Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.
Discussion
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
So? That's more a 'whole climate' thing and there are other variables in climate besides GHGs.
So, you'll agree that there's no need to worry about a forcing that is so minimal that it is overwhelmed by other natural factors.Thank goodness for that, Kerplunk. I had you down as a hysterical chicken licken kinda guy.
Think about what you're saying - there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau so how does that show there's nothing to worry about when those natural factors may only be temporary?
The fact is that a theory was posited and it seems to be a busted flush. The data does not match ANY of the models.
Sixteen years and counting.
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
So? That's more a 'whole climate' thing and there are other variables in climate besides GHGs.
So, you'll agree that there's no need to worry about a forcing that is so minimal that it is overwhelmed by other natural factors.Thank goodness for that, Kerplunk. I had you down as a hysterical chicken licken kinda guy.
Think about what you're saying - there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau so how does that show there's nothing to worry about when those natural factors may only be temporary?
The fact is that a theory was posited and it seems to be a busted flush. The data does not match ANY of the models.
Sixteen years and counting.
BliarOut said:
You mean it's the nature of the planet to warm and cool all by itself? Well f
k my old boots, who'da thought it.
No what they mean is that if the planet warms this is due to global warming and we must pay tax to stop it.k my old boots, who'da thought it.If the planet cools this is due to global warming and we must pay more tax to stop it.
If the planet gets drier/more hurricany (hey it's the political debate not science here right?!?) then this is due to global warming and we must pay tax to stop it.
If the planet gets wetter/less hurricany then this is due to global warmign and we must pay tax to stop it.
See, very simple.
Jasandjules said:
BliarOut said:
You mean it's the nature of the planet to warm and cool all by itself? Well fk my old boots, who'da thought it.
No what they mean is that if the planet warms this is due to global warming and we must pay tax to stop it.k my old boots, who'da thought it.If the planet cools this is due to global warming and we must pay more tax to stop it.
If the planet gets drier/more hurricany (hey it's the political debate not science here right?!?) then this is due to global warming and we must pay tax to stop it.
If the planet gets wetter/less hurricany then this is due to global warmign and we must pay tax to stop it.
See, very simple.
- Plateau, to demonstrate that a model is worthless.
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
No I can't agree to that, sorry. There might be no need to worry but that's not established by the current temp plateau (yet).
Think about what you're saying - there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau so how does that show there's nothing to worry about when those natural factors may only be temporary?
Ooh! "Plateau" a new word in your lexicon. I look forward to you using that word in the years to come. Think about what you're saying - there are indeed identifiable natural factors that could account for the temperature plateau so how does that show there's nothing to worry about when those natural factors may only be temporary?
The fact is that a theory was posited and it seems to be a busted flush. The data does not match ANY of the models.
Sixteen years and counting.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 6th March 15:24
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
A hypothesis was posited, predictions were made, they are not backed up by observation of the real world.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Richard Feynman said:
No matter how smart a person is, no matter how elegant their hypothesis, if it does not agree with experimentation, it is wrong.
The Green Energy Mirage Will Cost The Earth
Rupert Darwall, Daily Telegraph, 060313
Britain is committed to unsustainable carbon targets only because our politicians duped us
In 1988, the year global warming made its entrance into politics,
Margaret Thatcher declared that mankind had unwittingly been carrying
out a massive experiment with the planet, in which the burning of
fossil fuels would produce greenhouse gases, leading to higher global
temperatures. The results of this experiment remain an open question.
As Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, acknowledged last month, there has been a 17-year pause in the
rise of average global temperatures.
Of more immediate consequence to British families is that the UK has
embarked on perhaps the most aggressive political experiment attempted
in peacetime - gradually outlawing the use of fossil fuels, which we
have relied on since the Industrial Revolution, as our principal
source of energy. The results are already evident. Two weeks ago,
Alistair Buchanan, chief executive of Ofgem, warned of rising energy
bills, and questioned whether Britain would be able to keep the lights
on. When there is a glut of natural gas in the US and coal prices are
plunging in Europe, this country faces a green energy crunch as it
attempts to decarbonise its economy.
Environmentalism has taken the Marxist concept of the alienation of
the working class and applied it to the rich man's alienation from
nature. "By losing sight of our relationship with Nature... ," the
Prince of Wales wrote in 2009, "we have engendered a profoundly
dangerous alienation." In one respect, environmentalism is even more
radical than Marxism. Whereas Marxism aimed to change the relations of
the working class to the means of production, environmentalism is
about changing the means of production themselves. Ironically, Marxism
was a flop in the West, whereas environmentalism has triumphed.
One reason Britain has gone so far down the green path is that
politicians have not been honest about its economic implications.
During the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2008, which commits
Britain to cutting net carbon emissions by at least 80 per cent by
2050, the energy minister Phil Woolas rejected his own department's
estimate that the costs could exceed the benefits by £95 billion. The
House of Commons never debated the costs and the Bill was passed, with
only five MPs voting against.
An even more egregious example is provided by Ed Miliband, when he was
climate change secretary. The Tory MP Peter Lilley had written to Mr
Miliband to say that, based on his department's own impact statement,
the Climate Change Act would cost households an average of between
£16,000 and £20,000. The future Labour leader replied that the
statement showed that the benefits to British society of successful
action on climate change would be far higher than the cost. Mr
Miliband should have known this was untrue; if he didn't, he had no
business certifying that he'd read the impact statement, which he'd
signed just six weeks earlier. The statement only estimated the
benefits of slightly cooler temperatures for the world as a whole, not
for the UK.
Indeed, in April 2012, the current Energy and Climate Change
Secretary, Ed Davey, confirmed that his department was not aware of
evidence that would have allowed Ed Miliband to claim that the UK
would be better off with green policies. The impact statement did,
however, say that imposing green policies unilaterally in the absence
of an international agreement would "result in a large net cost for
the UK".
Here environmentalism came up against an immovable object, which
explains why there is no effective international agreement - and there
is unlikely ever to be one. Led by India and China, the major
developing economies - now responsible for most of the extra emissions
- simply refuse to agree to any international treaty that might
require them to limit their carbon footprint.
Western politicians spun the mirage of "green growth", of
environmentalism without tears. Green growth was for gullible voters
back home. It wasn't mentioned behind closed doors at the 2009
Copenhagen climate conference, when the West implored developing
countries to sign on the dotted line. It should not have surprised
anyone that the developing world did not. Ever since 1972 and the
first UN conference on the environment in Stockholm, the involvement
of the developing world has been subject to a strict condition
-international action on the environment must not fetter their
economic development. Subsequently Canada - a climate change pioneer -
announced its withdrawal from Kyoto.
The year before the Copenhagen conference, Oliver Letwin, David
Cameron's chief policy adviser, bet the former chancellor Lord Lawson
£100 that there would be agreement on a successor to the Kyoto
Protocol by 2012. On winning the bet, Lord Lawson remarked that Mr
Letwin, one of the nicest people in politics, was totally divorced
from any understanding of practical realities.
Without an international agreement, it is pointless for the UK to
spend hundreds of billions of pounds on green energy, reduce its
growth and cut living standards. The green energy crunch promises to
end up costing us all much more than Oliver Letwin's losing bet.
[Rupert Darwall's book 'The Age of Global Warming: A History' is published by Quartet Books]
Rupert Darwall, Daily Telegraph, 060313
Britain is committed to unsustainable carbon targets only because our politicians duped us
In 1988, the year global warming made its entrance into politics,
Margaret Thatcher declared that mankind had unwittingly been carrying
out a massive experiment with the planet, in which the burning of
fossil fuels would produce greenhouse gases, leading to higher global
temperatures. The results of this experiment remain an open question.
As Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, acknowledged last month, there has been a 17-year pause in the
rise of average global temperatures.
Of more immediate consequence to British families is that the UK has
embarked on perhaps the most aggressive political experiment attempted
in peacetime - gradually outlawing the use of fossil fuels, which we
have relied on since the Industrial Revolution, as our principal
source of energy. The results are already evident. Two weeks ago,
Alistair Buchanan, chief executive of Ofgem, warned of rising energy
bills, and questioned whether Britain would be able to keep the lights
on. When there is a glut of natural gas in the US and coal prices are
plunging in Europe, this country faces a green energy crunch as it
attempts to decarbonise its economy.
Environmentalism has taken the Marxist concept of the alienation of
the working class and applied it to the rich man's alienation from
nature. "By losing sight of our relationship with Nature... ," the
Prince of Wales wrote in 2009, "we have engendered a profoundly
dangerous alienation." In one respect, environmentalism is even more
radical than Marxism. Whereas Marxism aimed to change the relations of
the working class to the means of production, environmentalism is
about changing the means of production themselves. Ironically, Marxism
was a flop in the West, whereas environmentalism has triumphed.
One reason Britain has gone so far down the green path is that
politicians have not been honest about its economic implications.
During the passage of the Climate Change Act in 2008, which commits
Britain to cutting net carbon emissions by at least 80 per cent by
2050, the energy minister Phil Woolas rejected his own department's
estimate that the costs could exceed the benefits by £95 billion. The
House of Commons never debated the costs and the Bill was passed, with
only five MPs voting against.
An even more egregious example is provided by Ed Miliband, when he was
climate change secretary. The Tory MP Peter Lilley had written to Mr
Miliband to say that, based on his department's own impact statement,
the Climate Change Act would cost households an average of between
£16,000 and £20,000. The future Labour leader replied that the
statement showed that the benefits to British society of successful
action on climate change would be far higher than the cost. Mr
Miliband should have known this was untrue; if he didn't, he had no
business certifying that he'd read the impact statement, which he'd
signed just six weeks earlier. The statement only estimated the
benefits of slightly cooler temperatures for the world as a whole, not
for the UK.
Indeed, in April 2012, the current Energy and Climate Change
Secretary, Ed Davey, confirmed that his department was not aware of
evidence that would have allowed Ed Miliband to claim that the UK
would be better off with green policies. The impact statement did,
however, say that imposing green policies unilaterally in the absence
of an international agreement would "result in a large net cost for
the UK".
Here environmentalism came up against an immovable object, which
explains why there is no effective international agreement - and there
is unlikely ever to be one. Led by India and China, the major
developing economies - now responsible for most of the extra emissions
- simply refuse to agree to any international treaty that might
require them to limit their carbon footprint.
Western politicians spun the mirage of "green growth", of
environmentalism without tears. Green growth was for gullible voters
back home. It wasn't mentioned behind closed doors at the 2009
Copenhagen climate conference, when the West implored developing
countries to sign on the dotted line. It should not have surprised
anyone that the developing world did not. Ever since 1972 and the
first UN conference on the environment in Stockholm, the involvement
of the developing world has been subject to a strict condition
-international action on the environment must not fetter their
economic development. Subsequently Canada - a climate change pioneer -
announced its withdrawal from Kyoto.
The year before the Copenhagen conference, Oliver Letwin, David
Cameron's chief policy adviser, bet the former chancellor Lord Lawson
£100 that there would be agreement on a successor to the Kyoto
Protocol by 2012. On winning the bet, Lord Lawson remarked that Mr
Letwin, one of the nicest people in politics, was totally divorced
from any understanding of practical realities.
Without an international agreement, it is pointless for the UK to
spend hundreds of billions of pounds on green energy, reduce its
growth and cut living standards. The green energy crunch promises to
end up costing us all much more than Oliver Letwin's losing bet.
[Rupert Darwall's book 'The Age of Global Warming: A History' is published by Quartet Books]
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Sounds very much like a declaration of faith against evidence. Good luck with that.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Game over? Based on a low-side deviation in the obs for just the last 5/6 years or so? In a period when we've had a prolonged solar minimum and La Nina has been dominating El Nino? Really? Good luck to you too.
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Sounds very much like a declaration of faith against evidence. Good luck with that.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Sounds very much like a declaration of faith against evidence. Good luck with that.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Game over? Based on a low-side deviation in the obs for just the last 5/6 years or so? In a period when we've had a prolonged solar minimum and La Nina has been dominating El Nino? Really? Good luck to you too.
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Sounds very much like a declaration of faith against evidence. Good luck with that.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Game over? Based on a low-side deviation in the obs for just the last 5/6 years or so? In a period when we've had a prolonged solar minimum and La Nina has been dominating El Nino? Really? Good luck to you too.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
How much more time will you need? 100 years? I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Edited by kerplunk on Wednesday 6th March 15:24
12 years ago now we were told snow was a thing of the past......
Some years ago we were told we had only six months to save the planet.....
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Sounds very much like a declaration of faith against evidence. Good luck with that.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Game over? Based on a low-side deviation in the obs for just the last 5/6 years or so? In a period when we've had a prolonged solar minimum and La Nina has been dominating El Nino? Really? Good luck to you too.
Or wasn't I listening in school again?
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Sounds very much like a declaration of faith against evidence. Good luck with that.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Game over? Based on a low-side deviation in the obs for just the last 5/6 years or so? In a period when we've had a prolonged solar minimum and La Nina has been dominating El Nino? Really? Good luck to you too.
BliarOut said:
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Sounds very much like a declaration of faith against evidence. Good luck with that.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Game over? Based on a low-side deviation in the obs for just the last 5/6 years or so? In a period when we've had a prolonged solar minimum and La Nina has been dominating El Nino? Really? Good luck to you too.
kerplunk said:
BliarOut said:
kerplunk said:
Blib said:
kerplunk said:
You say game over.
I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Sounds very much like a declaration of faith against evidence. Good luck with that.I say time will tell.
Fair enough.
Game over? Based on a low-side deviation in the obs for just the last 5/6 years or so? In a period when we've had a prolonged solar minimum and La Nina has been dominating El Nino? Really? Good luck to you too.
Still hasn't got any warmer...
GIGO!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff