Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Globs said:
kerplunk said:
Globs said:
The biggest influence is very high fuel prices though.
Is it? I don't know.Here's a recent article in the independent about a new report that says fuel poverty related deaths are actually 3 times government estimates but that still 'only' comes out at 7,800/yr:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/fue...
Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 17th March 14:14
kerplunk said:
Globs said:
kerplunk said:
Globs said:
The biggest influence is very high fuel prices though.
Is it? I don't know.In 2010 a greater proportion of homes had cavity wall insulation, modern central heating and double-glazing compared with 1990 and earlier. Since 2000 the gradual downtrend has stopped and reversed, though (thankfully) the uptrend hasn't got a head of steam yet as at 2013 though it shouldn't be happening at all.
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
Globs said:
kerplunk said:
Globs said:
The biggest influence is very high fuel prices though.
Is it? I don't know.In 2010 a greater proportion of homes had cavity wall insulation, modern central heating and double-glazing compared with 1990 and earlier. Since 2000 the gradual downtrend has stopped and reversed, though (thankfully) the uptrend hasn't got a head of steam yet as at 2013 though it shouldn't be happening at all.
kerplunk said:
the small upturn appears to coincide with the run of cold winters we've had
You mean the run of years without any sign of this elusive 'global warming'?It's all b
ks isn't it? Have you been outside recently?Seen the low temperatures around the world?
Warming? What a load of old tosh
Globs said:
kerplunk said:
the small upturn appears to coincide with the run of cold winters we've had
You mean the run of years without any sign of this elusive 'global warming'?It's all b
ks isn't it? Have you been outside recently?Seen the low temperatures around the world?
Warming? What a load of old tosh
It also coincides with the rise in energy prices. If people could afford to heat their homes adequately, the external temperature would be largely irrelevant.
http://metro.co.uk/2010/01/05/pensioners-burn-book...
Attenborough Must Check his Facts on Polar Bears
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 17/03/13
De rigueur though it may be to describe Sir David Attenborough as a
"national treasure" and our "greatest living naturalist", it really is
time he was called to account for the shameless way in which he has
allowed himself to be made the frontman for one particular propaganda
campaign that has stood all genuine scientific evidence on its head.
Last week, yet another report picked up on the part Sir David has
played in promoting what the facts show to have been no more than a
colossal scare story.
It is now seven years since Sir David was first wheeled out by the BBC
as the main cheerleader in its campaign to whip up panic over man-made
global warming. In two documentaries, he presented himself as a
one-time "climate sceptic" who had now been convinced by the evidence.
The only problem was that, as he repeated a series of familiar
alarmist mantras, there was little sign that he had checked the
evidence for any of them: not least his claim that, thanks to the
melting of Arctic ice, the world's polar bear population, already down
by a quarter, could be facing extinction.
Pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth had
already made polar bears the most iconic image for their crusade to
save the planet. World Wide Fund for Nature, in its pursuit of funds,
was moving on from pandas to appealing to the public to "pay £3 a
month to adopt a polar bear".
Vainly, in the face of this avalanche of propaganda, did an array of
experts and bodies such as the US National Biological Service and the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature point out that,
thanks to curbs on hunting in the Seventies, the world's polar bear
population had, in fact, risen from 10,000 in 1966 to 25,000 or more
in 2006; that all but one of their 19 main groups were significantly
increasing in numbers; and that, based on observed data rather than
highly questionable computer models, there was not a shred of evidence
of any threat to the bears from climate change.
Al Gore twice famously fell flat on his face in promoting the cause,
first when his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' focused on the fate of
four bears that were later shown just to have drowned in a storm; then
when he made big play with a picture of two bears on a half-melted
iceberg, which the photographer later protested she had only taken
because it was a striking image, unconnected in any way with climate
change.
But although Gore may have been notoriously reckless in misusing
evidence, he has no pretensions to being a scientist. Sir David's
reputation, on the other hand, is that of a man with respect for
science, although this did not prevent him in 2009 from supporting a
ridiculous BBC publicity stunt involving a giant blow-up plastic polar
bear floating down the Thames, or making polar bears a key feature of
his Frozen Planet series in 2011, ending in a propaganda pitch for
global-warming alarmism that somehow managed to overlook the fact that
polar sea ice had recently been greater in extent than at any time in
30 years.
When, last week, the Global Warming Policy Foundation published a new
report, 'Ten Good Reasons Not to Worry About Polar Bears', Matt (now
Lord) Ridley referred in his foreword to Sir David's bizarre
determination to ignore the evidence. The report's author, Susan
Crockford, an experienced Canadian polar bear expert, explains just
why there is no connection between the thriving polar bear population
and climate change, and how this has been concocted into one of the
great urban myths of our time.
Nothing is going to stand in the way of Sir David's reputation as a
national treasure, even though it rests so largely on the
extraordinary skill of the cameramen who make his documentaries so
memorable. But for his readiness to lend his immense prestige to a
scare story that defies all the evidence, he deserves no respect at
all.
Christopher Booker, Sunday Telegraph, 17/03/13
De rigueur though it may be to describe Sir David Attenborough as a
"national treasure" and our "greatest living naturalist", it really is
time he was called to account for the shameless way in which he has
allowed himself to be made the frontman for one particular propaganda
campaign that has stood all genuine scientific evidence on its head.
Last week, yet another report picked up on the part Sir David has
played in promoting what the facts show to have been no more than a
colossal scare story.
It is now seven years since Sir David was first wheeled out by the BBC
as the main cheerleader in its campaign to whip up panic over man-made
global warming. In two documentaries, he presented himself as a
one-time "climate sceptic" who had now been convinced by the evidence.
The only problem was that, as he repeated a series of familiar
alarmist mantras, there was little sign that he had checked the
evidence for any of them: not least his claim that, thanks to the
melting of Arctic ice, the world's polar bear population, already down
by a quarter, could be facing extinction.
Pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth had
already made polar bears the most iconic image for their crusade to
save the planet. World Wide Fund for Nature, in its pursuit of funds,
was moving on from pandas to appealing to the public to "pay £3 a
month to adopt a polar bear".
Vainly, in the face of this avalanche of propaganda, did an array of
experts and bodies such as the US National Biological Service and the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature point out that,
thanks to curbs on hunting in the Seventies, the world's polar bear
population had, in fact, risen from 10,000 in 1966 to 25,000 or more
in 2006; that all but one of their 19 main groups were significantly
increasing in numbers; and that, based on observed data rather than
highly questionable computer models, there was not a shred of evidence
of any threat to the bears from climate change.
Al Gore twice famously fell flat on his face in promoting the cause,
first when his film 'An Inconvenient Truth' focused on the fate of
four bears that were later shown just to have drowned in a storm; then
when he made big play with a picture of two bears on a half-melted
iceberg, which the photographer later protested she had only taken
because it was a striking image, unconnected in any way with climate
change.
But although Gore may have been notoriously reckless in misusing
evidence, he has no pretensions to being a scientist. Sir David's
reputation, on the other hand, is that of a man with respect for
science, although this did not prevent him in 2009 from supporting a
ridiculous BBC publicity stunt involving a giant blow-up plastic polar
bear floating down the Thames, or making polar bears a key feature of
his Frozen Planet series in 2011, ending in a propaganda pitch for
global-warming alarmism that somehow managed to overlook the fact that
polar sea ice had recently been greater in extent than at any time in
30 years.
When, last week, the Global Warming Policy Foundation published a new
report, 'Ten Good Reasons Not to Worry About Polar Bears', Matt (now
Lord) Ridley referred in his foreword to Sir David's bizarre
determination to ignore the evidence. The report's author, Susan
Crockford, an experienced Canadian polar bear expert, explains just
why there is no connection between the thriving polar bear population
and climate change, and how this has been concocted into one of the
great urban myths of our time.
Nothing is going to stand in the way of Sir David's reputation as a
national treasure, even though it rests so largely on the
extraordinary skill of the cameramen who make his documentaries so
memorable. But for his readiness to lend his immense prestige to a
scare story that defies all the evidence, he deserves no respect at
all.
Maybe one of Mystic Met's new Attributional scientists can attribute the cause of Oxfordshire Council being less than satisfied with the service they are getting?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-2...
Personally I would attribute it to genuine scientists being overuled by eco-nutters, but I have no scientific proof of that, yet.....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-2...
Personally I would attribute it to genuine scientists being overuled by eco-nutters, but I have no scientific proof of that, yet.....
munroman said:
Maybe one of Mystic Met's new Attributional scientists can attribute the cause of Oxfordshire Council being less than satisfied with the service they are getting?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-2...
Personally I would attribute it to genuine scientists being overuled by eco-nutters, but I have no scientific proof of that, yet.....
Maybe they were expecting a 'warmer and wetter' winter?http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-2...
Personally I would attribute it to genuine scientists being overuled by eco-nutters, but I have no scientific proof of that, yet.....
Shirley we are imagining all those frosty snowy mornings??
Globs said:
kerplunk said:
Globs said:
The biggest influence is very high fuel prices though.
Is it? I don't know.Consequently, I have no regard for you as a person. You are as worthless as the dirty stuck on the bottom of my shoe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2180...
I notice the BBC doesn't allow comments these days, have they realised people don't believe their... Well, I guess 'st' is the best description.
I notice the BBC doesn't allow comments these days, have they realised people don't believe their... Well, I guess 's
t' is the best description.BliarOut said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2180...
I notice the BBC doesn't allow comments these days, have they realised people don't believe their... Well, I guess 'st' is the best description.
I notice the BBC doesn't allow comments these days, have they realised people don't believe their... Well, I guess 's
t' is the best description.Article said:
The 95g limit is proposed by the Commission. It argues that strict standards are essential to sustain the competitiveness of Europe’s car makers
I'd like to see the Commission square that circle in a global market. Much of which does not share their wild-eyed fear of CO2.
I sometimes wonder if the Chinese are paying our useless leaders off to sabotage the West beyond all repair...
On a different note, I watched Attenborough's 'First Life' last night, after buying a load of nature doc box sets. I cannot lie, it was superb - but then I felt sad. Looking at all of these programmes I have bought, it seems that since Attenborough read out that (BBC scripted) statement about MMGW, his profile has rocketed over the past few years, with a plethora of new BBC financed programmes - more than at any other time in Attenborough's history at the BBC (at least, that's how it looks to me)
I cannot help but thing that the BBC gave him some kind of ultimatum - perhaps even threatened, that if he did not make the statement about MMGW, funding for his new programmes would be difficult - if he does make the statement (which he did..), funding would flow like water from a tap - as long as MMGW was mentioned somewhere in every new series. It may sound a tad 'conspiracy theory-ish', but look what's happened to both Johnny Ball and poor David Bellamy, the latter being at least as prolific as Attenborough when in their prime. it is clear that the BBC, or at least the environmental aspect of it is run by activists of the worst kind. It is quite sad, really, and I hope the truth does come out in the end.
They are poisoning the well of knowledge, and it cannot continue - unless, like the first sentence, they really do want to sabotage our future.
On a different note, I watched Attenborough's 'First Life' last night, after buying a load of nature doc box sets. I cannot lie, it was superb - but then I felt sad. Looking at all of these programmes I have bought, it seems that since Attenborough read out that (BBC scripted) statement about MMGW, his profile has rocketed over the past few years, with a plethora of new BBC financed programmes - more than at any other time in Attenborough's history at the BBC (at least, that's how it looks to me)
I cannot help but thing that the BBC gave him some kind of ultimatum - perhaps even threatened, that if he did not make the statement about MMGW, funding for his new programmes would be difficult - if he does make the statement (which he did..), funding would flow like water from a tap - as long as MMGW was mentioned somewhere in every new series. It may sound a tad 'conspiracy theory-ish', but look what's happened to both Johnny Ball and poor David Bellamy, the latter being at least as prolific as Attenborough when in their prime. it is clear that the BBC, or at least the environmental aspect of it is run by activists of the worst kind. It is quite sad, really, and I hope the truth does come out in the end.
They are poisoning the well of knowledge, and it cannot continue - unless, like the first sentence, they really do want to sabotage our future.
Edited by chris watton on Monday 18th March 10:54
It's sad that such indoctrination is pumped into innocent minds by activists and extremists.
I'm hoping that the continuing lack of warming - even while it combines with fuel poverty to kill the vulnerable - will slay this monster.
At some point many kids are going to independently realise that it's cold out there and there's little point in worrying about global warming while they are having to dodge frostbite and hypothermia.
We should be hopeful, many kids still trust their senses more than some goofy teacher with an axe to grind.
I'm hoping that the continuing lack of warming - even while it combines with fuel poverty to kill the vulnerable - will slay this monster.
At some point many kids are going to independently realise that it's cold out there and there's little point in worrying about global warming while they are having to dodge frostbite and hypothermia.
We should be hopeful, many kids still trust their senses more than some goofy teacher with an axe to grind.
Andy Zarse said:
Globs said:
kerplunk said:
Globs said:
The biggest influence is very high fuel prices though.
Is it? I don't know.Consequently, I have no regard for you as a person. You are as worthless as the dirty stuck on the bottom of my shoe.
It's all 'projection' with morons like you isn't it - you don't really care about reality.
Globs said:
It's sad that such indoctrination is pumped into innocent minds by activists and extremists.
Trouble is, we all still believe that lemmings rush of cliffs, don't we? Ever since that wildlife film showed us, what, 40 years ago?At least today there are older people around who can tell youngsters (under 25) that we've had cold weather and hot weather before, probably will again, and not everything Mr. Politician or TV man says is always 100% God's Honest Truth.
There was never a lemming botherer around when I was young to disprove that film...
kerplunk said:
It's all 'projection' with morons like you isn't it - you don't really care about reality.
I really had to quote this gem from our pet Believer. Of all the people to type that sentence.....
Hey Plunks, how are those COMPUTER MODELS performing? You know, those projections that you and your friends would have us all accept are more valid than data from "reality".
Classic Plunky, just classic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff