Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
steveatesh said:
More steps towards telling us all how to run our lives. Mail link but also reported in the telegraph.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689547/Bu...
Article tells us all we should be buying smaller TVs and fridges. It's the Middle Classes to blame apparently
Possible savings of £36 per year, according to the article.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2689547/Bu...
Article tells us all we should be buying smaller TVs and fridges. It's the Middle Classes to blame apparently
Knock me down with a feather! If I also changed my boiler to one of those ultra reliable condenser combi boilers
I could save a further £240 over five years (according to the EPC for my house).
With all that money saved, I could have a nice caravan holiday in Rhyll twice a decade.
Probably.
dandarez said:
Nah, get yourself a incy-wincy tiny fridge and a dinky little tv.
Then spend more time going out, wasting fuel, paying parking charges, buying your items at top whack price, and then not forgetting all that squinting trying to view your dinky tv, suffer the consequence of more time going out ... visiting specsavers!
Climate idiots.
No you are supposed to stay in being frugal, ethical and in bed when the sun goes down so not to waste any energy lighting your house.Then spend more time going out, wasting fuel, paying parking charges, buying your items at top whack price, and then not forgetting all that squinting trying to view your dinky tv, suffer the consequence of more time going out ... visiting specsavers!
Climate idiots.
Jasandjules said:
Quite right. And when I see the BBC studios with no lights on (save that Co2), and no support for the World Cup (which involves huge travel for thousands of people and lots of lights used, so much CO2), and not sending 30 odd employees down there to cover it (again lots of Co2), and no support for the Olympics, Tennis, Athletics or any other sporting event which must generate huge carbon dioxides for the lighting and heating and travel of the competitors and audience, and the BBC with no TVs themselves and so on
THEN I'll consider it isn't a load of s**t.
I bet that it's all covered by squandering a massive amount of our TV license on carbon credits.THEN I'll consider it isn't a load of s**t.
turbobloke said:
The fact is that, on the climate change issue, the BBC has its own party line (indistinguishable from that of the Green Party) which it imposes with quasi-Stalinist thoroughness. It is hard to imagine a more blatant breach of its charter, which commits it to political balance, or a more blatant betrayal of the people’s trust, on which the continuation of its licence fee depends.
The fact is the BBC line concerning CO2 induced global warming is exactly the same one as that of the whole LabLibDemCon and Obama alliance not just the raving greens.It's only UKIP that provides the real sceptic alternative.In which case,assuming such a government line gets sufficient power,the obvious answer to the BBC would then be to sack all the staff and management who can be shown to have been involved in going against the organisation's remit of balanced broadcasting and reporting without bias.
Jasandjules said:
Quite right. And when I see the BBC studios with no lights on (save that Co2), and no support for the World Cup (which involves huge travel for thousands of people and lots of lights used, so much CO2), and not sending 30 odd employees down there to cover it (again lots of Co2), and no support for the Olympics, Tennis, Athletics or any other sporting event which must generate huge carbon dioxides for the lighting and heating and travel of the competitors and audience, and the BBC with no TVs themselves and so on
THEN I'll consider it isn't a load of s**t.
If the BBC only sent 30 wonks to Brazil I'll eat my TV licence; I'd be surprised if it was as few as double that.THEN I'll consider it isn't a load of s**t.
BBC Radio 4 this morning did a short piece berating the PM of Australia, managing twice to get in his comment that AGW is a load of crap.
They even interviewed Al Gore, who's been to OZ to tell them their government is wrong.
Now they're back on the subject, the BBC will no doubt be running a piece next week about the record growth of sea ice in Antarctica.
Won't they?
Or will they continue to bang on about their claim that this year is the hottest on record in Australia?
Place your bets, gentlemen...
They even interviewed Al Gore, who's been to OZ to tell them their government is wrong.
Now they're back on the subject, the BBC will no doubt be running a piece next week about the record growth of sea ice in Antarctica.
Won't they?
Or will they continue to bang on about their claim that this year is the hottest on record in Australia?
Place your bets, gentlemen...
Jasandjules said:
dandarez said:
‘Why do we need a bigger TV, and why do we need a bigger fridge? I don’t understand ... ’
Quite right. And when I see the BBC studios with no lights on (save that Co2), and no support for the World Cup (which involves huge travel for thousands of people and lots of lights used, so much CO2), and not sending 30 odd employees down there to cover it (again lots of Co2), and no support for the Olympics, Tennis, Athletics or any other sporting event which must generate huge carbon dioxides for the lighting and heating and travel of the competitors and audience, and the BBC with no TVs themselves and so onTHEN I'll consider it isn't a load of s**t.
colonel c said:
Yes yea yea! but do you realise the report was commissioned by the Government and compiled by Cambridge Architectural Research and Loughborough University. As far as I can see The BBC played no part in it.
No but they are in the "we are all going to die unless you pay taxes which as a stroke of luck would have it pays our pensions".. So, when they do as this report claims we should do, I might take note (truth be told I won't because we all know it's a load of s**e).A very intersting article over at Briggs' website:
The letter that The Lancet refused to publish
Nonsense about outdoor air pollution causing x deaths just died a death.
The letter that The Lancet refused to publish
Article said:
Here’s the title of a big new peer-reviewed paper in The Lancet:
Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project
Take your time and answer this question (you will be graded): TRUE or FALSE, scientists measured the effects of air pollution on mortality of a group of folks in Europe.
Come on. After seeing the words effects of air pollution on mortality, what else can you say but TRUE?
It is FALSE, of course. The three or four dozen researchers listed as authors never measured, not even once, the amount of air “pollution” any person was exposed to. Further, every single author knew that the title was false. And so did every editor.
So why was it allowed?
More at the link.Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project
Take your time and answer this question (you will be graded): TRUE or FALSE, scientists measured the effects of air pollution on mortality of a group of folks in Europe.
Come on. After seeing the words effects of air pollution on mortality, what else can you say but TRUE?
It is FALSE, of course. The three or four dozen researchers listed as authors never measured, not even once, the amount of air “pollution” any person was exposed to. Further, every single author knew that the title was false. And so did every editor.
So why was it allowed?
Nonsense about outdoor air pollution causing x deaths just died a death.
Which led to this, from WAPO via WUWT:
Peer Review Ring Busted
Implications for climate science...it's suggestions on a postcard time.
Peer Review Ring Busted
WUWT said:
Every now and then a scholarly journal retracts an article because of errors or outright fraud. In academic circles, and sometimes beyond, each retraction is a big deal.
Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.
The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.
You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”
Now comes word of a journal retracting 60 articles at once.
The reason for the mass retraction is mind-blowing: A “peer review and citation ring” was apparently rigging the review process to get articles published.
You’ve heard of prostitution rings, gambling rings and extortion rings. Now there’s a “peer review ring.”
Implications for climate science...it's suggestions on a postcard time.
Oh joy, higher electricity bills for us because Scotland wants to pretend it has the equivalent of 100% renewable energy production by 2020.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2...
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-2...
V88Dicky said:
Possible savings of £36 per year, according to the article.
Knock me down with a feather! If I also changed my boiler to one of those ultra reliable condenser combi boilers
I could save a further £240 over five years (according to the EPC for my house).
With all that money saved, I could have a nice caravan holiday in Rhyll twice a decade.
Probably.
Nope. You would be hard pressed to make the "savings" pay for the boiler. Or even the servicing of the boiler.Knock me down with a feather! If I also changed my boiler to one of those ultra reliable condenser combi boilers
I could save a further £240 over five years (according to the EPC for my house).
With all that money saved, I could have a nice caravan holiday in Rhyll twice a decade.
Probably.
Think about the 'electronics' that make them work and the cost of replacement - justlike modern cars.
Bodies and stuff expensively and weightily engineered to last decades but the things become uneconomic to repair not long after the extended warranties run out.
Of course the manufacturers just hate that! To see all their expensive efforts binned after such a short time ... tragedy ... right?
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/7/13/s...
BBC again...
Worse than previously thought...the BBC, that is.
BBC again...
Worse than previously thought...the BBC, that is.
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2014/7/13/s...
BBC again...
Worse than previously thought...the BBC, that is.
BBC again...
Worse than previously thought...the BBC, that is.
Linked article said:
We can now begin to see how the BBC's editorial policy is going to pan out. Sceptics are wrong even when they are right; politicians who question alarmism will therefore be introduced as being "wrong" and will be challenged on everything they say. Greens are right even when they are lying; they will be given a free pass and no challenge of their views is to be permitted.
That position has been the case for some time, the difference now is that politicians and others who've seen through the scam will be introduced as 'wrong' in their absence, previously one or two somehow got into the studios every blue moon. This year's monster El Nino that Greens were praying to Gaia for (it was going to be portrayed as manmadeup and the end to nearly 20 years of panic over the lack of warming) looks like turning out to be an oceanic wet fart, so we can expect even more desperate measures.I read yesterday on a link posted on another thread, that Lord Lawson was a close confidante of George Osborne. Often having private, one to one meetings with the Chancellor.
It is not entirely beyond reason that Osborne could become the next leader of the Conservatives and the next Tory Prime Minister. We could have our very own "Tony Abbot" style, sceptical Great Leader just waiting in the wings?
Well, at least, we can live in hope.
It is not entirely beyond reason that Osborne could become the next leader of the Conservatives and the next Tory Prime Minister. We could have our very own "Tony Abbot" style, sceptical Great Leader just waiting in the wings?
Well, at least, we can live in hope.
For reference the latest ENSO update sais this: "The upper-level and low-level winds over the tropical Pacific remained near average, except for low-level westerly anomalies over the eastern Pacific. Convection was enhanced near and just west of the Date Line and over portions of Indonesia. Still, the lack of a clear and consistent atmospheric response to the positive SSTs indicates ENSO-neutral. Over the last month, no significant change was evident in the model forecasts of ENSO, with the majority of models indicating El Niño onset within June-August and continuing into early 2015. The chance of a strong El Niño is not favored in any of the ensemble averages for Niño-3.4. At this time, the forecasters anticipate El Niño will peak at weak-to-moderate strength during the late fall and early winter.
As always, this needs a health warning as computer models may say one thing but the data may turn out to be different.
As always, this needs a health warning as computer models may say one thing but the data may turn out to be different.
Blib said:
Well, at least, we can live in hope.
Which is better than Believers and the BBC, living in dreamworld 
BBC Wobbles On Ban For Sceptics: Climate Sceptics ‘Must Be Heard On The BBC’ Says Editor
The BBC must air the views of climate change sceptics even though they are in the minority, the editor of Radio 4’s Today programme has said after he was criticised for allowing Nigel Lawson to feature in a debate. Jamie Angus, editor of Today, said Lord Lawson deserved to be heard despite holding a minority view. “The BBC can’t say, ‘We aren’t going to put that point of view on air because scientists tell us it’s not right’,” Angus said.
Anita Singh, The Daily Telegraph, 14 July 2014
Which scientists? Not all say it's not right. That takes us to the minority claim...as measured how? Among funded believers and activist groups, obviously - wider than that, not a chance.
Anyway, those still watching and listening to the beeb will find out eventually if this is a diversionary measure or if it signals real intent.
The BBC must air the views of climate change sceptics even though they are in the minority, the editor of Radio 4’s Today programme has said after he was criticised for allowing Nigel Lawson to feature in a debate. Jamie Angus, editor of Today, said Lord Lawson deserved to be heard despite holding a minority view. “The BBC can’t say, ‘We aren’t going to put that point of view on air because scientists tell us it’s not right’,” Angus said.
Anita Singh, The Daily Telegraph, 14 July 2014
Which scientists? Not all say it's not right. That takes us to the minority claim...as measured how? Among funded believers and activist groups, obviously - wider than that, not a chance.
Anyway, those still watching and listening to the beeb will find out eventually if this is a diversionary measure or if it signals real intent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff