Poll: global warming

[sj]

Interesting article on climategate for your perusal -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

and here

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html

Seems like the data CRU (and IPCC) have been using, is a complete basket case..........

PJD------ makes you think and re-think. Blo0dy computer models and politicians again.

[sj]

Interesting article on climategate for your perusal -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

and here

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html

Seems like the data CRU (and IPCC) have been using, is a complete basket case..........

PJD------- here's another one to make you think. Booing Off Johnny Ball.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/7841/

[aaaae]

Interesting article on climategate for your perusal -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

and here

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html

Seems like the data CRU (and IPCC) have been using, is a complete basket case..........

PJD------- here's another one to make you think. Booing Off Johnny Ball.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/7841/

Thanks for that link SJ. Interesting how people only believe in free speech when someone is saying something they want to hear!

[Exile]

Interesting article on climategate for your perusal -

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

and here

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html

Seems like the data CRU (and IPCC) have been using, is a complete basket case..........

PJD------- here's another one to make you think. Booing Off Johnny Ball.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/7841/

Thanks for that link SJ. Interesting how people only believe in free speech when someone is saying something they want to hear!

Same with Lord Monckton when he tried to speak in Copenhagen. not mincing his words, he likened the hair-shirted, sandal-wearing yoghurt knitters who disrupted his talk to the hitler youth!

Did you know that the origins of the current fiasco were laid down in the eighties, as Thatcher set up the climate "change" mob as a surreptitious mouthpiece to denigrate the coal industry and bring down the NUM? Something else to blame the old hag for.

[Exile]

Quick namecheck for the head of the IPCC, the UN outfit that produces the ever-damning 'sky is falling in' reports that Copenhagen was supposed to act upon.

Rajendra Pachauri.

Could this be the same fella who is linked to TATA and TERI, two Indian super-conglomerates with their fingers in all sorts of pies? Yes, it could.

You'll remember TATA as being the outfit that bought Corus, the UK steelmakers, in 2007. It's been announced that the Recar steel mill will now be closed and production transferred to India. Want to know how that was possible? Carbon credits to the Indians under UN agreement, eagerly accepted by the man pulling the stings and trying to get even more. 1700 British jobs lost, USD1.2billion to Pachauri's company, nett carbon benefit to the planet: nil.

Conflict of interest, or putting (your) money where his mouth is?

[sj]

Exile--- I did know that about Thatcher, but the more you look into this topic the dirtier it gets. Powerful people playing at being good and shafting the poor. The notion of a market in carbon is barmy.

[canadiansaddler]

The climate change debate has been totally distorted by both sides trying to prove a point, the reality is we live in a polluted world which we can see every day, 16 years ago when we first moved to Canada smog days in Southern Ontario occurred may be once or twice each summer, by the time we left smog days occurred regularly throughout Southern Ontario in the summer and smog expanded to Northern Ontario. As a result of the increase in smog a generation is growing up developing asthma and other related lung issues at a much greater rate than in any previous decade.

We may fail to believe the ice caps are melting and look at disbelief at graphs showing carbon levels in the atmosphere but we can at least witness what is happening in our own back yards. The black country was known as the black country (wrongly) for many years because the sky was black changes in pollution laws and the industrial base changed that, an improvement in our backyard which is sadly offset by the modern day pollution pushed out by traffic everyday.

This may be irrelevant as far as the right and wrongs of climate change are concerned but the arguments used that as a race we are not changing the face of the earth seem to fly in the face of things that we see daily in front of us. If taxation is used as a tool to modify our behaviour to be more responsible and to live a more sustainable lifestyle then I fail to see why we are so negative on the idea. We talk of tax grabs on the subject of climate change, yet SJ would jump at the opportunity to tax grab to redistribute from the working to the non working so we can go back to the 1970's, so why not tax to change behavior to be more sustainable at the same time creating new jobs in new industries, what is wrong with the concept of taxing the use of private cars if the funds are spent building an improved public transit system and developing sustainable energy sources, at least that is productive. We seem to be resisting change simply because it may mean not sitting in a parking lot on the North Western or the M6 in the morning.

The climate change debate is now farcical and most of us have turned off, politicians have turned it into sound bite for the media. Real change can still be made by ordinary people make small changes one day at a time. If we all did one "blue" thing a day to be more sustainable then perhaps we can improve the planet. Forget 2C and rising sea levels think more about not buying that bottle water but drinking tap water, rather than throw the newspaper in the bin, recycle it, walk to work or take the bus or train one day a week (or even a month), turn the thermostat down by 1C, turn the lights off in the evening when watching the tv, turn appliances off rather than leaving them on standby, take the stairs at the office rather than the elevator - small things that can make a difference.

[aaaae]

Canadian, I think both sides are skewing the evidence in their own favour and ignoring evidence that contradicts their point of view. I guess that's what we all do really, don't we? A lot of what you say in your post I agree with, but there are some things I take issue with.

I don't think anyone would argue that pollution which is harmful to human health is a good thing, and it should be cut back at all costs. But Carbon Dioxide is not pollution, it is vital to life on this planet. Without CO2, life as we know it would cease to exist. Plants wouldn't grow, and the rest of the food chain would die out, including us. In fact the more CO2 there is the more plants like it. The only argument in town is whether or not global warming is being caused by the extra CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere. There has been a correlation in the last 30 years, but there have also been many periods in earths history (e.g. 1700's) when the earth has warmed in the absence of rises of CO2 and there are also times (e.g. 1945-1975) when it has failed to warm despite rising levels of CO2.

In terms of altering peoples behaviour by taxes, I am very very nervous about this, because what you are doing is trying to change peoples behaviour depending on how rich they are. I am not sure if you are aware of the Congestion charge in London? Effectively it's a tax on cars driving in central London. What this means is that the rich continue to drive in London, because they can afford to, and the poor have to leave their cars at home and catch the bus. Effectively the roads have been cleared of traffic, so that the rich (and politicians) can drive around without having to sit in traffic jams. The same thing would happen if you taxed flights or petrol or whatever, the rich wouldn't be affected and the poor would pay the price.

I agree about protecting the environment, but for real and proven reasons not for spurious ones and not in ways that disproportionately push the burden onto the poor, the very people in fact, that are least likely to have caused the problem in the first place.

[sj]

Canada --- I do not want to go back to the 70s, I argue that it was better for ordinary people back then. The 70s are gone the world is now Globalised. China is the workshop of the world, like the UK was in the 19th century. The big difference is that the total output of the world's GDP is now measured in the trillions. On average we grow at 3 percent per year can we sustain this output? Are we reaching natural limits to growth?


There is a link in the way we re-produce our society and the impact on nature. For me, you know, that I see the problem in terms of the Capitalist system that must grow at this rate every year just to survive. We need to address this if we want any sort of society at all for our chidrens children. Do you agree?

[Exile]

Agree with you Canadian - but getting on board the green bandwagon should not be at the point of a metaphorical gun. I will happily support conservation, clean drinking water, help for clean air and environmental causes, but I'm damned if I'll do it on the back of a spurious, alarmist global non-emergency backed by a bunch of eco-fascists which will see hundreds of billions of dollars taken arbitrarily from 'rich' nations for distribution to the third world with little or no control.

Case in point - at COP15 much was made of the plight of the Pacific nation of Tuvalu, spread across 9 low-lying coral atolls and apparently at the mercy of projected rises in sea level due to global warming (refer media reports ad nauseam). The one problem with this media 'poster child' is that their islands are sinking for two completely different reasons, one natural and the other man-made, neither of which have been reported in the mainstream media as it relentlessly pushes the global warming line without investigating any science behind the wild claims. Firstly, these coral atolls are built up on ancient volcanos, and as the Pacific ocean plate ages, these slowly sink down - there's hundreds already below sea level across the 'Nesian end of the ocean. Secondly, Tuvaluans have been extracting fresh water through boreholes for at least 30 years, and as they've done so, the auqifer layer beneath them is collapsing, so as well as sea water contaminating their already precarious supply, they're sinking their own mass. Measured sea level (if you can even measure such a thing in a tidal environment on an imperfect geoid) has shown any rise to be in the order of only a few millimetres in the last decade, with a margin of error of (you guessed it) a few millimetres. Despite this being known, they've sent a representative to Copenhagen with a begging bowl, demanding money with menaces - "give us your guilt-ridden aid or we'll sink and it's all your fault". It's not.

The environmental debate has been hijacked by the green movement, and they're not pleasant people. Even the founders of Greenpeace have largely walked away from the organisation, unhappy with it's mutation into a quasi-religious terrorist outfit (emotive language, but check their activities and you'll see why I don't support them financially despite agreeing with their broader aims). You might argue that if they didn't act that way nobody would talk about it, but by and large I think most of us realise that we're planetary custodians for the next generation, and act accordingly.

sj - you're right about capitalism running it's course. Rampant growth can only be supported by a growing market. We should be adding value to lives rather than adding bottom line to companies.

[sj]

Exile----- That's two of us, who will be next? :D

[sj]

Exile----- That's two of us, who will be next? :D

Exile---- good post, the Light Greens are OK but the Dark Green lot are bonkers.

[canadiansaddler]

Exile----- That's two of us, who will be next? :D

Exile---- good post, the Light Greens are OK but the Dark Green lot are bonkers.

what about the all the other shades of green

I am particularly fond of Lime

and then there is the ultimate question of our time

is "olive" a green or a yellow

little known fact - Chinese men do not wear green hats as it signifies there wife is an adulteress [maybe thats just a piece of Wiki b/s]

[Exile]

Olive is brown, is it not?

[maybe thats just a piece of Wiki b/s]

Like everything in wikipedia on climate change? :wink:

[sj]

Exile----- That's two of us, who will be next? :D

Exile---- good post, the Light Greens are OK but the Dark Green lot are bonkers.

what about the all the other shades of green

I am particularly fond of Lime

and then there is the ultimate question of our time

is "olive" a green or a yellow

little known fact - Chinese men do not wear green hats as it signifies there wife is an adulteress [maybe thats just a piece of Wiki b/s]

Are we all holding hands-- this is exciting stuff.

[Exile]

Wikipedia: great for TV episode schedules but no use for real stuff

[canadiansaddler]

Olive is brown, is it not?

[maybe thats just a piece of Wiki b/s]

Like everything in wikipedia on climate change? :wink:

sorry wiki says Green or Yellow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors - so it can't be brown - however I am prepared to edit at a price to correct this anomaly

[Exile]

Olive is brown, is it not?

[maybe thats just a piece of Wiki b/s]

Like everything in wikipedia on climate change? :wink:

sorry wiki says Green or Yellow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors - so it can't be brown - however I am prepared to edit at a price to correct this anomaly

I'll buy you a coke, if the wikipedia topic isn't locked to prevent anyone who doesn't agree with the arbitrator pushing a neutral point of view..... :wink:

[sj]

Olive is brown, is it not?

[maybe thats just a piece of Wiki b/s]

Like everything in wikipedia on climate change? :wink:

sorry wiki says Green or Yellow - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colors - so it can't be brown - however I am prepared to edit at a price to correct this anomaly

I see yet another problem with this, whilst there is a "State Green" ther is no place for a "British Racing Green"


"State Green "for after the revolution before the State withered away ,and "Racing Green "for the struggle itself. :)

[derbysaddler]

Did chuckle with Mugabe stamping his foot at Copenhagen demanding a black cheque to fight climate change. Or does he just want to spend another fortune on Chinese weapons and motorways that get built to nowhere?

prize idiot.

[post modded]

[SaigonSaddler]

Ignore the politics and the associated blather.

Is the earth warming or not?

Is human activity to blame?

What can we do about it?

[Whitti Steve]

Ignore the politics and the associated blather.

Is the earth warming or not? yes, as it has done many times before

Is human activity to blame? Possibly, though not proven yet... can't be helping though

What can we do about it? Recycle, cycle, schmeicel - choose 2 out of three

[SaigonSaddler]

Ignore the politics and the associated blather.

Is the earth warming or not?

Is human activity to blame?

What can we do about it?

The weight of science suggests:

Yes, definately.
Yes, in all probability
Don't know

[aaaae]

Ignore the politics and the associated blather.

Is the earth warming or not?

Is human activity to blame?

What can we do about it?

The weight of science suggests:

Yes, definately.
Yes, in all probability
Don't know

Is human activity to blame? This is what I am struggling to get my head around, because the evidence is so flimsy. There is a correlation between the rise in man made CO2 emissions and the rise in temperature, but that's it. And a correlation is NOT proof.

The rest is "trust me I'm a scientist" and "have you seen this model I've made, it shows exactly what I've programmed it to show" and "you want to see my raw data? over my dead body" and "you have a question? how dare you! your children are going to fry and it's all your fault"

[SaigonSaddler]

Ignore the politics and the associated blather.

Is the earth warming or not?

Is human activity to blame?

What can we do about it?

The weight of science suggests:

Yes, definately.
Yes, in all probability
Don't know

Is human activity to blame? This is what I am struggling to get my head around, because the evidence is so flimsy. There is a correlation between the rise in man made CO2 emissions and the rise in temperature, but that's it. And a correlation is NOT proof.

The rest is "trust me I'm a scientist" and "have you seen this model I've made, it shows exactly what I've programmed it to show" and "you want to see my raw data? over my dead body" and "you have a question? how dare you! your children are going to fry and it's all your fault"

Whereas you use runes and chicken intestines I presume?

Luckily the modern world generally functions on probability acquired from evidence, the results of which point to human activity being strongly linked to climate change.

And a strong correlation IS good evidence, just as there is a strong correlation between smokers and lung cancer.

You seem to have come to a conclusion and are sticking to it - partly because you are cautious of what politicians can exploit from it and because you don't like being told what to think. Both of which are fair enough. However I'm sorry to say that, demonstrated by your concept of the role of CO2 and your over-reaction to other areas of the media/science interface, you have not developed a clear understanding of either the processes at work or reliable conclusions that can be drawn.

[sj]

Ignore the politics and the associated blather.

Is the earth warming or not?

Is human activity to blame?

What can we do about it?

The weight of science suggests:

Yes, definately.
Yes, in all probability
Don't know

Is human activity to blame? This is what I am struggling to get my head around, because the evidence is so flimsy. There is a correlation between the rise in man made CO2 emissions and the rise in temperature, but that's it. And a correlation is NOT proof.

The rest is "trust me I'm a scientist" and "have you seen this model I've made, it shows exactly what I've programmed it to show" and "you want to see my raw data? over my dead body" and "you have a question? how dare you! your children are going to fry and it's all your fault"

Whereas you use runes and chicken intestines I presume?

Luckily the modern world generally functions on probability acquired from evidence, the results of which point to human activity being strongly linked to climate change.

And a strong correlation IS good evidence, just as there is a strong correlation between smokers and lung cancer.

You seem to have come to a conclusion and are sticking to it - partly because you are cautious of what politicians can exploit from it and because you don't like being told what to think. Both of which are fair enough. However I'm sorry to say that, demonstrated by your concept of the role of CO2 and your over-reaction to other areas of the media/science interface, you have not developed a clear understanding of either the processes at work or reliable conclusions that can be drawn.

Saigon----- whilst you probably have the better understanding of the science I think you are being a little hard on PJD. We know that New labour have taken global warming up as a cause, this alone would worry me. We know too that science has to a degree become politicized, universities are no longer the seats of pure learning they once were. And there is a sociological dimention to science. T. H. Khun a scientist turned sociologist argues that science moves dialectically via paradigm shifts. Scientists are taught the dominant paradigm and their science works within bounds of the said paradigm. They try to prove their theory within the bounds of current dominant thinking. If a scientist goes outside the dominant thinking they are called fools or deniers. But over time more and more scientists step outside the dominant thinking and over time they build momentum and change the paradigm, which in turn becomes the dominant scientific paradigm, this then is a paradigm shift. From Newton to Einstein for example. see this,








http://www.taketheleap.com/define.html


Peer pressure and politics play an important role in all science--- is this whayt is happening here?

[SaigonSaddler]

Peer pressure and politics play an important role in all science--- is this whayt is happening here?

No.

:wink:

[sj]

Peer pressure and politics play an important role in all science--- is this whayt is happening here?

No.

:wink:

Oh yes it is :D

[Pedagogue]

Peer pressure and politics play an important role in all science--- is this what is happening here?

No.

:wink:

Oh yes, it is! :D

Oh no, it isn't! :D



(He's behind you!)

[Welsh_Saddler]

This is what my strange daughter has to say on the subject:

"Last month in school we had a Climate Change representitive for Wales come in and talk to us about global warming. Just about all the information I'm about to use comes from her and so if it's wrong you can yell at her, not at me.

Over the last 300,000,000 (Three hundred million) years, since the Carboniferous Period, the Earth has experienced warm periods (such as the Permian and the Mezozoic) and Ice Ages (such as the Little Ice Age of 1730). On average, before the year 1900, the global temperature has been increasinging about 0.2 degrees Celcius per 100 years. But since 1900, the climate has warmed by 0.7 degrees Celcius. So yous who think climate change is a natural cycle are off yer heads because the climate hasn't warmed as quickly as it's doing now for 300,000,000 years, and you're telling me it's coincidence that the climate has started warming almost four times its natural rate ever since the Industrial Revolution? Don't think so, mate. CO2 levels have also increased by an alarming amount since the 1900s, by about the same rate (4x higher than the natural rate).

Since the 1960s, the air temperature of the Arctic has risen by 2 degrees Celcius, 30% of the Ice Sheet has been lost and there is an increasing number of polar bears starving to death because of the fast-retreating ice which means that they can't hunt seal pups. :shock: Coincidence? Not likely.

Nothing like this has happened since 300,000,000 BC, and it's entirely our fault. Guilty? So you should be.

It's relatively difficult to predict the concequences, but this kind of thing happened before (but on a much smaller scale) about 250 million years ago and again about 25 million years ago. The first time round it was devastating. it was caused by a change in the tilt of the Earth, and caused the biggest mass extinction the world has ever known. 95% of life in the oceans and 75% of life on land was wiped out all within the course of a few thousand years. Almost all life was reduced to dust and only a few species survived. It took about 150 million years for life to recover.

The second time was less devestating. this was caused by the melting of polar ice caps due to a change in the Earths tilt. Fish stocks were wiped out. The world's largest aquatic mammalian predator (Basilosaurus) was wiped out, as was the largest predatory land mammal (Andrewsarchus), along with many other giant mammals including Dorudon and Brontotherium (a giant dolphin and a giant rhino).

Only this time it's worse. The fish stocks needn't wait for climate change to kill them off, they're already being ruined. The largest aquatic mammals needn't wait either, they're being wiped out for Japanese "research", even our own species is suffering from the consequences of our actions, hurricanes, droughts, floods and tsunamis regularly claim thousands of lives, and it's only going to get worse. So thanks, world. Thanks a lot. You've ruined my future, my children's future, everyone's future. There's nothing can be done about it, we've passed the "tipping point" as the media like to call it: we've tipped. I don't believe the human race has any right to survive at all. After all that we've done, we deserve extinction."