Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

2013BRM

39,731 posts

283 months

Thursday 9th October 2014
quotequote all
jurbie said:
The Don of Croy said:
Ed Davey got his moment in the spotlight - live from site! - to defend the deal by forecasting the massive increase in energy prices between now and when the plant is running (scheduled for 2023) makes the fixed 35 year leccy price a good deal...which is comforting coming from the Sec of State for Energy (a role one might have otherwise thought would be concerned over a potential DOUBLING of the nation's energy costs).

The man has an MSc in Economics. Perhaps he has some formula that shows how a developed country can thrive when energy prices double in nine years?
Of course what he didn't mention is that DECC are having to redo all their figures because the price of gas is going down so all their projections for massive energy increases are complete horlicks. The only thing driving energy prices are the increasing subsidies required to keep renewables competitive so it's actually Ed Davey who is increasing the cost of energy.

As for Prof Cox, I can't stand the man however I suspect his position is based on a view that all scientists are a model of integrity and anyone who disagrees is a dangerous flat earther. That and he has to protect his lucrative career at the BBC. The irony is that all he is doing is helping to increase the erosion of scientific credibility.
A friend who subcontracts for the power companies said that the fact that people are turning their heaters down combined with milder winters has put them into a gas surplus, the biggest disgrace is the continually rising energy bills which should be dropping, massively

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Thursday 9th October 2014
quotequote all
Any believers still waiting on El Nino to misrepresent as manmadeup warming are...still waiting. The latest ENSO Advisory, just in, says "The lack of coherent atmospheric and oceanic features indicates the continuation of ENSO-neutral." Models predict hehe El Nino onset around November-December, we shall see. It doesn't look like salvation will arrive before 20 years of pause and failure.

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 9th October 2014
quotequote all
2013BRM said:
A friend who subcontracts for the power companies said that the fact that people are turning their heaters down combined with milder winters has put them into a gas surplus, the biggest disgrace is the continually rising energy bills which should be dropping, massively
So far as I know gas storage facilities are still a bit thin on the ground so I presume the surplus means they are behind the level of consumption for which they are contracted to future purchases? Do they have to pay penalties for that?

motco

15,918 posts

245 months

Thursday 9th October 2014
quotequote all
BG used to have a number of high pressure storage facilities in the 1980s. Very large gas cylinders in storage yards: one in Bath that I knew of and another in Gloucester I think. My company of the time provided outdoor movement detectors to protect them. The business dried up when they decided not to build any more because, they said, there's enough stored in the high pressure grid to render these facilities redundant.

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Thursday 9th October 2014
quotequote all
Guam said:
Thats it we are definitely doomed, there was me thinking my 20 Humpback whales just outside Boston and the 100 plus Dolphins off Cape May (New Jersey) were a good thing, when in reality if the Walruses are anything to go by as cited in this article I was witnessing Globageddon first hand and the evidence to overturn my Skepticism was right in front of my eyes, who knew! smile
Armageddon cometh when Brian Cox's permagrin falters and slips by 2.1deg. Be aware and be afraid...

Bacardi

2,235 posts

275 months

Thursday 9th October 2014
quotequote all
Jacobyte said:
turbobloke said:
Jacobyte said:
To be fair to Brian Cox, I don't recall him making any mention of human-related climate change.

Unless I'm mistaken, it was only natural changes that he was referring to, which is perfectly plausible when you align the increasing skull sizes with the evolutionary process of the survival of the most suitable genetic mutation in changeable times.
As I didn't see the offending programme I can't disagree and I'm more than happy to take your word for it smile

However...there remains the fact that Cox is indeed a most faithful true believer. He wants free speech as long as it toes the orthodox climate establishment line, otherwise it's "cack" presumably now a scientific term. Global warming is important...sure it is, to many people's bank balance.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/...

Also as we know by now the mention of climate change carries with it connotations of a human cause. Global warming morphed seamlessly into climate change when there was no warming. All that propaganda had a purpose and that was to assist people into misleading themselves by making an automatoc association of "climate change" with nasty humans.
All fair enough and Cox may well have previous, but in the context of the programme, the mention of climate change was specifically in the Rift Valley and in line with landscape changes as well, due to our planet's axial wobble. I was actually quite relieved that there was no undercurrent or insinuation as it typical of others such as David Attenborough.
I did happen to see the program and whilst he didn't mention Milankovitch, he made a great deal of the earth wobbling on its axis leading to 'rapid and violent' climate change. He didn't mention any possible changes in the big shiny ball in the sky making a contribution in conjunction with wobbles though, or what levels of CO2 was in the atmosphere at the time either....

To me it seemed like he was making a great case for natural rapid climate change that has happened before (and of course will happen again). But of course this is nothing to current rapid change going on with things happening faster than previously thought, worst on record, etc etc blah blah.... is it?

I think the man who speaks in just individual words, rather than sentences, main scientific fan club are ladies of a certain age and mumsnet. The photography was good though.

TheExcession

11,669 posts

249 months

Thursday 9th October 2014
quotequote all

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
And there's more. The GWPF PR title is pure platinum fairydust.


Rainfall & Floods. Observations More Reliable Than Climate Models

GWPF Briefing Paper

London, 10 October 2014

A new briefing paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reviews the scientific literature on rainfall and floods and finds little evidence that there have been significant changes in recent years and little support for claims that they will become worse in future.

Despite claims to the contrary, there has been no significant change in rainfall trends in recent years both at global and UK levels. It remains very difficult to make strong claims about any changes there have been because of high natural variability in rainfall patterns, particularly in the UK.

Rainfall is a particularly difficult area for climate models, which have limited ability to recreate what is seen in the real world. Since these climate models are the main basis of claims that extreme rainfall and flooding events are being adversely affected by man-made global warming and that rainfall will become worse in the future, policymakers should treat such modelling with extreme caution.

Author Andrew Montford said, “We are constantly bombarded with insinuations that storms and floods are caused by or ‘linked to’ climate change.”

“In reality these claims are usually based on climate models, which have a demonstrable inability to tell us anything reliable about rainfall. The scientific evidence shows that a simple extrapolation of rainfall averages over time can give better rainfall predictions than climate models,” he added.

Gandahar

9,600 posts

127 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
I'm guessing after all these pages that climate change is correct as this thread has failed to prove otherwise?

Perhaps because the main posters have more cars than PHd's? Would that be a good summary of the current state of affairs on this thread?

coffee

I'm sorry for laughing but you do all sound like a bunch who have an axe to grind rather than trying to seek out the real scientific truth. I get the feeling you know the answer before it's proved one way or another.

whistle

Keep going though makes very good light entertainment now that Dads Army is no more. Turbobloke is Captain Mainwearing

DON'T PANIC





Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
It's about the politics, i.e. the snide tactics, er, like your post above.

However, feel free to go off topic and post your proof of:-

(a) Global climate warming shown in numerous diverse virgin datasets from consistent environments and instrumentation.
(b) Proof of a causal link to mankind.

Hide the decline! It would be funny if you weren't so wrong and so desperate.
It's the pro-AGW/climate change camp that is acting out the farce.

dickymint

24,089 posts

257 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
I'm guessing after all these pages that climate change is correct as this thread has failed to prove otherwise?

Perhaps because the main posters have more cars than PHd's? Would that be a good summary of the current state of affairs on this thread?

coffee

I'm sorry for laughing but you do all sound like a bunch who have an axe to grind rather than trying to seek out the real scientific truth. I get the feeling you know the answer before it's proved one way or another.

whistle

Keep going though makes very good light entertainment now that Dads Army is no more. Turbobloke is Captain Mainwearing

DON'T PANIC
Enough said really.............

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Apart from don't feed it wink


Edited by dickymint on Friday 10th October 16:23

turbobloke

103,736 posts

259 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
Asking for disproof of manmadeup cc when there are 19+ years without any warming (McKitrick analysis) and the temperature has dropped off the lowest of the model predictions is hilarious. Blinkers on top of blinkers.

The only thing that's even funnier is that there has never been a visible causal human signal in global climate data.

Equally I've never been in a panic over something that doesn't exist. The trolling and personal angles as seen recently are a sign of the panic in believers as their faith crumbles. Now that the oceans haven't eaten their global warming the next excuse simply has to be even more entertaining and equally wrong.

Edited by turbobloke on Friday 10th October 16:59

nelly1

5,630 posts

230 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
Gandahar said:
Keep going though makes very good light entertainment now that Dads Army is no more. Turbobloke is Captain Mainwearing

DON'T PANIC
And you?


telecat

8,528 posts

240 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
nelly1 said:
Gandahar said:
Keep going though makes very good light entertainment now that Dads Army is no more. Turbobloke is Captain Mainwearing

DON'T PANIC
And you?

He couldn't even get the correct character. Try Lance Corporal Jones who had that catchphrase. Personally I started to understand the way the media and Government work to keep people panicking when I bought the short lived NOW! magazine in the early 1980's. The Hysterical way they represented a "new Ice Age" by the end of the nineties had me worried until I read a few other books on the matter. Now you only have to look at the History of the "climate change movement" and compare it to religious and Political "movements" to recognise the signs of the power hungry out to manipulate the truth.

Andy Zarse

10,868 posts

246 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
Captain Mainwaring used to say "you stupid boy". I assume he was addressing Gandahar?

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
Boom...smile

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Friday 10th October 2014
quotequote all
Perhaps Gandahar should heed the story about the auld empty barn?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just like the theory of dangerous man made climate change.................There was nothing in it!

richie99

1,116 posts

185 months

Saturday 11th October 2014
quotequote all
telecat said:
He couldn't even get the correct character. Try Lance Corporal Jones who had that catchphrase. Personally I started to understand the way the media and Government work to keep people panicking when I bought the short lived NOW! magazine in the early 1980's. The Hysterical way they represented a "new Ice Age" by the end of the nineties had me worried until I read a few other books on the matter. Now you only have to look at the History of the "climate change movement" and compare it to religious and Political "movements" to recognise the signs of the power hungry out to manipulate the truth.
He was right. Corporal jones' catchphrase was 'Don't panic, don't panic' usually swiftly followed by 'They don't like it up em sah" which could have coined for today's climate nazis. They certainly don't like it 'up em' at all!

sidicks

25,218 posts

220 months

Sunday 12th October 2014
quotequote all
Moved to the correct thread.

Response is awaiting with interest!!

Sidicks said:
Remind me how well the prediction of those climate models compares to reality...
CamMoreRon said:
Uhh.. remarkably well, actually. Do you not check the weather forecast?
CamMoreRon said:
Freak weather phenomenon is one thing, but we aren't talking about the weather, we're talking about climate. The crucial difference is that weather happens locally and over short timescales, whereas climate is global and is a trend over long timescales.
Sidicks said:
So I'll ask the question again:

"Remind me how well the prediction of those climate models compares to reality..."
wavey
CamMoreRon said:
Your question in itself is a fallacy. If you understood what you were talking about you would know why.
laugh

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Sunday 12th October 2014
quotequote all
Beaut....rofl
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED