Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
richie99 said:
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!Guam said:
Cant speak for others but my Post Grad Stats quals tell me the models are b
ks, how about you?
PS most Statisticians of any credibility in the world also tend to either bin the models or keep their heads down in the discussions, something I and others have pointed out for close to a decade now.
Now if you can find a statistician who will explain how the trend divergence between temps and Co2 levels is occurring and still show why the supposed causal link should hold, then feel free to stick it up here. I have to admit to coming up completely dry on this one (mind you I am in good company because no one on the PRO side has manged it either).
I'm no statistician, i'm just a dumb builder, however, rightly or wrongly, I've been going with the null hypothesis on this issue until proven otherwise, which i believe is the correct position a laymen should take?ks, how about you?PS most Statisticians of any credibility in the world also tend to either bin the models or keep their heads down in the discussions, something I and others have pointed out for close to a decade now.
Now if you can find a statistician who will explain how the trend divergence between temps and Co2 levels is occurring and still show why the supposed causal link should hold, then feel free to stick it up here. I have to admit to coming up completely dry on this one (mind you I am in good company because no one on the PRO side has manged it either).
Guam said:
Indeed, it doesn't take a statistician to understand that for a causal link to exist, trend A must respond to changes in trend B (or Vice Versa if you prefer).
Unfortunately in the real world, the real climate is not behaving as forecast by the doomsayers and they cannot explain why not.
That's because the models are correct and the climate is wrong. Unfortunately in the real world, the real climate is not behaving as forecast by the doomsayers and they cannot explain why not.
voyds9 said:
Guam said:
Indeed, it doesn't take a statistician to understand that for a causal link to exist, trend A must respond to changes in trend B (or Vice Versa if you prefer).
Unfortunately in the real world, the real climate is not behaving as forecast by the doomsayers and they cannot explain why not.
That's because the models are correct and the climate is wrong. Unfortunately in the real world, the real climate is not behaving as forecast by the doomsayers and they cannot explain why not.
Decades ago Folland of UKMO and IPCC notoriety said:
The data don't matter.
Those words were spoken during a presentation on observed climatic change. The presenter was incredulous and asked Folland to repeat his statement so that the entire audience could hear, and Folland again said, "the data don't matter."Folland also said:
Besides, we're not basing our recommendations [for immediate reductions in CO2 emissions] upon the data, we're basing them upon the climate models.
Owen Paterson To Call For Suspension Of UK Climate Change Act
Britain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week. Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed. He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say. Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet.
Christopher Hope, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2013
It is safe to predict that no speech made by a British politician this week will be more surprising or significant than that to be delivered by Owen Paterson, a senior Conservative, who was sacked from the Cabinet last July for being too good at his job.
Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014
UK Manufacturers Sound The Alarm Over Rising Energy Costs
The high cost of energy could drive companies out of the UK, according to the EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation. The EEF claims that the projected 50 per cent rise in electricity prices by 2020 would harm British manufacturing. The warning follows research from the EEF which shows that rising energy costs would lead to a quarter of manufacturers considering investment overseas.
Yorkshire Post, 13 October 2014
The very idea that an advanced economy such as ours faces an energy crisis within the next few years should attract the most urgent attention of our political leaders. Yet we appear to be drifting into a situation of great seriousness because they are all wedded to unrealistic decarbonisation targets that none seems willing to revisit. Owen Paterson has begun a debate that cannot be shut down simply because it raises some difficult political questions. If this is not gripped now, then the next government, of whatever stripe, will need to explain to the country why they could have prevented the lights going out, but didn’t.
Editorial, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014
Britain will struggle to “keep the lights on” unless the Government changes its green energy policies, the former environment secretary will warn this week. Owen Paterson will say that the Government’s plan to slash carbon emissions and rely more heavily on wind farms and other renewable energy sources is fatally flawed. He will argue that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which ties Britain into stringent targets to reduce the use of fossil fuels, should be suspended until other countries agree to take similar measures. If they refuse, the legislation should be scrapped altogether, he will say. Mr Paterson will deliver the lecture at the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank set up by Lord Lawson of Blaby, a climate-change sceptic and former chancellor in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet.
Christopher Hope, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2013
It is safe to predict that no speech made by a British politician this week will be more surprising or significant than that to be delivered by Owen Paterson, a senior Conservative, who was sacked from the Cabinet last July for being too good at his job.
Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014
UK Manufacturers Sound The Alarm Over Rising Energy Costs
The high cost of energy could drive companies out of the UK, according to the EEF, the manufacturers’ organisation. The EEF claims that the projected 50 per cent rise in electricity prices by 2020 would harm British manufacturing. The warning follows research from the EEF which shows that rising energy costs would lead to a quarter of manufacturers considering investment overseas.
Yorkshire Post, 13 October 2014
The very idea that an advanced economy such as ours faces an energy crisis within the next few years should attract the most urgent attention of our political leaders. Yet we appear to be drifting into a situation of great seriousness because they are all wedded to unrealistic decarbonisation targets that none seems willing to revisit. Owen Paterson has begun a debate that cannot be shut down simply because it raises some difficult political questions. If this is not gripped now, then the next government, of whatever stripe, will need to explain to the country why they could have prevented the lights going out, but didn’t.
Editorial, The Sunday Telegraph, 12 October 2014
Nicked from WUWT:-
“Express thanks for the failures of Kyoto and Copenhagen. Had the proposed regulatory regimes been implemented and had CO2 emissions decreased, the ‘pause’ would certainly have been attributed to the regulations. Politicians and environmentalists would be declaring the science to be truly ‘settled.’”
“Express thanks for the failures of Kyoto and Copenhagen. Had the proposed regulatory regimes been implemented and had CO2 emissions decreased, the ‘pause’ would certainly have been attributed to the regulations. Politicians and environmentalists would be declaring the science to be truly ‘settled.’”
Guam said:
Banksy, Briggsy, I'm lovin' it.Briggs said:
To say there is a “hiatus” is to say that, eventually, we know not when, the temperature will continue its inexorable rise. What evidence is there for this belief?
It cannot be in the models we currently possess, because these models did not foresee what actually happened. The incontrovertible evidence is that these models are wrong.
Give that man a Nobel Peace Prize, in fact he can have the one purloined by Al an' da boyz. It cannot be in the models we currently possess, because these models did not foresee what actually happened. The incontrovertible evidence is that these models are wrong.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Nicked from WUWT:-
“Express thanks for the failures of Kyoto and Copenhagen. Had the proposed regulatory regimes been implemented and had CO2 emissions decreased, the ‘pause’ would certainly have been attributed to the regulations. Politicians and environmentalists would be declaring the science to be truly ‘settled.’”
+1“Express thanks for the failures of Kyoto and Copenhagen. Had the proposed regulatory regimes been implemented and had CO2 emissions decreased, the ‘pause’ would certainly have been attributed to the regulations. Politicians and environmentalists would be declaring the science to be truly ‘settled.’”
Guam said:
Wow, it wasnt the Oceans at all, it was the plants what did it
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-279...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-279...
So climate models got it wrong again in another way by omitting the Prince Charles algorithm based on conversations with green plants.
Are there any ways left to get it wrong...
Please sir, please sir..... I know where all the CO2 went......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2960...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2960...
mike9009 said:
Please sir, please sir..... I know where all the CO2 went......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2960...
I can see how estimates might have been overstating CO2 build-up, but surely they were checking their estimates by empirical measurements as time passed? That being so, they have known for years that the build-up is lower than the models suggested - if it is. Unless the CO2 concentration has indeed grown to levels expected and STILL the temperature has remained stubbornly flat. Oh what a tangled web they weave...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2960...
motco said:
mike9009 said:
Please sir, please sir..... I know where all the CO2 went......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2960...
I can see how estimates might have been overstating CO2 build-up, but surely they were checking their estimates by empirical measurements as time passed? That being so, they have known for years that the build-up is lower than the models suggested - if it is. Unless the CO2 concentration has indeed grown to levels expected and STILL the temperature has remained stubbornly flat. Oh what a tangled web they weave...http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2960...
mike9009 said:
Please sir, please sir..... I know where all the CO2 went......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2960...
Hmm.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-2960...
"But modelling the exact impacts on a global scale is a fiendishly complicated business."
Um. Right.
So in plain speak, if such a thing exists, what exactly does that mean?
In fact, though a common idiom, what real meaning does "fiendishly complicated" really offer for our illumination?
Is it modelling that can only be undertaken by extremely clever fiends - whatever a fiend really is?
Definition:
fiend
fiːnd/
noun
noun: fiend; plural noun: fiends
1.
an evil spirit or demon.
synonyms: demon, devil, evil spirit, imp, bogie; More
incubus, succubus;
hellhound;
informalspook;
rarecacodemon
"a fiend had taken possession of him"
archaic
the Devil.
noun: the fiend
a very wicked or cruel person.
"Britain's most notorious sex fiend"
synonyms: brute, beast, villain, barbarian, monster, ogre, sadist, evil-doer; More
informalbaddy, swine;
archaicblackguard
"a fiend bent on global evil-doing"
2.
informal
an enthusiast or devotee of a particular thing.
"a football fiend"
synonyms: enthusiast, fanatic, maniac, addict; More
devotee, fan, lover, follower;
aficionado, connoisseur, appreciator;
informalbuff, freak, nut, ham, sucker, great one
"I'm a fiend for Mexican food"
Origin
Old English fēond ‘an enemy, the devil, a demon’, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch vijand and German Feind ‘enemy’.
Translate fiend to
Use over time for: fiend
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff