-can anyone really imajine that us peasents here on earth can do any thing to change the way of life?
 Life is life an when we are done with it,it will go on in its own way.

----------


## ducati

> How in the name of great God in creation-can anyone really imajine that us peasents here on earth can do any thing to change the way of life?
> Life is life an when we are done with it,it will go on in its own way.


 
URGENT: Send more nutters! ::

----------


## Alan16

> How in the name of great God in creation-can anyone really imajine that us peasents here on earth can do any thing to change the way of life?
>  Life is life an when we are done with it,it will go on in its own way.


Right, who has the straitjacket?

----------


## bekisman

Things are slowly changing...

*The number of British people who are sceptical about climate change is rising, a poll for BBC News suggests.* 
The Populus poll of 1,001 adults found 25% did not think global warming was happening, a rise of 8% since a similar poll was conducted in November. 
The percentage of respondents who said climate change was a reality had fallen from 83% in November to 75% this month. 
And only 26% of those asked believed climate change was happening and "now established as largely man-made". 
　
　
　
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500443.stm

----------


## crayola

> URGENT: Send more nutters!


They've just arrived. See previous post for details.

----------


## Tubthumper

The inside track on Morrocco... (warning-parental guidance advised)
http://newsarse.com/2009/09/23/china...-kills-us-all/

----------


## Neil Howie

> Just a thought, but with the cold weather breaking long-held records all over the northern hemisphere



but not everywhere:




> A swath of northern Europe and parts of the US also experienced unseasonably cold temperatures. And yet, explains Met Office research scientist David Parker, many areas, including large parts of South America, Africa, Asia, and Canada, had a warmer January than usual.


bbc magazine





Climate should be measured in blocks of about 20 years, I think.




*2009: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade*



--- insert smug quote here ----

----------


## oldmarine

> but not everywhere:
> 
> 
> 
> bbc magazine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 That makes good sense to me since I believe it is cyclic.

----------


## bekisman

Good to see that the good ole USA is taking global Warming seriously and building Nuclear - well it's the best way to cut CO2!
AND: Meanwhile, there are currently *56 new nuclear reactors* being built around the world. 

Pity the Scottish Government aren't following this lead to 'save the planet'..

US to build nuclear power plants 
*President Barack Obama has announced more than $8bn (£5bn) of federal loan guarantees to help build the first US nuclear power stations for 30 years. 
*Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company. 
President Obama said the plants would be "safe and clean" and were needed to meet the country's future energy needs. 

" *This one plant will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared with a similar coal plant. It won't persuade all the environmentalists, but it is an argument that does weigh heavily with some of them.* " 

He added that it was "only the beginning" of efforts to develop a new generation of safe and clean energy-efficient technologies, which would *help fight climate change*. 
The two new reactors will be built at an existing nuclear facility in Georgia. 
Southern Company said the work would create about 3,000 construction jobs and 850 people would subsequently be permanently employed when the reactors became operational. 
*'Meet energy needs' 
*"On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and *the future of our planet*, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," said President Obama. 
"To meet our growing energy needs and* prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power*. It's that simple." 
Southern's chief executive David Ratcliffe said the president's announcement was "an important endorsement in the role nuclear power must play in diversifying our nation's energy mix and *helping to curb greenhouse gas emissions".* 
There are currently 104 operating nuclear reactors across 31 states in the US, which provide about one-fifth of the country's electricity. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8518670.stm

----------


## ducati

> Good to see that the good ole USA is taking global Warming seriously and building Nuclear - well it's the best way to cut CO2!
> AND: Meanwhile, there are currently *56 new nuclear reactors* being built around the world. 
> 
> Pity the Scottish Government aren't following this lead to 'save the planet'..
> 
> US to build nuclear power plants 
> *President Barack Obama has announced more than $8bn (£5bn) of federal loan guarantees to help build the first US nuclear power stations for 30 years.* 
> Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company. 
> President Obama said the plants would be "safe and clean" and were needed to meet the country's future energy needs. 
> ...


Obama reckoned equivalent to taking 3 million cars off the road. Pretty impressive. Mind you they have a way to go- France currently produces around 75% of its elec. by Nuclear. Not too bothered about windmills I should think.

----------


## Yoda the flump

Lets just hope the next government have the guts to do the same as Obama.

----------


## bekisman

> Mind you they have a way to go- France currently produces around 75% of its elec. by Nuclear. Not too bothered about windmills I should think.


Well, when our (Scottish) power stations close, and the wind drops, the French will be using the Interconector to shove extra (nuclear) power over to us and up the grid, as we won't have any, it's gonna cost a lot..

----------


## Neil Howie

Regardless of the CO2 debate, I would argue that nuclear is the only serious option on the table of avoiding the impending energy crisis, (their words not mine) and ensuring a base energy supply.

----------


## annthracks

I think a lot of people on here should go and watch the film "An Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction", you don't even need to leave your computer, go and find it on youtube. Go on! Now! Quick, before you forget!

 It's blatantly obvious from some of the comments on this thread that Al Gore's incorrect and misleading film An Inconvenient Truth has scared and fooled a lot of people.
A 2°C increase in temperature would mean a 4 - 5 m rise in sea level?? where the hell did that come from? if the mistake in the maths is corrected, that brought that comment out of a certain doom-mongering "scientific" community, even if the ice caps melt completely, sea levels would not rise by more than a few FEET.

Now please go and watch An Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...iction&view=3#

----------


## Yoda the flump

> Now please go and watch An Inconvenient Fiction


No can do I.  Complete drivel

----------


## annthracks

> No can do I.  Complete drivel


An Inconvenient Truth... or Convenient Fiction

corrected

----------


## Tubthumper

I notice no-one posted the wind turbine outputs when it was blustery the other day.

----------


## Yoda the flump

> I notice no-one posted the wind turbine outputs when it was blustery the other day.


Problem aint really with them when the winds blowing - its when it aint that things don't quite work as they should

----------


## Tubthumper

Fair enough Yoda, but if the things are as crap as people claim, they should be pointing out how rubbish they are when the wind IS blowing. No?

----------


## Yoda the flump

Well for the sake of fairness then maybe but it still don't change the fact that no wind, no power.  

Bit of a major problem that

----------


## Tubthumper

However, wind = power. Glass half full and all that??

----------


## ducati

> However, wind = power. Glass half full and all that??


Wind = very little power compared with Nuclear  :Frown:

----------


## Tubthumper

But not much waste compared with nuclear. However also not much jobs. ::

----------


## Yoda the flump

> But not much waste compared with nuclear. However also not much jobs.


The waste issue is political not technical

----------


## ducati

> But not much waste compared with nuclear. However also not much jobs.


Well.. you say that but these windmills only have a 25 year life expectancy and if you think about how many there are going to be they are going to take a bit of disposal.

----------


## Tubthumper

> The waste issue is political not technical


It's pretty stinky stuff.
Anyway, what bits of the turbines aren't immediately recyclable after their 25 years?

----------


## ducati

> It's pretty stinky stuff.
> Anyway, what bits of the turbines aren't immediately recyclable after their 25 years?


Dunno  ::  I'll be dead by then not my problem.

----------


## fred

> Well.. you say that but these windmills only have a 25 year life expectancy and if you think about how many there are going to be they are going to take a bit of disposal.


They're made of aluminium and copper.

I'll have em if nobody else gets there first.

----------


## ducati

> They're made of aluminium and copper.
> 
> I'll have em if nobody else gets there first.


And an 80 metre steel pole!

----------


## fred

> And an 80 metre steel pole!


I'll take that as well.

----------


## Tubthumper

But a pretty big concrete plinth to rip out. Or not. Depending on the subsidies available at the time obviously.

----------


## Tubthumper

What is a plinth anyway??

----------


## fred

> But a pretty big concrete plinth to rip out. Or not. Depending on the subsidies available at the time obviously.


I'm not greedy, someone else can have that.

----------


## ducati

> What is a plinth anyway??


In 25 years? Hardcore

----------


## Yoda the flump

> What is a plinth anyway??


Great big lump of concrete

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I notice no-one posted the wind turbine outputs when it was blustery the other day.


 If you can tell me when it was blustery, I can look up the outputs.

----------


## bekisman

Germans this time. More sceptics.. bit long but don't want to give the impression this is 'Cherry Picking' as suggested by an ex-orger

*German scientists reject man-made global warming*
*Growing body of evidence shows anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role*
Wednesday, August 05, 2009 By Marc Morano 

More than 60 prominent German scientists have publicly declared their dissent from man-made global warming fears in an open letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The more than 60 signers of the letter *include several United Nations IPCC scientists.
*
The scientists declared that global warming has become a *"pseudo religion"* and they noted that rising CO2 has *"had no measurable effect"* on temperatures. The German scientists, also wrote that the* "UN IPCC has lost its scientific credibility."
*
This latest development comes on the heels of a series of inconvenient developments for the promoters of man-made global warming fears, including new peer-reviewed studies, real world data, a growing chorus of scientists dissenting (including more UN IPCC scientists), open revolts in scientific societies and the Earth's failure to warm. In addition, public opinion continues to turn against climate fear promotion.

The July 26, 2009 German scientist letter urged Chancellor Merkel to "strongly reconsider" her position on global warming and requested a "convening of an impartial panel" that is "free of ideology" to counter the UN IPCC and review the latest climate science developments.

The scientists, from many disciplines, including physicists, meteorology, chemistry, and geology, explain that "humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles."

*"More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role,"* the scientists wrote. "Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is almost exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree," they added.

"The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility," the scientists wrote.

"Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998  more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003. Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred," the scientists wrote.

"The belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion," the scientists wrote. "The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming," they added.

"Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

　　
　
http://www.speroforum.com/a/20054/Ge...global-warming

----------


## Tubthumper

So what is a Plinth anyway?



> Great big lump of concrete


Plinth (noun): Male member of a Royal family: Oppothite of Plintheth

----------


## Tubthumper

> If you can tell me when it was blustery, I can look up the outputs.


If you have a look back through the charts, (I reckon it was last weekend - Force 5 - 6 up here) it should be pretty obvious from the output. Assuming there was some output of course.
Alternatively, Tugmistress might be able to help.

----------


## ducati

> So what is a Plinth anyway?
> 
> Plinth (noun): Male member of a Royal family: Oppothite of Plintheth


I wonder, is that were the expression a plinthsly thum, e.g. four guinees comes from?

----------


## Tubthumper

Like "The thubthidieth available for thticking thome thubthtanthial turbineth on one'th land add up to a plinthely thum?"

----------


## ducati

> Like "The thubthidieth available for thticking thome thubthtanthial turbineth on one'th land add up to a plinthely thum?"


Yeth!  ::

----------


## ywindythesecond

> If you have a look back through the charts, (I reckon it was last weekend - Force 5 - 6 up here) it should be pretty obvious from the output. Assuming there was some output of course.
> Alternatively, Tugmistress might be able to help.


The figures for Saturday 13th, Sunday 14th and Monday 15th are below. I don't have a complete record for Saturday so the average is over 20.5 hours. The period missing was in a fairly stable part of the day.
 
(I had no idea how difficult it is to post a table here!)

1588MW is metered by National Grid. BWEA calculate the number of homes served at 30% load factor. That is 475MW from metered wind power stations which BWEA calculates will serve 887,976 homes. Do the math and work out how many would have gone without power if we were reliant on wind. This is the chart for 15th February.



National Grid had to cope with this erratic generation, and will have done so by "constraining off" power from a coal plant to make room for the wind power. The constrained off plant was compensated for its loss of income while the wind was available, wind power was bought at three times the cost of coal, and the power station kept the fires burning to be ready to switch back on when the wind dropped.
In very round terms, when we use wind energy it costs us about four times as much as coal, and saves a very small percentage of fossil fuel. I find it an obscene waste of our valuable resources to burn coal and get nothing for it just because our politicians haven't the guts to admit they are wrong and come up with a real energy policy.

----------


## Tubthumper

Intrguing. I will keep an eye on the forecast vs out-turn situation during a more 'normal' period of weather, ie when there's some real wind about.
The price of wind-generated power during a period like this is astonishing, considering the fuel is effectively free. I can understand the idea of 'incentive' and compulsory purchasing to get the thing going (after all the same was done for Dounreay-generated power, I think) but what will happen when subsidies and 'sweeteners' are removed is slightly worrying.

----------


## golach

ywindythesecond, have you taken into consideration the hot air created on the Org by the Anti Wind farm lobby?

----------


## bekisman

Again, the number of households increased by one per cent last year to 2.27 million, from 2.25 million in 2004." Lets hope the wind don't drop..

----------


## bekisman

> ywindythesecond, have you taken into consideration the hot air created on the Org by the Anti Wind farm lobby?


Add the hot air from Holyrood too don't forget, there's more bluster as well..

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Intrguing. I will keep an eye on the forecast vs out-turn situation during a more 'normal' period of weather, ie when there's some real wind about.
> The price of wind-generated power during a period like this is astonishing, considering the fuel is effectively free. I can understand the idea of 'incentive' and compulsory purchasing to get the thing going (after all the same was done for Dounreay-generated power, I think) but what will happen when subsidies and 'sweeteners' are removed is slightly worrying.


 Have a look at this then. The wind was up and down like the proverbials in January.  It is worse when we get a lot of wind than it is when there is none.
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6...turnposter.jpg

----------


## Tubthumper

Wthe2 - Is there any way of getting an averaged price per unit of wind generated, over a year perhaps?

----------


## bekisman

Bit more ref fluctuations in wind:

That the very small power produced varies uncontrollably and very sharply hundreds of times per year between maximum and zero output. To state that the power "varies somewhat" because of the variation of the wind force amounts to purposefully hiding the whole and much more unfortunate truth. 

The innovation of Wind turbines will never be able to bring any improvement in this behaviour as it is determined completely by a law of nature. 

Because of this inconsistent behaviour the production factor can only be low. 

As another consequence of this behaviour of Wind turbines, the cost per generated kWh will be and will remain high, even more so because the electricity that is delivered by the Wind turbines is of a bad and unreliable quality, and only available during unpredictable periods, and hence unfit for individual consumers. That is why it is misleading to compare the cost of unreliably produced "wind-kWh" with the cost of almost completely reliably produced "conventional kWh". 

The fluctuations in the power from a great number of Wind turbines, whether on or offshore, can become a great danger for the safety of the electricity grid. Compensation for these swings by upward or downward adjustment of conventional plants is only possible to a certain extent. And, if the limit were surpassed, this would lead to a great risk mechanical of damaging the turbines of the conventional plants. Apart from the fact that those plants would then operate with a lower efficiency because of being forced to adjust their output, and consequently their CO2 emissions per produced kWh would be considerably higher then when operating with a constant power. 

The more and the bigger the Wind turbines that are built, the larger their share in the power fluctuations between maximum at wind force B-6 or more and zero by wind force B3 or less. Just have a look at the wind force forecast in the newspapers or on television!

----------


## crayola

> Have a look at this then. The wind was up and down like the proverbials in January.  It is worse when we get a lot of wind than it is when there is none.
> http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/6...turnposter.jpg


The total went down to 8MW at one point last week and the average was below 14MW for two whole days around Thursday and Friday. I have the bar charts but they're on my other computer.

This is fun as well as educational.  :Smile:

----------


## bekisman

Now there's a thought:
Statistical facts are that the United Kingdom produces about two per cent of the global carbon dioxide.
Of our UK CO2 emissions only about one third comes from power stations  another third from vehicle exhausts and the other third from industrial processes and domestic heating.
 

So our power stations contribute only about one third of two per cent, which is 0.7 per cent of global CO2.
All the wind turbines in the UK produce far less than three per cent of UK electricity. So three per cent of 0.7 per cent is only 0.02 per cent. That leaves a staggering *99.98 per cent* of our electricity power station-produced global C02 undiminished.

So wind farms don't stop CO2 (Conventional Power stations have to bo standby - for when the wind dies - of course.) Electric bills will increase - as WE have to buy this expensive power. Landowners and developers get vast amounts of cash. So really; what's the point? Build more nuke!

----------


## Tubthumper

> Bit more ref fluctuations in wind: That the very small power produced varies uncontrollably and very sharply hundreds of times per year between maximum and zero output. To state that the power "varies somewhat" because of the variation of the wind force amounts to purposefully hiding the whole and much more unfortunate truth. The innovation of Wind turbines will never be able to bring any improvement in this behaviour as it is determined completely by a law of nature. Because of this inconsistent behaviour the production factor can only be low. As another consequence of this behaviour of Wind turbines, the cost per generated kWh will be and will remain high, even more so because the electricity that is delivered by the Wind turbines is of a bad and unreliable quality, and only available during unpredictable periods, and hence unfit for individual consumers. That is why it is misleading to compare the cost of unreliably produced "wind-kWh" with the cost of almost completely reliably produced "conventional kWh". The fluctuations in the power from a great number of Wind turbines, whether on or offshore, can become a great danger for the safety of the electricity grid. Compensation for these swings by upward or downward adjustment of conventional plants is only possible to a certain extent. And, if the limit were surpassed, this would lead to a great risk mechanical of damaging the turbines of the conventional plants. Apart from the fact that those plants would then operate with a lower efficiency because of being forced to adjust their output, and consequently their CO2 emissions per produced kWh would be considerably higher then when operating with a constant power. 
>  The more and the bigger the Wind turbines that are built, the larger their share in the power fluctuations between maximum at wind force B-6 or more and zero by wind force B3 or less. Just have a look at the wind force forecast in the newspapers or on television!


Something a bit whiffy about that quote Bekisman. Where did it come from??

----------


## bekisman

> Something a bit whiffy about that quote Bekisman. Where did it come from??


Sorry about that as I always (well nearly always) give the link: http://windenergy-the-truth.com/negen.html

----------


## ywindythesecond

> The total went down to 8MW at one point last week and the average was below 14MW for two whole days around Thursday and Friday. I have the bar charts but they're on my other computer.
> 
> This is fun as well as educational.


This is the whole story for 18th February. Fun innit crayola?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Wthe2 - Is there any way of getting an averaged price per unit of wind generated, over a year perhaps?


This is a good guide. http://www.nfpa.co.uk/auctionprices.html The price for wind and hydro and landfill gas include the value of a ROC and the Climate Change Levy Exemption. There is a link below the chart which gives you ROC values. 
I haven't found a source of coal generation prices, but on www.bmreports.com the Daily System Price tag gives you maximum daily sell prices. This is not open market value so I suspect they are fairly heavily discounted as it seems to me that the grid has to offload excess generation. 
One possible scenario is if a sudden rush of wind comes along, the Grid might sell the surplus to a coal generator for less than his sale price, the coal generator switches off transmission and trades the discounted electricity from National Grid at his normal contracted rate. Our prices go up and no carbon emission is saved.

----------


## crayola

> This is the whole story for 18th February. Fun innit crayola?


That was the very day. Not much gets past you.  :: 

How did you get those numbers?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> That was the very day. Not much gets past you. 
> 
> How did you get those numbers?


On the bmreports website,Generation by fueltype table, click on "24H instant data". It is a record every five minutes of all generation seen by the National Grid on an xl spreadsheet. Every five minutes, the last five minutes is added to the bottom, and the first five minutes drops off the top. If you don't catch it at the time it is lost. Column I is wind.
For BWEA calculations, go to http://www.bwea.com/edu/calcs.html and scroll down to homes equivalent. The formula is wrong, you need to divide by 4.7(MWH) not 4700(kwh) to get the answer.

----------

